Radioactive Communist Zombies

The New Green Mantra: Jobs

2010-03-19T18:40:06-07:00

Came across and interesting new item today.

A little background: Washington State has a revenue shortfall (of course, because the economy is down and Democrats in the Legislature engaged in unsustainable spending sprees when the economy was good). So they are wanting to raise taxes (the same said Democrats) to close the budget gap. One tax they are looking to increase is on petroleum products and the money would go to help clean up storm water and Puget Sound. Anyway, someone wants to exclude Alaska Airlines (Headquartered in the state) from the tax.

And an environmental lobbyist said:

"When you get right down to it, even with all these exemptions, this bill will create a sustainable revenue source to deal with the state's number one water-pollution problem and create jobs."

And I went "what?!?!?!" A tax will create jobs? Then it hit me, this is how the green meanies have been selling their programs for the past few years: massive regulations to control CO₂: it'll create jobs! Renewable energy requirements: it'll create jobs! Taxes to fund cleaning up pollution: it'll create jobs!

I don't know if environmentalist believe their own propaganda about jobs. But I bet it was a conscience decision to claim their programs will create jobs (when they won't) because they knew they were losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the American people and with the Great Recession, people weren't going to want job-killing taxes and regulations. So the environmentalists decided taxes and regulations will create jobs.

But they won't.

Health Care Deform: What's Going On?

2010-03-18T19:12:37-07:00

I work for a living so I can't keep up with all the machinations of what the Democrats in Congress are doing with Health Care Deform. I guess the House is supposed to vote on the Senate bill over the weekend.

Just a perusal of headlines can give one a headache. Looks like Democrats have pumped billions of more spendinginto the health care bill to "sweeten the pot" What I don't understand is, if they are changing the bill, how can it still be the Senate bill and wouldn't the Senate have to vote on it again in the changed form? Or are they using some back-room political maneuvers to get around that?

So they are going to ram this thing through despite a large majority of Americans opposed to it.

And Republicans are already talking repeal. Good for them. They should run in the fall on that.

And remember, the IRS is the health care enforcer. Bet you'll love having them more involved in your life.

Speed Doesn't Kill

2010-03-18T18:52:53-07:00

Last night as I was driving down a two-lane highway with a speed limit of 60, I got caught behind a group of cars, the lead car going 45 to 50. What amazed me was that people were passing him when it wasn't safe to do so: double yellow solid lines, on hills, corners, etc. I finally passed him (safely and legally) and the driver was a guy who looked to be in his mid-thirties. He was leaning in toward the center of the car like he was playing with the radio or reaching into the glove compartment. And I thought "here's a guy, driving stupid slow and apparently distracted, and could cause an accident, yet it's doubtful any cop would write him a ticket for going too slow. Yet I go a little fast where traffic is light, and no cop would hesitate to write me a ticket."

Well, at least it's harder now to get a ticket in Virginia. Not that I ever drive in Virginia, but the state made the right move recently increasing its speed limits. As Joseph B. White writes in the Wall Street Journal (sub probably required):

The Virginia legislature last week passed legislation raising the speed limit on rural interstate highways to 70 mph from 65 mph. The state's new Republican governor, Bob McDonnell, put boosting the legal speed limit high on his list of priorities, and got action less than three months after taking office.

Which is a good thing, because 70 is about what people drive on interstates:

Left to their own devices, American drivers confronted with an open stretch of interstate highway tend to drive at about 70 miles per hour—whatever the legal speed limit happens to be.

That's the finding of an analysis of speed data gathered by TomTom Inc., a marketer of GPS navigation devices. This helps to explain why safety advocates and conservationists are losing the long-running debate over lowering freeway speed limits.

Some people aren't happy about higher speed limits (of course):

Insurers and other safety advocates, including groups such as the Governors Highway Safety Association, have consistently called for motorists to slow down, and for state and local authorities to get tougher on speeding enforcement.

"Higher speeds are bad on any road," says Anne McCartt, vice president of research for the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, a research arm of the insurance industry.

Which is, in my opinion, sophistry. Would Ms. McCartt say my 45 mph driver was being safer than someone driving closer to the speed limit? Plus, highway deaths are declining:

But advocates of relaxing speed limits point to federal statistics which show that both fatalities and fatality rates on U.S. highways are declining even as speed limits rise. The U.S. Department of Transportation last week reported that its latest estimate of highway deaths in 2009 is 33,963—the lowest number since the government began keeping these grim records in 1954. The fatality rate is estimated at 1.16 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.

Frankly, I still think most speed limits are too low by about 10 miles per hour (and yes, that means speed limits on interstates should be around 80). And most drivers vote with their right foot for higher speed limits.

Health Care Deform: Is it Hopeless?

2010-03-16T18:31:13-07:00

If you're like me (and you may not be like me) you're mightily confused, upset, and down right angry about health care deform the Democrats may push through without a vote (because it would lose). And the health care deform comes with new taxes that will reduce investment and thus jobs. And that's just some of the new taxes. As the Heritage Foundation states:

It includes new middle-class taxes and government spending, bunches of federal boards and bureaucracies, mandates and penalties, an entitlement expansion, and unprecedented taxpayer funding of abortion. It is also characterized by flagrant inequities: special back-room deals at the expense of federal taxpayers for Florida, Nebraska, and Louisiana.

So how to stop this? Is it even possible? Will the Democrats ram this down the throats of the American people whether they want it or not (they don't)? Can it be repealed if the GOP retakes Congress in November (or will Obama veto that)?

As Thomas Sowell says, politicians are rarely punished for being wrong. Oh, some may lose election (and go on to bigger pay as a lobbyist) but it's not their money they are putting up. It's not their insurance that's going to become more expensive. It's not them who will be put on waiting lists for routine and emergency procedures. It's you and me.

How's that hope and change working out for you?

Daylight Saving Time is Bad For You

2010-03-15T09:05:00-07:00

Over the weekend we all (well most Americans and some Canadians) did our annual ritual of "springing forward" and turned our clocks one hour ahead. Daylight Saving Time (DST) was expanded in 2007 by a 2005 act of Congress in the hopes of saving energy. It doesn't save energy and in fact probably costs energy and you money. Laurent Belsie writing for the Christian Science Monitor's "The New Economy" blog tells about a study that shows DST is an energy and money waster:

The move to Daylight Saving actually used 1 percent more electricity than if people stuck to Standard Time, according to a 2008 study on residents in Indiana. In other areas of the United States, the time change could cost people even more.

Indiana is a special case because a lot of the state didn't observe DST until recently.

While Indiana residents saved on lighting by switching to Daylight Saving Time, they spent even more on extra heat and air-conditioning.

During the colder months of Daylight Saving, Indiana residents turned up the heat because they were getting up an hour closer to the coldest part of the night, the researchers found. In the summer months, they cranked up the air-conditioner because they were getting home an hour closer to the hottest part of the day.

The extra electricity cost for Daylight Saving: $3.29 per Indiana household per year or $9 million for the state as a whole.

And if you live where it's colder or hotter than Indiana, you're probably spending more.

But it's not only that DST doesn't save energy and does cost you money: it's dangerous, too. John Miller in a National Review Online piece tells how dangerous (link original):

According to Stanley Coren, a sleep expert at the University of British Columbia, the number of traffic accidents and fatal industrial mishaps increase on the Monday after we spring forward. (Check out one of his studies here.) The reason, presumably, is because losing even a single hour of sleep over the weekend makes a lot of people a bit drowsier on what we might usefully call Black Monday. Unfortunately, there's no compensating effect of a super-safe Monday as we go off DST and "fall back" in the autumn.

Sounds like a typical government program: costs you money and is deadly.

Maybe the best idea would be to scrap the whole thing.

Runaway Prius a Hoax?

2010-03-12T18:39:53-08:00

You may recall the story of James Sikes who's Prius allegedly ran away on him with a stuck pedal causing him to go 90 mph. He called 911 and the police apparently talked him into how to stop his car.

Well, questions are emerging that perhaps the whole thing was a hoax. Even the mainstream media is taking notice. But the definitive deconstruction of the event comes from Micheal Fumento (Hat tip: The Corner). A lot of weird things from Mr. Sikes wild ride could be explained simply that Mr. Sikes is none too bright when it comes to cars. For example, he claims he was afraid to put the car in neutral (as the 911 operator repeatedly urged him to do so) because he didn't know how the car would react.

But Fumento points to what he calls "the smoking gun":

Sikes told the reporters that "I was reaching down and trying to pull up on the gas pedal. It didn't move at all; it was stationary." That's awfully daring for somebody who insisted he didn't even want to take a hand off his steering wheel, notwithstanding that he did so to hold his phone.

I tried to imitate Sikes' alleged effort in a 2008 Prius. From the front bottom of the steering wheel to the front bottom of the accelerator in up position it's 28.5 inches; while fully deployed it's 2.5 inches farther away. I have average-length arms (33-inch shirt sleeve) and no gut. But even though the steering wheel was as flush to the dashboard as it goes, it prevented me from all but touching the accelerator in the up position.

To reach behind a deployed accelerator and get any kind of a grip you'd have to add at least three more inches. In my case, it required squashing my face against the radio and completely removing my eyes from the road. Only the tallest men could physically do what Sikes claimed he did and no press accounts refer his being exceptionally tall.

So, is it a hoax? Or was Mr. Sikes just too scared to think straight? Was he really that scared at 90 miles per hour? Could his brakes really not over power the Prius' measly 110 horsepower engine?

More People Not Paying Taxes

2010-03-11T18:32:08-08:00

(Hat Tip: Instapundit)

While you filling out your tax forms this year to determine your refund, think about this: 36% of tax filers will pay no tax. That means their refund will be at least as much as they paid in through withholding. That's 51.6 million filers. And some of them earn as much at $50,000 per year. All that according the the Tax Foundation using IRS numbers:

Nonpaying status used to be a sure sign of poverty or near-poverty, but Congress and the President have changed the tax laws to pull much of the middle class into the growing pool of nonpayers. The income level at which a typical family of four will owe no income taxes has risen rapidly, now topping $51,000.

Two records were set in 2008: highest percentage not paying and highest income not paying.

So the question becomes, with more and more people paying less taxes, who's going to fund government? That would be those of us who will be paying more and more taxes.

Celebrity Culture

2010-03-10T18:54:07-08:00

I remember back in the 1970s when People magazine came out from Time-Life (or whatever it was called back there). I wondered who was going to read that treacle. But I also thought in the back of my mind that, yes, this will be a successful enterprise.

Now we have many celebrity magazines such as Us and OK and who knows what else (I don't pay that much attention). It seems a lot of people simply read about celebrities.

But now it seems the mainstream media is getting in on the celebrity craze. Over the past two days the follow celebrity stories have have shown up in my news feeds:

Cory Haim died of a drug overdose.

Charlie Sheen is out of rehab and going back to work on his show "Two and a Half Men"

Lindsay Lohan is suing E*Trade over it's ad featuring a baby named Lindsay.

And Farah Fawcett was "dissed" by not being part of the "In Memorial" part of the Oscars.

(Except fo the Cory Haim link, those are not the original places I saw the stories.)

And these came across AP and Reuters news feeds.

Has the culture of the celebrity magazine reached into the main news media? The Democrats in Congress are trying to socialize 1/5th of the economy and this is what the news media covers? No wonder people are idiots.

Government Kills (More Than Toyota)

2010-03-10T18:28:44-08:00

There's been a lot of hype lately about Toyota's cars having "unintended acceleration" (some of it hyped by the government that owns large chunks of two of Toyota's competitors: GM and Chrysler). And it's apparently a real problem and Toyota is addressing it.

But as Investor's Business Daily points out in an unsigned editorial:

Sudden-acceleration events in Toyota and Lexus vehicles have been blamed for at least 19 fatalities and 815 vehicle crashes since 1999. That's fewer than two fatalities a year in a country that makes 1.8 million cars annually.

But no one is screaming about the thousands killed yearly by CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) except me and Investor's Business Daily:

A study done by USA Today, using data from the NHTSA and the Institute for Highway Safety, found that through 1998, weight and size reductions undertaken by automakers to meet fuel efficiency standards had resulted in 46,000 deaths. That's the population of Pocatello, Idaho, wiped out by misguided federal regulations.

Now the deaths due to Toyota's sudden acceleration problem are no less tragic than the deaths of people killed by CAFE rules. But one is unintentional (and fixable) and the other the policy of the government (and just been expanded).

Unintended Consequences

2010-03-09T18:42:14-08:00

When Congress passes a law or a bureaucrat makes a regulation, there are almost always unintended consequences. Often the law or regulation will make things worse than the problem it was supposed to solve.

Case in point: the Department of Transportation made a regulation penalizing airlines if they leave passengers sitting in a plane on the tarmac for more than three hours. Sounds reasonable (although the fine of $27,500 per passenger seems excessive since that would be millions per plane).

And what's the unintended consequence? Canceled flights and not being able to reach your destination.

Continental Airlines plans to cancel flights rather than risk stiff fines under new federal rules designed to punish carriers for delaying passengers.

CEO Jeff Smisek said Tuesday the result will be that passengers will have more trouble getting to their destinations . . .

Smisek said many passengers on delayed flights "really want to go to LA or Mumbai, but the government by God says, 'We're going to fine you $27,500.' Here's what we're going to do: We're going to cancel the flight."

Because airlines have cut flights, leaving the remaining ones more crowded, passengers will have fewer chances to rebook on another flight. Passengers, he said, won't get to their destinations "for maybe days."

Oh, and the cause of those delays: often the antiquated air-traffic control system the government has refused to update.

So, which would you rather deal with: a delay of 3 hours sitting in an airplane, or spending days in an airport trying to get home? Well, a bureaucrat has made that decision for you.

Economic Recovery Depends on Private Investment

2010-03-09T18:25:31-08:00

Yesterday we discussedhow there's been little job creation during this "great recession" and that is why unemployment is so high. Another reason the economy is not recovering, is due to low private investment. That according to Robert Higgs writing in today's Investor's Business Daily:

Gross private domestic investment peaked in 2006. Between the first quarter of that year and the second quarter of 2009, it fell precipitously, by nearly 34%.

During the second half of 2009, investment spending increased by only 10%, so that late last year it was still (when measured at an annual rate) running 29% below its early 2006 level.

This huge decline in investment spending portends an extended period of slow economic growth, lasting several years and perhaps longer. Worn-out equipment, obsolete software, ill-maintained structures and depleted inventories are not the stuff of which rapid, sustained economic growth is made.

But why is investment so low? Because of the spending by government:

Federal government spending, meanwhile, has raced ahead. From 2007 to 2009, government purchases of newly produced final goods and services — the federal government's "contribution" to GDP — increased by over 13% in constant dollars.

Unfortunately, while private investment is the engine of economic growth, government spending (despite what generations of Keynesian economists have asserted) is the brake. To understand this negative relationship, we need only scrutinize how the federal government's spending is determined: namely, by political processes devoid of economic rationality.

In this light, we can appreciate that enhanced government spending does not bulk up the economy, nor merely crowd out worthwhile private activity. Instead, it undercuts, penalizes and distorts everything that private parties attempt to do to create wealth. Ham-fisted government regulations and additional taxes are known killers of economic growth.

The investors' famine and the government's feast therefore are not merely coincidental, but causally connected.

So what's the solution? Well, how about restoring stability and reducing uncertainty by not threatening new taxes and new onerous regulations? In other words, just the opposite of what the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress are doing.

But as Glen Reynolds often points out: tax cuts don't give opportunities for graft.