I came across this last night and wanted to share it out. Written back in 1946 by Henry Hazlitt, this great little document does a great job of explaining all of the great economic fallacies that crop up from time to time. Even though it is over 50 years old, the lessons contained are still relevant today.
Warren Buffett has been in the news several times recently talking about how he believes that the fact that his secretary pays a higher effective tax rate than himself is unfair. He takes this observation one step further and states that he and his wealthy friends should pay more in taxes. While I agree that the difference between his tax rate and that of his employees is indeed unfair, the conservative/libertarian in me would argue that his employees should get a lower rate vice him getting a higher rate. Clearly we differ philosophically, but perhaps we can agree on another point – the need for jobs vice higher tax rates on the wealthy.
Mr. Buffett,
Instead of dumping ever more of your wealth into the bottomless pit of bureaucratic inefficiency that is Washington DC, why don’t you put it where it can actually do some good? I propose that instead of volunteering to pay a higher tax rate, you instead divert a small part of your fortune into job creation. Our good friends in DC do not really believe that they have a spending problem, they think they have a revenue problem. Yes, many like to talk a good game but in the end nobody will ever agree to any cuts meaningful enough to put a dent in the staggering debt we have accumulated. Even if we get as serious as we can with five hundred or so bickering politicians at the wheel, it will still be decades before we reduce to debt to a more reasonable portion of GDP. So maybe those of us with the means and the know-how should get serious about creating jobs and restoring confidence in this economy. Once that ball starts rolling, it should be hard to stop (as long as those five hundred obstacles in DC stay out of the way).
So here is my challenge to you. Your net worth is about $65 billion give or take a few dollars depending on which day we look. How about you take $1 billion of that and establish a fund to provide grants to small business start ups? Grants would be awarded based on a thorough review of business proposals and assistance provided to get the business through that critical first year. A committee would monitor each company and help out where needed. Rules could be put in place to prevent the business owners from paying themselves too high of a salary for a specified period of time, the point of this is to hire people and re-kindle the economic fires. If you were to award say, 1,000 grants of $1 million each, and each start up employed an average of 15 people in the first year, then you will have directly created 15,000 new jobs! Now imagine that your uber wealthy friends follow your example, its a job creation bonanza! We know that not each of these businesses will last beyond that first year but a good percentage will. Assuming an average salary of $30,000/yr, those 15,000 jobs will spend about $450 million in the economy! If a few of your friends follow suit, then we might get a few billion or so flowing into the maket place. This creates more demand for other goods and services and thus more jobs get created.
I don’t intend to fully flesh this out in this brief post. I am sure some of my numbers are off a bit. The fact that the plan needs polish does not make it a bad plan. The great thing about blogs is that people can leave comments and I know that this will generate quite a few. Perhaps by the end of the process we will have a more workable proposal but at least this is a start. I also know that $1 billion sounds like a lot of money and indeed it is for most of us. For you though, this is less than 2% of your net worth. I hardly think you will miss it too much; Ted Turner gave $1 billion to the United Nations and he was only worth $3 billion at the time. Personally, I think the $1 billion I am asking you to put into this proposal will do more good, but I am sure Ted sleeps well at night knowing his money is being well spent at the UN. I am tired of hearing the pundits calling on DC to put out a “jobs plan” or to pass a “jobs bill”. I am sure that you yourself will admit that politicians cannot create jobs. Lets stop asking them to do what they cannot do and start taking care of each other instead!
I just read an article in which George Will effectively stomped on Mike Huckabee and it prompted me to do a little thinking about the upcoming election and who will win. You can read George Will’s article here – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/04/AR2011030404613.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
The basis of the criticism was Mr. Huckabee’s recent statements that Barack Obama grew up in Kenya. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Wills assertion that a potential candidate such as Huckabee should get his facts straight. In fact I usually find myself agreeing with Mr. Will on most topics. Towards the end of the article though, George mentions five potential front runners for the Republican nomination in 2012. That list of names is what prompted me to get back to this blog that I have neglected for so many months. I am sure most of you know who the Republican front runners are by now but if not, here is the short list – Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty. I am not including Mike Huckabee on this list as I think he is pretty much done for.
If this is the list, then the Republicans may as well save their money and just skip this next election. Pass. Take a break. None of these guys will be able to beat Obama. The main reason is what I call Old Rich White Guy Syndrome (ORWGS). Like it or not, far too many people in this country are convinced that all of our problems are because the ORWGs have been running things too long. Granted, Tim Pawlenty is not that old but he also is not that well known outside of his home state. Each of the others either looks like a ORWG, acts like a ORWG or both. On top of that, they each have various other strikes against them which the press will no doubt seize upon and run with.
Mitch Daniels was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under George W. Bush. Right or wrong, this can easily be spun in a negative light. On top of that, he used to work for Eli Lilly. You know, that big evil pharmaceutical company that charges outrageous prices for lifesaving drugs that should be free to everyone. Right or wrong, thats how it will be portrayed. Mitch Daniels does not look nearly as ORWG as some potentials (Newt Gingrich for example) but he does look and act like a Fortune 500 CEO. We all know how popular those guys are right now.
The rest of the pack stacks up similarly. Haley Barbour was Governor during Katrina and looks about as ORWG as it gets. Jon Huntsman is wealthy and looks good for his age but is still very much an ORWG. Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain and Company and founded Bain Capital. If there are any skeletons to find in the closets of either of those companies; the press will find them and exploit them. As I stated before, Tim Pawlenty does not come off nearly as ORWG as the rest but he just doesn’t have the name recognition needed to beat someone like Barrack Obama.
Simply put, these guys are just TOO Republican. And that brings us to the potential candidate I did not mention – Newt Gingrich. I did not mention Newt up front for two reasons. 1) I think he is the guy most likely to get the Republican Nomination and 2) I think he is the guy least likely to be able to beat our current president. You really could not find a guy more Republican than Newt Gingrich; at least not one that wants to run fro President. Don’t get me wrong, I like Newt, I just don’t think he can win. He is very conservative, very outspoken and sadly very, very ORWG. In 2008, Barack Obama won the election mostly because of the enormous margins in urban areas. I just don’t see Newt getting ANY urban electoral votes.
The GOP may very well be thinking that the large gains they made in the 2010 mid terms are an indication that the American people are craving more conservative leadership. They may be correct to some extent but if you look at WHO won those elections and WHERE they won I think you will find that it won’t do the GOP much good in a national election using the electoral college system. As for the WHO, it wasn’t all ORWGs. In fact, there were a significant number of women and minority groups in that sweep, especially in the states that the GOP would need to carry to win a Presidential election. If you recall, the GOP had a fairly large sweep in the house in 1994 and Bill Clinton still won a second term. Bill Clinton did not carry quite the urban margin that Obama carried but if you add in the suburban vote, it was almost as much.
And I think that is exactly what will happen this time around. The economy is improving (maybe not much, but it isn’t getting worse) and unemployment numbers are starting to drop. The war in Iraq is essentially over and we will likely be mostly out of Afghanistan by the time people start casting ballots in 2012. For the GOP to win in 2012 (no matter who they run) there needs to be a compelling reason to kick out the incumbent President or an extremely charismatic GOP candidate with strong urban appeal to vote for. Charismatic and urban appeal are not terms that Republicans are very familiar with lately.
So there is my prediciton; Newt Gingrich versus Barack Obama in 2012 with Mr. Obama winning by a large margin. It doesn’t really have to be Newt though. No matter who the GOP runs, it will be a loss. Unless they run Chuck Norris, then all bets are off.
It is no great surprise that people today are unhappy with the way the economy moves (or doesn’t move, as the case may be). It has become apparent over the last 30 years that wages for middle earners has largely stagnated from the previous 60 years, while the income for top earners has continued to skyrocket and the cost of living has continued it’s constant, slow steady climb. The Reagan era fiscal theory of ‘Trickle Down’ economics was a justification for cutting taxes on the higher earners because when they have cash, they create business and hire workers. This definitely sounds plausible, and has been played up as obvious common sense for so long that no one on the right can see the inherent flaw within this theory. Our economy is not based upon production and creation for the sake of producing or creating, our economy is based upon consumption and the segment of the population that does the most consuming is not at the top, but smack-dab in the middle.
The promise of this country was that you could make it rich, regardless of where you came from, and this promise is still very much alive, but it is very rare. The largest advantage to our society is that, with the exception of those at the very bottom, we are almost all richer than the average citizens in 75-85% of the rest of the world (dependent on whose numbers you look at). And this is what most of us want, we want relative freedom to pursue our passions, less worry about finances and a comfortable living. Most of us are not interested in being wealthy, per se, but pursuing a lifestyle of our choosing and earning enough to do that.
To achieve these desires, we have a relatively free economy (as compared to most, but clearly not all) that rewards great ideas and better products. Now of course a great idea alone won’t make you rich, in most cases, you need to be able to create your product, test it and sell it, so you need capital and for that you need the top earners to invest or a bank to loan you the money. No matter how good your idea or product is, if no one buys it you are screwed, your investors will lose their money and your little business venture will fail. If people buy, you earn, and therefore you can spend those earnings to expand, hire and pay off your debts. If your idea/product is successful enough, you can improve your life and the lives of those around you, those that work for you and their families and hopefully be in a position to help the next guy that comes along to do the same.
Now here is where Trickle Down theory comes into play. Back in the early 70s (and since income tax was first collected) our progressive tax structure was designed to tax disposable income only at progressively higher rates so that those at the top had a higher tax burden than those in the middle and those at the bottom would essentially have none. The system was stacked to give the primary benefits and therefore the best incentives, tax breaks and credits to the middle income earners. This allowed for continued growth in the private sector as the primary consumer base had more to spend, which gave bigger profits to those that produced regardless of level of income, and guaranteed a thriving economy. Of course there were hiccups in the system, usually caused by outside influences or forced manipulation by our Government, but the central concept was fine. And we flourished even though the top marginal tax bracket was over 70%, and not at the historical low of 35% where we currently are. When ‘Trickle-Down’ theory was applied, we had been through one financial upheaval after another, the inflation crisis that brought us to a floating standard (or fiat money as Michael likes to say) oil price hikes and the embargo, as well as a few other hiccups. The right pushed through a concept promising sweeping change that would benefit everyone. By the end of the ’80s, Reagan had reduced the taxes on the top, created the largest tax increase in our history on the middle, simplified the tax code and raised taxes a total of 6 times while increasing deficit spending beyond levels anyone had dreamed of before, establishing a National Debt that will not be paid off for decades. Instead of benefiting everyone, the top earners pocketed the differences and began accruing wealth at never before seen levels. He also froze the Federal minimum wage for 9 years which, in effect gave the lowest earners a pay cut every year as inflation and the cost of living continued to increase. Increasing wage/wealth disparity.
In 1953 the average percentage of corporate profits that went to executive compensation was 22%, in 1991 it was 61%. As a multiple of the average factory workers salary, in 1980 a CEO made 30 times the factory worker, whereas in 1991 it was 130-140 times the average factory worker’s salary. In 1980, before Reagan took office, there were less than 600,000 people in the U.S. that were listed as millionaires, none of which made over 10 million except for 1 Billionaire. By the time Reagan left office there were nearly 3 times as many millionaires, with 100,000 making over $10 million, 1,200 making over $100 million, and 51 people listed as billionaires by the IRS. In 8 years the total wealth shifted sharply up, but never trickled down to the rest of us. The total wages of all people who earned less than $50k a year (about 85% of all Americans) increased an average of 2% a year from 1980 to 1989, which was below the rise of inflation. By contrast, the total wages of all millionaires increased 243% a year for the same period.
The rich have been rewarded for the last three decades, and though those that behave unethically are the exception, rather than the rule, how much longer shall we continue this nonsense. The income for all levels grew consistently from 1950 up until 1973 despite the fact that the top marginal tax bracket was 70% or better (88% during our greatest ‘boom’ years), but since the taxes on the top were reduced, the burden was shifted down as well and average income growth has remained relatively the same where the income at the bottom has gone down because the cost of living and inflation have increased at a faster rate. The only tax bracket that has done well is the top 20% of earners. The GOP has again convinced the population that any increase in taxes on this group will further stall the economy’s growth even though the evidence is to the contrary. The tax burden needs to be shifted back up, consumers need to have more discretionary income and that isn’t going to happen while we have the primary burden for the system resting solely on our shoulders. Another way to look at it is the top 20% owned 80% of American Wealth, or the top 1% owned more than all of the bottom 90% combined.
Lower taxes on the middle class, the consumer class is the only right answer. Continuing to keep the progressive tax system as a marginally progressive system has proved to be far more regressive than Reagan or any other proponents of the system expected, but it continues because everyone has accepted it as common sense, even though it has been proven to be anything but.
As anyone who has ever read anything I have written here (or anywhere else for that matter) will attest, I have always been completely against health care reform as envisioned by just about all politicians. As a strong believer in the free market, my position has always been that like any other industry where competition is allowed and fostered, health care insurers and providers would respond to market forces and provide a quality product at a reasonable price. I truly believed that this healthy competition would result in more choice for consumers and a quick reduction in health care costs overall. We actually started to see this happen on a somewhat small scale before we all lost our minds and decided to make this process as painful as we possibly could. Both WalMart and Walgreen’s developed pilot clinics in some of their stores where people could see a licensed nurse practitioner or doctor for a very minimal fee. The idea is that people come in for routine checkups and minor illnesses and then stay to buy toilet paper, milk and other more profitable items. It is doubtful now that we will ever know if that model would have succeeded. I also opposed these reforms because deep down in my obviously cold heart, I knew we could never afford such a system as was being proposed. Well friends, I think I was wrong.
I have considered every aspect of this bill and although I think that right now it will not pay for itself, in the very near future it has a strong chance of paying for itself and even resulting in a surplus to go towards the national debt. The vast majority of provisions in the bill will no doubt be costly, after all the intention is to ensure that everyone has adequate health care. It isn’t cheap to insure 300 million people. In reality, a large chunk of those 300 million will be paying for their own health care plus a little more to help cover the less fortunate, so I think that part will be a wash. The part that really worried me was the administrative costs. Yes, the bill proposes all kinds of things to ensure this program is administered as efficiently as possible. Those of us who actually work in the government sector know better. Few, if any government run programs are run efficiently. I guess much of that is subjective, efficiency can be a fairly elusive concept to nail down. The bill we have made into law recently creates dozens of new federal agencies and will require hiring over 15,000 new IRS employees to manage certain monitoring and collection functions. I have not been able to find an estimate of just how many new federal employees will be hired so I am just going to guess and say its about one cubic butt load. For those readers unfamiliar with that term, I assure it is very large.
Those pesky admin costs really had me not liking this bill until I was reminded today of the Tanning Tax. Wow, this is what really put me over for this bill. I hadn’t thought much of the Tanning Tax recently since I had completely written it off as stupid and inconsequential when it was first proposed. I personally thought that the “Botox” Tax was a much better idea as a revenue generator since it would levy a tax on all elective plastic surgery. Living in Southern California, I can tell that this would result in a ton of annual money. No matter what the rate, these people will not give up their plastic surgery! Unfortunately, the “Botox” Tax was not included in the final bill. Apparently the plastic surgeons have a better lobbying group than the tanning salon owners. No big surprise there really. We still have the Tanning Tax though, and its inclusion is really the key to making this whole thing work. Will a ten percent tax on each and every tanning session pay for all the admin costs in this bill? Oh, hell no! But it doesn’t have to. And that is the real beauty of it all.
The justification for the Tanning Tax is fairly simple. People who use tanning booths are more likely to get skin cancer and thus should have to pay some extra fee in order to help defray the costs of treating those cancers later in life. To be honest, I have no idea how much a typical tanning session costs. I live in Southern California and drive a convertible, so I pretty much get my daily Vitamin D for free. Lets assume for this scenario though that the tax will amount to $2.00 per visit. If a person were to tan once a week for 30 years, that would generate $3,120 (not adjusted for inflation) in taxes. Now I am also not familiar with how much it costs to treat skin cancer after 30 years of UV exposure, but I think its likely more than the tax will generate. However, since these people will now be taking advantage of their brand new super whamodyne health care packages and seeing the doctor much more often, most of these cancers will be detected early enough that they can be excised right there in the doctor’s office for a mere pittance! That leaves the rest of that tax money to go towards paying the admin costs! A recent study shows that as many as 30 million people a year use tanning salons. Even cutting the total in half to account for people who only use them seasonally, this tax provides over $700 million a year! That will pay for a veritable army of admin types.
And it doesn’t end there. Once people realize what great revenue generator the Tanning Tax is, it will be easy to add in new taxes to pay for all those other risky behaviors. Tired of paying for other peoples weight related health problems? There’s a tax for that! Want to make sure Uncle Fred pays his fair share for laying around on the couch eating chips all day and then needing a coronary bypass? There’s a tax for that! How about stupid drivers that cut you off on the freeway? They are most likely going to use up more emergency medical care than you. There’s a tax for that! Studies show that unhappy people get sick more often than happy people. So you better turn that frown upside down buddy because there’s a tax for that to! The amount of money that we can generate using this amazing process is virtually limitless. How about skydivers? They like to claim that compared to the number of jumps per year, their accident rate is actually very low. That may be true, but if that chute doesn’t open and Mr. Jumpoutofaperfectlygoodplane happens to survive, he is going to be in the hospital for a long time. And besides, it just looks dangerous. YOU ARE JUMPING OUT OF A FREAKING PLANE FOR GOD’S SAKE!
Of course we have to work out all the details of exactly how to assess and collect these taxes, how much the rate will be, and a few other minor details but in the end it should be obvious that it is all paid for and we will still have funds left over. By my calculations (which I am performed in my bathroom with the lights off so nobody could see, and no I am not going to share the numbers with you) we will completely erase the national debt within 3 years. Yes, that’s right three short years. Damn I am excited. Being a liberal is so much more rewarding than hanging out with those stupid redneck tea-partiers.
So I am on your side now guys! Just as long as you are going to let me wear my gun to the next coffee party. What’s that? Oh, you’re uncomfortable around armed people… Well never mind then, it was a nice thought though.
My Liberal Friends and Acquaintances,
Well, it is beginning to look as if you are going to get your way. Under intense pressure from party leadership and organized labor, the last Democrat holdouts are about to buckle under and vote yes on the largest expansion of the Federal Government since the “New Deal”. I can’t say that I blame them. Faced with a virtually guaranteed no win situation, I guess I would probably go ahead and vote the way I really wanted to all along and hope for the best. A “yes” vote only likely means getting voted out of office while a “no” vote means definitely losing party support and millions of dollars in contributions form Big Labor. Pretty easy decision when you think about it.
At least this entire fiasco has made the voting public more aware of what their elected representatives are and are not capable of. We have seen that the vast majority are incapable of simply voting their conscience. And by conscience, I mean listening to the people that elected them and actually representing their best interests. We have seen people that we trusted to make informed decisions vote on massive pieces of legislation that they could not possibly have had time to read and fully comprehend. Even if you allow for a large staff reading the bill and thoroughly briefing said elected official, several votes occurred too fast for even that to happen. Perhaps most importantly we have learned that parliamentary process is no more than what the party in control wants it to be. There are no standards, only rules that can be twisted and changed to best suit whichever party has the power to make those rules. This goes for Republicans and Democrats alike.
Before this issue was thrust upon us, the lines drawn between you and me were much less clear. We have all been forced to view this spectacle through polarizing lenses shaded in the colors of Republican and Democrat. I have always considered myself to be a fiscally conservative, constitutional Republican. That definition allowed me the freedom to occasionally step into that not-so-clear zone between you and me and sometimes even meet you there for a cup of coffee and a nice chat. That just isn’t so easy anymore. It seems now that anytime I decide to venture into that fuzzy intersection on ideas, I have to go farther over to your side to get you to talk. I just can’t do that anymore.
So, as we all sit here on the edge of history waiting for the American political landscape to change forever, I have one thing to ask of you. When you begin to chafe under a 50-60% tax burden, when you can’t get that new cancer drug because it’s just too expensive, or you finally realize that maybe the government has gotten a little too big, don’t let me hear you complain. You can gripe and bitch all you want, I just don’t want to hear it. If you can do that for me, then I promise I will never say “I told you so”.
Please don’t take this to mean that our friendship is over my liberal brothers and sisters. We can still be part of each others lives. I am sure we will find new things to discuss, new ideas to argue about and maybe we will even solve a few problems along the way. And we will have many problems to solve. Even if this current piece of government expansion fails, there will be other attempts. We still have to come together in the never never land between our ideals and decide how our children will ever be able to repay the massive debt we have already bestowed upon them. Our Grandparents are already remembered in the history books as “The Greatest Generation”. I wonder how history will view our generation.
Your Conservative Friend,
Rich
As my wife can attest, I am not a very organized person. My entire life I have struggled with this affliction and it has very likely prevented me from reaching my full potential. While having large, cluttered piles of paperwork on my desk does not necessarily bother me as much as it does some people (my wife being one), it definitely brings me no joy. I have often thought that I might actually look forward to going to work each morning if I didn not know I three tons of unfinished business sitting on my desk patiently awaiting my return.
I have made many efforts to alleviate this problem. I have two drawers in my desk with hanging file folders neatly labeled for every concievable subject I may need to file under. I use a personal planner from Franklin Covey where I can keep schedule information, phone numbers, and lots of other information that I wasn’t even aware I needed to keep track of until I bought the planner. And yet, I still end up with piles of stuff cluttering my desk. Due to having so many drawers and piles, finding any specific item usually takes awhile. Sometimes, I can’t find the item at all even though I am sure I did not throw it away. If I threw things away, I doubt I would have so many large piles. I am convinced that once a certain mass density is reached on a desk, small black holes are formed. These black holes are not large enough to be immediately noticed but do have enough gravitational pull to suck in one or two pieces of paper before disipating.
Being the good manager that I am, I decided to evaluate all of the above problem areas and then develop and implement a workable solution. And so I am proud to present to you the optimum filing system for the chronically disorganized, the “Monocolumnar Administration, Information and Data System” or MAIDS. Implementation is simple; take everything on or in your desk and put it in one big pile on the corner. Finding any item is now simply a matter of excavation, the search phase has been eliminated.
Jim – “Hey Rich, where did you put the schedule for next week”
Rich – “Right there” (points to MAIDS)
Jime – “Hey Rich, do you have laste weeks TPS report?”
Rich – “Yep, right there” (points to MAIDS)
I still haven’t figured out how to solve the black hole issue. I requisitioned a particle accelerator yeaterday. I’ll let you know how that works out next week.
I will be the first admit that I have a much more strict view of the constitution and what the Founding Fathers intended for this country than most people. I can even understand why some people believe that Congress can use the “necessary and proper” clause anytime they like since that particular section is the only intentionally vague wording in the Constitution (my opinion). I can see how those who do not have a full grasp of the English language could misunderstand the second amendment. I tolerate all of those disagreements and welcome debate on them. What I can no longer tolerate though is the tendency of the Executive branch to think it has more power than it actually does and the tendency of the people to go along with it. This has been happening more and more with each administration and it can only stop when we the people force our elected representatives to take back that which they have surrendered to a long line of power hungry Presidents. For those who need a civics refresher, below are the applicable sections of the Constitution:
From Article I -
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
From Article II -
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
So nowhere does the Constitution discuss the President writing bills and presenting them to Congress. I really don’t care how others may interpret the above phrases either. That is not how the Founding Fathers intended things and it is not how it should work. There are many, many good reasons for the three branches to have separate and equal (at least as equal as possible) powers and we all know the reasons our government was established in that manner. Remember, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I would also add that surrendered power is rarely returned without bloodshed.
Rich
Cap and Trade is not a new concept, nor is it a left wing policy, it’s roots in legislation in the U.S. came from a true bipartisan policy that was based upon fairly sound economics. The short history essentially goes something like this:
In the 70′s the SO2 concentrations in coal burning plant exhaust was sufficient to produce detrimental effects on both the populace and the environment in the form of Acid Rain. There were several attempts to find ways to solve this but no legislation could move forward because the cost to industry was considered far to high. Several economists, using different economic models went through many variations on methods and means to achieve the noble goal of the end of acid rain. All of these models included some form of restriction on emissions, enforceable by the EPA, but it wasn’t until one of these economists considered a secondary economy of transportable credits that could be traded between emitters that they came upon a model that was economically feasible. Thus Cap & Trade was born. This economic model was put into fashion by a bipartisan group that agreed on the problem, and decided to find a feasible solution. And in 1990 G.H.W. Bush signed the amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1970 into law, capping SO2 emissions and creating a barter system that rewarded efficient companies and innovators that could find ways to reduce their emissions, and leaving the majority of the burden of the price tag on those companies that could not change. Of course some portion of this increase in the cost of doing business would be passed on to the consumer but since the goal was noble and everyone essentially agreed that the problem needed to be fixed everyone was willing to accept the additional costs and move forward. And it was very successful (when the EPA effectively enforced it) and acid rain has been drastically reduced. NOx emissions were next, and also very effective.
Now we get to the current debate. The GOP has been fighting hard against these controls being applied to CO2 emissions, and that is the real issue. They are actually arguing that controls on CO2 are too costly, why you ask, because they don’t believe that man made CO2 has the harmful effects that the IPCC or most of the rest of the world has agreed upon by consensus. That’s right, they do not believe in Climate Change, and this is why they oppose Cap & Trade. It is not that the Cap & Trade policy is bad, it has been proven as an effective tool in reducing emissions, providing incentives to innovate and change, and at the least effective cost to the consumers/tax payers and industry as a whole. Some members of the GOP will still say that they don’t believe but since the media mocks them and tries to show them as radical conservatives or loons, most no longer are willing to step out from the herd like that. So they argue against bills or measures that would actually make strides towards reducing carbon in the atmosphere, and avoid the subject as to what their real motivation is. If they bought into climate change, they would be applauding the application of Cap & Trade as the most effective means that can be provided at the least cost.
Whether you believe in climate change or not is not the issue. It is the manner in which these people that represent us that matters. The GOP has effectively blocked this legislation, and though, not officially, this bill is dead. CO2 will continue to be unregulated which is the GOPs real intent. The threat to put it under EPA jurisdiction is just that, a threat. The EPA cannot act unilaterally and declare something controllable without an expected back lash, and subsequent lawsuits. It is just a matter of time until this happens.
Chris
Ok, I have a problem with both sides of the arguement for and against gay marriage. This is a very simple issue given a whole lot of bad press and it seems we are missing the core of problem.
The arguements against gay marriage usually fall along one of three points:
The basis of marriage is about procreation: This is false, many people get married and not only don’t have children, but they have no intention in having children. Should these marriages be negated? Should any woman be allowed to marry after menopause? If a guy has a vasectomoy while married should he be automatically divorced because of this? These are the absurd questions that can crop up when we use this as the primary basis for marriage, which, incidentally, is currently the only arguement being used to defend Proposition 8 out there on the left coast.
The basis of morality: This puts the institution of marriage more soundly in the realm of a religious institution and not a legal one. Religion and philosophy are the foundation of moral teachings and the State has no place in the defining of morals. If a gay person wants to get married they should petition their church, not the State. This is where civil unions come in as a tool of the State, but I will get to this piece of legal documentation later.
The basis of harming the existing institution of marriage: This is my favorite arguement used and the worst of the bunch. There is nothing that cheapens or weakens my marriage other than the decisions my wife and I make, any argument otherwise is absurd. And there is very little anyone can do to convince me that anything harms the institution of marriage like divorce does. This single act of breaking your vows and throwing out the promises that make up the union of marriage is what harms it, not two other people getting married, regardless of sexual orientation. Until the religious right can make it so hard to get divorced that people stop and think before getting married I won’t be convinced that they are interested in protecting the institution of marriage.
The arguements for gay marriage are simple, but they are as fruitless as the opposition to them. Gay people want to be accepted for who they are. This is a desire that almost all people want and it is both understandable and a fair request. The problem that they run into is that too many people believe that the acts that they commit as a part of their lifestyle are grievous or mortal sins and therefore they believe that they cannot accept the person as they are or they will be seen as condoning the behavior. Of course people of the G.L.B.T. community do not like the fact that a portion of the population, regardless of how big this portion is, thinks they are evil, corrupt, lost, or just plain wrong for being who they are. The compromise has been to offer Civil Unions in place of marriage certificates or licenses. The G.L.B.T. community disagrees with this on the principle that it reduces them to a second class citizen and they are “equal but separate” adding to the concept that this is a civil rights issue. Every one of the legal protections afforded by this piece of paper are already accessible in the current system but it requires a few extra hoops and comes at a slightly higher price, which is a penalty for a lifestyle, again pushing this in the direction of the arguement that this is a civil rights issue.
The proper compromise is simple, the State should only issue Civil Union licenses or certificates, period. No more Marriage Licenses! A wedding is a religious ceremony and a marriage is a partnership, two separate things. But because the average American does not separate these two things they can no longer accept the idea that the legal protections provided by this certification of their partnership has nothing to do with the arguements listed above regarding morality or anything else. If any two people want to form a personal, legal bond then this should be allowed, it says nothing in regards to the actual nature of the relationship nor the acts that they perform in the privacy of their homes. Of course once you enter into any partnership, if you choose to leave it you have to go through other legal hoops to disolve the legal partnership you have created, but that is a different discussion. This solution is fair and will provide equal treatment for all, and it will still provide the State with a small revenue stream. For the time being, members of the G.L.B.T. community will still be treated as second class citizens in one way shape or form, as do almost any minority population, that is human nature and is not likely to change just because you cram it down your oppositions throat.