Priorities in policies...

This is a complex matter, because it most greatly affects those who cannot afford it. In energy, for example, due to the advanced age of our oil fields, oil companies, large and small, were given tax breaks to make the oil production profitable, since huge expenditures are required for what we call secondary phase recovery. This oil is very expensive to recover, compared to historical prices, and tax breaks were given so that a production company could make a little profit, and in doing so, kept prices lower for the consumer.

Now, we have the accusation that this is "corporate welfare" and that it is wrong, when it had only two intentions: produce more American oil, keep the same American oil at global market prices and thereby keep gasoline prices lower to the consumer. Now, we have today's prices for oil and gasoline. Even though gasoline prices are really only at inflation-adjusted historical levels, the perception is that the prices are high, because we have been paying below inflation level prices for so long. At today's oil prices (which is headed below $90/BBL, down from $140/BBL earlier this year), perhaps it is time to remove the tax breaks -- but prices will go up to the consumer (the consumer always pays for corporate taxation, because companies have to make a profit to survive), and such increases always hurt the lower economic groups more than anyone else.

Many are pushing for"corporate welfare" for alternative energy, I mean, err, tax breaks. What is the purpose? What is the policy? What is the end game? (If tax breaks are good for struggling businesses, what about us struggling individuals?). That means that we, the tax payer, gets a reprieve for using these technologies by their inherently high cost being kept lower (still incredibly expensive for the consumer). I like tax breaks, and I think tax breaks for alternative energy solutions should extend to individuals who install them. The capital required is still large, but if I can get a huge tax break for doing so, it can make financial sense for me in the long run. At what point, however, do we lift such tax breaks at the corporate level? At what point are we, as individuals, paying more personal tax because these alternate energy corporations are not paying enough?

I prefer no government subsidies or special tax breaks for anyone -- a free, though volatile, market. We both know it is not as simple as that. The more alternative energy is pushed, the more tax breaks (corporate welfare) will be required for it to make financial sense for people like you and me (maybe it will always be a utility level implementation), and if utility companies are forced to a certain level of alternative energy output, the energy bill received by homeowners will increase substantially, again, hurting the lower economic groups the most.

How do we balance all of these factors without creating another expensive bureaucracy in the government (which increases the pain on consumers at all levels due to the tax increases required to support such a bureaucracy)? Maybe alternative energy is served best by competing in a free market (level playing field, no one (meaning anyone in the energy business) getting special tax breaks, higher energy prices for the consumer) where innovation will be the key to profitability. I know the same would happen for the oil production companies, large and small, if their tax breaks were removed.

This is why we must be clear on what we want to accomplish via our energy policies; the same is something you and I need to communicate to our Congressmen and Congresswomen. Is the priority energy independence? Is the priority lower prices? Is the priority alternative energy no matter how high the price? Whichever one of these is first, necessarily shapes a different energy policy. If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority. The answer and its repercussions cannot be reduced to a sound bite. Personally, I say shape our policy around independence. Whatever your view, think your view all the way through the economic chain, and let your people in Congress know your thoughts. They work for you.

Blogging Ike

We are riding the storm out. We are located about 60 miles NW of Galveston, so our biggest concern is wind. Our area does not flood. The addage is: "Run from water, hide from wind". We will manage the wind aspect, and keep the highways free for those who need to evacuate. Our biggest concern: power outage. The suburbs are low priority for the power company, and we understand the process. So, now a little of our experience...

We noticed cloud cover settling in about 1300h today. A few extra gusts of wind, but nothing steady. Winds starting getting more intense at about 1930h (15-20 mph, gusting to 25 mph). We prepared by bringing all outdoor furniture into the garage, pulling the plants in large pots next to the house, buying 6 flats of water, storing ice, bringing the coolers inside so they will already be cool if we need to transfer food into them. Tonight, I will case my guitars and store them away from windows, shut down the laptops and store them in closets, secure the desktop in its amoire, and make sure all cell phones are fulling charged.

We had our own hurricane party, just Pam and me (and the dogs, of course). Pam made a chocolate cake, and we watched 3 episodes of House. Now we are making final preparations, and will make notes here as long as we are able...2056h 20080912

Officially, Ike made landfall at 20080913:0210 just east of Galveston as a Category 2 hurricane (winds over 100 mph, see the hurricane scale and the wind scale). We felt the winds hit hard at 0230h, as the rain came and the wind reached howling levels. Our house did not creak nor flinch, and we lost no windows. At 0330h, we lost power for a minute or two, but it did recover. We had a hard loss of power at 0430h, and wind intensity, as well as rain, was high.

We got up with our dogs about 0500. Dogs need to go out and take care of business regardless of the weather. We noted our trees were fully in motion, but still rooted, and the rain was coming down hard. We estimated the windspeed at 40-50 mph (64-80 kph). We have natural gas for our stove, and as one who prefers to use a french press for coffee, boiled some water and had a very civilized cup of joe. The power flickered on and off between 0600-0620, and then went down for good. Water pressure was dropping all this time as well. We had a little battery operated TV, the first official Jeep accessory I received, as a gift from my in-laws. We followed the news and weather maps for a couple of hours.

The wind continued to be strong until about 0800, when the howling could only be heard in some gusts. Pam and I napped until about 1000h. It was still raining, and the winds had died considerably, to about 20 mph (32 kph). Looking outside, we could see small branches everywhere, and lost a couple of large branches in the pine tree on the front lawn. A neighbor across the street had a tree snap in half, and one down the street had a tree uproot altogether, all these discoveries in an informal neighborhood damage walk and sharing of the adventures of the night.

We were surprised by our daughter and her family arriving at our house. They had roof damage that was leaking into the house, and decided to make a run for drier confines. By noon, parents deemed it OK for the kids to be outside playing, and laughter was heard on our street. We still had no electricity, but water pressure had returned and we were doing well.

We cooked a pot of pasta and used spaghetti sauce from the previous week to prepare ourselves an Italian feast, complete with a spinach salad. For dessert, we tapped the chocolate cake from the night before. As it got warmer outside, it got warmer inside. We had opened some windows to get some cross flow, but oddly enough, there was little wind by now. We all knew it could be sooner or much later before power (and A/C) were restored, but we were grateful because we know our coastal Texas brethren had lost much more. At 1554h today, power was restored.

We had experienced severe storm conditions for almost 6 hours, and had been almost 12 hours without electricity. We experienced sustained winds of 45+ mph (60+ kph), and gusts up to 65 mph (104 kph). We lost our NW fence. We do not how much rain fell in our area (note: estimates are 6 inches). So far as we know at this writing, Ike took three lives, nearly miraculous considering the size and power of this storm. Ike is gone, picking up after him remains...

20080913:1630

Town Call Meeting

Technology is useful, even for good things. I was contacted for a "town call meeting" last night with my Congressional representative, along with 100s of others. By pressing "0" on the phone, we queued ourselves to ask questions or comment or both. I kinda broke the lovefest by expressing my views and asking him to clarify his own views versus the actual GOP performance.  

It was great to have this kind of personal access (even though, through his website, I have corresponded with him many times previously), and being able to do so without getting out and driving somewhere. I hope everyone's Congressperson is doing the same, regardless of their label.  

What did I learn? He and I agree on an "all of the above" approach to energy, agree the government needs to reign in its spending and reduce significantly in size (and that the FM bailouts were wrong, WE, the taxpayer, are paying for it), and expand the roadways in Houston to facilitate better traffic flow (use less energy) AND integrate mass transit with these efforts, both bus and rail services. We are both for securing borders as opposed to more immigration legislation.  

I further pushed for a focus away from inefficient wind power (about 1% efficient) in favor of more effort for solar (wind requires sustained high winds, whereas we all get sunshine) and tidal energy (very predictable; it's a physics thing), and to convert our automobiles to natural gas, which is cleaner and significantly reduces our dependence on foreign oil. And, many of us could fill up from our homes! I also told him I want a much smaller government and reduced tax burden, but stated HB 24 was too Draconian.

Cleaning out closets...

Why do we keep the stuff we do? Because it seemed like a good idea at the time, and carried a "waste not, want not" sentiment. Not bad thinking. Now roll ahead several years, and you are cleaning stuff out of a closet, stuff you barely remember having in your possession, and you triple your trash haul for the week. On the other hand, the closets contain treasures, genuine riches, like a picture of my grandmother and her husband, whom none of us knew due to his untimely death while Dad was a child, a picture of mom as a little girl of no more than 4 years, and several other similar jewels. Cleaning out closets: a chore, a treasure hunt.

More political observations...

I was browsing about for political information. real data, not what various pundits are saying (I do not need them to think for me). I wanted to learn something about the voting behavior of the candidates.

Change? Who is the agent for real change in Washington?

Here are facts, interpret them however you like, but keep in mind the President has an approval rating about 3 times higher than the Democratic Congress, and his is bad.

In the 109th Congress (not as disrupted by the primaries as the 110th):
Obama voted more with his party than either Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden, a whopping 94.8% of the time. My editorial comment: real original thinker, huh?

McCain voted party lines 79.4% of the time; he is the seventh least partisan voter in the Senate. My editorial comment: the 'maverick' tag fits better than others might think, that doesn't mean I like him.

Palin as Veep: More executive experience than McCain, Obama, or Biden. Has as many US Senate bills with her name on it as Obama (true, but twisted observation), though a woman who has done everything a woman can do (wife, mother, businessperson, mayor, governor of a state), 'people' wonder if she really represents women. Duh! That is like Jesse Jackson saying Colin Powell wasn't really black...(he really did say that!)

Want change in Washington and your state? Quit looking to the government (which in reality is the the people of the United States) to solve your problems (that's like telling everyone else in the USA they are responsible for helping you), and quit voting for these major parties.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams

Calling out BO...

I have no love for either party, but confess I find the fundamentals of the DNC entrenched in Marxist thought (read the Communist Manifesto first, before you argue otherwise). Politicians on either side are going to make statements that sound good when you say it fast -- its what they do best, and I am going to call attention to some of their thinking:

BO claims tax breaks for 95% of Americans -- who only pay 40% of the tax bill. A full 33% pay nothing, another 17% only pay 4%. The one-third do not get tax breaks, because they do not pay taxes -- they might, under BO, get redistributed income, which immediately makes them wards of the state. Why would they vote to change such a system? Taxing the other 5%: they already pay 60% of the tax bill -- only the small-minded would say they are not paying their share already. Go out to dinner with 20 friends, and tell one they MUST pay 60% of the bill for everyone. and if they think that is unfair, the other 19 are considering voting to make them pay more! Raise your hand if you want to be that one with 19 friends like that!

Failed economic policy? Until the screw-up banks making loans to people who historically would not have qualified (why they violated tried and true rules of lending I cannot say for a fact; I have heard merely greed to Congress complaints that the rules were socio-economically biased and the banks had to demonstrate otherwise -- the truth is probably somewhere in between), we were at record highs in the stock market, which fuels businesses, jobs, and retirement funds, and unemployment was under 5%. What is so failed about that? And besides, business is the business of business, not government.

Yes, further investment in offshore drilling is a stop-gap, but necessary to keep energy prices in line with inflation WHILE other energy alternatives are developed. Today though, Democrats have blocked any kind of comprehensive energy plan, crying it only supports "Big Oil", which is not for what Bush has been calling since 2003 (and I am no Bush apologist, this is just a fact). "Comprehensive" means fossil fuels, nuclear energy, solar, hydraulic, co-gen, and wind. The "natural" solutions, which I have followed since my college days almost 30 years ago, remain horrifically expensive. They are only affordable with government tax breaks or subsidies -- which is OUR tax money anyway, so WHY take it from us in the first place? The fact of the matter is this: the "natural" solutions offer low output for high investment, this has been their history. If we want to keep energy prices in check while these are made affordable on the open market for everyone (which I support), then we need to drill in these other areas for the next 10-15 years while these alternatives are developed.

"Restore the United States' reputation in the world": Why do we care? The UN does nothing well unless we are involved. Bush's policy of freedom is the same as JFK's (listen to JFK's inauguration speech). George Washington said, "Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth." Who on the planet does not deserve that? You say some cannot govern themselves (Ted Kennedy said this)? The words of Thomas Jefferson, "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion."

Health care? "Free" for everyone? ALL Canadians pay 25% of their income for "free universal health care", whether they use it or not. This is a fact. BUT, the distribution of that health care is not "on demand". You are a number, and you queue for health care, no matter what your condition. Tear your ACL, expect to wait months to get it fixed. Have cancer and need treatment? Wait your turn, even if it kills you. I hear this not from the news, but from Canadians themselves. Same experience in the UK and France.

Then there is Al Gore, who swears things would have been different had he been President. The WTC was bombed under his watch, its instigator (Bin Laden) offered up, and he stood by and did nothing. He has never spoken against Clinton for this egregious failure, like a statesman would have done. He would have done nothing except to say it was our fault. Al also proposed taxing gasoline to a nationwide average of $4/gal to encourage conservation, which would have hurt the 95% he purports to protect. But the free market takes prices to that level, and he says it is wrong. Al "I invented the Internet" Gore is an idiot. Why people listen to him supports the notion that critical thinking among the masses is dead.

When McCain makes his speech, I will likewise comment. They both make stupid and untrue statements, and neither party is fit to govern, IMHO. Viva the third and more parties!

Messy, messy...

Our tax system is a mess, no doubt. Increasing taxes is teetering on robbery, and some already call it "legal plunder". I find the following interesting (gathered from many non-profit, non-partisan websites, and their data over the last 10 years):

Almost 1/3 of Americans pay no federal income tax whatsoever (so how can they get a tax rebate?)

Fifty percent of Americans make more than $31,000 per year (and this groups makes 85% of all income), and also pay 96% of the taxes (are they "the rich"?)

The top 5% of Americans (those whose household income is $150K/year) pay 60% of the taxes, while making 30% of the income in the US

The top 1% of Americans (those making more than $380K/year) pay almost 40% of all taxes, while making less than 20% of all income

Is this fair? Is a progressive income tax fair? Maybe (IMHO) unless there is ANY redistribution of income "just because". Doing so makes people wards of the state, and is indeed socialism. But who are the rich? How you define them and how politicians define them are likely very different. Are "the rich" (whoever they are) already paying their disproportionate share, based on the numbers above? When tax breaks are claiming to "help only the rich", who are they talking about? It certainly doesn't and shouldn't help those who pay nothing. "Tax breaks", by definition, only affect those who pay taxes.

Did you know our corporate income tax rate is twice that of our global competitors? Do you understand the implications of that? It means it is less profitable for companies to stay here than to re-locate overseas. We are not talking about cheap labor. My research of many articles indicates our corporations are paying about 40% in income taxes, and their global competition is paying about 20%. Such a tax burden reduces jobs here, and is a disincentive to expand here. Who is to share the blame for jobs going overseas? Congress, who by their taxation of corporations, take almost half of corporate profits for "the government" in their greed.

Our tax situation is a mess, and who has demonstrated any real will to change it?