An Electric, or at least Hybrid Mess

The Obama administration has never been confused for the Bush administration when it comes to energy policy.    Even as a presidential candidate, Senator Obama told reporters that under his policy, "electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket."  Now this is not like the Sarah Palin "quote" that she could see Russia from her front porch.  That was actually Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live spoofing Palin, although you couldn't convince thousands of Palin-haters of that fact.  Senator/candidate Obama actually said his plan would cause the cost of energy for every American, no matter what their income, to "necessarily skyrocket."  And no news organization or "journalist" asked him about this plan, before or after the the election.  In fact, outside of a few conservative radio talk show hosts, you will never hear anything at all about this plan.


All right, the president plans to make our electricity rates skyrocket.  Surely he won't mess with our other energy costs too, right?  What is the president's plan to reduce the emissions from our cars?  Well, first of all he had to takeover a car maker - GM.  Then he had to force GM to manufacture a car that the American buyer didn't want or need and that GM was not ready to manufacture, the all-electric Volt.  Now the Volt may be the "car of the future," as the president of GM - Barack Obama claimed.  But as one reviewer said, "only if your future is 40 miles away.  Actually 20 if you want to get back home again."  That's right, the Volt has a range of 40 miles in its all-electric version.  After these horrible reviews, Chevrolet announced that the Volt now has a greatly improved range.  They basically turned it into a hybrid.  You know the kind of car that Honda, Toyota, and Nissan have been producing for years.  Only it's smaller and not as reliable as the Honda, Toyota, or Nissan.  Oh yeah, it's more expensive too.  Only $40,000 for a subcompact car.  Who doesn't want to pay $40,000 for a Cavalier or Focus?  American car buyers, apparently.  In January and February combined Chevrolet sold 602 Volts, up from its double digit sales from each of the previous four months.  This incredible increase proved that Americans were starting to warm up to the idea of an overpriced, unreliable clown car, right?  Well not exactly.  They also announced sales of over 5,000 Tahoes.  If you are not familiar with the Tahoe; and judging from the lack of sales by the company, most Americans are not, the Tahoe has enough space to haul everyone in my hometown of Graham, TX and their luggage on a two week vacation.  With enough room leftover to pick up a few souvenirs on the trip.  While that be a slight exaggeration, it would take the vacation budget of Graham to buy the fuel needed for a long trip.  The new fuel-efficient hybrid version of the Tahoe gets 20 miles per gallon!  So obviously gas mileage is not a major concern for the American car buyer. 

So what is the president of GM, Barack Obama, to do to encourage Americans to pay too much for a car they don't really want?  Go back to the engineering drawing board and design an electric car big enough, reliable enough, and efficient enough that the buyer will be happy to pay for it?  Don't know what country you're from, but that's not Barack Obama's America!  His plan is to take taxpayer money and give it to anyone who buys an all-electric car, in the form of a $7,500 tax credit to the buyer.  That would make the Volt a $32,500 embarrassment, rather than a $40,000 embarrassment.  Well, apparently, not enough people that pay enough taxes (49% pay nothing at all, but that's for another post) to make a $7500 credit worthwhile fell for the scam.  Those folks generally travel more than 40 miles per trip and carry cargo larger than a bag of M&M's, so the Volt isn't too practical.  Another slight glitch in the plan - to get anyone to buy the Volt at any price, with any incentive, Chevrolet had to go back to the 1990's hybrid technology.  So now the credit has been re-written to include hybrids.  And rather than a tax credit, the Obama administration is planning take the $7,500 straight out of the dealer's overflowing bank account and give it to anyone who buys a Volt.  The dealer is then responsible for filing for reimbursement from the similiarly overflowing vaults of the United States Treasury.  Most auto dealers who dealt with the government in the "cash for clunkers" scam will tell you how excited they are to participate in this plan.

What's the next step in getting the public to buy government-produced electric cars?  How about $4+ per gallon for gasoline.  I'll get to that in my next post.

Charity begins at home, at least in the conservative home

A conservative sees a poor homeless man and feels sympathy.  The conservative offers him a job, so he can earn money to get clean clothes and a place to live.  A liberal sees the same homeless man and feels compassion.  He turns to the conservative and says, "give him some of your money."  I read that years ago and I think it was attributed to Winston Churchill.  Of course, just about every humorous quote is attributed to either Churchill or Mark Twain.  

With all President Obama's plans to redistribute wealth and fundamentally change America,  I thought I would do a little research on charitable contributions of the wealthy and conservatives compared to liberals.  The president and the media would have us believe that the rich must be taxed to force them to contribute to society.  The only way the poor can survive is if the government takes money from the more fortunate (funny how that's an accepted description of the wealthy, as if it were all luck, education and hard work had nothing to do with their success).  

One of the neat things about people that run for or hold public office, their income tax filings are available to the public.  So, for a little history on charitable contributions.  The grandfather of all liberals, Franklin D. Roosevelt gave on average less than 2% of his annual income to charitable organizations.  Ronald Reagan, the conservative icon, who, by the way, did not come from a wealthy family like the Roosevelt dynasty, gave an average of 6% of his income to charity.  The Liberal Lion, Ted Kennedy gave less than 1.5% of income to charity in the years that he released his income tax statements.  I'm pretty sure he came from a fairly well-off family.  

For a little more recent history, President George W. Bush averaged just over Obama's threshold for the wealthy $250,000 per year in the years he was Texas governor and United States President.  In those years, he gave an average of 10% of his annual income to charity.  His vice-president, Beelzebub, I mean Dick Cheney, was inconsistent in his charitable contributions.  In one year reported, he gave 0.1%, but the following year gave over 77% (no decimal in there, 77%!!), for an average of 19% in the years reported.

The current holder of the vice president's office, Joe Biden, was very consistent.  Stingy, but consistently stingy.  In the past 10 years, he has given a low of 0.1% and a high of 0.3% of his income to charity.  And yes, those are decimals in there.  He has given an average of $369 a year to charity in that timeframe.  His boss, President Obama is, by comparison a regular philanthropist.  In 2000, when he ran for senate, he reported contributions of $2350, or 1% of his income.  Now, in total contradiction to his belief that the wealthy don't give more, last year when revenue from his two books produced an income of $4.2 million, he and Michelle gave $240,000, or 5.7%.  


National statistics from 2004 were the most recent I could find.  That year, 2/3 of Americans reported charitable contributions.  They gave an average of $2047 or 3% of their taxable income.  Citizens that made between $200,000 and $500,000 gave an average of almost $41,000 to charity, or just under 9.5%.  


The best way to redistribute wealth is to let those who earn the wealth decide how to distribute it.  That redistribution comes through jobs created and obviously through charitable contributions.  Let's keep the government out of the process!

Oh, I could mention that Jesse Jackson and Al Gore each averaged under 1% in the years they made their income taxes public.  But that would be going overboard in making the point.

I remember an old Saturday Night Live with Chevy Chase playing President Ford.  They did a skit with the debate between Ford and Carter during the election campaign.  Carter goes through a 2 minute dialogue about tax rates, oil company profits, and the effect of the cost of oil on the American economy.  When it is Ford's chance to respond, he has that blank stunned look that Chevy Chase did so well and says "um, they, uh, they promised me there would be no math."  I promise, no more math in my posts.
 

Public Lands, Hope, Change, Hope It Changes!

When we first moved to Arizona in the 90's, one of the first things I noticed was all the public land.  We went all over the north and central part of the state, hiking, camping, and taking day trips.  Coming from Texas, I couldn't believe that you could do so much travelling without coming to a fence, locked gate, or No Trespassing sign. 

As someone who loves to camp, hike, and practice outdoor photography, I really enjoy the access to all the wild areas of the state.  Colorado also is home to large amounts of federally controlled land.  Take a look at the maps of the three states above.  Any part of that map that is not white is owned in some way by the federal government.  I'm not sure what percentage of Colorado and Arizona are federal land, but it is well over 50%.  Texas is just under 2%.  I read that Utah is over 90%, and Nevada is 98%!  I think the only part of Nevada not controlled by the government must be Las Vegas.  No wonder President Obama seems to hate Vegas! 

Recently the President used an executive order to "protect" parts of western Colorado to preserve habitat for wild horses.  Who doesn't want to protect the habitat of wild horses?  I don't know how he finds time for all his interests.  What with running Government Motors, Chrysler, all those banks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, controlling excessive insurance company profits, and getting healthcare legislation passed in spite of the fact that most Americans don't want it.  I bet he watched the Disney movie Spirit, with his daughters last weekend.  And they said, "daddy, you've got to make sure those poor horses have a place to live!"  You know how persuasive little girls can be.  He probably looked at a map and figured that western Colorado would be a good place for some mustangs, I bet he watched an old Ronald Reagan Henry Fonda western that mentioned horses in Colorado. 

Surely it wouldn't be because of the shale deposits in the area that he decided to limit private company's access?  You know the shale that energy companies can extract clean burning, efficient natural gas from?  The same energy companies that would provide hundreds of high paying jobs to people who would then buy houses, cars, healthcare insurance, and pay taxes.  That's what President Reagan called "trickle down economics."  It does work.  It's the only thing that does work.  The problem that President Obama and his progressive friends have with trickle down economics is that private companies are making money.  And deciding for themselves how to spend it. 

I travelled regularly in the Grand Junction area last year and listened to a local radio station frequently.  They started with stories about tighter regulations on drilling in the area, making it more expensive to extract the natural gas, which was going down in price at the same time.  Then, later in the year, Haliburton announced that it was discontinuing operations in the area and laying off hundreds of employees.  Home construction in the area that had been booming for over a year, suddenly slowed to a crawl.  Construction workers that had been spending a good portion of their paychecks in the local stores moved on to jobs in other parts of the country (probably Texas with all its non-federal land).  Guess what?  Unemployment went from 3.5% in the summer of 2007 to 4.5% in January 2008 to 9.4% in today's report.  Oh yeah, with all those evil energy companies, their well-paid employees and their paychecks going elsewhere, sales in the area stores dropped dramatically, forcing more layoffs.  And to make matters worse, the drop in sales brings a drop in sales tax revenues.  So now the local governments are feeling the pain too.  Only the government could screw things up this bad and this quickly.  

So, the obvious solution?  Restrict development in the region even more!  Not what you would've thought?  Well, then you are obviously not a mustang loving Harvard graduate.  

To steal a line from Sarah Palin, "How's that hope-y change-y thang working out for ya now?"