Where Is The Shadow Government? 12/14/2009
 by: ShoutBits This week, the EPA extended its reach into every aspect of every American's life. Relying on shaky research and logic, the EPA declared CO2 and other gasses a public health hazard. Never mind that the plants, animals, and people the EPA seeks to protect have all lived through natural climate changes greater than any foretold by climate models. Even if global warming is real, the direst predictions are of economic disasters. Droughts, storms (or lack of storms), rising sea levels, are all things that ecosystems have dealt with for millions of years. While some scientists think global warming will cause human suffering, it is not expected to affect the health of the environment (not even polar bears). Why, then, did the EPA decide to regulate everything everyone does every day? Because they can; while flippant, there is no better explanation. The EPA, along with a host of other agencies, is an expert agency that Congress gave a broad and permanent mandate. Better still, for the EPA, its status as an expert agency gives it the presumption of authority. In other words, citizens cannot simply prove the EPA is wrong based on the facts it used. Those who object to the EPA's mandates must do more than prove the EPA is wrong, they must prove that it acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Arbitrary and capricious are code words from a Supreme Court case that essentially gave expert agencies the right to be as wrong as they want, so long as they explain their reasoning for their wrongness and are not haphazard. Better still, for the EPA, on the rare occasion when its decisions are reversed, the EPA is given ample time to rewrite its rules to be less arbitrary and capricious, yet have the same practical effect. In short, the EPA, along with the FCC, OSHA, the NLRB, and many others can do whatever it likes so long as its actions have a tangential connection to its mandate. The real shadow government is the endless sea of regulators who answer to nobody as they grab more and more power. Voters might rightly ask who gave these agencies such power. Who voted for the EPA's rules? Where is my say? Who can control these people? All the rights of participation that would check abuses like the EPA's regulation of carbon have been surrendered or muted by a willing Congress. Congress, especially Democrats, like to wash their hands of unpopular decisions by punting to a faceless bureaucracy. Democrats know that Washington bureaucrats are overwhelmingly leftists who can be trusted to advance a socialist agenda. In effect, by giving sweeping and open ended authority to the likes of the EPA, Democrats are advancing their agenda without paying much of a political price. Consider carbon regulation. Democrats have failed to pass a cap and trade bill, despite a nearly insurmountable super majority. The EPA stepped in to do their dirty work, yet should a future Republican majority vote to strip the EPA of its powers, the Republicans will pay a political price for doing so. Not only does the EPA give Democrats political cover, it forces Republicans to expend limited political capital to fight a battle the Democrats should have been forced to fight themselves. Brilliant! Every day, a million unelected do-gooders go to work and try to remake the US into a socialist nanny state. There are far too many new regulations each year to address them all. From how warm your house will be at night to the shape of the sidewalk down on the corner, unelected expert agencies are there to interfere. There is an answer, though. Congress is not permitted to delegate its spending authority (the recent court ruling forcing Congress to fund ACORN notwithstanding), and must vote each year to enable every agency's programs. Congress can simply defund rogue agencies like the EPA. Even a minority party can affect the EPA's overall funding, and rest assured the EPA will get the message. So the next time a faceless regulator tries to ruin your life, ask your Congressman why he voted to increase that bureaucrat's budget. Add Comment Copenhagen: a Buchananite puzzle 12/07/2009
 by: Chris Dillow There’s something about the Copenhagen summit that‘s puzzling me. To see it, approach the issue from the perspective discussed by James Buchanan in The Calculus of Consent. There are, he said, three broad ways of organizing our affairs, each with costs and benefits; he was writing about individuals, but for our purposes, we can replace individuals with governments. These ways are: 1. Simple individual action. In our context, this means national governments setting their own individual climate change policies. 2. Voluntary contractual agreements. 3. Enforced collective action. In the case of the private individuals Buchanan was discussing, this means government action. In our context though, it means a global government with the ability to coerce national ones into reducing emissions. Now, here’s my puzzle. Politicians seem to think that climate change is best tackled by (2) - hence the summit. Why? It’s obvious why (2) is superior to (1) - because stopping climate change is a public good. But why is (2) superior to (3)? There are some obvious possibilities. Maybe climate change isn’t so catastrophic, so the costs of failing to reach an agreement will be too small to justify losing national sovereignty. Or maybe the costs of reaching an agreement are in fact small, so we are in the world of the Coase theorem, where private agreements can be optimally efficient without government action. However, much of the rhetoric surrounding the summit seems inconsistent with these possibilities. That editorial says: Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. And Brown says: If by the end of next week we have not got an ambitious agreement, it will be an indictment of our generation that our children will not forgive But if the costs of failure at Copenhagen really are so catastrophic, and are a serious risk, then perhaps mode (2) is the wrong way of addressing the problem, and we might need global government instead. And yet, AFAIK, none of the summiteers is suggesting this possibility. Let's contrast this with smoking in pubs. In theory, private contractual arrangements could control this - either by non-smokers paying smokers to desist, or smokers paying non-smokers for the right to do so. But the UK government decided against this, and imposed a ban. It decided that mode (3) is superior to mode (2). But if this is true for smoking, why is it not true for an issue with allegedly vastly greater costs of failing to reach a private agreement? So what’s going on? Is their rhetoric just wind? Are governments ignorant of the basic Buchananite principles for deciding where decisions are best taken? Or do they instead care more about preserving their power than saving the planet, and see Copenhagen as merely a legitimation ritual? Could it be that those calling for radical alternatives to the summit do, in fact, have some logic on their side? Climate Change Is All About Power 11/25/2009
 by: Gary Reed "Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it." – Mark Twain "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while Congress is in session" – Mark Twain On November 6, The Market Oracle posted Robert Murphy's lengthy article, "Freaking Out over Global Warming," a review of Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner's book Super Freakonomics The whole argument in the book and in the review seems to be centered on the science and economics of climate change. Unfortunately, climate change isn't about science. Climate change quit being about science almost from the beginning. Climate change is about raw, naked, unabashed political power. Climate change isn't, and has never been, about economics either. Proponents of raw, naked, unabashed political power don't care about science or about economics. Originally, the climate changers began howling about the Coming Ice Age. First a frozen global hell was proclaimed, and then the proclaimers went looking for "science" to prove their proclamations. They had books to sell and interviews to do and power to accumulate and careers to build and reputations to make and egos to inflate. When the time of the Coming Ice Age came and went and nothing froze over they turned the thermometer upside down. No more Coming Ice Age. Coming Global Warming. But it still was never really science. The "scientific consensus" was built on scientific conjecture and flawed computer modeling and government bribe money and true believer's wishful thinking and the virulent human-hating of the environmental messiahs. A "scientific consensus" is not science. "Consensus" is a political word. Politicians reach "Consensus." Scientists reach "factual conclusions" based on evidence, no matter what the politicians or the opportunists or the true believers want them to reach. Cherry picking scientific data is not science. Cherry picking is political. Yes, the other side, the warming deniers, can also be charged with cherry picking evidence to prove that man-made climate change is bogus. But that just strengthens the argument; cherry picking, no matter who does it, or why it's done, is not science. It's still just politics. Once any issue becomes politicized its no longer about that issue. It's then all about politics, and politics is always about power. Government healthcare isn't about health, it's about power. The drug war isn't about drugs, it's about power. The government takeover of banking and lending institutions isn't about the economy, it's about power. Environmentalism isn't about the environment, it's about power. Capitalism has won in every successful country in the world except in America where it's maligned and attacked and crippled. Our society, in ways it never should have been, has become deeply politicized, which means it's not about freedom and markets and trade and prosperity, it's about power. And it's also why libertarians should be worried about the Libertarian Party. Is it really about libertarianism, or is it really just all about the Party? The only way to ever know if anything is true about climate change is to totally divorce the science from everyone and everything that could possibly benefit from it in any way. And it's also true about everything else that's been politicized. Today we can merge Mark Twain's two amusing quotes: "When power-mad politicians pretend they can do anything about the weather no man's life, liberty, or property is safe." by Harrison Price This story really gets me… the International Energy Agency says we’ll all have to pay more so people will feel more inclined to start driving hybrids (and doing other things, too): The International Energy Agency has warned that the price of carbon credits will have to more than double from the levels they now trade at in Europe to make high-tech solutions to climate change economically attractive. In its annual World Energy Outlook report released on Tuesday, the rich countries’ watchdog also warns that the world’s use of fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – will have to peak by the early 2020s. Basically what they are saying is that there is no financial incentive for companies to rush forward investing in “alternative” energy because gas, oil, and natural gas are so cheap. The way to “fix” this situation? Well, it’s not market based that’s for sure… it’s the Carbon Tax. The Carbon Tax (or Carbon Credits whatever you choose) is essentially a made up figure that says Country X can only release Y amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and if they want to release more than Y they will need to pay Z per ton. Why the CO2 tax? Call it the Liberal Consumption Tax or the “Global Warming” Fund: In industrialised countries the price of carbon will need to reach $50 a tonne by 2020 and $110 by 2030. In developing countries the price of carbon would need to reach $30 a tonne by 2020 and $50 by 2030. So, for example, these people want the United States to pay $50.00 per ton of CO2 whereas a “developing” country would only pay $30.00 per ton. “Developed” countries were once “developing” ones that got to where they are by essentially industrializing and exporting their goods (steel, cars, airplanes, semi-conductors, etc…). So already the IEA wants to place a $20.00 per ton of CO2 disadvantage on “developed” countries. What do you think is going to happen to jobs? They will go where it is cheaper to produce… namely “developing” countries. And for the priviledge of “saving the planet” we will be paying to send our jobs overseas. And people thought Republicans liked “offshoring.” So just why should we do this insane thing? The greatest responsibility lies with the US, but the greatest scope for change will be in China, which if it meets its own targets, will be responsible for more than a quarter of the emissions reductions the IEA says is needed to avoid the worst climate change risk. Before we get into the absurd Liberal ideas about “global warming” we should note that in the entire world and all of the CO2 in it, humans create about 0.117% of the stuff. CO2 is a naturally occuring substance. Rotting leaves in your yard? They produce CO2. Birds breathing? They create CO2. Trees and plants at night? They create CO2. Back to this Carbon Tax thing. So the IEA wants to see $50.00 per ton by 2020. Currently in the EU CO2 trades at about $21.00. These people know that all the “alternative” energy that’s produced loses money. Solar, wind, geothermal… all lose money. Solar and wind cannot be relied upon for power generation either as it is not always sunny nor is it always windy. Yes, there are solar plants that use the sun to heat salt so it can release heat when there’s no sun but solar plants are not practical for most places as they require too much room and are one of the most expensive forms of energy we can generate. So the “thinkers” at the IEA are trying to use “global warming” scare tactics to convince people to ship jobs overseas by raising the CO2 tax. They are very happy the more expensive oil gets because they see their goals getting closer to reality: Fatih Birol, the IEA’s chief economist, said at the launch of the agency’s annual flagship World Energy Outlook: “This would be a revolution. This revolution could only take place if there is a financial signal to the energy industry.” He added: “We need a deal in Copenhagen. We need a signal for the energy industry. Without that, nothing will move.” Mr Birol said: “The era of cheap oil is over. We said it last year and continued to say it throughout the year even though oil went to $30 a barrel [at the end of 2008 and start of 2009].” It is obvious the IEA is simply pushing whatever it needs to in order to convince countries to slit their own throats regarding jobs, manufacturing, and taxes by using whatever scare tactics it can, even when there is no clear science behind it: The International Energy Agency warned today that the world’s use of fossil fuels will have to peak by 2020 if it is to escape a dangerous spike in global temperatures. If the technology is that good, let it stand on its own two feet in the marketplace. Interestinly enough, nuclear power is not mentioned… that is not trendy enough. It's Official: Global Warming Is A Religion 11/04/2009
by: A An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs. …In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that “a belief in man-made climate change … is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations”. The ruling could open the door for employees to sue their companies for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel. …John Bowers QC, representing Grainger, had argued that adherence to climate change theory was “a scientific view rather than a philosophical one”, because “philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of scientific proof.” That argument has now been dismissed by Mr Justice Burton, who last year ruled that the environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore was political and partisan. The decision allows the tribunal to go ahead, but more importantly sets a precedent for how environmental beliefs are regarded in English law. Wow! Its a religion, not a scientific position. I probably should be laughing, but I’m not. by Harrison Price Once more we wade into the stupidity that is the Democratic Cap and Trade bill, now put away until sometime in the Fall for lack of support. Cap and Trade would tax everything based upon how “dirty” the energy it took to create it was (read CO2). This bill, if it became law, would lay waste to the U.S. economy, cause Americans up to $1,400.00 per year in extra spending, kill jobs, and put the U.S. at a disadvantage when compared to our trade competitors. India and China will have none of this foolish Liberal agenda: India on Sunday night rebuffed an appeal by Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, to embrace a low-carbon future in which the two countries would work together to devise new ways of consuming and producing energy. Mrs Clinton, on a five-day visit to the country, said that low-carbon emissions would not jeopardise India’s high economic growth rates and its goal of lifting millions of people out of poverty. She offered a technological partnership to secure the fast growing nation’s energy supplies and help boost the livelihoods of its farmers. China had the same reaction: We are told that although China, India and others show no signs of joining in this dismal process, we will eventually induce their participation by “setting an example.” Watching the impending indigence of the Midwest, and the flow of jobs from our shores to theirs, our friends in Asia and the Third World are far more likely to choose any other path but ours. What is even more absurd is that Obama’s own EPA admits Cap and Trade will do nothing: The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee began their hearings on the 1,500 page Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation Tuesday, and ranking member Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) won a startling admission from Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson. Inhofe produced an EPA chart generated last year during the Senate’s debate of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade legislation. The chart showed that the carbon reductions under that bill would not materially effect global carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. Inhofe then asked Jackson if she agreed with the chart’s conclusions. Jackson replied: “I believe that essential parts of the chart are that the U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels.” Guess what? The other countries won’t participate because it will destroy their economies! Yet another foolish idea from the Democrats that will hurt our economy. It is also troubling that, with so many issues in the world that Secretary of State Clinton would spend so much time discussing a non-starting idea with the Indians. Shouldn’t her limited time be better spent working on issues relating to terrorism, Pakistan, Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation, and trade instead of lecturing them on ideas they will never buy into? With the economy still in trouble, Obama’s support shrinking, and Cap and Trade shelved until the Fall surely there are more important things to be done instead of trying to kill our economy. by Harrison Price Listen Up Barry - Your FDR Legacy Is Calling 06/17/2009
by Dacia Nichol Obama's Bailout for Mother Nature 04/09/2009
 by Thomas Craig |   Recent Posts
CategoriesAll ArchivesJanuary 2010 About Us
American Tusk is a site devoted to those amongst us who put Country before Party. We are true Republicans. American Tusk is dedicated to a smarter, stronger and better GOP. Together we can make our Country better and move forward optimistically into the future!      |
RSS Feed
