BeyondStageOnePolitics.com
“Our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve . . . a budget surplus.” John F. Kennedy

Voice-over

My recent political voice-over demo. See Contact for manager's information.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Nov 16 2012

Obama and the “Balanced Approach”

C.M. Phippen

Within days of his razor thin re-election, President Obama chose to inform us that he now has a mandate for his deficit reduction policies that include a “balanced approach.” In this case, balanced means he wants the wealthy to pay for the overspending of politicians in Washington; if the rich will just pay more, then the politicians will find the discipline to reduce their overspending by a tiny fraction.

Never mind that it wasn’t a “balanced approach” of irresponsibility that got us here – it was fully a result of Washington not living within its means. The increase in revenue from those taxpayers would amount to $82.3 billion annually, the equivalent of about eight days of spending.

According to a recent study by Ernst & Young, just allowing tax rates to go up on those making over $250,000 a year could cause a loss over the long-term of 700,000 jobs.

Are we really willing to exchange eight days of spending for 700,000 jobs in an economy that is barely making it? Does this make sense to anyone who’s not a community organizer?

Our economy needs to grow at about a 3 percent annual rate in order to just keep up with new workers entering the work force; under Obama we’ve experienced a GDP growth rate average of about 2 percent.

Even Thinkprogress.org, while denying that these increased tax rates will have any real effect on economic prosperity, has admitted that the US economy would take a .25 percent hit in growth if these taxes increase. Even if that is the worst of the economic consequences from such a policy of anything but “equal protection under the law,” are we really willing to take a 1/4 percent hit year after year just to cover eight days of expenses during each of those years, especially when the record under this president has been growth below what is necessary just to keep the currently high rates of unemployment stable?

Interestingly enough, when looking at the exit polling done on election day, only 33 percent of voters said they think taxes should be raised to deal with the deficit. A full 63 percent of voters responded “No” to the question of whether or not taxes ought to be raised to help cut the budget deficit.

Of course, no surprise that many of the people who probably voted for Obama were completely unaware of his plans. That would be because he didn’t run on his plans. He ran on demonizing Mitt Romney for being successful and rich, as evidenced by his 85.5 percent of negative ads in this campaign; ads that were mainly aimed at Romney personally rather than being aimed at his actions and principles, by the way. Translation – nearly all of his sizeable war chest was spent demonizing the most successful guy in the room.

There’s no better time in America to be a loser – we love the guy whose every promised outcome was a flop and who, at every turn, had an excuse handy as to why he just couldn’t accomplish what he wanted and why it was everyone’s fault but his own. The reason the stimulus didn’t work, according to the Obama administration, was that the recession was much worse than they’d realized; turns out it wasn’t as bad as we thought – 4.7 percent decline rather than 5.7 percent.

He truly is the president of the participation trophy generation. I guess though, that if the successful aren’t responsible for building their own success, it follows that the losers aren’t responsible for their own failures.


Nov 3 2012

Impacts of Global Warming Legislation on Temperature, Again

C.M. Phippen

We’ve been consistently told that manufacturing is dying in the US. While this isn’t true – we’re the world’s manufacturing leader and we produce more than ever (yes, even more than China) – it is true that productivity gains have led to fewer manufacturing jobs here in the US. While the left pushes businesses to keep more of their manufacturing here (rhetorically, that is; they don’t actually do anything that would make businesses want to operate here), they also preach the gospel of significantly decreasing our use of fossil fuels.

Has anyone ever seen an efficient factory that runs on solar and wind power?

Bill Maher just happened to be talking tonight about global warming, and I finally heard someone – Margaret Hoover – present the facts about the real effect of all of the silly CO2 regulations. When confronted with the facts that I wrote about THREE YEARS AGO regarding the minimal impact that global warming legislation would have on actually impeding global warming, Bill reacted in stunned amazement, stating he’d never heard that before. Uhhh, maybe that’s just because you’ve never educated yourself on the issue.

Just as an aside, Rob Reiner, on the same show, stated that we should all be driving electric cars by now. Apparently he is as unaware as Maher that “green” choices don’t necessarily have the impact the “experts” have led us to believe. In fact, a recent study showed that “the electricity generated to power electric cars caused more particulate matter pollution than that caused by an equivalent number of petrol driven vehicles.”

The difference seems to be a matter of where the emissions occur; for regular gas-powered vehicles the emissions occur while driving, whereas for electric vehicles the emissions occur where the electricity is generated. Apparently this leads to confusion for some, who suppose that if they can’t see it, it must not be happening.

Now back to the piece I wrote three years ago that is apparently news to at least Bill Maher. I complained at the time of writing that nobody in the climate alarmist camp was willing to talk about the issue. Maybe, like Maher, none of them had actually studied the issue before opening their mouths about it. I will reprint portions of that piece:

“If we were to reduce US CO2 output to zero, based on the assumptions made by believers in anthropogenic global warming regarding the effect of those emissions on temperature, the resulting decrease in global temperature would be 0.152°C immediately. This is, of course, wildly unrealistic and would return us immediately to the stone age (as opposed to slowly, over time, so we won’t notice quite so much).

“We pretty much all realize by now that if Kyoto were adhered to by all signing countries, the total reduction in temperature increase would amount to .19°C over 50 years, a miniscule amount that would have “no discernable effect on global climate.” We also are all pretty much aware by now that the countries that bound themselves to the Kyoto protocol haven’t done well at actually reducing emissions.

“Environmental scientist Chip Knappenberger writes that reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to over 80% by the year 2050, the goal of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, would produce global temperature savings over the next 50 years of about 0.05°C. By the year 2100, the decrease in the temperature increase is projected to be between .112°C and .195°C. His projections are determined using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change, or MAGICC. These projected reductions in temperature would have the grand effect of simply pushing back the “inevitable” by 2 to 5 years.

“I have searched and dug and investigated, and NOWHERE can I find any sort of rebuttal to this analysis. In fact, every analysis I do find says basically the same thing. NOWHERE is the issue even discussed among global warming believers. The argument seems to be that Waxman-Markey is simply needed in order to mitigate global warming. End of story. And that, apparently, is how the debate ended.”

At least until the truth was spoken . . .

Nah, that would be expecting too much from guys who think they know enough to dictate to us the solutions without ever having asked the most basic of questions.