Global Warming Redux

That the theory of anthropogenic global warming is anything but “settled science” can readily be seen in the various articles and comments about the latest data from a CERN test supporting the theory presented by Dr. Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen who studies the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation.  Svensmark presented his theory in a very readable book “The Chilling Stars”.  He studies a phenomena that is poorly understood, but may be critical to the understanding of temperature variation.

Nature

It sounds like a conspiracy theory: 'cosmic rays' from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth's atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that.

CFACT

For years, physicist Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Institute (who has presented at conferences organized by CFACT and EIKE) has been asking inconvenient questions about the relationship between the sun, clouds and climate.  He demonstrated in the lab that cosmic rays from the sun affect cloud formation.  Cosmic rays are a factor not meaningfully considered in the computer climate models which global warming proponents have declared to be so robust that they are beyond discussion.
To the vexation of true climate believers, Svensmark’s work has been confirmed at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research.  CERN is home to the Hadron super conducting super collider near Geneva.  CERN simulated the effect of cosmic rays in the earth’s atmosphere and found that it does indeed influence cloud formation.
This is very inconvenient science for the global warming campaigners, researchers and myriad carbon carpetbaggers, all of whose incomes have come to depend on government willingness to accept the authority of climate models as gospel.  The more people know about computer climate models, the less they are willing to curtail the freedom and prosperity of the developed world.

Physics World

Kirkby shares Pierce's caution. He argues that CLOUD's results "say nothing about cosmic-ray effects on clouds" because the aerosols produced in the experiment are far too small to seed clouds. But he adds that the collaboration will have some "interesting new results" to present later this year regarding the role of organic molecules in aerosol formation. "What is needed now to settle this question are precise, quantitative measurements," he adds.

Science Magazine

It has been proposed that Earth's climate could be affected by changes in cloudiness caused by variations in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays in the atmosphere. This proposal stems from an observed correlation between cosmic ray intensity and Earth's average cloud cover over the course of one solar cycle. Some scientists question the reliability of the observations, whereas others, who accept them as reliable, suggest that the correlation may be caused by other physical phenomena with decadal periods or by a response to volcanic activity or El Niño

And then there’s that inevitable response by Al Gore, who’s quoting Media Matters as a scientific source.

In another recent development that shows the frequent exaggerations that have made in support of the AGW claims, only now beginning to get serious criticism from traditional media, Harper Collin’s published new ice sheet maps of Greenland.

"These new maps are ridiculously off base, way exaggerated relative to the reality of rapid change in Greenland," said Jeffrey S. Kargel, senior research scientist at the University of Arizona.
The Times Atlas suggested the Greenland ice sheet has lost 300,000 square kilometers in the past 12 years, at a rate of 1.5 percent per year.
However, measurements suggest this rate is at least 10 times faster than in reality, added J. Graham Cogley, Professor of Geography at Trent University, Ontario, Canada.
"It could easily be 20 times too fast and might well be 50 times too fast," he added.
Last year, a U.N. committee of climate scientists came under fire for bungling a forecast of when Himalayan glaciers would thaw.
The panel's 2007 report, the main guide for governments in fighting climate change, included an incorrect projection that all Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035, hundreds of years earlier than scientists' projections.

And finally, scientists are becoming more vocal in rebelling against the idea that the science is  “settled”, and especially with the APS (American Physical Society), and the distortion to the scientific process that this monolithic conformity creates.  This takes enormous courage and motivation, because of the very real threat of ostracism that they face as a result.

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming
here and here

September 14, 2011 Giaever explained in his email to APS: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."

Top Physics Professor Resigns From Post, Denouncing Global Warming "Fraud"
here and here

October 13, 2010 In perhaps the biggest critique delivered against the current state of global warming research "consensus", since "climategate" at the University of East Anglia, a renowned physics professor has written a lengthy letter resigning from the American Physical Society and condemning the state of warming research.
…
California meteorologist turned blogger Anthony Watts describes it as "a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door".  Whether you agree or disagree with the current state of global warming research, it's hard to argue with that assertion.

Here we have a prominent researcher in one of the primary fields of global warming research -- physics -- putting his reputation on the line to challenge what he feels is clear and present wrongdoing.

Earlier groups had voiced their strong dissent, one example from August 05, 2009

More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an open letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.

The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”

How prescient, since the many public evidences were yet to be revealed, Climategate and the fascinating "Harry Readme" file in November, and the AfricaGate and Glaciergate the following January (2010).

So where does the Al Gore promoted myth of near total consensus came from?


You Call This ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change?

What of the claim that “97% of climate scientists believe in AGW”? The origin of this spurious claim is a 2009 online survey of scientists by two University of Illinois professors who claimed to have found that 75 out of 77 climate scientists (yes, only 77 climate scientists!)
…
Regarding the sample size … according to Lawrence Solomon, the two researchers who produced the survey deliberately left out solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists, and astronomers … all scientists likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change. Only scientists employed by governments or universities were chosen to be surveyed, introducing another source of bias. Of the 10,000 or so scientists left, about 3,000 replied to the 2-minute online survey. No surprise, 82% of that unrepresentative sample answered yes to the ambiguous question. The authors then looked at a subset of just 77 scientists who participated in the survey and were successful in getting more than half their papers accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals and found that 75 of those answered “yes.” 75/77 = 97%.
This may be how sausage is made, but it is not how accurate surveys are conducted. The “97% of climate scientists” claim is garbage. Anyone who cites it ought to be ashamed.

There is strong evidence that the earth has been warming since the "Little Ice Age".  And cooling before that (hence the "Little Ice Age"), and warming, in fact many cycles.  The real question is how much of the warming in the last 150 years might be due to natural effects and what part human interaction?  Is man’s impact significant, or very small?  The study of climate change is a very complex one, an inescapable understatement.  That the present models are woefully inadequate to be able to include many very basic influences like clouds and precipitation systems, is becoming more known and discussed is a good thing.  Perhaps we can take the discussion out of the realm of a political tool and restore credibility to the system.

Betty McCollum Comments on Obama's Jobs Speech

Last Thursday, President Obama offered up his latest stimulus package. It consisted of three essential points, all of which represent attempts already taken. More shovel ready jobs (devoted mostly to unions, shovel ready which even Obama joked about earlier), extending the payroll tax reduction (that has been in place since last year) for another year, and repeating a tax credit proposal for employing an applicant who has been unemployed for more than six months (which many believe has very little promise of impacting long term hiring).

During the speech he did not disclose any costs, which tops $447 billion, but did make 17 demands to "pass this bill".  A bill that wasn't even available until Monday, after his Rose Garden update, and as of Tuesday has still not been submitted by any Democratic Congressman. In his Thursday speech he basically passed the buck to determine how pay for it to the Congress.

"The agreement we passed in July will cut government spending by about $1 trillion over the next ten years. It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Tonight, I’m asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act."

He added in his Rose Garden speech:

"And the American Jobs Act is not going to add to the debt — it’s fully paid for. I want to repeat that. It is fully paid for. (Laughter.) It’s not going to add a dime to the deficit."

Since then he has reversed again and returns to advocating the tax the rich solution that has been shown to be woefully inadequate.  The really glaring omission in his speech was no mention at all of the biggest opportunity for increasing jobs -- the energy industry. Probably the biggest reason for that is that the day he was giving his speech, the FBI was raiding Obama's green industry darling Solyndra.

Rep Betty McCollum gave her response to President Obama's jobs speech in an MPR article:

WASHINGTON - Before a special joint session of a bitterly divided Congress, President Obama laid out his agenda for creating jobs and reducing unemployment through a $450 billion package of targeted tax cuts and infrastructure investments.

And for an example of why there is such bitter divide Rep Betty McCollum offered this advice:

Rep. Betty McCollum - "For the past eight months, the world has witnessed an out-of-control Tea Party majority in Congress, harming our economy and stalling job growth with their posturing and political games," said McCollum, a liberal DFL member from St. Paul, in a written statement. "The American people want jobs, not dangerous and harmful Tea Party schemes to protect polluters, bust unions, eliminate Medicare, and outsource more jobs."

That Betty McCollum and Barack Obama (is that redundant?) are outstanding Union supporters is no surprise to anyone. That she should use such a demogogic statement to malign those who are trying honestly to correct the financial morass we are in, is simply poor judgement. The evidence for "out-of-control" behavior is apparently that the Tea Party opposes the economic ideology of Keynes and the profligate spending that Washington is known for, and in particular the liberal DFL side of the ideological world. Meanwhile the evidence for "out-of'control" behavior by their favored Unions and those who oppose the ideology of the Tea Party is rampant.

Longshoremen storm port, take six security guards hostage for several hours

One sergeant was threatened with baseball bats and retreated, Duscha said. “One officer with hundreds of Longshoremen? He used the better part of discretion.”

Labor Army Goes To War

"Hey, remember when Jimmy Hoffa Jr pledged that his union “army” would take out those “sons of bitches” in the Tea Party? Well, you can’t just jump into battle without tuning up a little first. The labor movement apparently decided to fight its first skirmish in Longview, Washington, where the ILWU seized grain and hostages while wreaking havoc at a rail yard"

Union Protests Result In Arrests, Train Damage And Dumped Grain

September 8, 2011 "Approximately 500 Longshoremen protesters went to the EGT property, entered that property, damaged windows in the guard shack, pushed a private security vehicle into a ditch," Duscha said.
Duscha says boxcars were damaged and had grain dumped from them.
..
Union leaders and supporters say the actions reflect members' frustration.

Verizon damage disrupts emergency calls; workers on strike

Clad in red shirts, the workers held up signs that read, "CWA on Strike Against Verizon’s Corporate Greed," and cheered as honking cars passed by.
Matt Gates is one of the striking Verizon employees.
"Being out here - they didn't leave us a choice. They didn't want to bargain. We want to make sure everyone’s aware that corporate greed has to stop."

When the country is looking to our leaders to create an environment where jobs can grow, we expect plans that really have a chance of improving the economy, not simply retreads and name calling. Emphasis needs to be placed on finding out what businesses need! Improving the economy so companies will have the demand to create jobs to bring us back to work. President Obama made one statement Thursday that really was on target, and does a great job of summing up. If he and Betty McCollum only listen to it, instead of  seeking scores for political rhetoric.

Those of us here tonight can’t solve all of our nation’s woes. Ultimately, our recovery will be driven not by Washington, but by our businesses and our workers. But we can help. We can make a difference. There are steps we can take right now to improve people’s lives.

Its just critical to get the right kind of help.  So far this proposal does not look like they have.

Betty McCollum Responds to a Marxist Question, Part 2

The previous article covered the constitutional and moral problems with "Which by the way is mostly our money! Its not the money of the rich, and its not the money of the corporations!". In particular, the federalist arguments for controlling and opposing the "violence of faction". "Publius defines a faction as a "number of individuals, whether a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some passion or interest adverse to the rights of other citizens and the permanent interests of the community" (Federalist 10)."

There are two points the questioner states about the property of others:
1) "the rich and the corporations have tens of trillions of dollars. Corporations are not investing that money in jobs. The rich are not using it in the trickle down way that we hear from the other side from the right wing, from the radical right wing, is the only good way economically."
2) "Which by the way is mostly our money! Its not the money of the rich, and its not the money of the corporations!"

Altruism is real, and many do provide for fantastic altruistic efforts, but it will always depend on having made enough to be altruistic with, e.g "The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation" (but then, what else are they going to do with it all?). No profit, no altruism, at least not for long. The solution of increased taxes presented by the questioner and Rep Betty McCollum are their viewpoint, in fact they appear to be the consensus liberal viewpoint. It is also a viewpoint which many believe would have, and does have, a very chilling effect on our economy. In fact this "solution" is one that feeds directly into the issues that contribute to the frozen state of our job market. Its another source of risk and uncertainty.

So why is it that significant "cash" is sitting on the sidelines? The motivation for increasing the cash reserves must be fairly strong for corporations to have excessive money not invested. Cash sitting,represents a significant opportunity loss.

"Sitting on cash can be an expensive luxury simply because it incurs a heavy opportunity cost. Holding onto excess cash that is beyond reasonable liquidity requirement is not only capital inefficient; it also creates a drag on a company’s valuation.

In particular, the massive cash hoards that American corporations have amassed have been a saving grace in ensuring that the financial crisis did not cause additional damage to the economy.

Today, these companies are sitting on US$1.93 trillion in cash and other liquid assets, rather than using this money in rebuilding its battered economy."

So one of the first problems is that his numbers are off by quite a bit. Its not "tens of trillions"?  If you expand the scope so you are looking at all money market funds, like what many people hold in their 401K's, its more like $3.92 trillion in 2009

Sept. 28, 2009 Cash in U.S. money-market funds also rose in the 2008 bear market, reaching a record US$3.92-trillion by mid-January. A broader measure that also includes cash and bank deposits reached US$9.55-trillion this month, based on data from the U.S. federal reserve. That’s more than the combined US$9.22-trillion market capitalization of all the companies making up the S&P500 index.

Jobs are not created simply because there happens to be some cash, even what the questioner considers "excessive", laying around in a financial reserve account. Employers create jobs when they believe the risks of estimating the market having increased demand for their products and services, versus the risk of adding to their workforce swing to the side of growth. Otherwise they would be doing something else. They will not be able to stay in business if their employment costs expand the cost of goods sold to exceed their revenue. Then everyone in the company is out of a job.

"It makes sense to put cash [...] in hiring people if you can make money. It doesn't make sense to take the cash and hire people if you're going to make losses,"

Did you know that it is a requirement of McDonald's that a franchisee must have $500,000 of liquid cash on hand (though they recommend more), and it will consume a total investment between $1-2 million, to start a franchise? They recognize that there are risks involved, and require a certain level of capital as well as expertise. It is not the person of low economic means that starts a business. These are the people in the cross-hairs of the "Tax the top 2%" campaigns. That one entrepreneur will create upwards of 70 jobs in his community.

So what really stands in the way of creating jobs? Managing risk and uncertainty of what will happen if they do invest, is the key to getting money out of the safety of a money market, and into investments like a new business. Giving employers confidence that they can make the change in investment, with risks they believe they understand and can have some assurance of it having the ability to overcome. Here are some of the risks they worry about facing:

1) Uncertainty of costs of employment, one significant part is due to Obama care

Brett Parker, a finance officer for a small business in New York City, noted that ObamaCare has failed to “rein in costs, and instead increased them, while loading job creators with mandates, regulations, new taxes and burdens. Rather than solve the problems in the health care system, PPACA ignores costs and instead redistributes money from producers in order to fund vast new entitlements and expand old ones – this was not an improvement over the status quo, it was a step backwards.

Judge Cites Small Business Owner Struggling With Uncertainty Caused By ObamaCare Posted by Don Seymour on January 31, 2011

In his ruling declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Vinson provided a key example of how the law is - as a group of 200 economists deemed it - "a barrier to job growth."

Judge Vinson references small business owner and plaintiff, Mary Brown, who indicated that the health care law is forcing her to consider “whether she can maintain her business,” or if she will be forced to “lay off employees” or “close her business” altogether.

2) Uncertainty of taxation, to which this budding Marxist questioner and Rep McCollum want to add
The Uncertainty Tax (NY Times, 6/12/2011)

But do not underestimate uncertainty as a silent jobs killer. Congress and the White House seem paralyzed in deciding the future of taxes and spending. Where are we going in these areas? Investors and companies who have to make hiring decisions have no clue. “The economy is paying a high uncertainty premium right now,” says Mohamed El-Erian, the C.E.O. of the world’s largest bond fund, Pimco. “With such uncertainty, people delay as many decisions as possible.”

Click to watch the video:
Uncertainty About Tax Hikes Blocking Job Growth?
Jul 11, 2011 MMI Public Relations President Patty Briguglio argues the uncertainty about potential tax hikes is preventing small businesses from hiring.


3) Uncertainty in energy costs

Obama's video statement "if someone wants to build a coal powered plant they can, its just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ


"When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHL404zhcU


He couldn't get the cap and trade plan passed, so now it is being done through regulations at the EPA.

American Electric Power on Thursday announced it plans to shut down several coal-fired power plants, convert or retrofit others, and cut as many as 600 jobs in the next few years to comply with regulations proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

3 plants closing
5 plants closing

Gasoline costs 

Gasoline prices continued to rise across the nation last week, putting the cost per gallon to more than one dollar over this time last year. As rising energy prices threaten economic recovery, Congress has an obligation to examine Obama administration policies that, taken together, reveal the pattern of a concerted campaign to raise the price of energy through blocking, delaying, or revoking project permits and approvals.

If you are a heavy industry, or any industry that depends on energy (and what industry doesn't?) you cannot set forth a reasonable business plan with the tremendous risk of energy costs.

4) Uncertainty in the tangled web of regulations.
Mad Enough to Slam the Brakes on Federal Regulators?

“Even our smallest member companies require one or two staff dedicated full-time to regulatory compliance.”

and we are growing regulations at a fast pace.
Red Tape Rising: Regulation in the Obama Era

These "regulatory taxes" appear on no budget or balance sheet, but are very real--costing Americans an estimated $1 trillion or more each year.

Regulation Business, Jobs Booming Under Obama

Regulatory agencies have seen their combined budgets grow a healthy 16% since 2008, topping $54 billion, according to the annual "Regulator's Budget," compiled by George Washington University and Washington University in St. Louis.
That's at a time when the overall economy grew a paltry 5%

Small Business, Big Regulatory Burden

The regulatory burden is particularly heavy on small business. Crain and Crain calculated that adhering to federal rules cost $10,585 per worker for businesses with 19 or fewer workers, but only 78 percent of that amount for businesses with 500-plus workers.

The Cost of Government Regulation & How Business Strategy Can Be Used to Mitigate Its Impact

What is also interesting is that when you look at the distribution of regulatory compliance by firm size for small business with less than 20 employees, compliance with economic regulations cost $4,120, followed very slightly by environmental regulations at $4,101. Combined these account for nearly 78% of regulatory compliance for small business, contributing to the majority of this cost factor. This major cost factor alone erodes small business growth.

11 Aug 2010 Small Business, The JDA
Regulatory Uncertainty Leaves Small Businesses Reluctant to Hire

Many businesses could hire at this point but have chosen not to simply because they have no idea what sort of financial impact hiring will have on them in the future once new rules are fully written out and implemented.

5) Uncertainty in the economy, will there be enough customers to pay the bills?

Taxpayers Should Be Leery Of Warren Buffett's Faux Noblesse Oblige

So, let's stipulate that Buffett can “afford” to pay more taxes.  But this statement ignores the more important question:  How would the middle class and poor be affected by the higher tax rates that Buffett advocates.  Let's consider what happens when the rich pay more in taxes.  With less disposable income:

They could reduce their consumption.  Although unlikely, this would mean a loss of sales to one or more companies, leading to layoffs;

Or, they could make fewer investments. But that means some company or entrepreneur will be deprived of much needed capital, and would be unable to expand their business and increase employment;

Or they could give less to charity.  But then those in need will have less sustenance, or cultural and social institutions which Mr. Buffet and other rich philanthropists support would have to cut back on their missions and perhaps employment.

Even the authors at HuffPo get this. Though they still think the government does more than just get in the way.  The Huffington Post, Alexander Eichler, First Posted: 8/9/11 10:50 AM ET

Caught between a government unable to agree on the best way to expand the economy, and nervous consumers reluctant to make discretionary purchases, small business owners are feeling the squeeze as much as anyone.

It was an issue thoroughly considered by our founding father, discussed at length in the federalist and the anti-federalist papers about tyranny of the masses, tyranny of the minority, and why property right were a central theme. If you cannot be secure in your property you cannot be secure.

So what will Betty McCollum do when Obama puts forth his jobs plan next week which will almost certainly be centered on yet another major stimulus bill. Increasing debt even more, and recommending even more taxes to offset it. Stimulus in which the government is picking and choosing the winners and losers. A track record of unparalleled failure in doing so. Example is Solyndra.

Rep Betty McCollum said "So what disturbs me about the tax cuts. Is all the tax cuts that are part of the Bush tax cut, every single one of them, even the ones that the middle class are getting, We're borrowing the money for the tax cuts". Will she make the choice not to go along with the Obama Stimulus, say no to more borrowing and deficit, or will she continue to try to "Soak the Rich", when that has been shown not to be able to balance the spending?

We need to fix the five points above. Let's get our economy and jobs back on track.

Betty McCollum Responds to a Marxist Question, Part 1

The articles written nationally about the August 9 Saint Catherine's Townhall have focused on two questions raised by the audience.  Both were from the liberal side of the aisle.  Not a huge surprise there.
In an article from the Pioneer Press, the author wrote:

"This time it was the liberals who were angry about what's happening in Washington.....
On Tuesday night, [Democratic House member Betty] McCollum's fellow Democrats packed a music recital hall at St. Catherine University to give the six-term congresswoman an earful about their disappointment with Obama and his economic and military policies.
The crowd of about 150 was largely friendly and civil, but they were passionate about their opposition to the conservative policies flowing from the Republican-controlled Congress and what they consider an all-too-conciliatory White House."
John from St. Paul wanted to know why Obama has moved to the right. "Whose side is he on?" he asked.

Other articles have commented on the interaction I will discuss below.  They also commented on it as little more than "liberal's getting angry".  However none of them analyzed the content of the question, or on the content of the answer from Rep Betty McCollum.

As you listen to the video, and you really need to experience the increasing crescendo of vehemence in the question, consider what is really being said.  There are two themes he raises.  And look for what is not said in Rep McCollum's response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zyU9N8gd10

Full Text (transcribed as accurately as possible)

Questioner: I too want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your work and your vote against the debt deal.  I think it was a terrible bill.  I have a simple question, the rich and the corporations have tens of trillions of dollars. Corporations are not investing that money in jobs. The rich are not using it in the trickle down way that we hear from the other side from the right wing, from the radical right wing, is the only good way economically. I want to know, and I don't want any qualifications, I don't want any, uh uh you know, I want a very clear answer. When are we going to draw a line in the sand and not strike another deal without a tax increase on that money. Which by the way is mostly our money! Its not the money of the rich, and its not the money of the corporations!

Commenter: They made it, they earned it

Questioner:Its not the money,  its not

Betty: Ok he had the microphone, he has a right to his opinion,  I respect the right of someone who disagrees, but we are not going to have a shouting match in here, we are just not.  I will close it down, OK.  Everybody's opinion is valued everybody opinion is respected, we're not the United States Congress, we're our community.

Laughter

Betty: So what disturbs me about the tax cuts.  Is all the tax cuts that are part of the Bush tax cut, every single one of them, even the ones that the middle class are getting, We're borrowing the money for the tax cuts.  We are borrowing the money for the tax cuts!  When you borrow money, you pay interest.  So now everybody gets a tax cut. And the discussion is, should some people even get an extra layer on the cake!  And when they do, we borrow that money too.  And there's interest due on it. And so that to me is why I think, and why President Obama, and why the economists and why the grand (Graham?) deal and yes why there are republicans in the senate, and some republicans in  the house even, who think that we need to have a discussion where everything is on the table honestly.  Including tax revenues. Why would we borrow money from China, for all of us to have tax cuts.  And pay the interest and our children will pay the interest on it.  It makes no sense to me.  And so that's where I am, on the, on the tax cuts.  And I think you heard some of that from the, the legislators here about borrowing on the tobacco endowment too.  Am I misspeaking for anybody?

There are several problems evident in this question and answer.  The factual issues and how his, and Rep McCollum's solution to the "problem" would affect jobs and the economy, will have to wait for a later discussion (hopefully the next article).

First lets look at what he says and how Rep McCollum responds.

The Questioner 
He has two themes that appear to be:
1) The money has not been "trickled down" to "the worker", and thus must have a "line drawn in the sand" to force it be taxed away.
2) The rich and corporations have no right to the money that they have earned, it is the property of the "worker".

Perfectly fitting the definition of Marxism:

Marxism views the emergence of a socialist system as a historical inevitability that arises from the obsolescence of capitalism and the corresponding social revolution, where private property in the means of production would be superseded by co-operative ownership. The hypothetical system of socialism would succeed capitalism as the dominant mode of production when the accumulation of capital can no longer sustain itself due to falling rates of profit in real production relative to increasing productivity. A socialist economy would not base production on the accumulation of capital, but would instead base production and economic activity on the criteria of satisfying human needs - that is, production would be carried out directly for use.

"Production for use" is the failed economic model of the Soviet Union, versus our "production for profit" model of capitalism.


Rep Betty McCollum's response
Rep Betty McCollum's response is essentially a completely valid viewpoint, in fact the consensus liberal viewpoint. It is also a viewpoint which many believe would have, and does have, a very chilling effect on our economy (more next time in Part 2).  However of interest here is that her response disappointed because it both completely ignored and failed to correct the unconstitutional theme of his outburst.   The right to property has always been a central theme of constitutional thought and jurisprudence. The founding fathers argued the theme through the federalist and anti-federalist papers, which resulted in the promised addition of the Bill of Rights.  Since this appears to be no longer really taught in schools it is easy to consider it as something abstract, having no more bearing on our modern lives.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Fifth amendment to the Constitution

"No person shall be... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

As John Adams stated it "Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist."  If they can take whatever they want to away from the currently despised minority of the rich, they can take everything away from anyone.

Less familiar, however, are these lines from the Declaration of Independence:

"He ( King George III ) has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance .... He has combined with others to subject us, ... imposing taxes on us without our consent."

James Madison wrote about this problem extensively in the Federalist Papers #51

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
..
"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other -- that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.

Their solution was to depend on the tension between many different and divergent interest groups, who they hoped could never form stable majorities.  We have however formed such a majority. The fact that a constituency has been formed with nearly half (43-47%) the citizens who pay no federal tax, or in fact receive benefit from the federal government.  Join to that the more socialist wing of liberal ideology, exemplified by self described socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. This coalition is very willing to say "tax the other guy".

Federalist 10 

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens

There are two quotes that seem a fitting summary for this

Thomas Jefferson "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

and

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

We must pay attention to those statements that violate the spirit of our constitution, and correct those statements that violate the letter of our constitution.  Should we expect less of our constitutional representatives?

What's the Difference Between the Tea Party and the Unions?

I was recently asked "what's the difference between the tea party and the unions"?  I believed he was joking with me, but he believed there was no difference. 

The one and only similarity that comes to mind is that members of both groups are your neighbors, your friends, your relatives, or yourself.  But the similarities end there.  The key difference is the use of force or coercion in membership and activism.  This is especially evident in a closed shop, where unions enjoin employers in collective bargaining. 

The tea party and conservatives have nothing fundamentally against the concept of collective bargaining between free associations of employees and their employers.  People can enter into any associations freely.   The issues arise from the coercive aspects, which is especially true in public unions.   Imposing a legal structure that makes it mandatory to be part of a union to be able work.  Where they go to the government and make laws that enforce a closed shop where an individual cannot work unless they are members of the union.  In "right to work" conditions, the relationship between the union and the employers will still have market disciple.  The employer has the option to say "no I cannot afford your demands", and can go to the market place and find workers who will work for less or without "unreasonable draconian demands".

Coercion of Members in Employment
Unions have a central committee that charges huge mandatory membership dues  for the funding of the union.  Dues  which you, as a union member, are compelled to pay, which are then disbursed to fund things you may or may not support, using those dues for their own agenda (here and here) , Conversely, the Tea Party has no central organization, and no real source of funding other than completely voluntary donations.  But the differences run far deeper than that!  The way they are treated by the media, the reality vs the myth, the essentially unfounded virulent statements made about the tea party by politicians (Rep Doyle, and Maxine Waters,as a sample) and others  all show a dramatic double standard.

The tea party by contrast is a true free association.  They are not linked by occupation, ethnicity, race, or background.  They are neither coerced nor enabled.  No one provides buses to routinely bring them to events.  The Tea Party essentially started as a response to a burst of frustration from Rick Santelli on CNBC over the mortgages and toxic derivatives, though its roots may precede him.  It was a frustration that resonated with many people who felt that our government was making bad decisions and leading us in paths that diminished each citizen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or-EKjfVCoA&NR
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=1039849853



Rick Santelli did not start the Tea Parties, but he provided the inspirational spark that galvanized people across the country.  People did not come to the tea party rallies because anyone told them to, there is no one in a position to do so.  Possibly many of the union members are also so committed, but coercive pressure from peers, union stewards and bosses is also applied quite liberally.

Coercion in Political Lobbying and Co-Dependants
The Fall of the Midwest Economic Model
In 1970, the future seemed to belong to Michigan's example of big companies and big unions. Not anymore.

"Michigan is an extreme example of what has afflicted the industrial Midwest. Big corporations were replaced by big government as the leading employer, and public-employee unions replaced industrial unions as the chief financiers of the Democratic Party. In effect, public-employee unions have been a mechanism by which taxpayer money, in the form of union dues, permanently finances a lobby with a vested interest in higher spending and less accountability. It's a lobby that's benefited from the Democratic Party loyalties of black voters, of Latinos in Chicago (the only large Hispanic presence in the Midwest) and of culturally liberal suburbanites."

Political Candidates know that speaking in front of tea party is great, good response, polite, etc.  But don't focus your fund raising there, because there really isn't much money available.  I know that the likes of Huffington Post, NYTimes, US News and World Report, continue the usual list on your own, all say that funding for the tea party comes from the Koch Bros, Rupert Murdoch, or "Big Corporate" groups.  Don't they wish!  Both sides, the Tea Party here in Saint Paul, and elsewhere, and the media, eager to portray rich deep pockets of supporters, would like it to be so.  I have gone to the tea party events since they started, and the Tax Cut Rally's before them.  I have talked with the organizers.  The funding is always on a shoe string, and often the volunteer organizers just barely made the payments to allow use of the capital grounds, the audio equipment etc. 

The Union members come to rally's all decked out in brand new identical SEIU, Teamster, and other union emblazoned T Shirts, carrying professionally printed identical signs.  There are no Tea Party uniform T-Shirts, no pre-printed signs.  The organizers were simply people who stepped forward in response to a personal commitment and desire.  But it had many constituency's.  Many also came due to the overreach of the federal government in the Healthcare debates.  In the beginning it was cathartic, like a pep rally, now its actually into the game, and in it to win.  Less rally's and more marching down to the capital,  testifying before legislature, etc. entering into party politics and how it works to accomplish the change in narrative and candidates.  A revival of civics.

As the Tea Party movement grew up, then interest and support began to come nation wide and more organizations started to say they spoke for tea party and started to organize. However, the heavily funded Union lobby still overwhelms the Tea Party like an ocean to a tea cup.  Take for example the donations to the two largest "Tea Party " organizations, the "Tea Party Patriots" and the "Tea Party Express"

"At the news conference today, Meckler took a not-so-indirect swipe at a rival Tea Party organization, the Tea Party Express, which operates a full-fledged political action committee that has reported more than $5 million in donations to the Federal Election Commission."

Contrast with not just the "mandatory donations", aka dues, to the Unions, which account for untold millions of dollars, but to what they actually spent in lobbying/support.
Top 20 PACs by Total Expenditures, 2011-2012
(Estimated split based on donor list, and stated affiliations). Nowhere in here is there a "tea party" organization, unless you wish to make a real stretch and call the Bachmann PAC "tea party", since she organized the Tea Party Caucus in Congress.

PAC Name	Total Expenditures	Dem %	Repub %
ActBlue	$11,670,019.00	0.99	0
Service Employees International Union	$8,939,456.00	0.77	0.02
EMILY's List	$6,099,495.00	0.95	0
Bachmann for Congress	$5,931,736.00	0	1
Moveon.org	$4,442,305.00	1	0
American Federation of Teachers	$3,968,159.00	0.9	0
Free & Strong America PAC	$3,530,394.00	0	1
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers	$3,170,028.00	0.97	0.02
Teamsters Union	$2,511,180.00	0.89	0.06
Laborers Union	$2,147,525.00	0.89	0.07
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees	$2,124,978.00	0.94	0.01
Plumbers/Pipefitters Union	$2,091,672.00	0.94	0.04
National Assn of Realtors	$1,852,996.00	0.47	0.49
Democracy for America	$1,841,328.00	1	0
Lyndon LaRouche PAC	$1,666,230.00	1	0
Painters & Allied Trades Union	$1,601,485.00	0.87	0.11
SarahPAC	$1,591,520.00	0	1
National Rifle Assn	$1,581,198.00	0.17	0.81
American Assn for Justice	$1,577,570.00	0.89	0.08
Communications Workers of America	$1,514,745.00	0.95	0
Totals		$52,313,300.67	$14,192,861.26

Then even more soft money contributions centered on election activities like that in the recent recall elections in Wisconsin

National unions descended on Wisconsin to fight over collective bargaining because the real line of scrimmage was the political power of the unions. Since the legislation ended government collection of union dues, the ability of unions to strong-arm their members has already begun to wane.
...
The net effect of more than $30 million spent in Wisconsin's recall elections may seem like an exercise in futility, but the real lesson may be that voters were never as enraged by the policy dispute as the political professionals said they were. Unions made Wisconsin a great battleground to send a message to other states that politicians who challenge union power will pay a price. The real price was paid by the unions themselves, in the national demonstration of their diminishing power.

Intrusive Coercion in Protests
While the tea party protests at city hall, state house, and congressional offices, and Washington Congressional building and the White House, the progressive left and Unions have successfully convinced people that the right to assemble and protest translates to the right to protest at your home, your place of business, block access to your stores, destroy your property, to a fundamental right to disrupt individuals lives.  That's why the Unions get more attention from the media, they cause more pain.

Here in Minnesota the Unions followed Speaker John Boehner to a golf course to mock him

The event was staged by a coalition of union and community groups, along with help from MoveOn.org. A number of anti-war activists tagged along as well, including former FBI agent and congressional candidate Coleen Rowley. Organizers found themselves briefly playing cat and mouse with [Speaker John] Boehner on Wednesday morning after learning that he had nixed plans to hold the event at nearby Spring Hill Golf Club. Shortly before 11 a.m., they discovered the new location and redirected three busloads of protesters.

And Finally there is the Coercion of the Union in Employer Relations
The recent strike at Verizon has reports of protests at personal homes, possible sabotage of facilities   and many many others.
 
Conclusion

So the differences between Unions and the tea Party are many, varied, and important.  The Tea Party is all about free associations, while the central theme in Union relations is coercion.  The particular problems endemic in the relations of the public unions were studied in a paper by Daniel Desalvo where he gave an account of FDR

Even President Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of private-sector unionism, drew a line when it came to government workers: "Meticulous attention," the president insisted in 1937, "should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government....The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." The reason? F.D.R. believed that "[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable." Roosevelt was hardly alone in holding these views, even among the champions of organized labor. Indeed, the first president of the AFL-CIO, George Meany, believed it was "impossible to bargain collectively with the government."

As a final difference, the Tea Party was frequently pointed to as the problem in the debt discussion, with no real factual basis (see Maxine Waters link above).  How much more so should the the Unions be looked at for participation on the debt crisis. 

Betty McCollum/NYTimes Tricky Chart "Policy Changes Under Two Presidents"

Defending the Bush administrations penchant for spending is difficult for a conservative, however the injustice of this particular canard is worth the attempt.  This chart (shown below, originally from the inventive mind's at the NYTimes) was what  Rep Betty McCollum kept referring to in her talk at the 8/9/2011 Townhall.  It is an interesting and admittedly ingenious attempt to continue the "blame Bush" syndrome that has grown up amidst the liberal/progressive activists and intelligentsia.  It represents a particularly pointless and strange phenomena that has never been used so prominently, nor for so long, by an administration and their adherents before. I don't remember George W Bush using the Clinton era internet bubble recession, or even the 9/11 attack, as such a consistent scape goat for the very real and significant problems that he faced when he came to office.  I don't believe (though I am sure there are those who will attempt to disabuse me of that belief) that Regan admonished the first Carter administration continuously and frequently for the disaster that he inherited, and which we are now repeating.

First let's see exactly what Rep Betty McCollum said at the Townhall, and the chart she used from the New York Times, then, let's dissect the chart point by point, and show why I believe it is such an egregious canard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBQkQmx4rPc

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday
http://mccollum.house.gov/images/stories/Statements2010/slide%207.jpg


Betty McCollum and the progressive strategists at NYT, and elsewhere, may believe this is "damning evidence" but I'm not so sure its a very good representation of "truth".  So let's dissect this chart point by point. Policies that are in place and actively spending money should show up in that years CBO spending.  So let's see when each policy began, and what the real dollar deficits look like.

"Bush Tax Cuts" were implemented in 2001, and Obama has fortunately chosen to continue them.  During the Bush presidency this accounted for $1.5 trillion, to which Obama has added $1.3 trillion in his 2 years 9 months in office. during his two and a half years in office.  These tax cuts are part of the reason why so many people below $50,000 pay NO federal income taxes.  How much more progressive can you get? Oh, yeah, the earned income credits, etc, redistribution system giving unearned money to lower income people.  The end result that according to the AP, 40% of people "make a profit from the federal income tax".   So why don't they love it?  Beyond all that, the act of letting people keep their own money and calling it a "new cost" is an example of using deceptive propaganda techniques.

National defense is actually one of the few constitutional federal provisions.  The Afghanistan war began in Oct 2001, and the Iraq War began Mar 20, 2003.  So the wars that began as a result of an attack on our soil (lets not get into an argument over the "necessity" of the Iraq War, it's not germane to this discussion) were part of the spending during the Bush years.  The significant portion of the costs of Iraq war essentially occurred during the Bush presidency, who began limited troop reductions in 2008, and left the completion for the next president.  President Obama has further reduced Iraq  spending, but increased Afghanistan, in addition to starting up a third new conflict in Libya  which will reach an additional $1.1 billion by the end of Sept.

The TARP program, like it or hate it (I was personally in the doubtful but hopeful camp on this) was originally envisioned as a short term fix that would be repaid to the taxpayers as the banks recovered.  In fact it apparently achieved that part of the goal and even made some money, but has since been essentially used as a special Obama "slush fund" since, see here,  and here for political gain .  So the net cost to the taxpayers should have been ZERO, unlike what the chart shows, but the continued use by the Obama administration and others has made it a continued liability.

The 2008 Stimulus was called for by President Elect Obama, but is entirely attributed to Bush in this disingenuous chart. At a minimum it should be a shared policy, but Obama went further in demanding it, or he'd do it!

"NYTimes Nov 7, 2008 Mr. Obama called on Congress and the Bush administration to pass an economic stimulus package. If an agreement cannot be reached this month in the lame-duck Congressional session, he said, it will be his chief goal when he takes office on Jan. 20."

So we, Rep McCollum and the activists at the NYTimes, need to accept the fact, Obama really owns this one, as well as the "son of stimulus" that is already in the chart on his rather diminished side.

The Medicare Drug plan was enacted Dec 8, 2003.  First, if it hadn't been enacted by George W Bush, it most certainly would have been part of the Obamacare plan, so one shouldn't be too quick to place it ideologically under Bush alone.  Second, as a conservative, I could never quite understand the progressive's reaction to this plan.  I understand why I and other conservatives thought it was undesirable, but this would seem to be ideologically right in line with progressive thinking.  Regardless of its merits, the costs of the program were baked into George W's budgets from that point on, and should be evident in any chart showing real spending.

The rather ill defined "non-discretionary" spending is simply too vague to analyze at this point.  I will have to let the chart below speak to it.  The 2008, 2009, 2010 sudden rise in the Nondefense curve show the dramatic rise spending, due to the TARP, Stimulus, and Son of Stimulus that Barack Obama is now using as his baseline spending. Each of his budgets, proposed but never passed, has reflected this continued, or rather is exceeding this, level of spending.  [Note Congress, in particular the Democrats and the Budget Committee which Rep Betty McCollum is on, refused to pass a budget, until the Republicans took the House this year and passed a budget that was killed by the Democrat Senate]

chartFedSpendingAsShareGDP_201002_blog_edwards3.jpg
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/five-decades-of-federal-spending/



So the results of this analysis show that almost any policy that has been attributed to George W Bush should be well reflected in a chart of spending during his presidency 2001-2008.  One can argue that 2009 reflected a Bush budget (especially since we haven't had one since), but I believe the analysis above has shown that Barack Obama inescapably shared and "demanded" the TARP and Stimulus programs, and thus completely owns the 2009 spending as well.  So what is the actual chart of spending deficits and Obama proposed budget projections?  It shows that Bush spent way too much, no surprise there, but Barack Obama has made that spending look like small change!
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/28/the-truth-about-obamas-budget-deficits-in-pictures/




Thus I am not sure that Rep Betty McCollum's speech really shows the correct analysis of our National debt and deficit crisis and thus would probably never address the real problems.  Remember that!

Debt Deal Cuts, Do They Survive?

We now have a debt "deal" that calls for an increase in the debt ceiling, and yet again "reductions" in the future "out years".  As in my previous blog entry, we are dependent on the trustworthiness of this group of leaders to see to it that the reductions actually happen, rather than end on the cutting room floor, where all such deals have finally reposed.  Given the motivation of Obama, Reid, and many more, to create an ever expanding government and to insist on opposing any Republican plan, it would seem to be against their nature to relinquish a dollar of spending. 

Realclear Politics on Why Obama voted against a debt ceiling increase in 2006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjnN_J6wPmk&NR=1


April 14, 2011 President Obama on why he voted against raising the debt ceiling as a Senator in 2006:

"When you’re a Senator, traditionally what’s happened is this is always a lousy vote. Nobody likes to be tagged as having increased the debt limit for the United States by a trillion dollars. As President, you start realizing, 'you know what? We-- we can’t play around with this stuff. This is the full faith in credit of the United States.' And so that was just a example of a new Senator, you know, making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country."

In other words, he states he was lacking in depth and understanding two years before he became president!  Did he learn a lot in the intervening years?  Watch his speeches during this debt debate and see if he is a statesman, or a little less effective.

And then there's Harry Reid also apologizing for his role in politicizing the debt limit in 2006.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT7HT4RpvmI&feature=player_detailpage#t=121s

He voted against it simply because "the Republicans were in power". Earlier in the video he said he is willing to "work with Republicans" but it seems only as long as he's driving the truck, usually over them.  He claims this was the "one time I tried to make a political issue of it, I wish I hadn't".

"I shouldn't have done that. I'm kinda embarrassed I did. It was a political maneuver by we Democrats. The Republicans were in power -- there were more of them," Reid said. "The president voted when he was in the Senate the same way. I heard him apologize for it. We all should take a look at how we handle these issues, but that doesn't take into consideration the numerous times, the numerous times I voted to raise the debt ceiling. The one time I tried to make a political issue of it, I wish I hadn't."

Is this what we want from our representatives in Washington?  Through out this discussion, it has been the Republicans who put forth the proposals and took the ire from the media. While Harry Reid would not even bring the proposals to the floor to consider. And for that effort they were called:
1) Hobbits by the WSJ,
2) Arsonists with a Satan Sandwich

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) called it a “Satan sandwich,” and Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) seemed to enjoy the heat analogy, saying: “the Tea Partiers and the GOP have made their slash and burn lunacy clear, and while I do not love this compromise, my vote is a hose to stop the burning. The arsonists must be stopped.

3) and terrorists by Biden and Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting. 

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Aside from the obvious inaccuracy, and especially that last statement, I believe that sums up the progressive goal succinctly.  Spend more at any cost, and tell the people we're not!