Rebuttal of Physicians for National Health Program Myths

(Click on this chart of "Obama Care" to see what a bureaucratic jungle the Democrats are planning. It will be more costly - naturally, it's a government program! - with the compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of the DMV.)

A friend and neighbor sent a "copy and paste" essay to our local weekly newspaper, The Independent Coast Observer (ICO). This week they published my rebuttal, which is not complete since, unlike the article I'm rebutting, I'm actually gathering facts and including links to their sources. The following is my rebuttal so far:

The ICO could have saved over 1,000 words by just printing this link instead of the Open Space “Facts about single-payer care” article which was provided word for word by the very biased Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP). However, since the ICO promoted the PNHP position, fairness and balance would indicate allowing space to point out its egregious errors and omissions. Here are just a few:

Myth: 50 million Americans (16%) are uninsured. Truth: The Census Bureau (2005) reports the number is 47 million. Of the 47 million, approximately 10 million are illegal aliens. Even Michael Moore agrees that being “an American” matters to get health insurance. Discussing “Sicko” on ABC’s “Nightline” Moore said: “That’s the only preexisting condition that should exist. I am an American. That’s it.”

Another 17 million make more than $50,000 per year (well above the median household income of $46,326). Why are households with above the median income uninsured? Forty-five percent of the uninsured will only be that way for less than four months according to the Congressional Budget Office, and 60% say they are in excellent or very good health. (Link here)

The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million. That is a much smaller figure than the media report. Kaiser’s 8.2 million Americans (2.7%) chronically uninsured only includes those uninsured for two years or more.

Myth: Private insurance administrative costs are high, and most are unnecessary. Truth: Medicare’s administrative costs are much higher than private insurance, and include far more unnecessary expenditures. (Link here) In 2005, Medicare's administrative costs were $509 per primary beneficiary, compared to private-sector administrative costs of $453.

Medicare’s costs are higher even though what the public plan advocates claim as Medicare costs do not even include enormous Medicare expenses, the largest of which is Medicare fraud and waste. Researchers at Dartmouth estimate that waste (including fraud) consumes about one-third of Medicare's costs. That is, to deliver $100 of frugal care, Medicare spends $150, $50 of which is for unnecessary use.

Knowing Americans are weak in math, advocates of a public plan assert that Medicare has administrative costs of 3 percent (or 6 to 8 percent if support from other government agencies is included), compared to 14 to 22 percent for private employer-sponsored health insurance (depending on which study is cited), or even more for individually purchased insurance. Why the difference? It’s simple math. Medicare patients are older and consume more expensive medical services than the average private insurance policy holder. When you divide the Medicare administrative cost numerator by the very large total cost denominator, you get a smaller administrative cost percentage, even if total administrative costs were identical for Medicare and private insurance.

This is compounded by Medicare not being charged or allocated costs that private insurers bear, such as state “premium taxes” that average two percent, and depreciation, maintenance and repairs, and utilities costs for offices in public buildings.Excluded Medicare administrative costs (from the American Medical Association Proposal for Reform) (Link here):

• Tax collection to fund Medicare—this is analogous to premium collection by private insurers, but whereas premium collection expenses of private insurers are rightly counted as administrative costs, tax collection expenses incurred by employers and the Internal Revenue Service do not appear in the official Medicare or NHE accounting systems and are overlooked
• Medicare program marketing, outreach and education
• Medicare program customer service
• Medicare program auditing by the Office of the Inspector General (which is costly but does little to eliminate the enormity of Medicare fraud)
• Medicare program contract negotiations
• Building costs of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) dedicated to the Medicare program• Staff salaries for CMS personnel with Medicare program responsibilities
• Congressional resources expended each year on setting Medicare payment rates for services

Myth: Medical bills contribute to half of all personal bank­ruptcies. Truth: Mortgage and rent payments, automobile payments, insurance, unemployment, over-exuberant credit card use, etc., “contribute” as much or more to personal bankruptcies than medical bills. (Link here) When other researchers analyzed the Harvard study that concluded half of all personal bankruptcies were related to medical bills, they found that only 17 percent were, and concluded that “medical debt is like any other debt -- a cause but not the most important cause of bankruptcy.”

(Medical bills - and fraud, waste, and abuse - have already contributed totally to one significant bankruptcy: Medicare.)

Myth: We pay for national health insurance, but don't get it. Truth: Workers pay 2.9 percent of their earnings into Medicare, which is already bankrupt (technically, not until 2017 when its mythical trust fund runs dry, but Medicare is already paying out more than it is taking in, even though the first Baby Boomer doesn’t start Medicare until 2011). The Medicare rate will have to be raised to 13.4 percent just to maintain promised benefits. (Link here)

After adding on the inadequate12.4 percent for Social Security, workers will have to pay 25.8 percent of their pay (not tax deductible) before paying income, property, and sales taxes, plus exorbitant energy taxes to fund the futile battle against natural climate change.


Myth: Despite spending far less per capita for health care, Canadians are healthier and have better measures of access to health care than Americans. Truth: The 2002-03 Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health concluded, on average, health status in Canada and the U.S. is approximately equal. However, Canadians suffer long waits for many surgical procedures.

The Canadian Supreme Court struck down Quebec's law that prohibited private medical insurance, finding against having to wait a year for hip-replacement surgery. In finding for the plaintiffs, Canada's high court said, "The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public healthcare system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public healthcare...(and endure)… physical and psychological suffering that meets a threshold test of seriousness. Many patients on non-urgent waiting lists are in pain and cannot fully enjoy any real quality of life. The right to life and to personal inviolability is therefore affected by the waiting times." (Link here)

The rest of the PNHP article was similarly replete with misinformation which I will expose in even greater depth on my website (I'm working on it!)

Deficits for Dummies

Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the government’s financial bailout programs, says that a series of bailouts, bank rescues and other economic lifelines could end up costing the federal government as much as $23 trillion– a staggering amount that is nearly double the nation’s entire economic output for a year.

Since the unfunded liability for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is triple Mr. Barofsky’s bailout estimate – more than the entire World’s economic output for a year – it’s interesting how Democrats and their enablers in the Main Stream Media avoid mentioning it. On the contrary, faced with Mr. Barofsky’s report and enormous unfunded liabilities, the Democrats want to blow trillions more on healthcare and energy “reform.” Their logic is probably that since their hole is so big, no one will notice they are still digging.

Unfortunately for Obama and his Prosperity Thieves, we will notice when the Democrats’ borrowing and spending causes “stagflation” – the old Carter era word for a stagnant economy coupled with inflation. Our taxes will go up along with unemployment, while tax revenues drop as total income falls. Inflation will eat up our investment values and property values will stall or fall.

Then, to compound the agony, the best healthcare system in the World will be trashed, and our industries and lifestyles will be destroyed in a futile attempt to stop natural climate change. We'll be a little bit warmer as we stand in long lines waiting for rationed healthcare to deny us hip replacement surgery because while we were waiting we became too old or feeble to pass the bureaucratic approval standards: "If you had hip replacement surgery five years ago, you would be OK, but now your body has deteriorated so much because of physical inactivity that an operation would be waste of scarce Universal Healthcare dollars."

Don't tell me this won't happen. I've already seen it happen to my buddy Arthur in England. His scheduled hip replacement was rescheduled year after year because England's National Health Service ran out of funds each year for surgeries to correct "non-life threatening" conditions, until finally a hip replacement wouldn't do him any good because of muscular atrophy.

You're next.

"Folksy Joe" Biden, Humorist

This was the Drudge Report headline link July 17, 2009 to “Folksy Joe” Biden: 'WE HAVE TO SPEND MONEY TO KEEP FROM GOING BANKRUPT'

Here’s what Folksy Joe said at an AARP event in Alexandria, Va.:

“And folks look, AARP knows and the people with me here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable. It’s totally unacceptable. And it’s completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it now. It can’t do it financially.”

“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.

“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”

Just above Folksy Joe’s headline, Drudge linked: CBO: Federal budget is on unsustainable path..., in which the Director of the Congressional Budget Office explained that current spending, and the resultant enormous increase in public debt, has put “…the federal budget … on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run.”

Just above the CBO Director’s report, Drudge linked: UPDATE: Senator quashes department's bid for cartoonist... The Treasury Department had wanted to hire a cartoonist to “… conduct two, 3-hour Humor in the Workplace programs that will discuss the power of humor in the workplace [and] the close relationship between humor and stress.”

The ad was cancelled when they found they didn’t need to hire a humorist, they could just have someone read Folksy Joe’s remarks at their meetings.

Good Ideas for Health Care Reform

There are a lot of good ideas for reforming health care.

Unfortunately, the Democrats don't know any.

Healthcare should be reformed to improve portability, affordability, and availability.

The Democrats, a wholly owned subsidiary of the labor unions, will never bite the bullet for real reform, which simply is to end the exemption of employer-provided healthcare from income taxation.

From my readings of taxation documentation, it is abundantly clear that all compensation is taxable, except that which is excluded by Congress. Why some is excluded has everything to do with politics, and nothing to do with tax equity. The same congress people that mount soapboxes and proclaim their progressive principles never give a thought that exempting employer-provided healthcare is the largest and one of the most regressive special interest tax breaks.

Employees who think they're getting a good deal by having their employers provide healthcare should think again. For example, I worked for Lockheed Corporation after retiring from the Air Force. As a military retiree, I had lifetime medical coverage for myself, my wife, and children until they completed college or turned 18 if they didn't go on to college. Lockheed also insisted on providing me and my family healthcare, and when I told them I was already covered and that they could just pay me what they would be paying for healthcare, they said they didn't work that way. So there I was, getting something of no value to me, getting no use from a "benefit" that had its cost deducted from my compensation. In essence, I was forced to pay hundreds of dollars a month for nothing.

Another example. A Lockheed co-worker had a great offer of employment with a Silicon Valley hi-tech company, but couldn’t take it because his wife had a medical condition that would make it impossible for him to get health insurance when he left Lockheed.

Just at Lockheed there were examples galore of employees not getting full value or control from their Lockheed-provided medical coverage.

Hoever, when you enter the world of the self-employed you find that employees provided health care by their employers don't have a lot to gripe about, since they get tax-subsidized healthcare, and the self-employed don't. To further rub it in, the self-employed also get to help subsidize the healthcare of others through their taxes and their higher healthcare premiums (since they don't have the clout with the insurers of the big employers).

As usual, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute have intensively studied this issue and proposed thoughtful solutions. The Cato proposal of Large Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) would be a perfect reform: it would be portable, flexible, only involve tweaking the existing HSA legislation, and would reintroduce market forces into healthcare to promote competition and affordability.

To learn more, go here for the Cato Institute analysis and proposal, and here for the Heritage Foundation.

You'll never get this information from Democrats or the Main Stream Media because they know that knowledge is power, and to them Americans' ignorance is bliss.

We Beat Global Warming!

"The Group of Eight industrialized nations joined with developing countries in agreeing Wednesday that average global temperatures shouldn't increase by more than 2 degrees Celsius in a significant new acknowledgement in the fight against global warming."

Thirty years of NASA satellite measurement show that, as of June 2009, we are essentially back to the temperatures of 1979. For those wishing to dispute the satellite numbers, they come from the same NASA that gives us James Hansen, the Apostle of Man-Caused Global Warming.

This is wonderful news, since even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has steadily reduced their warming estimates: "In 1996 a new IPCC prediction was for an increase of 0.8 degrees to 3.5 degrees Celsius by 2100 - less than half the warming in twice the time."

This was followed by: "A U.S. government survey of the global climate model literature predicted even less warming - between 0.5 degrees and 2.0 degrees Celsius by 2100."

James Hansen, whose 1988 pronouncements started the clamor for action to prevent global warming, wrote in the 1998 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that "the forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with accuracy sufficient to define future climate change."

Now Hansen is even more forthright:

Urging caution regarding “implausible” and “unduly pessimistic” IPCC climate scenarios, NASA’s Hansen opts for observations to guide his forecasts of a 0.75ºC temperature rise by the year 2050.

NASA’s James Hansen, who is widely credited as being the “father of global warming” recently wrote that the climate change scenarios put forth in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR) “may be unduly pessimistic,” and that the IPCC extreme scenarios are “implausible.” In fact, he argues, the observed trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane concentrations for the past several years fall below all IPCC scenarios, so consequently future temperature rise will most like be about 0.75ºC during the next 50 years.

Hansen makes these claims in articles including “Defusing the Global Warming Time Bomb,” which appeared in the March Scientific American. He bases his conclusions on simple empirical evidence that he considers more precise and reliable than model results “because it includes all the processes operating in the real world, even those we have not yet been smart enough to include in the models.”

Mr. Hansen, I'm sure you have his number, so would be so kind as to tell Mr. Gore all this so we can get on to solving real problems?

Like Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security unfunded liabilities of over $80 trillion, and they come due long before 2100.

Al Gore's Twenty Feet-In-Mouth Problem

Going shopping with Al.


Some things are so obvious they're hard to see.

For example, the most dramatic part of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" was the scenes of flooded city streets and the ominous prediction of a 20-foot rise in sea levels by 2100. According to Al, this was the most damaging aspect of global warming, and the reason that "Something must be done, and it must be done now!"

Al continues to beat the panic drum, now comparing inaction on stopping global warming to inaction on stopping Nazi Germany. And the reason we must do it now, of course, is that awful flooding is eminent.

What else could make us join his march to save the world at great expense and loss of economic progress? The threat that the growing season will be longer? That crops will grow better and make better use of water resources? That the thundering herds that voted for global warming with their feet by moving south won't have to move as far now? That the world may become as warm as during the Holocene Climate Optimum of 5,000 to 9,000 years ago, when civilization began and thrived?

Maybe Al intends to rally us to the cry, "Turn back the Industrial Revolution!" He wants us to repudiate the mastery of energy that enabled us to transition from man power, t0 animal power, then wind and water power, and now to the unlimited, inexhaustible power of the atom.

To do that, Al knows that he has only one threat capable of generating unthinking panic. Just as in the Bible God sent The Deluge, Al has invoked The Sea Rise. And just as God had to get the deed done quickly - make it rain for forty days and forty nights - so Al too must make the future bleak, if not for ourselves then for our grandchildren.

A twenty-foot rise in a hundred years should do the trick.

However, Al has a problem, the snowline altitude.

The snowline altitude is the altitude of the lowest elevation interval in which minimum annual snow cover exceeds 50%. This ranges from about 5,500 metres above sea-level at the equator down to sea level at about 70° N&S latitude, depending on regional temperature amelioration effects. Permafrost then appears at sea level and extends deeper below sea level polewards.

As most of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lie above the snowline and/or base of the permafrost zone, they cannot melt in a timeframe much less than several millennia; therefore it is likely that they will not, through melting, contribute significantly to sea level rise in the coming century. They can, however, do so through acceleration in flow and enhanced iceberg calving.

The fact that the Antarctica and Greenland snowlines will prevent rapid ice cap melt for thousands of years is so obvious that it is easy to overlook. Right, Al?



Without the rapid and massive melting of these ice caps, sea level increases will largely be limited to the thermal expansion of the oceans. As any fool soon learns from comparing the volume of the oceans to the solar energy necessary to drive expansion, this too is a long, slow process.

This is not to deny that sea levels rise during warming, since it has been often mentioned in my previous blog posts that they have risen over 400 feet in the past 18,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age, an average of two feet per century. My point in constantly revisiting this is that previous greater warming of much greater ice sheets did not produce the sea level increases predicted by Apolcalyptic Al.

If not then, why now, Al?

The Government Giveth, Then Taketh Away

The following appeared at the end of a news article about how rural Democrat legislators felt their concerns were being ignored by the Obama Administration and Democrat leaders. In particular, the Democrat’s energy bill would greatly increase the cost of electricity in rural areas, which get roughly 80 percent of their electricity from coal-fired power plants.

It will cost every North Carolinian somewhere in the neighborhood of $2,400 to $3,000 a year in just the electrical surcharge,” said Sen. Richard Burr, a Republican who hails from a state Obama carried last year and would like to win again. “That’s a surcharge larger than their annual electric bill.”

A White House official said the administration is committed to alleviating any disproportionate burden on rural states. “The president has been clear that if there is a disparate impact on certain regions during the transition period, families and businesses should be compensated — the Waxman-Markey legislation includes provisions that do just that,” the official said.

That’s the same thing we say in California about our budget problems. If we have to take money from the schools, we’ll make it up later. If California has to borrow tax revenues from cash-strapped counties and cities, California will pay it back as soon as possible.

I remember Popeye’s buddy Wimpy would approach Rough-House, the owner and operator of The Rough House Café, and importune him: “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”

Or the fellow who constantly wined and dined a beautiful señorita, then reported to his friends that: “She said she’d love me mañana, but mañana never came.”

So it is with the Democrat leadership. They’ll take care of the people – if there are no other more “important” things that need to be taken care of first.

In California, that comes down to just being able to pay the bills as they come due.

With the trillions being spent in Washington, D.C., I’ll bet that not being able to pay the bills is going to cause a lot of promises to be broken.

Global Climate Change in United States - Don’t look at the man behind the curtain!

The Washington Post highlighted the work of government scientists: Climate Change Already Affecting U.S., by David A. Fahrenthold, Washington Post Staff Writer, June 16, 2009. The government report the Post examined, "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States," covers much of the same ground as previous analyses from U.S. and United Nations science panels. It finds that greenhouse-gas emissions are "primarily" responsible for global warming and that rapid action is needed to avert catastrophic shifts in water, heat and natural life.”

In other words, it’s nothing new, except the Democrats need something to help them pass their mammoth bill to impose a cap on emissions, and government scientists and the Washington Post are eager to help.

An excerpt from the report concerning sea level rise caught my attention, since Al Gore has predicted that sea levels will rise twenty feet by 2100.

Sea levels have been rising along most of the U.S. coast over the past 50 years, increasing up to eight inches in some places. That trend is expected to continue as warmer temperatures melt glaciers and cause the ocean to expand like a wooden door on a hot day. Some of the worst-hit areas are expected to be along the East Coast, owing to a confluence of rising seas and subsiding land. Seas might rise 2.3 feet near New York City and 2.9 feet in Hampton Roads.

I found it interesting that in the past 50 years sea levels increased “up to eight inches in some places.” Why “in some places,” instead of in all places? Could the answer be found in the “subsiding land?”

As all should know, but apparently few do, sea level rise is natural, not unusual. Since the end of the last Ice Age, a mere 18,000 years ago, sea levels have risen over 400 feet, or an average of over two feet per century. Since the end of the Little Ice Ages in 1850, the average increase has been seven inches per century. If the trend “in some places” in the past 50 years continues, that would be about 16 inches for a century. How much of that is sea levels rising, and how much is subsidence?

I delved into the underlying report for an answer and found this:

Significant sea-level rise and storm surge will adversely affect coastal cities and ecosystems around the nation; low-lying and subsiding areas are most vulnerable.

High rates of relative sea-level rise have already resulted in the loss of 1,900 square miles of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands during the past century, weakening their capacity to absorb the storm surge of hurricanes such as Katrina. Shoreline retreat is occurring along most of the nation’s exposed shores. Recent estimates of global sea-level rise are 3 to 4 feet in this century, with higher relative sea-level rise in areas where the land is subsiding (sinking), including most of the Atlantic Coast and Gulf Coast of the United States.

There it is! Look to Louisiana for proof! So let’s do just that.

At “Wetland Loss In Louisiana,” we find that global warming is not the problem, and that the problem began over 200 years ago as “wetlands in the United States have been drained, dredged, filled, leveled and flooded for urban, agricultural, and residential development (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Because of these activities, 22 states have lost 50% or more of their original wetlands. The problem in Louisiana is somewhat different–wetland growth and deterioration have been naturally occurring here for thousands of years.”

Simply stated, the sediment deposited on the Mississippi River delta naturally compacts under its own weight and subsides. Before channels were straightened and confined with levies, newly added layers of sediment compensated for compaction and subsidence. However, manmade alterations stopped this natural process long before the specter of global warming was raised.

The same process has been identified in other deltas, such as Bangladesh, where efforts to control flooding have caused flooding problems to worsen as natural compaction and subsidence expose low-lying shores to storm surges. The storms are no stronger or frequent, and the sea level increases are normal and natural, but the natural storm barriers are not being replenished.

This apocalyptic government scientist report trumpeted by the Washington Post takes an effect – sea level increases – and assigns it an erroneous cause – manmade global warming. Sea levels are rising naturally, and have been at varying rates for the past 18,000 years. The current rate of rising sea levels has not increased, even though natural climate change has caused the United States temperature to increase about one degree Fahrenheit in the last century.

The rest of the report displays the usual unwarranted alarmism about normal climate change. It’s like the government scientists and Washington Post reporter and editors were born yesterday, and their only instructor about weather was Al Gore.

Liberals Use Statistics to Lie About California Taxes

In fact, California ranks 18th among the states in percentage of personal income paid to state government, and its presumably beleaguered wealthiest 1 percent, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, pays just 7.4 percent of their income to the state, while the poorest Californians pay 10.2 percent.

So prattles Harold Meyerson, in a May 29, 2009 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, How the Golden State got tarnished.

To take the second part of Meyerson’s statement first, the Citizens for Tax Justice table he referenced was updated, and he overlooked the update. Instead of 10.2 % for the poor, and 7.4% for the rich, the table shows an effective tax rate for the poorest 20% of 11.1%, and 7.8% for the wealthiest 1%.

Meyerson conveniently overlooks some details in the study which aid him in distorting its results. The study says the wealthiest 1% only pay 7.8%, that is arrived at by deducting a "federal reduction offset" of 2.4% from the 10.2% the rich actually pay, which apparently adjusts the tax rate of the rich for the federal taxes saved by paying state taxes and itemizing deductions.

The poor only pay 0.1% percent of their "income" for income tax, but about 7% for sales and excise taxes. What the study doesn't even hint at is that the poorest 20% receive untaxed transfer payments (food stamps, rent subsidies, aid to dependent children, WIC, etc., plus their own "federal reduction offset," the Earned Income Tax Credit) that usually more than double their "income," but which are not reflected in their "base" for wealth and cost comparisons such as tax equity. Also this lowest 20% rarely pay federal income taxes (and get more back than is withheld), and often don't pay FICA/Medicare either.

As is the case with most of these agenda-serving studies, the author compared apples to oranges and produced a lemon.

Now for the first part. Meyerson apparently found a table he liked that showed Californians are 18th in the percentage of personal income paid to state government. However: "At 8.25%, California has the highest state sales tax, which can total up to 10.25% with local sales tax included."

Another table shows that California has the 2nd highest personal income tax rate at 9.3%, slightly lower than Vermont's 9.5% (although the California rate can be higher because some local governments can add taxes).

Then I found a table that showed California #9 in per capita state taxes paid. Interestingly, I found that Wyoming was #2, ranked higher than California even though Wyoming had a much lower sales tax, no personal or corporate income taxes, and lower gas and cigarette taxes. What's the story here?

The answer surprised me, and showed me how some analysts used statistics to pull the wool over over taxpayer eyes. Wyoming produces a lot of coal and gas, and is paid royalties by the companies that extract it. These royalties are lumped into the state tax receipts, then the total is divided by the Wyoming popultation, making it look like Wyoming folks are among the highest taxed in the nation when the opposite is true. This also appears in statistics for other resouces rich states like Alaska, South Dakota, and Louisiana, and makes states like California look like they are not taxed as highly in comparison.

As a Californian born and raised, I know we pay a lot of California taxes. Our problem is not that California taxes us too little, but that California spends too much, particularly on entitlement programs. Some Californians want that to continue, and feel that Californians, particularly the wealthy, should be taxed even more. Apparently they think California has a captive tax base, even as wealthy Californians and businesses move to more tax-friendly environs.

I'm sure as our tax base shrinks because of this exodus, our Liberal brain trust will answer by proposing even higher taxes. And wait for Obama to bail California out.

Nancy Pelosi Must Investigate Her CIA Allegations

Nancy Pelosi said the CIA lied to her and Congress in briefings concerning waterboarding. What is she doing about it?

She can’t be doing nothing. Congress can’t be doing nothing. Congress must investigate all serious allegations of misconduct by the CIA, especially since Congress has CIA oversight responsibilities. In this case, the person bringing the allegation, the Speaker of the House, is the person in Congress most involved with security responsibilities.

Can she accuse the CIA of lying to her, and then not investigate? Even if she says she can, Congress can’t. Lying to Congress is a criminal offense and such allegations must be pursued.

It’s not a matter of choice, it’s the law.

Solar Bottom Line is Bottomless Pit

Obama poses before a bottomless money pit, also known as the huge solar installation at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada

The New York Times has a Green Inc. section, motto: Energy, the Environment and the Bottom Line. In a May 27, 2009 article, Obama Touts Clean Energy Achievements, by Kate Galbraith, the clean energy achievement being touted by Obama was the 140-acre, 70,000 solar panel installation at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. The cost of this monument to taxpayer waste is $100 million to provide Nellis with about 30 percent of its electrical needs at a savings of $1.2 million per annum. Doing the math, that's an 83-year payback period, except that "Solar panels have an effective lifespan of about 20 to 25 years, and their value and wattage output decrease steadily over time."

In other words, there is no pay-back for the Nellis solar-cell investment. The Bottom Line is that the government has paid $100 million and will receive back approximately $20 million in value, for a loss of over $80 million (the solar-cell installation will have operating costs in addition to the initial investment, and these operating costs will increase the net loss).

In 20 to 25 years the solar panels will need replacement at a cost of $100 million, ignoring inflation, and will then probably be providing only 20 percent of Nellis' power needs unless Nellis is closed, shrunk, or defies modern trends and holds the line on power consumption.

If you still believe solar power is the answer, you're a Democrat or a fool (please excuse the redundancy).

UPDATE: Writing of Democrats and fools, the Nevada Democrat website reported Obama's visit to Nellis' solar extravaganza, and there I find that savings will be "almost a million dollars a year," so it's even worse than I initially reported. It seems Democrats would be trying to hide this from public view instead of publicizing it. Apparently they think everyone is as challenged mathematically as they and Obama. But let's make this very easy for them: $100 million cost divided by $1 million saved per year equals 100 years to recover the cost. Except solar cells must be replaced every 20 to 25 years.

And our President is happy about this!

CO2 Tail Can't Wag Climate Change Dog

A May 15 letter to our local weekly paper, the Independent Coast Observer of Gualala, California, referred to one of my letters and began: “A previous letter falsely stated that increased CO2 concentrations can’t initiate a warming trend.” The writer then followed this by admitting that the Vostok ice core samples proved that solar cycles initiated previous temperature increases and subsequent CO2 rise (an inconvenient truth Al Gore got backwards), “but that is not the case in our present warming trend.”

That’s false. Our current warming trend began over 400 years ago, long before atmospheric CO2 increased significantly (Moberg et al, published in Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613 - 617, 10 February 2005). From the end of the Little Ice Ages, approximately 1860, until 1940, the global temperature increased about 0.6º C. From 1940 to present, it’s only increased 0.4º C, and the Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere from January 1979 through April 2009 has only increased 0.2º C. The past four years show a cooling trend; 2008 was the 14th coldest year of the past 30, and 2009 could be even colder.

Returning to the Vostok ice core samples, they not only proved solar intensity initiated warming and subsequent CO2 increases, but equally as important showed that increased CO2 levels do not prevent cooling. That’s right. In every instance, as CO2 remained high, cooling began, and then CO2 levels decreased as the cooling oceans absorbed it.

These facts make logical sense. CO2 is only four percent of greenhouse gases, compared to water vapor which is over 90%, and it would be foolish to attribute warming to a trace gas instead of to the extensively documented prowess of the sun. Solar fluctuations result in heating and cooling of the oceans, and the warmer or cooler oceans release or absorb CO2.

The CO2 tail can’t wag the climate change dog.

Joe Biden, Our "Jubilation T. Cornpone"

With our ammunition gone, and faced with utter defeat,
Who was it that burned the crops, and left us nothing to eat?

The answer, of course, was General Jubilation T. Cornpone; immortalized in song in the Broadway and later movie musical, "Li'l Abner."

General Jubilation T. Cornpone was the closest Li'l Abner's hometown, Dogpatch, came to producing a Civil War hero.

When we almost had 'em but the issue still was in doubt,
Who suggested the retreat that turned it into a rout?

Vice-President Joe Biden is well on his way to showering the same sort of glory on his home town, Scranton, Pennsylvania, and on the state he represented almost adequately in Congress, Delaware.

When it seemed like our brave boys would keep on fighting for months,
Who took pity on them and ca-pit-u-lated at once?

His latest in a long and unending stream of gaffes was delivered on a formerly national television news morning show on NBC, where no one would have noticed except Matt Drudge picked it up. Drudge has devoted almost all of his incredibly influential blog to the swine flu pandemic, and when Joe Biden announced that he advised against Americans traveling by subway or plane, he threw an authoritative note of panic onto our already very fragile economy. In a few moments, with a few ill-chosen careless remarks, he sabotaged the calm, business-like atmosphere that more responsible leaders were trying to establish.

Who went re-con-noiter-ing to flank the enemy's rear,
Circled through the piney woods, and disappeared for a year?

In effect, as more capable leaders were saying that it was mild and that there was no need to panic, there was good old Joe saying in essence, "If I were you, I'd panic."

Thanks, Joe. You're always there when needed least.

Though he's gone to his reward, his mighty torch is still lit.
First in war. First in peace. First to holler, "I quit!"

Joe Biden and Miss California Should Both Resign

"It’s time for Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean, to turn in her crown or get fired." So says John Tantillo, Marketing Expert/Founder and President, Marketing Department of America, in Miss California USA Should Quit or Be Fired, and he's right.

As Mr. Tantillo clearly explains, Miss Prejean should not resign or be fired because of her position on gay marriage, but because by stating that position in the way she did she was not upholding the "Brand" of Miss USA.

And he's right. We wouldn't hire someone to be the president of Harley-Davidson if the candidate was on record stating that motorcycles are an extremely dangerous and wasteful form of transportation. And Miss USA represents a product, one which is incompatible with the personal views Miss Prejean presented.

It's not politics, it's marketing.



Now we observe Joe Biden, Vice-President of the United States. Even more than a Miss America, Mr. Biden represents a product, and does it badly. Just as with Miss California, Joe's supporters can say that he is just being honest. And just as he did with Miss California, Mr. Tantillo could say that Joe Biden, since he can't be fired, should resign.

Joe, the Vice-President of the United States doesn't tell Americans not to take subways and aircraft when the medical threat is small and the economy is hurting enough already. I can't say I thought you were smarter than that, because I was amazed you got the job, knowing how prone you are to saying these sorts of dumb things.



No Joe, you're meeting expectations, which is reason enough to call on you to resign.

We Republicans will miss you, Joe.

Democrats will sigh their relief, and say, "Joe who?"

Global Warming: Gore Confuses Coincidence with Cause

Al Gore has made great use of a coincidence that the end of the Little Ice Ages, approximately 1850, and the natural increase in global temperatures coincided with the early stages of the Industrial Age and increased atmospheric CO2.

However, simply researching climate changes during the past 20,000 years shows that our current warming is modest, includes periods of cooling as CO2 increased, and correlates closely with solar fluctuations, not with CO2. Al's famous "hockey stick" has been totally discredited as it omitted the Little Ice Ages and the Medieval Warming Period. Even Al's guru James Hansen let him down, as NASA revised its temperature record for the past 100 years to reflect that six of the ten warmest years were over 50 years ago.

Al Gore has already made millions, and stands to make millions more, if Congress passes "cap and trade" legislation (learn about it here). The only approach to climate change that makes sense is adaptation, not expensive and vain efforts to reverse natural (and overwhelming) climate forces. Although the Earth is usually much warmer and polar ice free, at this moment in vast geological time we are in a rare ice age, and it looks like we will be plunging back into a period of true catastrophe, global cooling, before we in millions of years return to a "normal" Earth ten to twenty five degrees Fahrenheit warmer than present.

We should never confuse "coincidence" with "cause and effect."

Ant Breaking Wind in Hurricane

What is the sound of an ant breaking wind in a hurricane?

I think the California Air Resouces Board just duplicated it.

The Air Resources Board adopts a landmark regulation expected to slash gasoline consumption by 25% and encourage development of low-carbon fuel sources for cars and trucks.

Ethanol is a proven disaster, causing food prices to increase while releasing copious quantities of greenhouse gases (which I care not about), guzzling scarce water resources, and costing more in energy to produce than it delivers in usable energy.

Other biofuels are just as bad or worse, demanding water, land clearing, fertilizers, and burning lots of coal to produce electricity to make biofuels.

Hydrogen as a fuel is even worse, requiring even more electricity while delivering very little in useful product. Hydrogen at its best will be a totally impractical fuel for transporation.

My state, California, as usual leads the way in idiotic approaches to solving the problems of the future.

And as usual, most of the other states will follow California in a stampede of idiocy.

Idiots, like birds, flock together.

Pelosi and Democrats: "Ignorance is bliss"

Nancy Pelosi said she and the Democrats didn't know about waterboarding. However, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) reported that he saw a list of Republicans and Democrats that were briefed on waterboarding.

Pelosi's excuse? She says that members who receive classified briefings are powerless to act on them...so they skip them!

Now we know why they don't seem to know anything.

It's not just because they're dumb.

They're ignorant by choice.

Berkeley Kicks Out Its Poor

Berkeley has come up with a plan (Hot debate ahead on Berkeley's energy plans, Carolyn Jones, Chronicle Staff Writer, Saturday, April 18, 2009) to rid itself of poor homeowners and earn the applause of Liberals for “fighting global warming.” When Berkeley mandates that all homes meet strict energy standards, at a cost per home of $33,800 or more, poor homeowners will be forced to sell out and move away. Wealthy buyers will benefit from the forced sales, and the poor sellers’ homes will have lost value equal to the cost of compliance with the new standards. The poor will be forced to sell their homes at lower values, in effect paying the costs to meet the new standards for the wealthy buyers.

What a deal! Berkeley upgrades the economic status of its residents, increases its property tax base, and becomes the darling of global warming activists. Berkeley’s greenhouse gas reductions will be less than the increase from a new Chinese coal-fired plant in its first week of operation, but as with all liberals, it’s the gesture that counts.

UPDATE: Just after I posted this, I found a new Chronicle report that Berkeley was having second thoughts about the wording of their 145-page Climate Action Plan (Berkeley councilors: Home upgrades not required). Apparently Berkeley now is saying that the word "require" in its plan should be replaced with "set a goal." That's a welcome and unexpected sign of sanity on the part of some Berkeley politicians, but it leads me to wonder what that does to "The Plan." The obvious answer is that it pretty well voids it, since the things that Berkeley says are essential to meet its goal to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions by 80 percent won't be happening.

But the poor of Berkeley are not out of the woods yet. There still may be compliance costs - the sum of $10,000 was mentioned - required when the "home is sold or remodeled."

But most at City Hall agreed that Berkeley will continue to aggressively crusade for environmental improvements.

"We're not backing off this," Marks said. "We're very certain we're going to have to get there."

I'm very certain that Berkeley is not going "to get there" by backing off their "Plan," but then again I'm absolutely certain that Berkeley wasn't going to accomplish anything anyway, no matter if they shut Berkeley down completely. Certainly there must be at least one person in Berkeley who will tell the rest that Berkeley is an unmeasurable blip in greenhouse gas emmissions. Even if Kyoto had been totally implemented successfully, the reduction in global temperatures would have been an unmeasurable 0.07 degree Centigrade. Somehow the Senate was bright enough to recognize that and voted 95-0 to not ratify Kyoto, even with Bill Clinton and Al Gore as President and Vice-President.

However, I'm sure that Berkeley will declare its "Climate Action Plan" a complete success, because to liberals, it's the gesture that counts.

Hot and Wet

Anthropogenic global warming alarmists are strident and misuse “undeniable,” “unprecedented,” and “catastrophic.” However, man-caused global warming is easily deniable, there are hundreds of natural precedents to our current warming, and previous cold periods, not warm ones, have been catastrophic for mankind. During the past 300 million years, about 90 percent of the time the Earth was much warmer than today. Even in the comparatively cooler Jurassic Period (199.6 to 145.5 million years ago) there was no polar ice. Glaciers on Antarctica didn’t form until almost 35 million years ago.

Naturally, warmer Earth had much higher sea levels; today’s are near the lowest ever, 400 to 1,000 feet below “normal.” If we had “normal” sea levels now, Gualala Ridge would be atop an island or submerged.

For more than half of the past 299 million years the Earth has averaged over 20º F warmer, and our present cool climate is the exception. In fact, the Holocene Climate Optimum, only 9,000 to 5,000 years ago, averaged over 4º F warmer than today. The Medieval Warm Period, 900 to 1350 AD, was also significantly warmer. Tree and snow lines were 1,000 feet higher, crops flourished, and civilizations advanced rapidly. Then the Little Ice Ages, 1350 to 1850 AD, featured severe storms, droughts, crop failures, plague, and the collapse of civilizations. Global cooling, not warming, would cause a “collapse of our lives.”

Fortunately for humanity, the Earth will normally be much warmer. Unfortunately, in the short term we’re going to plunge back into an Ice Age. Since six of the ten hottest years were over fifty years ago, the warmest year was 1934, and we have and are experiencing cooling as CO2 rises, it doesn’t look like we’ll be able to escape global cooling by pumping up greenhouse gases.

Hang on to your warm coat!

Another Right-Wing Extremist

Today Alice and I celebrate our minority status: we're part of the shrinking minority that actually pays income taxes. The majority that pays no income taxes is growing rapidly, and they vote Democrat.

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. Alexis de Tocqueville

Rather, the American Republic will endure until Congress creates a majority that pays no taxes, and rewards them by redistributing the wealth of the tax-paying minority to the majority.

This is analogous to two wolves and a lamb voting on what they're having for dinner.

I would have been joining a Tea Party protest today except we were traveling the past week. We just returned home in time for me to stay up very late last night and to work many hours today so I could submit an extension request for filing our income taxes. So far it looks like we're at a break-even point - what we already paid is about what we owe.

Still, I have a lot more work ahead before I can submit our final tax return.

As I typed and griped, and sorted and analyzed our many tax records and documents, I noticed that my attitudes about big government waste and intrusion, plus my status as a military veteran - a retired one at that - put me on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's "rightwing extremist" list.

Ms. Napolitano, I can give you names of hundreds of others who proudly served our nation and are critical of wasteful and oppressive big government. We haven't been in hiding. We were very open in our military service, and we've been up front in exercising our constitutional right to freedom of speech.

Ms. Napolitano, I'll bet that you were very critical of investigations for Muslim extremism after 9/11 - you probably called it a "witch hunt" or "McCarthyism" - but you think it's OK to smear veterans and big-government critics.

Ms. Napolitano, I know you won't investigate left-wing extremists with the same zeal as right wingers like me.

Rest assured, Ms. Napolitano, I'll make it easy for you to find me.