40 Good Reasons to Elect Mitt Romney

In a previous blog, I wrote about 36 good reasons to defeat Obama in this election.  Now is my chance to write 40 good reasons to elect Mitt Romney (now that we've seen the first debate).   Yes, I see where Mitt is adjusting some of his positions, but I'm seeing more of what I want to see.   See for yourself:

1. Romney is someone who has started a business, a business that specializes in business turnarounds.  It's just what America needs.  We need a turnaround specialist.
2. He is a typical Mormon: squeaky clean, doesn't drink alcohol, industrious, and salt-of-the-earth.  They don't call Utah the 'beehive' state for nothing.   He's not a Chicago political animal or 'pawn'.
3. Massachusetts has the highest ranked public school system in the country. Romney must know something about that since he was governor from 2002 to end of 2006.  It's clear that he had some role in that high ranking as policies tend to bear fruit well after they are implemented.
4. Romney's right, $90 billion in "support" to Solar energy or "Green energy" companies would have hired a lot of teachers!  
5. He understands that increasing business regulation in a recession or near-recession (EPA for instance) is the wrong thing.
6. He understands that raising taxes on businesses and individuals in a recession, or near-recession is the wrong thing to do.  There has been no appetite at all in Congress for new taxes for the past 4 years.  Only Obama himself is repeatedly calling for more taxes. None have passed except the taxes associated with ObamaCare.
7. He understands the way forward is true tax reform to lower top marginal rates and lower some taxes while reducing tax credits and deductions to spur final demand (stimulative) while cutting government spending at the same time (contractionary).  The intent is a "pro-growth" policy position and will be a delicate balancing act.  He's correct in that only growth will solve the current budget imbalance.
8. Romney understands that the European emphasis on tax increases (less or no emphasis on spending cuts) where applied in Spain and Greece, have further hurt growth and have lowered tax revenues even further.  It's become clear that their budgets will never balance in that approach.  France is trying only taxation-which is failing in the same way before it even starts.  It's a vicious downward spiral.  Obama is prescribing France's approach.
9. Romney's correct that raising the top individual marginal rate affects a large number of small businesses who file as Sub-chapter S on their tax returns.  A higher top marginal rate puts an extra burden on those businesses who happen to employ a large number of people and may hire more. Conversely, a lower top marginal rate lowers small business burdens and will help this group.
10. He's promised to end an era of near-infinite free and 'easy' money, dollar debasement and end the massive monetary "experiment" being conducted by the Federal Reserve by replacing Bernanke. Normalizing interest rates is the correct thing to do to help savers and prevent more market bubbles and the subsequent bursting of bubbles.  (The gov't created the housing and personal debt bubbles that got us into our current mess and subsequent 'fixes' are adding more mistakes)
11. He's correct about the immorality of passing massive and mounting debts to the next generation(s).
12. He's correctly understands that the EPA has gone way beyond the Clean Air Act which doesn't include regulating carbon dioxide.  (CO2 is still a measly 0.038% in atmosphere or 380 parts per million, is required by plants and is hardly a threat to human health!  Exhaled human breath contains 40,0000 parts per million or 4% CO2!)
13. He's against the war against coal and against Obama's plan to force coal power plants to shut down (and replace with what?).  It might all be a moot point since natural gas is so cheap now.
14. He's correct that Solar power is not currently a "real" solution to our energy needs. Romney doesn't have a "fetish" for "green" energy.   He's a realist.  He's a businessman, not an academic.
15. He's for the Keystone Pipeline and the resulting improved energy alliance with Canada. This approach enhances US national and energy security
16. He's promised to increase energy exploration in the lower 48 and Alaska unlike the current administration. He's correctly called out the current administration for actually reducing drilling permits on Federal land (about 40% reduction).  However, he didn't 'gig' Obama on his over-reaching Gulf of Mexico drilling ban that was over-turned by a Federal judge as "too broad."  Because of the overly broad ban, drilling rigs in the Gulf left..  That's why oil and gas production declined on Federal Lands in the year after the ban.
17. He's correctly pointed out that gas production has risen on private land and fallen on Federal lands (offshore).  Oil production would have risen much more if it hadn't been for the drilling ban.  Obama tried to claim that he's a big supporter of oil and gas when he's anything but. 
18. He's against the "sequestration cuts" of defense as if defense were a "pawn" in some political game. Obama, like European socialists, really wants to cut defense to spend more on "redistribution."  Think Europe where there is hardly any defense capability remaining AND their budgets and debt levels are still sky high.  There's no end to their spending!  Yes, unlike Mitt, I believe that defense spending needs to be reduced responsibly.
19. He's against cap and trade at this time. Capping emissions won't do enough, so why bother?
20. He's correctly called-out the NLRB as an example of an anti-business policy.
21. He's correctly argued about the folly of "Trickle-Down" government
22. He's correctly exposed government "investment" as largely a waste of money.  The idea of the Government picking winners and losers is the free market is wrong-headed.  
23. He's for State's rights
24. He's for letting The States be the "laboratory" for new policy including moving toward universal health coverage.
25. Devolving as many programs to The States as possible is a good idea.
26. He's proven to be able to work with both Republicans and Democrats in Massachusetts where the legislature was dominated by 87% Democratic majority.
27. He's right about repatriating jobs from Asia (getting 'tough' with China) and improving trade is a priority to help US growth.  It's probably too late to call China a "currency manipulator." However, it may bring them to the bargaining table for a change.
28. He believes that free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity.  
29. He knows more government programs of redistribution beyond our current entitlement programs is mostly wrong-headed.
30. He's correct about the need to focus on cost control for Medical costs (see controlling medical costs in the link)---it's killing everybody!  ObamaCare, with no effort to reduce costs, has and will lead to much higher costs and higher premiums.  You can't increase demand on the existing 'system' without increasing supply and expect prices not to go up!  Personally, I'm hiding out in Thailand due to rising medical costs in the US.
31. Repeal or modification of ObamaCare will likely reverse some of the cost increases/cost pressures.
32. Romney is right in that people are going to be shocked at the future cost of medical care under ObamaCare.   The cost shock was always put off to the 2nd term presumably because it would be "politically inconvenient" if the true costs were known in Obama's first term!  Well, they are only now becoming clear.
33. He's correct in calling out the President that the $716 billion cut in Medicare which will fund ObamaCare is a mirage. That magnitude of cuts can not be made in "reducing overpayments" or improvements in "efficiency".  Because it's a mirage, it won't be done and the deficit will rise.
34. A voucher system for distributing Medicare benefits seems like a sane way of managing uncontrolled spending and subsequent price increases. Government is largely causing medical cost inflation because government spending is out of control.  It can't continue out of control.  
35. He knows how to restore confidence in the US Gov't debt market by reforming the cost trajectory of Medicare and other entitlement programs.  Obama hasn't really lifted a finger. He's all talk and no action.
36. Romney's right, if we have to borrow from China (or worse, let the Federal Reserve 'print' more money by buying gov't debt!!), then we need to seriously consider a cut.
37. An un-elected board to limit or ration medical care--that is ultimately unaccountable to elected officials--is not the right way to go either.   Romney's right, limiting government spending with vouchers and providing choice in a marketplace is better.
38. Romney correctly reported that the CBO itself has said that 10's of millions of people to lose their medical policies at their work under ObamaCare--whereas Obama has always claimed that you'll get to keep your existing policies.   It's not true.  I wouldn't be able to keep my preference for a high-deductible policy!
39. Romney's right, doctor's are leaving in droves to escape ObamaCare.  So, Obama's claim that you'll be able to keep your doctor is in doubt.
40. He's correct that Dodd Frank has institutionalized the largest banks as "too big to fail" and that it hasn't solved taxpayer liability to the big banks.   Romney's mentioned bank leverage limits and for complete transparency in the debate.  Dodd-Frank with it's 1000s of pages of trying to out-think bankers with an attempt at detailed and prescriptive regulation won't work.  Bankers will figure out ways around it.
41. Romney's right, Obama has been a hyper-partisan instead of a "uniter".  The way ObamaCare was pushed through without bipartisan input, in the middle of the night, under a phony rush, without anyone reading it, the"waivers", the "bribes" to Democratic senators to coerce them to vote for the ObamaCare "administrative nightmare" was the worst spectacle in lawmaking in modern history.
42. Romney's right, that "the right answer is not to have the federal government take over health care and start mandating to the providers across America, telling a patient and a doctor what kind of treatment they can have.  That's the wrong way to go. The private market and individual responsibility always work best."

US Election Season Media Madness

Here's a headline on Newsweek proclaiming Obama is "poised" to be another Ronald Reagan, tackling the deficit, spearheading immigration and jolting the GOP back to sanity.

Andrew Sullivan  must have drank too much of that LSD-laced Kool Aid!  The editors of Newsweek must have had some as well.

Let me get this straight, given that Obama's current record is a dismal failure despite having a super-majority in both houses of Congress for much of his administration, now we're going to project fabulous "miracles" for his second term? The Obama idolatry continues.

Get ready for more gridlock and more of the same.  IF he's re-elected, the best case for Obama is a House controlled by the Republicans and the Democratic majority in the Senate is reduced.  His worse case is for both the Senate and House controlled by the Republicans.   Each scenario spells continued gridlock.

So, with gridlock in place, Obama is going to lift a finger to tackle the deficit?    Obama has racked up $5 TRILLION in debt and hasn't had a serious budget during his ENTIRE first administration.  Under what fantasy would you expect something to change during the next term (except under the duress of a major financial crisis)?  When it comes to the deficit and spending, this president in particular is extremely un-serious about spending control.  He has exposed himself to be one of the most trivial thinkers ever--making a few trivial proposals to cut spending by a couple of million as the nation is drowning in 1000s of Billions in debt.

Obama, unlike Bill Clinton, has also proven that he is incapable of working with Republicans.  Passing of ObamaCare with no Republican support and barely enough Democratic support proves that point.  It was only severe arm twisting and give-aways to Democratic Senators were required for the law to barely pass.  Remember how it was rushed through, passed in the middle of the night, before anyone could read it?   Presumably if they read it they wouldn't have voted for it.  All of this was to give their "messiah", "the anointed one", one victory.

With a 60 seat majority in the Senate and a majority in the House, Obama could have easily passed Immigration reform.  He didn't. I'm supposed to believe that he will do something next time with less of a majority position?  Nonsense.  He didn't do anything to help the economy after 2009 either.

And jolting the GOP back to sanity??  I think I know projection when I see it.  It's liberals and the liberal media, and their emotional attachment to their false idol,  is the real insanity that needs a jolt.

I knew Ronald Reagan.   Obama is no Ronald Reagan.  

Washington DC Suburbs: Wealthiest and Gaining

If you ever needed any evidence that there is a feeding frenzy at the Federal "trough" for lobbyists, lawyers, politicians, and "politically connected" in Washington DC, look at the American Community Survey for 2011.

In an article in the Washington Post, they reviewed the 2011 American Community Survey which found that

Seven out of ten of the wealthiest counties in the entire United States are in the Washington DC area. Incomes gained in nearly all areas around Washington while incomes were sinking in the rest of the country.

What would you expect as Federal spending is out of control and oversight is becoming non-existent? Meanwhile incomes in the rest of the nation are declining.

In commentary from the Chicago Sun-Times,

The 2011 American Community Survey just released by the Census Bureau found that seven of the 10 counties with the highest household incomes are not located around our capitals of commerce and finance such as New York or Chicago but around the nation’s capital.

“Household incomes rose in most counties around Washington last year, even as they continued to sink around the country,” the Washington Post reported in summarizing the survey.

Yes, the system is rigged under Obama, rigged to favor the growth of the federal government — its bureaucrats and the lobbyists, lawyers and special-interest groups that feed off taxpayers — at the expense of reviving the private economy where taxpayers live. Perhaps nothing summarizes Obama’s failures better than this picture of government affluence funded on the backs of the middle class.

I call that Obama's Trickle-Up.

So much for Hope and Change. It looks like "Same old, same old" to me--but worse than ever..

Links October 1 2012

• You Can't Trust the Media or Polls.  The link is the long story of the stunning failures of presidential polling and media "spin" during 1979 election season.  The Media hated Reagan and did everything they could to create the illusion of the 'inevitability' of a Carter win.  It should sound familiar.
• Here's another set of reasons why you can't trust mainstreet Media--A collapse of competence is evident in nearly every area of our lives these days including the Media outlets.. They say that an informed electorate is necessary to maintain democracy.  That's certainly true but a skeptical, vigorous, and investigative media is necessary too.  We no longer have that.  We no longer have an informed electorate either.
• Opinion polls are being manipulated to show an 'inevitability' of a Obama re-election despite a good deal of evidence that his campaign is in trouble. How
• ObamaCare's administrative nightmare that only the Federal Government could conceive.
• Chavez endorses Obama
• The ObamaPhone lady.  Just in case you haven't heard, the FCC program has given out 1 million phones in Ohio suspiciously close to the election.  Hmmm, sounds like bribery to me.
• White House tells contractors to hold off on layoff notices.  The White House has told government contractors that they will cover their legal costs if they must fight Federally mandated (WARN) laws that require 60 days termination notice.  Hmm, doesn't Congress spend the money?  The WH is encouraging Gov't contractors to violate the law?   How desperate are they?  How irresponsible are they? 

One Day; 5 Muslim Murders In S. Thailand

The following is a story in the Sunday, September 30th Bangkok Post newspaper.   It is just one story of one day of unprovoked Thai Muslim atrocities against innocent Thai citizens: mostly women, children and elderly people.

Seventeen people, one of them a policeman, were injured when two M79 grenades were fired into local fair in Narathiwat's Bacho district Saturday. Police said the grenades were fired into the crowded fair selling products native to the area opposite Bacho district police station at about 7.20pm. Four security volunteers and 12 fair-goers sustained shrapnel wounds.

Some of them were also trampled by panicked people trying to flee the scene. The injured, who were not identified, were taken to Bacho Hospital. Authorities closed off the fair venue as forensic experts were due to arrive at the scene this morning.

Meanwhile, five people died in separtate attacks in the far South yesterday.

In Pattani, Sen Sgt Maj Mustorfa Laehae, 44, of Pattani police station, was killed in a drive-by shooting in Ban Sue Dung in Sai Buri district. He was shot in the head and died later in hospital.

In Yala's Muang district, a woman was killed and her husband seriously injured in a drive-by shooting. The victims were identified as Saowaluck Sitthiphan, 29, of Ban Na Tham in Muang district, and her husband Prinya Sitthiphan, 31, a technician at the Yala irrigation office.

They were travelling on a motorcycle around 8am in Ban Kampan in tambon Tha Sab when a gunman riding pillion on another motorcycle fired at them with a handgun.

Also in Yala, a woman was seriously wounded in a drive-by shooting on the Yala-Batong road at Ban Ka Sode in Bannang Sata district. Duangnate Kamsri, 34, of tambon Tham Thalu in Bannang Sata, was shot in the torso.

In Yaha district, Kuem Sukkarn, 72, a resident of tambon Tachi, was shot dead as he rode his motorcycle to a market.

In Pattani's Muang district, a traditional medicine trader was shot and killed outside the central mosque.

Mama Arwae, 43, was selling medicine at his stall when two men on a motorcycle fired shots at him. Police said Mama worked as a police informant.

In Southern Thailand, there have been 5,000  Buddhist citizens murdered by Islamic idiots since 2004.  In peaceful Thailand, this is an incredibly outrageous and ignorant calamity. Relative to the Thai population, it is similar to the total US fatalities in the Vietnam war.  The violence is supposedly to promote a regional separation from Thailand or possibly to join Malaysia (Malaysia doesn't want them).

As in all other parts of the Muslim world, this violence continues because no citizen informs the authorities of sons, friends, brothers or cousins that are making bombs, buying grenades, hiding guns and plotting attacks.  These people are criminals plain and simple.

Because no citizen stands up for what is right, the entire community is complicit in the violence! 

It's not just the "radical element" like the "politically correct" would like you to believe.  The violence is supported by Muslim scripture, teachings and many religious leaders everywhere and tolerated by the entire Muslim community.

ObamaCare's Administrative Nightmare

Check out a link to the ObamaCare administrative flow chart shown below.    How the law will work (or doesn't)  may not be as "clearly" defined as would be implied from the flowchart.

Richard Epstein, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, in his article "The ObamaCare Quagmire",  says that the law is so poorly written, so poorly designed that it seems "built to fail."

The chart below was prepared by Kevin Brady, a Republican representative from Texas representing large parts of Houston and Beaumont.  If even remotely accurate, it would seem to validate Richard Epstein's analysis about certain failure.   (Click on the image or the link above for a large version. )

From the Dailybail.com,

The new law creates 68 grant programs, 47 bureaucratic entities, 29 demonstration or pilot programs, 6 regulatory systems, 6 compliance standards and 2 entitlements. What could possibly go wrong?  

What could go wrong?    "..and it won't add a dime to the deficit!!"

According to Yahoo News, Obama said repeatedly that his healthcare "won't add a dime to the deficit."   Here's Obama's quotes;

"I want to be very clear," said President Barack Obama on July 18, 2009, in a weekly address to the nation. "I will not sign on to any health plan that adds to our deficits over the next decade."

He said it again at a Town Hall in Shaker Height, Ohio, five days later: "And I mean it," and again before a joint session of Congress two months later -- "period."

So, perhaps now the president can explain why the new report by the Congressional Budget Office said his national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion "over the next decade" rather than the $940 billion he said it would cost.

It won't add a dime, it will add $1.7 trillion to the deficit! 

1 Million "Obama Phones" in Ohio

If you're like me, you would feel certain that there is little or no "vote buying" in 2012 America, right?

Well, a report from Ohio says that an FCC program has given out over 1 million free mobile phones to "poor" people and the program having rapidly expanding in recent months.  Local African Americans in Ohio have been quoted as saying that "Obama has my vote, he gave me a free phone!"

I've written recently that the cost of a number of Federal Programs have been exploding under the Obama administration.  Social Security Disability costs have doubled during the Obama administration and Food Stamp costs have also doubled during this administration.

Now we hear about another program where costs have doubled under this administration. It's the FCC's lifeline program. That Federal program gives out "free phones" to needy people has increased by 50% in last year alone!  Program costs have doubled since 2008 from $772 million to $1.5 billion last year after cell phones were included in 2008.

Everything in Washington is now completely out of control:  departments and programs are un-budgeted, un-managed and un-supervised. There are no adults in charge! When there are no budgets, of course things will be completely out of control!  We're witnessing an orgy of out-of-control spending and hearing about it in bits and pieces.

Oh, and you don't like it, you must be racist!  

From Josh Sweigart at the Dayton Daily News

A program that provides subsidized phone service to low-income individuals has nearly doubled in size in Ohio in the past year — now covering more than a million people. At the same time, federal officials say they’re reining in waste, fraud and abuse in the program. [Isn't that nice of them to admit that spending is out of control and they are now trying to manage your taxpayer dollars?!!]

The Federal Communications Commission announced recently that reforms have saved $43 million since January and are expected to save $200 million by year’s end. In Ohio, savings are expected to be $2.9 million a year.  [only in the world of government does a slight reduction of rapid increases constitute a "cut"---it's a world that none of us ordinary people live in]

The savings were realized in part because the government gave out fewer cellphones to ineligible people and took steps to avoid issuing duplicate phones. [wonderful!]

But the size of the program in the state — and profits to the increasing number of cellphone companies involved — has exploded in recent months, according to a Dayton Daily News analysis of program data.  [here's where the bribery allegations come in]

The program in Ohio cost $26.9 million in the first quarter of 2012, the most recent data available, versus $15.6 million in the same timeframe in 2011. Compared to the first quarter of 2011, the number of people in the program nearly doubled to more than a million.

Growth could cost everyone who owns a phone. The program is funded through the “Universal Service Fund” charge on phone bills — usually a dollar or two per bill — and the amount of the fee is determined by the cost of this and other programs.  [Yes, taxpayers are being charged to bribe Obama voters with free phones...]

A growth of $100 million in this program could result in an increased fee of a few cents on the average bill, according to officials from the agency that administers the program. The total cost of the program nationwide was $1.5 billion in 2011, up from $1.1 billion in 2010.  

The program cost $772 million in 2008, so we have another Federal program doubling in cost since 2008.

Good News From Benghazi, Libya

From Max Boot at Commentary Magazine,

Libyans have taken to the streets en masse in Benghazi to make clear their anger at the militia groups they hold responsible for the attack that killed the popular American ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his colleagues. Fed up that Libya’s nascent, moderate government is unable to disarm militias, the people have taken the task into their own hands, forcibly disarming several militia groups and storming the headquarters of the extremist Ansar al Sharia group. Some 30,000 people marched through Benghazi, bearing signs that included “We want justice for Chris” and “The ambassador was Libya’s friend.” Protesters even chanted at Ansar al Sharia members: “You terrorists, you cowards. Go back to Afghanistan.”

Finally, after years and years of waiting for something resembling sanity from the Muslim world, we have ONE sign that intelligent life exists.   After so many atrocities committed by Muslims around the world, seemingly wherever Muslims exist, there is finally a sign of outrage at the behavior of their radical elements.

Still, in nearly every other place, there is deafening silence after atrocities are committed. If a newspaper publishes a cartoon, or if there is even a perceived insult, people are murdered and howls of protests around the world ensue.  But if the Chinese slaughter 182 Uighur Muslims in Western China to quell protests, there isn't a peep of protest nor condemnation.  There is no logic at all and never has been.

Muslim Violence in Southern Thailand

In Southern Thailand, there have been 5,000 mostly innocent Buddhist citizens murdered by Islamic idiots since the early 2000s.  In peaceful Thailand, this is an incredibly outrageous and ignorant calamity. Relative to the Thai population, it is equivalent to the US fatalities in the Vietnam war.  The violence is supposedly to promote a regional separation from Thailand or possibly to join Malaysia (Malaysia doesn't want them).   As in all other parts of the world, this violence continues because no citizen informs the authorities of sons, brothers, cousins that are making bombs, hiding guns and plotting attacks. These people are criminals plain and simple.

Because no citizen stands up for what is right, the entire community is complicit in the violence!

Eventually the Thai authorities will have enough of this and there will be round-ups, curfews and incarcerations.  Soon Southern Thailand will become even more of an Islamic hell--all because there are no members of the community with the sense, intelligence or courage to put an end to the violence.

Just a few days ago, a car bomb in Pattani killed 6 people and injured 44.   This is routine now despite years of efforts by the government to talk and negotiate with the community.  There will be no end until the people stand up and stop it.  I say good luck waiting for that.

But finally, in Benghazi, after years and years of waiting for some sign of intelligence, common sense or responsibility anywhere in the world, we get one hopeful glimpse of sanity and courage to fight the criminals and in-sane.

Global Warming Made Easy

Major Points of this Blog Post 

The main points of this post are as follows.  Supporting graphs and figures follow below (click on any to enlarge).

1. In the past 50 years, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from about 0.032% to 0.038%. That's 380 parts per million or still an exceedingly small number. It still causes warming, let's be truthful.  For comparison purposes, your exhaled breath has 100 times that carbon dioxide at 4.0%  or 40,000 parts per million.
2. Yes, the Earth has warmed about 0.9 deg C or 1.6 deg F during the past 100 years, which shouldn't cause panic at this time. Yes, man is causing it
3. There is more warming in the higher Northern latitudes--including the Arctic and Greenland---than anywhere else.
4. There are natural variations in the Earth's orbit that cause regular ice ages and warming periods. We're in a natural warming cycle now and have been for 20,000 years. Sure, man's CO2 emissions are causing the slight gradual warming over the past 100 years. 
5. Sea levels are rising about 0.2 cm per year (about 1/10th of an inch per year) or about 10 inches in 100 years. To put that in perspective, the sea has risen 400 feet in 20,000 years, since the peak in glaciation at that time.
6. The permanent ice in the Arctic sea in the summer is becoming significantly smaller.  Of course the Arctic sea re-freezes each winter.
7. The main Antarctic ice cap is stable or possibly increasing in extent and volume.   The Antarctic contains 70% of all fresh water on the planet.  
8. Greenland's Ice cap is melting slowly  at sea level locations due to the warming Arctic temperatures -- but the entire Greenland ice sheet is some 6000 to 10,000 feet thick so there is no warming along 99% of the island since temperatures are well below freezing even in August due to the elevation.
9. The Ocean will ultimately absorb all of the emitted carbon dioxide, but the absorption rate of plants, land and ocean together is about 1/2 the rate of our emissions.  This means that we would have to reduce CO2 emissions by 50% to just to halt CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.   CO2 levels will rise unless CO2 emissions are reduced by 50 to 60%.  Cap and Trade doesn't reduce emissions at all.
10. The cost to reduce CO2 emissions is so high that it will not be done.  The cost to mitigate the effects of very slowly rising sea levels (7" per 100 years!!), varying temperatures and climate effects is much, MUCH cheaper and easier to do.

Why Are There Ice Ages (and Natural Climate Changes)?

A Serbian scientist named Milutin Milankovitch quantified long-cycle variations of the earth's orbit around the sun.   From the excellent NASA website, the orbit variations are of three types:  

1. The circle around the sun becomes more oval and less circular (and back to circular).   This cycle is about 100,000 years long.   This means the Earth moves closer to the Sun at times when it's orbit is more "elliptical."
2. The seasonal tilt of the Earth varies over 41,000 years between 22 deg and 24 degrees. The less the tilt, the less solar radiation at the higher latitudes.
3. The Earth wobbles on it's axis (like a wobbly top) with a cycle lasting 19,000 to 23,000 years.

Based on the orbital variations, Milankovitch predicted that the ice ages would peak every 100,000 and 41,000 years, with additional “blips” every 19,000 to 23,000 years. This is all verified by tree rings, coral reefs, sea levels, glacial extent, etc.

What this means is that there are regular periods of reduced solar radiation and cooler temperatures in higher latitudes that allow winter snowpack to persist through the summer months. Once snow pack persists over the summer, it increases in extent and forms a "micro-climate" that reinforces the stability of the growing snow fields. Multi-season snow fields become glaciers. There you go, that's why there are ice ages:  it's the effect of Milankovitch cycles! 

Carbon Dioxide Accumulation in Atmosphere

Figure 1. From NOAA station at Mauna Loa, Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from 1958 to present.

Data is presented in parts per million (ppm) and shows a rise of carbon dioxide from 315 ppm to 385 ppm or 0.0385%. Exhaled human breath has about 4.0% carbon dioxide or 40,000 ppm.  Although the amount of carbon dioxide in the air is still extremely low, it thought by most that this is causing a warming of the Earth's atmosphere. It is absolutely true that higher CO2 levels in an atmosphere cause a "greenhouse" effect--just how much extremely low levels of CO2 is subject to debate. 

Carbon Balance For The Earth

Figure 2.  Worldwide carbon balance in gigatons per year (from Howard Herzog at MIT, 2001)

The use of fossil fuels is adding 6 gigatons per year (Gt/y) of carbon to the atmosphere. Another 1.4  Gt/y  is being added by "changing land use" (presumably burning forests). The ocean is absorbing 2.2  Gt/y, plants are absorbing 1.7  Gt/y  and land is absorbing 0.3  Gt/y. In total, 3.5  Gt/y  of carbon are accumulating in the air. This means that fossil fuels use (and emissions) must drop over 50% to halt the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That would a monumental task and would be hugely expensive.

Global Temperatures in Modern History

Figure 3.  Global Land-Ocean Temperature index (From www.newscientist.com. and others.)

This data shows that the earth's surface has warmed by 0.9 degrees Celsius or 1.6 degrees F since 1910.  It also shows a period of temperature stability between 1880 and 1920. The 1880s was considered a "mini-ice age" due to colder conditions. 

Figure 4.  Earth's Temperature Record from nasa.gov

Shows the record of temperatures in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere hasn't warmed quite as much as the Northern Hemisphere presumably due to predominance of the oceans. There appears to be quite an acceleration of temperature rises in the Northern Hemisphere.

Figure 5.  Surface and Satellite Temperature Data (from global-warming-and-the-climate.com)

The data from 1975 to 2010 is variable but shows about 0.4 deg Celsius rise or 0.72 deg F.

Figure 6.  Temperature Record by Latitudes (both North and South) (from nasa.gov)

The data shows that the Northern higher latitudes are warming disproportionately compared to equatorial and southern latitudes.   In other words, the Arctic areas are warming the most and this is reflected in Arctic ice melting and the melting of permafrost in Siberia and Arctic areas.

Sea Level Records

Figure 7.  Recent Sea Level Rise (from window2universe.org)

The surface observations show a 20 centimeter rise (8 inches) of the sea from 1900 to 2000 or 0.2 centimeter per year or about 0.08 inches per year (call it 1/10th of an inch per year). 

Figure 8 Sea Level Data
(From University of Colorado at Boulder and CSIRO-Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation  www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel)  

Shows basically the same information as Figure 7 or about 8 inches of sea level rise in about 100 years.

Figure 9 Sea Level Data Showing possible acceleration of sea level change (from  worldviewofglobalwarming.org)

2 mm/year is the same as 0.2 centimeter per year or the same as Figure 7.  But the Univ of Colorado has drawn in a higher rate of rise of 3 mm//year in recent years.

Figure 10 Long Range Sea Level Change (from climatesanity.wordpress.com)

This figure shows a notional 120 meter or 400 feet sea level rise since the peak of the last ice age dating back 20,000 years ago.

Antarctic Sea Ice Extent 

Figure 11 Antarctic Ice Extent from late 1970s to Present

The Graph shows that the Antarctic Ice Extent is steady or slightly increasing.  All of the data must be  normalized because of the melting of sea ice around the continental ice.  See Figure 13 for actual ice extent fluctuations including seasonal fluctuations.

Figure 12 Antarctic Ice Extent (from worldclimatereport.com)

This is the same data as shown in Figure 11 showing the Ice extent increasing slightly, but look at Figure 13 for more raw data.

Figure 13 Total Antarctic Sea Ice Extent (from nsidc.org--National Snow and Ice Data Center)

This graph shows the seasonal variations of sea for the past 30 years.   There is no apparent trend of sea ice extent in the Antarctic.  The Antarctic ice cap is not melting.  Since the Antarctic ice cap is 70% of the earth's fresh water, this is good news.

Figure 14 Sea Ice Extent April 2009 (from National Snow and Ice Data  Center)

Shows the ice extent in April 2009 which would be the end of the Antarctic summer and also shows the median extent during the period 1979 to 2000.

Figure 15 Antarctic Ice Extent July 2012 (from National Snow and Ice Data Center)

Another snapshot of ice extent in mid-winter of 2012 and median extent over recent decades.

Arctic Ice Extent 

Figure 16 Arctic Ice Extent (from NSIDC)

Shows considerable end-of-summer sea ice melting in the Arctic compared to historical extent.

Figure 17 Arctic Ice Extent (NSIDC)

This data shows the seasonal ice extent in the Arctic for the past 30 years.  The trend is obviously declining in the Arctic (unlike the Antarctic in Figure 13)

Greenland Ice Cap

The Greenland Ice Cap is part of the Arctic Ice Sheet.  And the data is worrying here.  From NSIDC, 

The mass of ice in the Greenland Ice Sheet has begun to decline. From 1979 to 2006, summer melt on the ice sheet increased by 30 percent, reaching a new record in 2007. At higher elevations, an increase in winter snow accumulation has partially offset the melt. However, the decline continues to outpace accumulation because warmer temperatures have led to increased melt and faster glacier movement at the island's edges.

From CIRES/University of Colorado, Konrad Steffen,

The Greenland Ice Sheet dominates land ice in the Arctic. Maximum surface-melt area on the ice sheet increased on the average by 16% from 1979-2002 (Steffen et al., 2004)

Ok, Greenland ice melting is one of the more worrisome areas of the Global warming saga as it's a huge amount of water that will affect the sea level.

Carbon Capture Costs Vs Mitigation Costs

I can say almost for sure that there will be no carbon capture and sequestration to reduce greenhouse gas emission. It's insanely expensive!   

After decades of alarm-ism, there is still not one power plant with carbon capture in existence in the world--anywhere in the world! The US has 10,000 power plants alone. We don't even know exactly how best to do it. I figure that it would cost $10 trillion dollars to electrify automobiles, scrub power plant flue gas to remove and sequester carbon dioxide, build nuclear and wind power plants to power the cars in the US. Even this would only reduce CO2 emission by 50%. This would have to replicated around the world just to steady carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere at a cost of $40 trillion. It just won't happen. Period. Remember, after $40 trillion, CO2 in the atmosphere would not decrease---it would remain elevated. So, presumably temperature rises would stabilize at the higher level.

It would make more sense to use US natural gas in a nationwide push for CNG buses and mass transit to reduce our carbon footprint.  It makes economic sense.  I believe that if buses came every 3 to 5 minutes, people would use them and relinquish personal automobiles. This in combination with increased gasoline taxes would be very effective at curbing CO2 emissions. This is much more practical. Where's this debate in the media? Where is our Energy Department on this subject? Why do we even have an Energy Dept? They can't do anything!

It will take billions, not trillions to build seawalls or gradually relocate coastal cities to higher ground. I don't believe there is an immediate panic in terms of ocean levels but it's worth keeping an eye on.

The cost of mitigating the effects of possibly higher temperatures (if they come to past) will be infinitely less costly than carbon capture and sequestration.

Representation Without Taxation

America's foundation was partly based on no longer accepting "Taxation without representation" from the King of England.   Is it any less logical for Mitt Romney to question "Representation without Taxation?"  I'm stealing from Ian Cowie at The Telegraph in using his phrase.  It's so good!

You know America might be reaching a tipping point when about 50% of the household in the US have at least one member receiving government payments.  Assuming benefits continue indefinitely (some benefits do and some don't), which would be Obama's apparent dream,  then people who receive benefits naturally would have an interest in maintaining or voting for candidates that are "soft" on government redistribution---on and on until the system collapses.   This is the relevant correlation with the European countries, who are well beyond the "tipping point."

Yes, a lot of those households receiving benefits are on Social Security and Medicare. Some receive Medicare.  It's actually a complicated situation. And yes, 47% of workers pay no income tax. See the Wall Street Journal Article here.     I know Mitt Romney went overboard and erred in his assessment of a complicated state of affairs, but I think I understand his alarm and despair at the current state of affairs.    

Ok, I've oversimplified too much and beat up unfairly on the bottom 47%.   I apologize for myself and Mitt but........

A Flat Tax Rate Is Truly Fair To All

That's why there should be a flat tax of 18 or 20% on all income above the poverty level.  In that way, everyone pays their fair share.   If you're single and make $40,000, then you pay 20% of the difference between $40,000 and the poverty level of $11,170.  This equates to 20% of $28,830 or $5766 in Income Taxes.   If you make $1,040,000, then you $208,000 in Income Taxes.

Oh, and no deductions.   That's really fair right??   Right!  I'm glad that you agree.    This way, everyone has "skin in the game" and all can squawk with truly equal vigor about how well their tax dollars are spent.

You want to know why this is so difficult?   It's because the bottom 47% aren't paying income tax now.  If you have a truly flat rate, then most of the bottom 50% have to pay something!  Also, since the top 1% are already paying 24% on average, then the 20% flat rate actually lowers their marginal rate (the top 1% revenue would go up because no deductions).

Sorry, but you already agreed that the flat rate is fair!   What we have now is unfair and amounts to "representation without taxation" for about half of the people in the USA.

Oh, an average tax collection rate of say 18% is four percentage points above the post-war average tax take of 14% and would substantially solve the budget deficit problem if there were some real budget cuts to match!

Tax Cuts Used to Work...But Now.???

Tax Cuts (and Deficit Spending) Used to Work

The US economy boomed after the Reagan tax cuts and after a big recession that "tamed" inflation.  Reagan and Thatcher changed the course of Anglo economies for decades--given that the UK and US were on or almost on life support in the late 1970s.  (The UK received an IMF bailout in 1976).

Of course, marginal tax rates during the Carter administration was as high as 70% for individuals and 48% for corporations.   But also remember that there were a myriad of deductions to drastically reduce the "effective" tax rate.    In fact, the total income tax take by the Federal Government has been remarkably stable at about 14% regardless of tax rates or president or party for over 30+ years.  The difference between marginal and effective provides enough confusion for both sides to "demagogue" the tax issue.

Since the wealthiest people have always payed the lion's share of taxes, any change in top marginal rates helps them the most in dollar terms.  Note that the top 1% used to pay as much as 29 to 33% now pay about 24%, but as you can see below all of the income categories saw significant tax reductions since 1980.

Here's the raw data.  The original graph is here.

All of the Republican tax cuts increased deficit spending initally then revenues rapidly accelerated within a few years and reached new record collections.  This worked very well during the JFK and Reagan years, but only worked "ok" after the (Dot-com) recession inherited by Geo.W. Bush presidency.

With national debt levels rising, it appears that there is an decreasing effect of debt spending, ie., less "bang" for the debt "buck".  Rogoff and Reinhart have documented that the level of debt matters and over about 90% of GDP, growth slows by at least 1%.  That may not sound much, but if normal growth level is 3%, then 2% is significantly lower.

Other information confirms this.  Take a look at the graph below which shows the declining efficacy of debt creation to create GDP growth.   We're definitely losing the Keynesian "bang for the buck."  The graph is now above zero and at about $0.30 but this latest number might very well be a near term peak value.

The major implication now is that tax cuts (with the subsequent increase in deficits) may not work well this time.  There may be no panacea for this downturn.  It's possible that cutting government spending and reducing the deficit (so-called austerity) may not have much of a lasting effect especially if offset by even larger tax reductions.

I argue that for the following policy steps:  1) more domestic energy, 2) repatriate asian jobs back to America by creating tax incentives for businesses to repatriate capital and jobs, 3) flat or flatter income tax rates, 4) utilize our new-found natural gas reserves for transportation fuel and displace oil imports, 5)  big government spending cuts but bigger tax cuts to offset them.

Obama Accuses China Of Backing It's Auto Industry!

Isn't this rich?  Obama accuses China of backing it's auto industry!

Obama will announce during a campaign tour of Ohio on Monday that he is initiating a case against China at the World Trade Organization over allegedly illegal subsidies for automobiles and auto parts, the official said. 

Later today in some upcoming campaign stop, Obama will re-iterate it's campaign talking point that the US Government's bailout of GM, Ford and Chrysler in 2009 was one of their great successes!  I believe that's called "backing our auto industry!"

I believe that this is a tit for tat retaliation as China had previously slapped tariffs on US auto exports due to this US government impending action [more details when available].  The claim is that China subsidized auto part suppliers to the tune of $1 Billion from 2009 to 2011.  This just so happens to be when the US was "subsidizing" our auto industry with a more substantial package.

We have a little trade war underway!

I'm no friend of China and their mercantilist trade practices.  The Chinese are among the world's worst cheaters and liars.   But I couldn't help but comment on the irony of it all!

Incidentally, the treasury will lose $25 Billion on the GM bailout, something that the Obama administration doesn't want to talk about.   It's even worse than that.  GM gets sweetheart tax breaks going forward.  This means that the Government loses even more than that due to loss of revenue.   Add General Motors to General Electric to the list of companies not paying any income taxes.   Did you realize that GM didn't pay any taxes on $7.6 billion in profits last year?