Would the Last Person to Leave the Department of Energy Please Turn Out the Lights?

All this talk about (and begrudging nostalgia for) Jimmy Carter and his handling of the "energy crisis" of 1977 should have taught us something.

Jimmy Carter established the Department of Energy, as a cabinet level office, in the seventies, which has been described as a "governmental department whose mission is to advance energy technology and promote related innovation in the United States". Because, according to Jimmy Carter, "...we are now running out of gas and oil", and because "...we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it".

So, in the last thirty four years*, how far have we advanced? And when did we run out of gas and oil? I must not have gotten the memo. How's that whole "government taking responsibility for it" thing working out?

The Big Government types at the time, figured yet another government bureaucracy, accompanied by shoveling tons of money into finding a solution would be our salvation. After over forty years, are we any closer to finding a viable alternative to fuel our economy and our society other than coal and oil?

As has been pointed out countless times, neither solar nor wind is economically feasible, nor has the capacity to provide for our country's energy needs 24/7. Atomic power is anathema to most liberals, who incidentally are against hydroelectric power, because it involves damming waterways, nuclear because of the waste, and oil and coal, because they're idiots.

We have not achieved any breakthrough of any significance in the last thirty years*, is it reasonable to expect one in the next thirty*? No one would be happier than I if Doc Brown's "Mr. Fusion" came into being tomorrow, but does it make sense to hold our economy and our society "hostage" (to use the word the liberals like to use) to some Green pipe dream or fantasy that may never come true?

If we'd had a "Department of Lighting", back before Edison invented his marvelous bulb, I'm sure we'd have the finest kerosene conservation methodology on the planet by now. We could have score of bureaucrats cranking out memos on proper wick trimming, kerosene storage and tips on opening our curtains during the day to conserve kerosene. Government cannot mandate innovation. They can, however, stifle it through over-taxation and over-regulation.

As a young man, I was given the advice, If it is within your power, never quit a job until you have another one lined up. We should plan on using our oil, coal and natural gas until such time as a breakthrough is discovered, for two reasons:

1) It constitutes real wealth now. There is a need and a market for energy today. If coal does become obsolete in twenty years, then, how much is that coal worth sitting in the earth? It is real wealth, today, that can provide real jobs and lower the cost of energy to millions, thus increasing their standard of living and the profitability of American manufacturing.

2) Petroleum is used in manufacturing. The keyboard I am typing on was made from petroleum byproducts. Even if "Mr. Fusion" was invented tomorrow, there would still likely be plastic parts somewhere in the product, and if not there, then in other household goods, and we'd still need petroleum to make them.

It has been pointed out that the "Department of Energy" has never produced any. It has failed in its promise to do anything of any significance in reducing our dependence on foreign oil. In fact, it has done the opposite. It has stood in the way of oil exploration and production. It is said that insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results". After thirty plus years*, can we now say that the Department of Energy was a crazy idea and defund it as soon as possible?

(The text of Carter's speech can be found here.)

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Innumeracy-R-Us in the Democrat Party

Ever notice how, with the Obama administration, the hits just keep on comin'?


Money quote starts at :48
The Obama administration seems to be the new home of economic illiteracy (innumeracy). Remember last December, when Nancy Pelosi (who told us in 2007 that the price of gas was way too high at $2.25 a gallon and she and a Democrat Congress were going to "do something about it"), told us of the economic benefits of unemployment?

"Economists tell us that unemployment insurance returns $2 to the economy for every $1 spent."

-Nancy Pelosi

At that time, I said:

So, for the moment, let's say that the Speaker has her facts straight: Every dollar spent on unemployment insurance returns two dollars to the economy. Would not the reverse be true as well:
For every dollar taken from someone in taxes, two dollars is removed from the economy?

At best, that would be a wash. Factor in that the government is so inefficient in nearly everything it does, the overhead to get that dollar where it is going may siphon off 70 to 80% in bloated government overhead, and you've got a losing proposition.

So, here is Obama's Agriculture Secretary parroting the same economic nonsense. A dollar of food stamps received, for starters, takes more than a dollar to deliver the benefit to the recipient. A lot gets siphoned of in the bureaucracy. But, setting aside for the moment the waste and inefficiency inherent in most government endeavors, the same holds true for food stamps as for unemployment. Before that dollar of food stamps can "generate" (stop laughing!) the mythical $1.84, it must first take a dollar out of the economy, through taxes, which, if left alone, would presumably "generate" the identical amount of economic activity. More, actually, since the overhead is less. The only "economic activity" generated is for the salaries of government bureaucrat, office space to house them, and all the expenses in staffing, heating, cooling and furnishing government offices.

Of course this is an administration that believes we can spend our way out of debt by "spreading the wealth". Tom and Nancy fit right in.

Cross posted at LCR.

Your Tax Dollars at Work: Keeping the US Free of Basketball Hoops and Lemonade Stands

If you are taking medication for high blood pressure, please do not watch the following video:



In tough economic times, and limited government services, is this really the best use of taxpayer funds, law enforcement and government resources?

And just think of the tremendous carbon footprint of all that heavy equipment! /sarc

H/T Donnie Baseball

Prison Doc Highest Paid California Employee - Does Next to Nothing

They'd really rather he do nothing, but I guess there's a law against that!

The highest-paid state employee in California last year, a prison surgeon who took home $777,423, has a history of mental illness, was fired once for alleged incompetence and has not been allowed to treat an inmate for six years because medical supervisors don't trust his clinical skills.

Since July 2005, Dr. Jeffrey Rohlfing has mostly been locked out of his job — on paid leave or fired or fighting his termination — at High Desert State Prison in Susanville, state records show. When he has been allowed inside the facility, he has been relegated to reviewing paper medical histories, what prison doctors call "mailroom" duty.

Just recently, the state was ordered by a judge to reduce the prison population because of "inadequate medical care". Here's a thought: Fire the guy taking home a quarter of a million dollars a year, for doing nothing more than busywork and hire someone in his place who might actually treat the inmates.

I know. That's why I'll never be in politics!

H/T Memeorandum

$2.4 Billion Free for the Asking. Oh, and Maybe you Could Build a Train, Too?

"Governors and members of Congress have been clamoring for the opportunity to participate."
-Ray Lahood

Federal Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced Wednesday that 24 states, including Connecticut, are in competition for a share of the $2.4 billion that his agency plans to disburse. Amtrak and the District of Columbia are also looking for a share.

Gosh. $2.4 Billion (with a "B") in goodies being given away and our Transportation Secretary marvels at how popular the program is!

My guess is, is that if they were giving away government money to build leprechaun fences around unicorn ranches, 24 states and the District of Columbia would be in line for that, too.

Can 2012 get here any sooner? I'll have more on the high speed rail boondoggle soon.

Stimulus: Feds Blow $823,000 on African Genitalia Washing

His, not hers!

Your tax dollars at work! For those of you who didn't think the government spent enough money teaching Chinese hookers how to drink responsibly, (Obama Pays Chinese Hookers) here's where your "stimulus" money is going. (This may be the only time the government uses the word "stimulus" appropriately!) Via Judicial Watch:

On the heels of a scathing report exposing incessant waste in President Obama’s scandal-plagued economic stimulus, a news agency reveals that nearly $1 million in recovery funds have gone to a genitalia-washing program for uncircumcised African men.

If this seems like an inconceivable prank, just take a look at the public university study that received $823,200 in stimulus cash to encourage Africans to undergo voluntary HIV testing and counseling. Specifically, the taxpayer dollars will be used to teach uncircumcised African men how to wash their genitals after having sex. You can’t make this stuff up.

The money from the monstrous $787 billion program Obama promised would jumpstart the economy and put Americans back to work was distributed by the National Institutes of Health. The goal is to stop the spread of AIDS in Africa by convincing uncircumcised men to develop an effective after-sex, genitalia-washing regime. The aim, according to the publicly-funded study, is to evaluate the “feasibility and acceptability of a post-coital male genital hygiene procedure” among Africans unwilling to be circumcised.

Doing the jobs Americans won't do, I guess!

Green Advisory Council in Health Care Bill?

Tilting at windbags

According to George Will, the "health care reform" bill that just passed:

...creates an Advisory Council on Green, High-Performing Public School Facilities, and grants for "retrofitting necessary to increase the energy efficiency and water efficiency of public school facilities."

If that is true, and it certainly seems too implausible to be a lie, could someone please tell me what in the bloody blue blazes "energy efficiency and water efficiency of public schools" has to do with health care???

House Passes Measure to Regulate TV Commercials

Have you heard about this? Congress is considering a bill introduced last year, sponsored by Anna Eschoo, a California Democrat, with 63 co-sponsors, to regulate how loud TV commercials can be! The act is called CALM (for the laid back California lifestyle I presume!), the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation.

Apparently, this intrusion into your bedroom (you do have a TV in the bedroom, don't you?) was passed last Tuesday on a voice vote.

Having apparently solved all of the problems of the economy, world peace, health care, and man's inhumanity to man, Congress turns its unwavering eye towards the millions of Americans without a mute button on their remote or TiVo. Finally!

Your tax dollars at work.

Cross posted at Say Anything

Update: Brent Bozell had this:

In fact, Eshoo’s bill may be nothing more than well, noise. It doesn’t really change anything that wasn’t already changing. Her bill originally demanded that television advertisements could be no louder than the average maximum loudness of the programs they accompany. She changed her bill to instead adopt guidelines already being developed by the TV industry, which she said will accomplish the same goal. Given the industry’s similar promises to develop standards to curb indecency, we can all begin to laugh (quietly) now.

Yeah. This merits Congressional attention!

On Gate Crashing the White House

Kirsten Powers made the point on Fox News Sunday today, that had the White House merely employed a bouncer from one of the "hot clubs" in New York City, they would have had more success in keeping out gate crashers.

Makes sense, but didn't more than a few of us think we had something better in place already?? Just saying!

Barack Obama and the Hummingbird Feeder of Doom

It is a rare and gifted writer who can craft a headline, so concise and yet so complete that you instantly grasp the entire scope of the article you are about to read. And so it is here, where the subject is, obviously, Cash for Clunkers!

Years and years ago, before the Earth was fully cooled, it was thought that if you put your hummingbird feeder out too late in the year, you risked enticing the diminutive birds with the prospect of free, colored sugar water, and they would resist the urge to fly South for the winter until it was too late. Scores of tiny dead kitty hors d'overs would be sticking out of the snow, flash frozen and strewn about the countryside, like a feline all-you-can-eat buffet!

Today, we have it on the authority of the Audubon Society, that birds have more sense than Democrats and are perfectly capable of taking a last minute snack before taking off for the long migration South.

So what do the unintended consequences of leaving your hummingbird feeder out too long have in common with government’s own hand out of sugar water to the unsuspecting?

Every time I’ve set myself down to list the unintended consequences of this seemingly innocuous government program, it seems a new one pops up every week. I’m up to an even dozen now, and I may have forgotten some since I started! To see how badly the government has bungled the program and how it portends that we never let these people get their hands on our health care, consider the following:

* The cash for clunkers program has marginally increased the cost of a new car, with more dollars chasing the same amount of vehicles. While this may be good for car dealers, it is bad for the consumer.

* The program favors the haves over the have nots. One has to have enough money to finance or purchase a new car outright in order to take advantage of the program. The program does not bode well for the un or underemployed.

* Cash for clunkers decreases the number of serviceable used cars. This will cause the price of those which remain to increase, further affecting the ability of the poorer among us to purchase a car.

* Cash for clunkers encourages people to go into debt, trading an asset for an obligation.

* Cash for clunkers reduces the number and quality of used cars of charities which rely on donations of used cars .

* Fewer serviceable used cars could adversely affect numerous local, small car dealers who deal exclusively in used cars, perhaps driving some out of business.

* By focusing the demand for cars into a shorter timeframe, Cash for clunkers will make intelligent planning more difficult. Do dealers and manufacturers gear up for continued demand and risk being caught with too much inventory? Or do they anticipate a slow down that may not materialize and not have enough inventory to meet demand?

* A program the government expected to last three months used up all its resources in five days.

* Some car dealers have extended credit based on government promises that have as yet to be fulfilled.

* Plus, some consumers traded in “clunkers” which were destroyed immediately (as required by the government), only to discover that their cars did not qualify for the program. I believe this short sighted element of the program has been modified, but only after a loss of wealth sustained by consumers.

* Ostensibly sold as a “Green” initiative, the program as implemented only required a 2 MPG better gas mileage than the trade-in.

* Not to mention the possibility of gaming the system:

And so I asked the question on the minds of millions of my fellow concerned citizens: How can I get my snout into this trough? Easy: I buy a small car qualifying for the $4,500, and keep it for a few months until the cash-for-clunkers boondoggle has run its course. At that point, the supply of used cars will have shrunk and their prices driven up; I will sell the almost-new small car for what I paid for it ($12,629 last Saturday) or more, at worst having driven it for free, and then buy the truck I covet. -Benjamin Zycher

As has been repeatedly pointed out, the idea of handing a sizable portion of the nation’s economy over to the guys who can’t even run a used car program is mind boggling. The idea that the life and death decisions involved in the nation’s health care might be a tad more complicated than used car trade-ins, with farther reaching repercussions is the reason the Cash for Clunkers has been relegated to the back burner and people have taken up their torches and pitchforks to storm the townhall meetings of their elected representatives.

And all their opposition has is AstroTurf!

Update: * And depriving the poorer folk among us of millions of engine parts that might help them to repair the cars they have. (I knew I'd forgotten at least one!)

Cross posted at Say Anything

"Cash for Codgers®"

What if Obama and the Democrats treat healthcare with all the skill and expertise they've shown in dealing with used cars? I'm calling Obamacare: "Cash for Codgers®"

Trade in your old tired, low mileage grandparents for a government voucher that promises your kids won't trade you in when you're a codger!

Yeah. Right! These are the people we want to take over the nation's healthcare! I mean they've already done a splendid job with the VA, the Post Office and the DMV!

Government Wants to Regulate Cheerios®---As a Drug!

Cheerios Kid Busted!

The latest verdict from the Food and Drug Administration is that Cheerios® is a drug.

No, our government isn't overreaching to regulate every aspect of our existence, is it?

...The FDA sent a warning to Cheerios® maker General Mills Inc. that it is in serious violation of federal rules.

"Based on claims made on your product's label, we have determined that your Cheerios Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal is promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug because the product is intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease" the FDA letter said. "[Cheerios] may not be legally marketed with the above claims in the United States without an approved new drug application."

Cue Steppenwolf's G*d D*mn "The Pusher"! Whatever could General Mills be promoting that forced the government to take a stern hand here?

Two claims on the Cheerios cereal box upset the FDA: "Cheerios is clinically proven to reduce cholesterol 4 percent in 6 weeks" and, "Cheerios can help reduce the risk of coronary heart disease, by lowering the 'bad' cholesterol."

Susan Cruzan of the FDA's press office told The Washington Times the FDA is not objecting to the fact that clinical studies do, in fact, find that Cheerios do what General Mills claims. What concerns the FDA, according to Ms. Cruzan, is, "This is a food product, and they do have a health claim." Specifically, the agency objects to the preciseness of the claims, which she says would make the product classified as a drug. General Mills "could say 'heart disease,' but they are being specific and saying 'coronary heart disease,' " she explains.

Did you get that? "The FDA is not objecting to the fact that clinical studies do, in fact, find that Cheerios do what General Mills claims..."

So General Mills is making a factual claim about their cereal and the FDA wants them to stop because...people might listen and actually eat more healthy?

So the government has determined that if you put accurate information on a cereal box, their only alternative is to classify breakfast cereal as a "drug" in order to regulate how that information is presented to the consuming public? Please set your calendars to 1984, because we are here!

This is obviously unfair to competition! Since Hostess Ho Hos® cannot make a similar claim, it's obvious the General Mills has an unfair advantage in the marketplace that must be crushed er, regulated for the good of the children!
Hat tip John Lott
Cross posted at Say Anything