American Daughter - Multimedia journalism with articles,pictures and graphics, podcast audio and video,slide presentations, live-blogging of events, and webcasting
California Chronicle - Published daily The California Chronicle brings you the top news and commentary of the day throughout the Central Coast, the State and the Nation.
Real Clear Politics - One of America’s premier independent political web sites. Updated every morning and throughout the day, RCP culls and publishes the best commentary, news, polling data, and links to important resources from all points of the political compass and coveri
TownHall - Townhall.com is designed to amplify conservative voices in America’s political debates just as the 2006 and 2008 election cycles begin to heat up.
Working Senior - The National Association of Working Seniors
Many Americans disagree with the notion that the U.S. should withdraw from the UN and think that the now famous words of Rodney King, “Why can’t we all just get along?” should be our watchword, believing that we must continue talking to solve the world’s problems.
Unfortunately, the answer to Rodney King’s plaintiff query is: We can’t always get along. Some people refuse to compromise and insist on having their own way, no matter what. “Just getting along” implies that there is always some middle ground where the parties can come together to resolve their differences. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case.
There are times when some people are simply not willing to “get along” unless, of course, it’s strictly on their own terms. And, that may be harmful to the other side, as exemplified by the situation with Israel vs Iran, Syria, and Palestine, which have the common goal of wiping Israel off the map and driving the Jews into the sea. There is no way to compromise or “just get along” with such a position, where the other side is unwilling to settle for anything less than your destruction.
One of the more notable examples of the failure of trying to resolve problems with talk took place in 1939, immediately prior to Germany’s occupation of Czechoslovakia and invasion of Poland at the start of WWII. When England’s prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, “left Munich with a declaration signed by Hitler that assured peace,” he returned home “believing that he had achieved ‘peace with honour,’” and made his famous statement, “I believe it is peace in our time.” Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, it wasn’t.
There have been plenty of other occasions throughout history when agreements have been reached without one side having any intention of honoring them. North Korea’s now well known lie to the Clinton administration regarding nuclear power and “the bomb” is one of the more recent acts of duplicity that resulted from “talk.”
Following are some of the comments I’ve heard about my conclusion that the U.S. should withdraw from the UN, along with my responses:
COMMENT: “It might be useful to try to write about the virtues of the UN? Who else would be sent now to Lebanon-Israel border zone?”
HRS: It would probably be possible to put together another military force for this assignment, perhaps using some of the same troops that have been volunteered to the UN force, just as NATO troops are now being used in Afghanistan. The difference is that in Afghanistan NATO troops are fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda. In Lebanon, the real issue is whether or not the UN troops will disarm Hezbollah, or at least try. They were told that they are not authorized to use force, which has allowed Hezbollah to rearm and prepare for the next assault on Israel, at that point under the auspices of the UN. So, what good are they?
COMMENT: “What other forum is there for nations to talk to each other?”
HRS: Perhaps none at the moment, but there’s nothing to prevent us from organizing a more constructive forum of like-minded nations.
COMMENT: ”Look into its history? Did they do some good somewhere?”
HRS: Sure they have done some good. Past performance can be important, but the UN is no longer the same institution it was in its early years. And, organizations that are no longer effective or, worse yet, corrupt, should be dissolved, in favor of something new that works.
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON (historian): “First, the U.N. is not the idealistic postwar organization of our collective Unicef and Unesco nostalgia, the old perpetual force for good that we once associated with hunger relief and peacekeeping. Its membership is instead rife with tyrannies, theocracies and Stalinist regimes. Many of them, like Algeria, Cuba, Iran, Vietnam and Zimbabwe, have served on the U.N.’s 53-member Commission on Human Rights. The Libyan lunocracy — infamous for its dirty war with Chad and cash bounties to mass murderers — chaired the 2003 session. For Mr. Bush to talk to such folk about the need to spread liberty means removing from power, or indeed jailing, many of the oppressors sitting in his audience.”
COMMENT: “Do the participants really have to be friendly to each other? (Polite, yes!)”
HRS: No, they don’t have to be friendly, but there’s a big difference between not being friendly or having opposing strategic interests and outright hostility. As for being polite, I don’t see anything polite about the behavior of Venezuela, Iran and Sudan at the UN General Assembly. Antagonistic would be a better word. And, having to listen to insults and threats is not “talking” in the sense that is intended to solve problems.
COMMENT: “USA does pay way too much, and look at the value of the HQ there in NYC!! But, where else should be the HQ? How about Albania? Or Mogadishu? Or Russia?”
HRS: My gut reaction is: Who cares where they go? Let someone else pick up the tab. They will be just as biased against the U.S. in any venue, but at least we don’t have to listen to their insults on our turf and pay for it.
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: “There is no intrinsic reason why the U.N. should be based in New York rather than in its more logical utopian home in Brussels or Geneva.”
COMMENT: “Yes it is flawed, but maybe somehow the participants are the ones to pull up their sox and improve it. This guy Bolton (whose appearance is against him) is actually terrific!!! Let’s see what he can do? Mending is better than ending???”
HRS: I agree, Bolton is terrific. As for the “participants” improving the UN themselves, I don’t think so. The institution has reached the point where it is far too corrupt and out of control to be reformed from within. The only way that might be accomplished would be to use the power of the purse strings, and that doesn’t seem likely, because it’s doubtful that the other members who provide the bulk of its funding would be willing to do that.
I also don’t think we should stop talking, I just don’t think anything is accomplished in the UN that cannot be done better in another forum. There are plenty of ways to communicate without The UN, which I believe is not only a waste of time but a deterrent. Those organizations that are a part of the UN and that are worthwhile can and should be continued, either independently or as part of some other organization. However, I don’t think that “mending” is necessarily “better than ending.” Sometimes it’s necessary to scrap something and simply start over.
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: “There is no law chiseled in stone that says any fascist or dictatorial state deserves authorized membership by virtue of its hijacking of a government. There is no logic to why a France is on the Security Council, but a Japan or India is not. And there is no reason why a group of democratic nations, unapologetic about their values and resolute to protect freedom, cannot act collectively for the common good, entirely indifferent to Syria’s censure or a Chinese veto.”
By my reckoning, which is undoubtedly off by a very big factor, the total cost of the presidential election in this cycle will be well in excess of a billion dollars. Whatever the final number may be, what has caught my attention in particular are those costs that are paid by the taxpayers, such as the salaries and overhead expenses directly associated with the candidates who are already on the government payroll.
Looking at Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain for example, does anyone wonder why politicians are generally able to remain on government payrolls while they run for another office? This, of course, applies to everyone in jurisdictions at every level: city, county, state or federal government.
In January, the annual compensation for Senators was increased to $169,300, which is more than double the median household income for the Washington, D.C. area. In addition, “The Senate’s system of allowances consists of an Administrative and Clerical Assistance component based on population of the home state, a flat Legislative Assistance Allowance to hire three legislative staff members, and an Official Office Expense Allowance (primarily based on population of the state and distance from Washington) for items like travel, franked mail, and office supplies. Senate office expense data is not disclosed as readily as House data, but NTU (National Taxpayers Union) estimates that combined Senate allowances range from $2 million to under $4 million per office…None of these allowances include extra money for employee benefits, the lawmakers’ own salaries, or considerable budgets for lawmakers’ committee work.” (Source: ntu.org)
Other benefits that Members of Congress receive include:
Free outpatient care at Bethesda and Walter Reed Hospitals.
Subsidized health care.
Use of their office expense account to purchase meals.
$3,000 annual housing allowance tax deduction.
“An inflation-adjusted pension plan that’s almost three times as generous as the typical private sector pensions.”
A special thrift-savings account that includes a one-to-one match up to 5% of a Member’s salary. (Congressional Perks: Not Exactly Hard Times on Capitol Hill, by Richard Sammon, KiplingerBusinessResourceCenter, June 19, 2007)
Title 2, Section 39 of the U.S. Code stipulates, “The Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives (upon certification by the Clerk of the House of Representatives) shall deduct from the monthly payments (or other periodic payments authorized by law) of each Member or Delegate the amount of his salary for each day that he has been absent from the House, unless such Member or Delegate assigns as the reason for such absence the sickness of himself or of some member of his family.” However, there seems to be considerable doubt that this requirement is being enforced.
John Berthoud, President of the National Taxpayers Union, observed that compliance with Section 39 “would not require a Herculean effort on the part of Congress,” and that it “could be accomplished through the regular payroll certification process to which Member offices are currently subject.” (As House O.K.’s Pay Hike, Citizen Group Slams Senate’s Move to Collect Taxpayer Salaries for Campaigning, National Taxpayers Union, June 29, 2005)
As for other jurisdictions, such as cities, counties and/or states, I don’t know of any rules that require suspension of pay or benefits while an officeholder is away seeking another office.
It’s difficult to put specific numbers to this sort of analysis but a rough approximation of the cost of a Member’s absence from the Senate while they are away campaigning might easily be in excess of $1 million a year for the ongoing expense of maintaining their offices and benefits, even if their salaries are suspended. Add to this the $84 million in Public Funding that’s available for those candidates who agree not to raise or spend outside funds during a Presidential election campaign. (Wikipedia)
With three sitting Senators currently out campaigning for President for the better part of a year, the taxpayers are picking up a very large bill. The Senators have been returning to D.C. periodically for important votes when necessary but, for the most part, they are not really fulfilling the responsibilities for which they were elected.
Senator McCain has indicated that he may resign from office after his nomination as the Republican candidate is secured, in order to devote his full attention to campaigning for the Presidency. Which makes me wonder if he has not been devoting his full attention to campaigning to this point?
My conclusion is that when sitting officeholders decide to run for another office they should be required to resign. It’s not going to happen, I know, but perhaps it should.
Why we continue to tolerate disrespect and downright hostility from the majority of the United Nations’ membership is beyond comprehension. In a display of contempt for the United States, the leaders of Iran, Venezuela and Sudan, speaking before the UN General Assembly, have openly insulted our nation, our President and our motives.
The UN’s many failures have been graphically illustrated by their unwillingness to intervene in some of the world’s most tragic crises, such as Rwanda and Sudan, which “Kofi Annan called the site of the world’s greatest humanitarian disaster.”
Approximately 25% of the UN’s budget is funded by the U.S, at an estimated annual cost of between $3 billion and $5 billion. And, although we also give significant foreign aid to many of its members, there is a long list of nations that generally vote against us in the UN, which includes most of those who receive financial aid from us.
In addition to financial aid, the U.S. also provides substantial scientific, technological, health care and educational support to nations around the world that often actively work against our interests. The list of nations that oppose us at the UN while reaching for our national wallet includes Kuwait, Qatar, Morocco, United Arab Emirates, Tunisia, Yemen, Algeria, Oman, Sudan, Pakistan, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Mauritania and perhaps most troubling, Saudi Arabia, which votes against us 73% of the time. When will our leaders face the fact that these countries are not our friends?
Europeans have long accused the U.S. of being naïve in the conduct of foreign policy. In their view, we have never been willing to recognize that self-interest takes precedence over all other considerations in international affairs, that fairness, honesty, and even national honor are trumped by political or economic advantage. The conduct of the French during the run up to the Iraq war is a classic example of the sort duplicity that results from such thinking. And, the collective attitude of the UN’s member nations clearly reflects this philosophy.
America has fostered the growth of the UN’s giant bureaucracy in our midst. It is accountable to no one, and we have permitted the people who run and staff it to create a system of generous rewards and perks for themselves, all supported by our tax dollars. The UN’s compensation and benefits plans provide a lifestyle and a retirement program for the individuals involved that they could never achieve in their own countries. In short, it has become a gravy train for many of the world’s worst tyrants and petty politicians.
We now know that Iraq’s “oil for food” program included graft on a magnitude rarely seen before. Established to benefit the Iraqi people, it was corrupted by Saddam Hussein and his willing accomplices in the UN, along with such member nations as France, to the tune of over $10 billion.
Jill Labbe of the Fort Worth Star Telegram highlighted the UN’s questionable and self-serving conduct in Iraq, pointing out, among other things, that:
“France was sending boats and boat accessories as ‘relief items’ in exchange for access to Iraq’s oil reserves.”
“U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan personally OK’d $20 million in ‘humanitarian aid’ for one of Saddam’s sons, to construct an Olympic sports complex.” (Who tortured and murdered Iraq’s athletes for failing to measure up to his expectations)
UN career diplomats live “high on the hog,” while consistently working against America’s national interest, all on our nickel. Make that our billions.
The fact that we are constantly being told how much the rest of the world hates us is frequently cited as evidence of how wrongheaded our policies are. We are also told we should be more sensitive to the feelings, beliefs and values of others. That’s supposedly the reason the Muslims and so many other people around the world hate us. In other words, it’s our fault they are so hostile toward us. Really?
Who’s more sensitive to the values of others? Those Islamic Fundamentalists who are attempting to destroy our society, who behead innocent and helpless victims and murder women and children for no reason other than to terrorize – or Americans, who have been doing everything possible to help free those held in bondage? Is America, with its multi-cultural society, where all religions and cultures are accepted, really such an insensitive society compared to those of the people who criticize us so vehemently?
I don’t know about you, but I will take America, with all its faults, over those societies elsewhere in the world that continue to enslave, murder and victimize their own and other peoples for personal power and gain. If we are so terrible, why are so many people trying to leave their own countries and get into ours?
Here’s what I would like to see happen:
No more free lunch for the UN and those nations around the world that continue to take from us while denigrating and harming Americans, that accept our treasure without so much as a thank you, all the while complaining that we’re the cause of the world’s ills and, no matter how much we spend to help others, it’s never enough.
No more ignoring parking tickets in Manhattan, at the cost of millions of dollars to New York City.
No more unlimited diplomatic immunity, which has been used as cover for spying.
No more Koffi Annan’s and his ilk telling us that the war in Iraq is illegal, while the organization he heads was going through the charade of investigating itself in the very scandal from which it pocketed $2.2 billion in administrative fees and in which his son has been suspected of having personally participated.
No more seeking the U.N.’s approval in order to take actions we consider necessary for our own security and well being.
How do we do this?
Here’s how: Withdraw from the UN, tell them to move out of the U.S. - and stop giving them money.
Being patient beyond reason and understanding is stupidity. At what point, do we decide we’ve had enough? If not now, when?
When we try to please everyone, we please no one. Leadership is not about being liked or loved? It’s not a popularity contest. It’s about being respected. Difficult decisions always make someone unhappy. That’s why they’re difficult.
Watching the spectacle of the so-called non-aligned nations meeting in Cuba applaud speakers who openly expressed hatred of the United States and everything we stand for while their own citizens suffer political repression, poverty and cruelty is intolerable.
It’s time we stop catering to those whose goal is to hurt America and our people.
It’s time to simply get out of this dysfunctional excuse for a world body.
It’s time to send the UN to “the ash heap of history.”
Just about everyone complains about tax “loopholes,” by which they usually mean “loopholes” for the “rich.” The word is routinely used by politicians and pundits to influence public opinion, always without any explanation or clarification. It’s an ideal smokescreen that obfuscates and confuses the electorate in an effort to influence them to support a particular cause or politician or tax legislation, or berate “greedy” businesspeople. It’s become an all-purpose elixir, fit for whatever grievance is popular at the moment.
The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (Third Edition, 2002) defines tax loophole as “A provision in the laws governing taxation that allows people to reduce their taxes. The term has the connotation of an unintentional omission or obscurity in the law that allows the reduction of tax liability to a point below that intended by the framers of the law.”
In fact, one man’s (or woman’s) tax loophole may be another’s legitimate deduction.
Most people have no real understanding of what tax loopholes are and how they are created. “Loophole” implies some sinister, perhaps even illegal, manipulation of the tax laws for personal gain or advantage, although they are generally created for specific purposes.
Looking further at tax “loopholes” and some of the advantages that fit the term, in reaching the conclusion that they are necessarily bad, the following points are worth noting:
1) Tax “loopholes” are created by the same politicians who employ the term for political purposes. However, they are often, as implied, an error or oversight in the tax laws that some sharp-shooting tax advisor discovers was somehow overlooked by the legislators or the IRS. In other words, they are perfectly legal.
2) Tax laws are an instrument of public policy. In addition to generating money for the public treasury, they are often designed to accomplish some specific social or economic purpose, such as encouraging certain industries to invest in equipment or expand in an effort to stimulate the economy. Examples of this are found in such tax deductions as the mortgage interest deduction for homeowners, the depletion allowance for the oil and gas industries, depreciation of business equipment, rapid write-off of computers or automobiles purchased for business use.
3) One legal deduction that is sometimes considered a “loophole,” is the charitable deduction, which was created to encourage charitable giving. This includes the various types of trusts that enable taxpayers to avoid or minimize estate taxes, which many people also seem to think are also “loopholes.”
4) Most people do not realize that the tax laws are written by Congress or the various state legislatures, not the IRS or the state tax agencies. After tax bills have been signed into law, the tax authorities define the rules (regulations) that they determine are necessary to clarify the intent of the laws and to enforce them.
5) It is widely recognized that our tax laws are far too complex and burdensome. But, what is not fully understood or appreciated is the fact that most “loopholes” are a result of complexities that are created by the efforts of tax authorities to define specific taxable events. In other words, the tax laws have become so complicated that certain legal write-offs or deductions can often be found that the authors did not foresee or intend. When tax rules are developed, the law of unintended consequences invariably rears its ugly head. The result is more complexity, as they attempt to “fix” the problem or problems they themselves have created. This is one of the reasons the federal income tax laws, rules and regulations now require something on the order of 66,000 pages to document.
An interesting example of a tax “loophole” that received considerable media coverage in 2007 involved The Blackstone Group, a large corporate buyout firm. The case is a good illustration of the law of unintended consequences and how it is possible to find ways to minimize income tax liability by taking advantage of the way in which certain tax laws are written and implemented.
Writing in the New York Times (July 13, 2007), David Cay Johnston noted, “…the Blackstone arrangement…was a reminder of the disconnect between the tax debate in Congress and how the tax system actually operates at the highest levels of the economy…The debate in Congress is about whether most of the compensation that fund managers earn should be taxed at the 35 percent rate that applies to other highly paid Americans, or at the 15 percent rate for capital gains.” The issue involved had to do with the tax treatment of the sale of the goodwill of a business. There certainly was nothing illegal involved in this case, which had to do with paying taxes on $3.7 billion from selling shares of the entity to the public.
In the final analysis, tax “loopholes” are tax advantages that benefit others. When we (you and I) benefit from them, they are called legitimate deductions. As Russell B. Long, U.S. Senator (1918-2003), put it, a tax loophole is “something that benefits the other guy. If it benefits you, it is tax reform.”
With all the people in government who profess to know how to manage the economy, you would think they could get it right, at least occasionally. But if anyone could really do it, there would be perpetual prosperity, right?
Economic cycles are a fact of life, whether in the “free market” economy we supposedly have here in the good ‘ol U.S. of A or the centralized control models of the socialist and communist societies.
So, why the panic when the economy turns down? Is an “economic stimulus package” truly necessary?” Not really, except for the impact it may have on politicians getting re-elected. There is no recession, at least not yet, and the rush to “stimulate” the economy is just political posturing, nothing more.
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, recently commented, “First of all you don’t want to propose a stimulus package. That’s like steroids for athletes. You want an economic growth package and that package ought to start with less government spending, less bureaucracy, it ought to start with lower taxes, it ought to focus on how do we get people to create jobs…how do we get breakthroughs in the cost of energy so that we can become less and less reliant on the Middle East. I think we need that kind of approach rather than how do I pump up the system in a way that is ultimately going to be very destructive.”
Alan Reynolds, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, also pointed out, “All proposals for fiscal stimulus claim to ‘jump-start’ the economy by having the government borrow money from Smith and give it to Jones. Unfortunately, Smith is paid interest on that IOU, which implies a higher tax burden on somebody.”
Democrats and Republicans both favor an “economic stimulus package” and can’t seem to get a bill on the President’s desk fast enough. But, the fact that they agree doesn’t make them right. Furthermore, historically, by the time politicians get around to doing something about a recession, it has usually already bottomed out and is headed back up.
The major elements of the “economic stimulus” package we’re hearing about will accomplish next to nothing. Stimulating short-term consumer spending by distributing borrowed money will not provide an adequate rationale for businesses to expand, because after the money has been spent by the recipients, we will be right back where we started. The proposed “stimulus” of $150 billion may sound like a lot of money, but at approximately 1/1,000 of 1% of a $14 trillion economy, it’s relatively meaningless. Furthermore, the IRS has stated they will not be able to get the checks into the mail before May or June, which means the spending that follows probably won’t even show up in the numbers until the first quarter of 2009.
Businesses do not expand and create new jobs unless they expect a stable economy that will produce sufficient long-term sales growth with adequate profit margins to justify the risk of borrowing to finance expansion. A temporary increase in sales of the sort that will result from a short-term economic stimulus will not accomplish that.
“What we see is a bunch of self-serving fat cats whose first commandment is ‘do as I say, not as I do.’ Have to be responsible with money? We don’t. Have to prepare for your future? We don’t. We can run this country right into the ground and every single one of us still be sitting pretty.” (Arnold Ahlert, “Take Your $800 and Shove It,”politicalmavens.com)
Discussing taxes and tax policy is a little like watching paint dry. A fact that those who want to increase taxes or create new ones rely on. But, the public’s seeming lack of interest is not really about whether they care. It’s more about the complexity and confusion created by the myriad of taxes that are employed to separate them from their money. When they become sufficiently resentful of legislative decisions about taxes, they can react quite aggressively.
America’s politicians and bureaucrats have created more ways to fleece the public than anyone can possibly identify. But that’s no surprise, given that they are able to work at it 24/7 - on our nickel.
The excessive complexities and inequities of the income tax are bad enough but, to me, stealth taxation is even more offensive. However, there is a slight gleam of hope shining through the fog of legislative hide and seek that our politicians and government bureaucrats employ to screen tax initiatives from public view, and people do sometimes fight back.
It’s not always easy to see the relationship between government actions and taxation, but transitioning from an increase in the budget to higher taxes seems like an obvious connection. Increased expenses generally lead to a search for more revenue to pay the bills, and this invariably translates into higher taxes, somehow, some way.
In a truly offensive display of political chutzpah, in July 2005, Pennsylvania’s GOP controlled legislature collaborated with the state’s Democratic governor to sneak a 2:00 a.m. vote past the public, to raise legislative salaries between 16% and 54%. There was no public notice, no review, no debate. Adding insult to injury, they even managed to circumvent a state constitutional prohibition against midterm pay increases by treating themselves to retroactive expense reimbursements.
But, all’s well that ends well.
When Pennsylvania’s voters got wind of the legislature’s sneak action by the very people who had been elected to represent them, a groundswell of opposition rapidly turned into an outright revolt that a few months later resulted in the repeal of their stealth pay raise, with only one dissenting vote.
In Indiana, the president of the state Senate, a 36-year incumbent who pushed through a bill to give lifetime health-insurance benefits to state legislators, was subsequently defeated by a political novice who rode the crest of a wave of public protest into office.
People tend to feel that trying to resist taxation is hopeless, what with politicians and bureaucrats constantly scheming to find ways of increasing taxes while taxpayers struggle to break free of the web of tax laws that they somehow never seem to be able to understand or control. And unfortunately, litigating tax issues is well beyond the means of most taxpayers, while the government has unlimited resources to draw on in pursuing its claims.
However, Scrivener.net reported on what may be the beginning of a growing trend toward resisting stealth taxes, noting:
“The federal telephone excise tax — enacted as a temporary measure two centuries back to help finance the Spanish-American war — may finally in large part be meeting its demise as the result of evolving markets, bureaucratic punting, and Congressional bungling.”
So on the face of things it’s pretty clear — the IRS has been collecting a lot of tax on phone service that it isn’t entitled to. . .And in the last year companies have begun asking for that tax back . . . and courts have been giving it to them.
Even in the face of a growing tide of resistance, “. . . the IRS says it’s not going to be paying any refunds soon, it is appealing these cases and hopes to win in the higher courts. Things don’t look so good for it up there either, but with more than $9 billion (and rising) estimated as being at stake, it has reason to fight on.”
Although few taxpayers have the resources to challenge the IRS in court, the organized resistance they demonstrated in Pennsylvania and Indiana does show promise.
We may get there yet, but it will take concerted political effort. There is strength in numbers, provided people can be motivated and organized to act in concert.
A beacon of hope was ignited in 1999, when irate taxpayers blanketed the Tennessee state capitol with a parade of cars, horns blaring, to protest the imposition of a first-ever state income tax that was being debated by the legislature. In an embarrassing defeat, the state’s legislators were so intimidated that they adjourned without adopting the new tax. Proving that it can be done if taxpayers can get better organized.
California is taking another step toward becoming the poster child for the so-called “Nanny State.” A far-reaching provision has been included in a 236-page revision to the state’s building standards, which is being considered by the California Energy Commission and is scheduled to go into effect in 2009.
The provision will enable the utilities to control the temperature settings in new commercial buildings and homes with a radio-controlled thermostat. How would you like to have a utility Czar turn your thermostat up, down or off during periods of high demand? Say, for example, the heat is unbearable, you have your air-conditioning running, and the electric company turns it down or off because of a potential brownout?
The document reads, in part, “Upon receiving an emergency signal, the PCT (Programming Communicating Thermostats) shall respond to commands contained in the emergency signal, including changing the set-point by any number of degrees or to a specific temperature set-point. The PCT shall not allow customer changes to thermostat settings during emergency events.”
So, the state government will decide when it’s necessary to dial our thermostats down or off without regard to where we live and presumably regardless of conditions in our locale. The Central Valley could be sweltering in unbearable heat while Santa Barbara or Santa Monica is being cooled by gentle coastal breezes. But, the determination will be made on the basis of state-wide power usage and the need to conserve energy. And, the new thermostats will be designed to prevent customers from overriding the setting selected by an Energy Czar.
It’s not a big leap to visualize the California Energy Commission requiring remotely controlled circuit breakers, so they can regulate our electricity use more efficiently. They might decide to turn off your power just as you are preparing dinner for company. Or, how about turning your lights off after a certain hour to conserve power, forcing you to go to bed early or sit in the dark? (Tyranny update, Walter Williams, Jewish World Review, January 16, 2008).
However:
“A low powered FM transmitter might easily be devised to override the broadcast commands.”
“…a metal wire shield around your PCT could block its FM reception.”
“Adding a window air conditioner or an electric space heater are other work-arounds as neither have requirements for PCTs – yet.”
(“American Thinker,” January 4, 2008)
The Nanny State mindset is further exemplified by the Federal government’s decision to phase out all incandescent light bulbs by 2014.
Incandescent bulbs are being replaced with compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). But, this presents a new problem: CFLs are potentially dangerous – because they contain mercury, which is described by Environmental Defense as a “highly toxic heavy metal that can cause brain damage and learning disabilities in fetuses and children” and as “one of the most poisonous forms of pollution.”
The experience of Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine, is instructive. Ms. Bridges broke a CFL when she was installing it in her daughter’s bedroom. It shattered on the floor and, since she was aware that it was potentially hazardous, she called Home Depot for advice. The store told her to call the Poison Control Hotline, which referred her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
Keep in mind that we’re talking about a single light bulb here.
The DEP sent a specialist to her house to test for mercury contamination, which was determined to be six times greater than the state’s “safe” level. The room was sealed off while Ms. Bridges shopped for a firm to clean it up. The lowest estimate to do the job was $2,000.
CFL light bulbs are touted as saving as much as $180 in annual energy costs, so it will take Ms. Bridges over 11 years to recover the cleanup costs for the broken bulb. (Source: Steven Milloy, “Junk Science: Light Bulb Lunacy,” April 29, 2007).
Steven Milloy also notes, “We’ll eventually be disposing billions and billions of CFL mercury bombs…As each CFL contains 5 milligrams of mercury, at the Maine ‘safety’ standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take 16,667 cubic meters of soil to ‘safely’ contain all the mercury in a single CFL…Not only are CFLs much more expensive than incandescent bulbs and emit light that many regard as inferior to incandescent bulbs, they pose a nightmare if they break and require special disposal procedures.”
Does anyone think the public will be willing to follow the proper procedures to dispose of them? Somehow, I doubt it. Over time, I can visualize millions of these bulbs being casually tossed into the garbage by an unaware or indifferent public.
usa online gambling? Play Online Blackjack For Money Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Australia Gambling online blackjack in usa
play online casino!
usa online gambling? Roulette Software Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Gambling In Michigan online blackjack in usa
play online casino! Playtech Bingo
