(Click title above.)Governmental Involvement:
Rationing Oil:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/moving_toward_rationing.html
Producing Oil:
From http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/entry/taxing_oil :
“… we need a sane energy policy, but the emphasis should be on energy independence -- which absolutely includes oil -- not whacking people with more taxes to engineer behavior. Now, most people wouldn't mind paying a few cents more at the pump to promote conservation and research into alternative energy technologies. But that never seems to happen.”
Comment by Barry:
“I agree completely that more taxes won't work. What would work is tax-breaks. Create some lengthy and attractive breaks for *investing* in alternative enegry. Something like, no Federal Tax until 2016 on any company whos primary product is the creation or use of alternative energy for transportation. How quickly would GM, Ford, Toyota, et al.. create seperate entities and dump billions into development?”
Taxing Oil:
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100800700.html
“How do you keep oil prices low so as to deflate petro-bullies but simultaneously high so as to stimulate alternative fuels? The answer is taxation, which could mean specific levies on gasoline and other products or a more general carbon tax. Taxation would prompt cuts in consumption, which would lower the pretax price at which petro-bullies sell crude oil. Taxation would simultaneously boost the incentive for carmakers and venture capitalists to pursue energy conservation and alternative fuels.
The chief objection to this policy is that a new tax would burden the economy. But any such burden could be offset by reducing some other tax. The secondary objection is that a carbon tax is politically unfeasible. But the defeat of President Bill Clinton's proposal for a BTU tax, commonly cited as proof that a carbon tax is unthinkable, took place more than a decade ago.”
:QUESTION:
By what means should America protect its access to oil?
Is America’s vital interest in availing energy resources being adequately met simply by relying upon private competitors to find, produce, refine, and bring to market various energy products --- such as oil?
In pursuit of sane energy policy, what sort of additional governmental involvement is called for?
Is the current level of private competition adequate to ensure reasonable development of sustainable energy sources?
BASIC BACKGROUND:
Government often deems it necessary to nationalize, socialize, or regulate appropriate concerns, both by non-monetary means and by monetary means.
Non-monetary means may consist in: directly competing; drafting and enlisting labor; regulating; standardizing; certifying; licensing; franchising; rationing; quarantining; sanctioning; fining; and outlawing.
Monetary (or taxing) means may consist in: Conferring special tax or regulatory holidays, tax rebates, credits, or deductions; encouraging appropriate privatization; and underwriting or nurturing a diversity of competitors.
Concerns often thought appropriate for Governmental Involvement include the following:
Protecting against undue infringements of habeas corpus, personal dignity, free thought, free speech, and freedom of religion; managing national money supply; encouraging or financing “big science”; providing natural disaster protection and relief; conservation and National Parks Regulation; negotiating treaties and trade agreements; empowering competitiveness of American industries; providing for national defense; ensuring border integrity and immigration management; providing police protection and law enforcement; adjudicating legal disputes; protecting citizens’ identities; protecting utilities and the public from stoppages or shortages in energy, electricity, and fossil fuels; providing infrastructure for trade, transportation, shipping, and commerce; establishing and enforcing National Standards for foodstuffs and medications; meeting basic concerns for Health, Education, Welfare, Social Security, and Protection of Children; providing public assistance and job training for mentally or physically challenged citizens; rehabilitating, warding, or imprisoning addicts and criminals; and deterring unfair discrimination or favoritism in commerce and in government jobs.
QUESTIONS:
Apart from our natural environment, are we reaching a tipping point in our political environment?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/moving_toward_rationing.html
Producing Oil:
From http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/entry/taxing_oil :
“… we need a sane energy policy, but the emphasis should be on energy independence -- which absolutely includes oil -- not whacking people with more taxes to engineer behavior. Now, most people wouldn't mind paying a few cents more at the pump to promote conservation and research into alternative energy technologies. But that never seems to happen.”
Comment by Barry:
“I agree completely that more taxes won't work. What would work is tax-breaks. Create some lengthy and attractive breaks for *investing* in alternative enegry. Something like, no Federal Tax until 2016 on any company whos primary product is the creation or use of alternative energy for transportation. How quickly would GM, Ford, Toyota, et al.. create seperate entities and dump billions into development?”
Taxing Oil:
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100800700.html
“How do you keep oil prices low so as to deflate petro-bullies but simultaneously high so as to stimulate alternative fuels? The answer is taxation, which could mean specific levies on gasoline and other products or a more general carbon tax. Taxation would prompt cuts in consumption, which would lower the pretax price at which petro-bullies sell crude oil. Taxation would simultaneously boost the incentive for carmakers and venture capitalists to pursue energy conservation and alternative fuels.
The chief objection to this policy is that a new tax would burden the economy. But any such burden could be offset by reducing some other tax. The secondary objection is that a carbon tax is politically unfeasible. But the defeat of President Bill Clinton's proposal for a BTU tax, commonly cited as proof that a carbon tax is unthinkable, took place more than a decade ago.”
:QUESTION:
By what means should America protect its access to oil?
Is America’s vital interest in availing energy resources being adequately met simply by relying upon private competitors to find, produce, refine, and bring to market various energy products --- such as oil?
In pursuit of sane energy policy, what sort of additional governmental involvement is called for?
Is the current level of private competition adequate to ensure reasonable development of sustainable energy sources?
BASIC BACKGROUND:
Government often deems it necessary to nationalize, socialize, or regulate appropriate concerns, both by non-monetary means and by monetary means.
Non-monetary means may consist in: directly competing; drafting and enlisting labor; regulating; standardizing; certifying; licensing; franchising; rationing; quarantining; sanctioning; fining; and outlawing.
Monetary (or taxing) means may consist in: Conferring special tax or regulatory holidays, tax rebates, credits, or deductions; encouraging appropriate privatization; and underwriting or nurturing a diversity of competitors.
Concerns often thought appropriate for Governmental Involvement include the following:
Protecting against undue infringements of habeas corpus, personal dignity, free thought, free speech, and freedom of religion; managing national money supply; encouraging or financing “big science”; providing natural disaster protection and relief; conservation and National Parks Regulation; negotiating treaties and trade agreements; empowering competitiveness of American industries; providing for national defense; ensuring border integrity and immigration management; providing police protection and law enforcement; adjudicating legal disputes; protecting citizens’ identities; protecting utilities and the public from stoppages or shortages in energy, electricity, and fossil fuels; providing infrastructure for trade, transportation, shipping, and commerce; establishing and enforcing National Standards for foodstuffs and medications; meeting basic concerns for Health, Education, Welfare, Social Security, and Protection of Children; providing public assistance and job training for mentally or physically challenged citizens; rehabilitating, warding, or imprisoning addicts and criminals; and deterring unfair discrimination or favoritism in commerce and in government jobs.
QUESTIONS:
Apart from our natural environment, are we reaching a tipping point in our political environment?
Are advocates of small-government, globalist-philosophy short-sightedly (treasonously?) undermining America’s national viability?
On the other hand, can we expect advocates of big government, merely by making it bigger, to reverse globalist sell outs and treacheries?
Presently, we have various species of fundamentalist believers warring to take the helm of American leadership: Social and Religious Traditionalists (Conservatives), Addict-Nihilists (Neo-Liberals); Grievance-Marxists (Neo-Democrats), and Greed-Globalists (Neo-Republicans).
By what means should such warring camps be moderated?
Red Alert Moderates must man the firehoses!
3 comments:
Egg Hits Rock:
From http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/how_the_greens_captured_energy_1.html:
Energy reform is an egg and rock situation for the Democrats. (From the old Irish proverb: "When the rock hits the egg, alas for the egg. When the egg hits the rock, alas for the egg.") The Democrats -- Obama chief among them -- can neither adequately defend it nor abandon it, as is clearly shown by their refusal to even consider loosening drilling restrictions. The GOP holds all the cards on this one, and all they need to do is keep building the pressure. (Always granted, of course, that they play it better than their last few runs of hands.) No better electoral tool will be found during this cycle. We just can't expect results immediately - this will be a long and drawn-out battle, requiring maximum, sustained effort from all involved.
It has gone almost completely unacknowledged that with oil shale, offshore deposits, and new resources such as the hydrocarbon sludge deposits off B.C. and Alaska, the OPEC of the late 21st century is going to be right here. That's a goal worth working toward. Breaking the power of the Greens is yet another possible benefit.
Environmentalism is a luxury, and like all such, is best taken in moderation. The environment requires protection, but that's all. Primitive panthiesm has no place in this millennium. Nature is not an utterly benign continuum, and human beings are not a disease. Pseudo-religious environmentalism has long outlived its welcome. It's time to bring down the curtain.
ABOUT STATISTICS:
Quote from Commenter at http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/how_to_lie_with_statistics.html:
"DOCTORS SAY: "BREAD IS DANGEROUS"
Research on bread indicates that
1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users.
2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations.
4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
5. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!
6. Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low incidence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, and osteoporosis.
7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days.
8. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cold cuts.
9. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.
10. Newborn babies can choke on bread.
11. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
12. Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.
In light of these frightening statistics, it has been proposed that the following bread restrictions be made:
1. No sale of bread to minors.
2. A nationwide "Just Say No To Toast" campaign, complete celebrity TV spots and bumper stickers.
3. A 300 percent federal tax on all bread to pay for all the societal ills we might associate with bread.
4. No animal or human images, nor any primary colors (which may appeal to children) may be used to promote bread usage.
5. The establishment of "Bread-free" zones around schools.
Posted by: Bruce B | July 29, 2008 03:26 PM, at http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/how_to_lie_with_statistics.html.
Needless governmental involvement and regulation always distorts and hatches dangerous new pyramid invitations.
See http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/09/30/bailout_politics.
Post a Comment