Spinning your Wheels

It seems like no matter how much you warn someone they are about to open a big can of worms they often do it anyway. For example in January we warned House Budget Chief Paul Ryan that entitlement reform was a trap for Republicans being set up by the Democrats. It is not a question of whether or not we need it, we do. But it is a question of recognizing a briar patch before you enter it. Brier Rabbit did not look before he leaped and you remember what happened to him. (The Song of the South) On the rare occasions when Republicans achieve a majority in the House or Senate we always hope that they have learned from the past. But apparently that is too much to hope for even in this day and age of lighting fast communication and information dissemination. In addition to the Entitlement Trap (Jan 26, 2011) the Republicans have also fallen into the second trap the Democratic minority has set for them; Budgeting for future years that are not under their control. It is the "Dirty Little Secret about Budgets."(Feb 16, 2011) Republicans have a great opportunity to cut spending in the 2012 budget by getting the work done in the 12 appropriation bills that make up the federal budget and eliminating the need for a "Continuing Resolution (CR)." Surgical budget cutting is more easily achieved in committee with the goal of reducing spending one budget cycle at a time. The Republicans need to spend less time spinning their wheels and more time in budget surgery.

The math is simple, the dishonesty is obvious

Since President Obama doesn't think that Paul Ryan is serious about reducing the deficit, as indicated by his off-the-record comments overheard on a hot mike at a fundraiser I thought I would take the opportunity to expose the President's own lack of sincerity about reducing the deficit. You may recall in his Wednesday speech he said he wanted to reduce the national debt by $4 trillion over 12 years. In the same speech he called for the repeal of the Bush tax cut for those making over $250,000 a year, which would result in an additional $1 trillion in tax revenue. This policy, if followed, would lead to an additional $8 trillion in spending over the 12-year period. The $12 trillion in additional tax revenue minus $4 trillion of reduced spending would equal $8 trillion in increased spending which would raise the national debt to $22 trillion over the 12-year period. The math is simple, the dishonesty is obvious.

Obama 2.0

On Wednesday President Obama will try to convince America he is serious about cutting spending, when he is only really serious about increasing taxes. He will promise multi-trillion dollar cuts in the next 10 years, but increased spending and taxes in the 2012 budget. And therein lays the dirty little secret. No President or Congress can compel future Presidents or Congresses to spend or not spend money. In America budgets are done one year at a time. By putting cuts off in future years that can be ignored by new Presidents and Congresses the Federal government enables runaway spending in the current budget year with the empty promise of cuts in the future. The American people have been taken in by this little parlor trick for 50 years. Hopefully it will end with this President and a new revived Congress than can bring common sense back to government budgeting and spending.

On the Budget

Obama has added 1.5 Trillion in the last two budgets, allegedly to help create jobs and overcome the economic slowdown with government spending. While it has helped government it has done little to encourage job growth in private industry. It seems logical to say this is $1.5 Trillion that could easily be saved in each upcoming yearly budget by simply not spending it. I'm sure that's probably too simple.

Evolving View on Nuclear Power

So many of my colleagues were surprised to learn about my switch on nuclear energy. They called it an "over reaction to Fukushima" and said there was no reason for alarm. But some elementary research was all it took for me to have a change of heart. I learned a few things: Nuclear energy is as much as 6 times more expensive than oil, coal or natural gas. It is as highly subsidized as solar, wind, ethanol and other forms of alternative energy. Spent nuclear fuel can never be made inert. Any catastrophic event than causes its exposure is an unstoppable disaster. Nothing can live there for a long time. So given the cost and potential for catastrophe my view has evolved. We must use coal and gas for electricity, and oil for all the things it is used for now. Alternatives must be competitive in the market. When they are they will sell, create jobs and push our country forward. Eventually they may replace coal, gas and oil. We'll see. But it's not fair to penalize Americans until alternatives have proved themselves. Turn our fossil fuel energy firms into the giant job creators and money-makers they are. Stop the war on fossil fuel.

Coal is Starting to Look Good

Given the intransigence of the Global Warming/Climate Change crowd I never thought I would change my mind about nuclear power. However, given the disaster in Japan and the basic problem of disposing of spent fuel rods I have had a change of heart. To quote a guy in my office "you are a fossil (fuel) man;" And I guess it is true. As you may or may not know no matter what type of fuel you use the basic principle behind generating power on a large scale is an updated version of Robert Fulton's steam engine. Large furnaces heat water to boiling, which is then pushed through turbines to turn generators that produce electricity. Coal, natural gas, hydro and nuclear power are the prime generators of electric in America and account for over 90-percent of our power needs. It is no secret that we have huge coal and natural gas reserves and with some rational thinking America could solve its power needs for electricity for several hundred years. It would also give us a chance to develop alternatives that are up to the task. What has caused my change of heart is the issue of spent nuclear fuel. It is clear that these rods are dangerous and really cannot be disposed of in a non-lethal way, and we have more nuclear plants than any country in the world. If they ever become exposed the radiation will kill. This is the lesson of the Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami. The only by-product of coal is ash, which can be recycled. Coal and natural gas are starting to look pretty good to me.

Senator Menendez: Use Oil, Cut Spending

Senator Robert Menendez- Democrat NJ - I listened to you on the John Gambling radio show today. With all due deference to your point of view: It epitomizes the liberal view of oil (in the form of energy) and government spending that is destroying the country. You ramble on in an incoherent narrative about alternative energy, which you know will not replace oil for at least 50 years, and you continue to justify reckless spending and refuse to examine any serious way of cutting the cost of government. People like me, who are not famous or celebrated, have been writing for years on the topics of energy and government spending. What is the Democratic fixation on reducing "America's addiction" on oil? Oil is one of the most vital compounds in a modern mechanized society. Oil, next to CO2, which is another vital compound to our existence, is something without which life could not exist. Yet Democrats in the Congress seem focused on eliminating both. And what is it about spending that you and your colleagues do not get. In my view cutting $61B, which is the Republican proposal, is not enough. How about the $105 billion tucked in for ObamaCare beneath the radar. That alone almost triples the cuts being proposed and the Democrats are still stuck at being unable to find more $10B to cut. America is now at the time where the rubber hits the road. You and your colleagues better get it together. We must use oil and we must cut spending. It cannot be said more simply. That's what you get paid for. Do your job. Get America moving.