The Dead End that is “All of the Above”
April 26, 2011 by Mike · Leave a Comment
This morning I read that: “Newt Gingrich is taking on critics who are angry at the conservative icon for taking home more than $300k from an ethanol lobby firm in 2009. While the critics say support for ethanol subsidies runs counter to Newt’s free-market rhetoric, Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler said his work is consistent with his “all of the above” energy platform.”
This is too easy. As we have noted here and elsewhere, “all of the above” is not a coherent policy; it is a note passed to a teller during a bank robbery. I thank Speaker Gingrich for making my point so concisely, and for placing in stark relief the intellectual bankruptcy of the policy.
One other thing. It sickens me that he is being given time to speak at tomorrow’s Catholic Prayer Breakfast. If three wives do not disqualify you from communion with the Church of Rome, what, conceivably, could be the point of any of its rules?
Republican Senators Undermine Value of . . . Being a Republican Senator
February 17, 2011 by Mike · Leave a Comment
Let us suppose that a candidate in a large, Western State ran for and won the Republican nomination to be a United States Senator from that state. Let us also suppose that another candidate in that contest, one dissatisfied with the results of that contest (primarily because she lost), decided to run as an Independent rather than support the Republican nominee. Finally, let us suppose the Independent candidate, who insisted throughout the general campaign that she was the authentic Republican, won. What would the Republican caucus in the United States Senate do with such a candidate?
Vote No on the Debt Ceiling Increase
February 15, 2011 by Mike · Leave a Comment
The President’s budget for FY 2012, which was released yesterday in summary form, indicates that if the current Administration’s preferences are granted, we will add about 9 trillion dollars to the national debt over the next 10 years. That assumes, of course, that we will at some point experience the economic recovery that Administration officials have been blathering about for about a year now. Please pay no attention to the fact that real estate values have now been falling for 54 months (the longest on record, which predates the Great Depression). Also, please pay no attention to the unemployment rate, stuck north of 10% (watch Gallup’s number, pay no attention to anything else). Finally, pay no attention to oil prices as they creep towards $100 a barrel.
Congressman Waxman makes a(nother) mistake
February 9, 2011 by Mike · Leave a Comment
In the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing this morning, Mr. Waxman demanded (asked?) for additional hearings on the scientific dimensions of global warming. That was probably a mistake.
The Democrats no doubt believe that such an approach is wise, in part because it places what they want to talk about — the real or imagined public health effects that might be avoided if EPA is allowed to write permits for a few large sources in the United States.
But the reality is that such a series of hearings would pose three significant problems for the Democrats.
First, they would make it clear that unilateral EPA action will achieve nothing. It will not reduce carbon in the atmosphere, which unlike traditional pollutants is uniformly distributed across the planet. It will not reduce global average temperatures. It will not stop or limit the rising of the seas.
Economics and science and global warming
February 8, 2011 by Mike · Leave a Comment
A friend recently suggested that perhaps I was a bit off-message in a recent press article in which I suggested that the Republicans would eventually need to address the scientific dimensions of the arguments surrounding global warming. He noted that Republicans tend to do better when they focus on the economic dimension of the conversation.
It is an argument that has been repeated in one form or another for about 20 years.
In general, I agree. Republicans do tend to do better when they focus on the economic dimensions of regulatory regimes designed to address global warming. But it is an exceedingly limited and limiting way to think about the issue. Talking about the economic dimensions of the issue is necessary but will not be sufficient to win the issue.
