News-Record.com

Consensus does not equal science.

Yes, global temperatures have increased over the last century. Scientists say this will continue over the next century.* Doug

Wow Doug! Now you are a confirmed Big Al navie supporter after reading your comment about the temperatures increasing in the last century.

I have search the internet and all the weather reports and recording of temperatures in 1900 and the only thing they have are on record is that Washington DC suffer a Hot intense summer when Congress stay in session with lots of hot air coming from the congress about the coming construction of the Panama Canal and how the American Taxpayers were going to pay for it.

Most believe human activity is contributing to the rise.*Doug

Shocked! Do you think " most" whomever that might be would be stunned to find out that "most" Volcanos produce 10 times more gas than all of human activity on the planet. Plug the Volcanos and the Global warming myths will go away along with the earth.

What I've read indicates temperatures have risen about 1 degree F. in the last century -- certainly not unusual in earth history. What happens in the next century may or may not be unusual or unprecedented. We'll see. Either way, hopefully, we'll learn a lot more about the way climate works.

"I favor efforts to reduce pollution, save energy, cut dependence on foreign sources and develop practical alternatives."

Doug:

Those are great goals, but how would you accomplish them? There seem to be three immediate choices: raise the relative price on energy sources or uses that contribute to the problems, subsidize the alternatives, or regulate an outcome. It's okay to be against taxes, but which of the other two alternatives do you favor?

For my money (no pun intended), the tax route seems like the best. Certain types of energy use impose costs on others that the producers and consumers don't directly bear. For instance, the pollution and environmental damage, extra defense costs, extra road costs, etc. of your, my and apparently Al and Tipper Gore's energy use fall on everybody, not just us. Increased taxes are one mechanism where the private costs of an action can be made to equal the social costs. The nice thing about tax policy is that it can be structured to be revenue neutral (raise the tax on one good and lower it or rebate it somewhere else). Hate the sales tax? Great, raise energy taxes and lower the sales tax.

Subsidies follow the same principle, but in reverse. The question though with a subsidy is what taxes do you raise or services do you drop to pay for it.

Regulation is usually the least efficient method, but it could work. For instance, we could follow the World War II model and issue energy coupons (ration books) to everyone. To make things efficient, we could then allow people to sell or trade their allotments.

We may not know the precise costs of global warming, but it's pretty clear that there are lots of costs of energy usage. Thus, even if you dismiss the consensus of scientists, our current policies seem backwards. Instead of promoting conservation to reduce the known and potential extra costs, we do the opposite, subsidizing the production and consumption of energy. Of course, it may only be a coincidence that two Western oilmen have been at the helm of our energy policy for the last six years.

The question still remains though, if you don't favor a tax increase to promote conservation, what do you favor?

I favor those things in the abstract. When it comes to paying for them, I want to see the benefit. If the N&R develops a better product, perhaps deciding someday that we want to deliver information without consuming paper and ink and carrying the daily edition to your driveway, we don't expect customers to pay for good intentions. They won't buy unless they believe they're getting a fair value. I'll be happy to consume less energy, or energy generated by wind turbines, if I can still keep my house warm in the winter and the price is reasonable. Yes, I'd support tax breaks for the development of new energy sources to a point. There has to be a practical market value.

Doug:

There's a logical disconnect then. If the things that you favor were free, there wouldn't be anything to discuss; we would just do them.

At the risk of putting words in your mouth, what you really seem to be saying is that pollution, wasteful energy use, dependence on foreign sources and alternative sources of energy do not have much value to you--at least not enough to pay or incur some discomfort for improving them.

Identifying something that is costly, saying that one favors it, and then saying that one objects to paying for it is at best wishful thinking and at worst hypocritical (maybe Al & Tipper should be cut some slack on this score?). Either way, it's an irresponsible position.

To advocate doing nothing requires the courage of conviction to say that there are no problems or that the things that you "favor" aren't that worthwhile.

To get back to your example, it would be as if someone said "I favor subscribing to the N&R, but when talk turns to paying for it, I'd like to know what the exact contents will be." Not being in the business of giving out papers for free, you would have to conclude that the person's observation wasn't very helpful or practical and that the bottom line was that he/she really didn't want the paper.

Well, there is that problem with selling newspapers.

You're right that those goals don't have so much value to me that I'd be willing to pay a lot to achieve them. For my own home, I'm satisfied enough with a natural gas-fueled heating system that I wouldn't take out a second mortgage to covert to solar. I wouldn't expect others to make that kind of commitment, either, although I applaud those who do. As an ideal, I support the concept of solar power. And, if the price of natural gas increases beyond the point of affordability, I'll be much more receptive to alternatives.

Doug:

So we're agreed then, and you'll edit the beginning of your original post to

"I'm satisfied enough with current levels of pollution, wasteful energy use, foreign energy dependence and the lack of alternatives, especially when talk turns to higher taxes..."

:)

Cheers,

Thanks, prof. I'll leave it and let other readers follow the lesson.

A thought in keeping with the emphasis on actual, identifiable costs and benefits...

How about a per-barrel tax (tariff actually) on oil imports for the duration of our commitment in the Middle East sufficient to cover all military operations, associated veteran's benefits and war-related reconstruction?

Such a tax would make the operations "pay as you go," letting us shoulder the burden ourselves rather than shifting the expenses of the war to our children. We'd also promote conservation, energy independence, and fuel alternatives. If you're going to have a war, you might as well pay for it.

Doug, want to congratulate you on the obvious evolution that you are undergoing when somebody dings you.

Instead of ignoring Dave above, you just thank him and say you'll leave it.

Now, you in particular are not a bad repeat offender in this regard and are generally prompt and courteous in your replies, but do you think you could talk to Allen or show him this example.

Just want to offer these suggestions to improve the N&R blogging experience for everyone.

Dave, the old ways were better when you could finance a war through looting or taking hostages. The World War I model of reparations was good. We changed the formula after World War II when we decided we ought to pay recovery costs for the losers. The home folks also dug deep during World War II. We could have/should have made some sacrifices after 9/11. As for an oil import tax, you'd do better than I at figuring what the economic impact here would be. How much of our Middle East supply could we replace from other sources like Nigeria, Venezuela, Russia and Canada?

Savage, thanks, I guess. I try to keep up here but there's a price. I've been trying to finish up an editorial for some time and deadline is 20 minutes away.

"Consensus does not equal science."

And correlation does not equal causation.

The World War I model of reparations was good.*Doug

Are you kidding! That is what started WW2 and the classic 3 Punic wars! You must have miss that part in your History education or Why Rome was the protectionist state and Cartage was the classic free traders of the known world at that time.

For instance, we could follow the World War II model and issue energy coupons (ration books) to everyone. To make things efficient, we could then allow people to sell or trade their allotments.* Dave

Are you kidding like Doug? Good Grief! Do you have any idea how many citizens drove around on treadless tires and five gallons of gas for a month before some evil free trader came up with the purest free market in the world with a true price of the supply and demand of the market.

It was call the "Black Market" Any state whether it is socialism, communism, national state fascism, that sets ration standards for it's citizens will make them slaves to the state or subjects to the King. One of the great principles and reasons for the American revolution was the ration system of the British empire on goods and services that a colony could not produce or exceed the demand that the King Tea collectors wanted.

Connie:

For the record, I am not advocating a coupon system; my recommendation would be a tax increase. The point of the post was that if your policy goal is to reduce some types of energy consumption, you have to adopt some type of "costly" policy. You don't get something for nothing. Doug's post ruled out taxes, leaving only subsidies or regulation. Regulation is probably the worst of the options.

I agree with you that reparations were a contributor to World War II; they also probably contributed to the world economic downturn in the 1920s. It's doubtful that reparations from the Iraqis will end up paying for the current war.

I also agree with you that prices are the most efficient rationing system. Where we may disagree, however, is on the true price of energy. The price we pay at the pump or to heat our homes does not include the massive subsidies that have been given to the energy companies in recent years. The price does not include the cost of pollution or traffic congestion. And the price does not account for the costs of a defense policy to patrol and fight battles in the Middle East to keep oil lanes open. These things, which are certainly part of the social costs of gas and oil consumption, should be part of the price but aren't. When externalities are present (a difference between the price faced by people and the true cost of a good), markets fail. In order for markets to work, the prices have to reflect full social costs.

For the record, I am not advocating a coupon system; my recommendation would be a tax increase.*Dave

Sure you are Dave! Classic doublespeak! Since the average tax on the American people is about 50% of their total income at the moment. The Western Latin Roman Empire collaped at the rate of 40 % of the Roman citizen income. Where do you think the next source of tax will come from? Are you willing to add another 25% to your tax debt on your income?

The point of the post was that if your policy goal is to reduce some types of energy consumption, you have to adopt some type of "costly" policy. You don't get something for nothing. Doug's post ruled out taxes, leaving only subsidies or regulation. Regulation is probably the worst of the options.*Dave

And where do subsidies come from? Just another term for State supported fascism, which means more tax debt for the citizens.

I agree with you that reparations were a contributor to World War II; they also probably contributed to the world economic downturn in the 1920s. It's doubtful that reparations from the Iraqis will end up paying for the current war.* Dave

Good for you! As to Iraq! That game is already over. There is no reparations period. Do you really expect the Kurds to give up their oil income. As to the Sunni's they are getting screw since they have no access to the oil income. The Shi'tes will cruise with their oil income and not share it with the so-called decentraliton government of Iraq that does not exist in it's present form nor in the future. You will have 3 independent states within the present State of Iraq in the future.

I also agree with you that prices are the most efficient rationing system. Where we may disagree, however, is on the true price of energy. The price we pay at the pump or to heat our homes does not include the massive subsidies that have been given to the energy companies in recent years. The price does not include the cost of pollution or traffic congestion. And the price does not account for the costs of a defense policy to patrol and fight battles in the Middle East to keep oil lanes open.* Dave

Same story from the floor of the Roman Senate 2400 years ago. " We must build more Galleys to protect our corn production from those dirty Carthaginias who govern Sicily." Do you really believe that those international Oil Corportations will return their huge windfall profits as true partriots to their country as those added expenses you made reference to?

These things, which are certainly part of the social costs of gas and oil consumption, should be part of the price but aren't. When externalities are present (a difference between the price faced by people and the true cost of a good), markets fail. In order for markets to work, the prices have to reflect full social costs.*Dave Ribar

"In order for markets to work, the prices have to reflect full social costs."

Sure Dave! But where in a constitutional Republican form of government does it say social costs will be added to your Bud lite six pack by your average Redneck in South Georgia to support the alligator population from the deadly bass fish who lurks below the swamp water taking away the food chain from the alligators

--------------------------------------------------

SUGGESTED DEALER INVOICE FROM ACE DISCOUNT AUTO SALES. FULL DISCLOSER COSTS FOR ONE SHARP CHARTREUSE HUMMER 2008 MODEL

$18,000.34 PLANT PRODUCTION COSTS, LABOR, CEO SALARY, ELECTICIAL BILL, DESIGN SERVICES FROM ARCHITECT, AND OTHER ASSORTED PETTY CASH EXPENSES.

$5050.67 FOR 2 INCHES OF CONCRETE ON INTERSTATE 85 BYPASS 214

$8938.72 FOR 2 SECS OF TASK FORCE DEFENSE " STREAKING NUKES" IN THE PERSIAN GULF WITH AIRCRAFT CARRIERS LINCOLN AND REAGAN.

TOTAL DEALER COST
$ 31,989.73
DEALER COST OVER INVOICE $100.00

DRIVE OUT SOCIAL HUMANITARIAN COSTS FOR THE STATE

UNKNOWN? SEE NEXT DEDUCTION ON YOUR NEXT PAYROLL CHECK AND DRIVE SAFE BECAUSE YOU ARE PAYING FOR THAT STATE TROOPER LURKING BEHIND THAT INTERSTATE BRIDGE ON I-40

-------------------------------------------------

Connie:

Somewhere between the references to the Roman Empire, bass fishing, and state troopers your train of logic ran off the tracks.

We can start with the first figure regarding taxation. Total government spending (federal, state, local -- everything) was $2.5 trillion dollars in 2006. Total GDP was $13.0 trillion. So, I make the government's share of the economy just under 20%. The 50% figure is a fantasy. For the figures, please see the tables from this year's Economic Report of the President .

When you are ready to discuss things from a factual basis, maybe we can pick this up again.

BTW, I did like the invoice. It was a little over the top but generally fit with what I was proposing.

Cheers,

Sorry, the link fell out of that last post. The link is Economic Report of the President.

Somewhere between the references to the Roman Empire, bass fishing, and state troopers your train of logic ran off the tracks.* Dave

Naw! Getting you up to speed on history Dave. The short track line. Pay attention!

We can start with the first figure regarding taxation. Total government spending (federal, state, local -- everything) was $2.5 trillion * Dave

Uh Dave! That was the federal budget spending. Has the feds taken over all of the states and we are not aware of this slick discount move to fool us and of course you?

dollars in 2006. Total GDP was $13.0 trillion. So, I make the government's share of the economy just under 20%. The 50% figure is a fantasy.

Sure Dave! It appears that you don't know how to read a W2 form or the payroll deduction sections on a employee?

Sample:
Name: Jon Q Citizen
Status: Single

Wages for 2-15-07 thur 2-28-07
$ 1000.00
Deductions
Federal FICA $ 140.00
Federal Medicare $ 120.00
State FICA $ 30.00
County FICA $ 15.00
City FICA $ 10.00
TOTAL DEDUCTIONS FOR THE STATE....$315.00
% OF TOTAL STATE TAXES RATIO....31.15 %
------------------------------------------------
HIDDEN TAXES THAT YOU DO NOT SEE FOR TIME PERIOD
2 TANKS OF GAS FOR 2 WEEKS....$ 100.00
FEDERAL AND STATE GAS TAXES.... % $50.00
* SEE PUMP TO SEE TAX DEDUCTION, NOTE..DO NOT SMOKE WHILE READING PUMP

PROPERTY TAX..COUNTY...$ 10.00
PROPERTY TAX...CITY SERVICES..$5.00
SCHOOL BOND TAX....$ 15.00
CITY OR COUNTY GARAGE P-U TAX...$ 4.00
COUNTY AND CITY FIRE BOND TAX..... $3.00
CITY BOND TAX FOR NEW DOG WALKING PARK...$1.00
CITY BOND TAX FOR NEW CITY SWIMMING POOL..$2.00
CITY BOND TAX FOR NEW SOCCER CENTER....$1.00
FEDERAL CELL PHONE TAX.....$1.00
COUNTY CELL PHONE TAX.......$.50
FEDERAL TV CABLE TAX...........$.50
FEDERAL SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR 1898 PHONE TAX..$.10
CITY STADIUM FOR CAROLINA PANTHERS BOND TAX..$.20
FEDERAL WAR WORLD 2 EXCISE TIRE TAX..$ 1.00
STATE SALES TAX FOR ALL GOODS AND SERVICES PURCHASE. $ 6.00
FEDERAL AND STATE TOBACCO TAX...$1.00
FEDERAL AND STATE JOE SIXPACK BEER AND WINE TAX...$1.00
* NOTE: Shall I go on Dave? I believe we have reach the 50% Tax ratio to income of the American citizen

For the figures, please see the tables from this year's Economic Report of the President .

When you are ready to discuss things from a factual basis, maybe we can pick this up again.

BTW, I did like the invoice. It was a little over the top but generally fit with what I was proposing.

Cheers,

Connie:

As you've probably already seen when you checked the tables, the $2.5 trillion figure included all levels of government (federal, state and local) and all governmental spending (current account and capital). So the 19-20% figure IS an accurate assessment of the total size of government and of the tax burden.

You are welcome to make up any numbers that you want, but please realize that they are such. For instance, there is no such thing as a state or local FICA tax. FICA is a federal tax (7.65% from you, 7.65% from your employer) that goes to various social security programs (6.2%) and to Medicaid (1.45%). For your hypothetical example, all of the FICA that would have been taken from the $1000 check would have been $76.50 for this pay period. Even if we add in the employer's share, the amount only would come to $153.00. Of course, for that $153 contribution, the person is receiving disability insurance, survivors insurance, eventual retirement payments, and eventual medical care payments. At $24K-$26K per year (the annual salary for your hypothetical person), the annuitized value of the benefits would actually exceed the payments (one of the reasons why the social security system is in trouble). So, assuming that the government keeps its promises, this person should be very glad to pay this money--it's a good deal for him or her.

You are also welcome to set up and argue against any straw man that you choose, but again this does not mean that anyone else has to take ownership of those arguments. If you have read this entire thread you will see that I clearly stated that a tax on energy could be offset by a decrease elsewhere so that the net effect was no additional revenue to the government, just a change in the price of certain types of energy consumption relative to other things. So your arguments about increasing the tax burden are as far off base as the fanciful figures that you use to justify them.

When you are ready to use real figures and facts and respond to complete arguments, there will be something to discuss.

When you are ready to use real figures and facts and respond to complete arguments, there will be something to discuss.* Dave

Wow David! I am not interested in a debate with a new age political math bean counter for the Federal Reverse Orwellian System. Just remember! Your energy off the books tax plan sounds great about how wonderful this will solve the future debt of a United States citizen in the year 2095. All we have to do is print more paper FR money notes and issue instant electron computer icons into Zillions of credits for future debt. Gosh! They are already doing that now! You keep believing that the American citizen is not over tax! But don't you dare show up with a mob at the local bank demanding their frozen paper assets be release, when the "real" funded crash comes.

but again this does not mean that anyone else has to take ownership of those arguments. * Dave

Please explain to me how one attains legal title to a argument on the internet? Blackstone common law wants to know?

ps David! Buy Gold and Silver! wink! wink!

Connie:

Haven't you already gotten in enough trouble in GA & FL for your bogus offers of gold and silver? I guess some people never learn.