McCain Goes Libtard

From the Wall Street Journal today. It looks like Rush covered it today, too. Any emphasis mine.

John McCain has decided that we should pay more for our energy while we get less of it. From the article referenced above.

The latest stop on John McCain’s policy tour came at an Oregon wind-turbine manufacturer, where the topic was – what else? – the Senator’s plan to address climate change. This is one of those issues where Mr. McCain indulges his “maverick” tendencies, which usually means taking the liberal line. That was the case yesterday, no matter how frequently he claimed his approach was “market based.”

In fact, if “the market” is your favored mechanism, Mr. McCain’s endorsement of a “cap and trade” system is the worst choice for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. The Bush Administration has pursued one option, which combines voluntary measures with subsidies for “clean” alternatives. Since 2001 under this approach, U.S. net carbon emissions have fallen by 3% – that is, by more than all but four countries in cap-and-trade-bound Europe.

At the other end of the market spectrum is a straight carbon tax, which would at least distribute costs more efficiently. It would also force politicians to be honest about – and take responsibility for – the true price of their global-warming posturing.

Then there’s cap and trade, which Mr. McCain has backed for years and would, as he put it with some understatement, “change the dynamic of our energy economy.” He noted that Americans have a genius for problem-solving but continued, “The federal government can’t just summon these talents by command – only the free market can draw them out.” To translate: His plan is “market based” insofar as it requires an expensive, invasive government bureaucracy to interfere with the market.[...]

So, like Hillary and Obama, McCain has decided that not only can Washington determine what the optimal “carbon output” of every business in the United States, he’s going to create a massive bureaucracy to to track all of this. Huh? I can tell you right now that this agency will be more intrusive and nasty than the IRS. The WSJ covers it nicely.

The problem is that once government creates an artificial scarcity of carbon, how the credits are allocated creates a huge new venue for political rent-seeking and more subsidies for favored industries. Some businesses will benefit more than others, in proportion to their lobbying influence and how well they’re able to game the Beltway. Congress itself will probably take the largest revenue grab, offering itself a few more bites out of the economy and soaking politically unpopular businesses.

Then there’s the question of whether any of this will even reduce greenhouse gasses. The McCain plan would allow businesses unlimited use of domestic and international offsets to comply with the carbon cap. So a chemical manufacturer, say, would pay an industry not covered by the program – most notably, agriculture – to reduce its emissions. Or it could pay a coal plant in China for plucking low-hanging efficiency fruit, like installing smokestack scrubbers. In other words, U.S. consumers would be paying higher prices for energy in return for making Chinese industries more efficient and competitive. Europe is in the midst of that experience now under the Kyoto Protocol, and most of its reductions so far have been illusory.

Given the distance between Mr. McCain’s rhetoric and the policy reality, we wonder if he even knows what he’s proposing. This is of a piece with his approach to many domestic issues, where the policy contradictions and cul-de-sacs overwhelm his professed political convictions. The McCain campaign believes his global-warming plan will appeal to independents and young people, as well as separate the Senator from President Bush.

Here’s another question to ponder. What’s going to stop firms from speculating in the credits? As long as the credits have value, they will be traded, bought and sold and thus be under the same laws of supply and demand like any commodity. Do you honestly believe that if a company has to buy “credits” that they won’t pass along the price to consumers? So we get hit twice. Once by the taxes that will be needed to support this moronic proposal and the other by higher prices. Meanwhile, the rest of the world laughs at our absolute stupidity.

Oh yeah, one more thing. To the Republican National Committee. Stop bugging me for money for the presidential campaign. When we have a Republican running for president, I’ll donate.

Here’s another thing. Roy Spencer debunks most of this arguement here, in the National Review. It’s worth your time.

Morons in Madistan at the Other End of State Street

Never doubt the ability of a liberal to try and gouge you. Case in point? The University of Wisconsin who thinks some animals are more equal than others.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - University of Wisconsin System officials are mulling whether students from well-off families should pay higher tuition to subsidize their lower-income peers.

The Board of Regents debated the issue Thursday as part of a wide-ranging discussion on the future of tuition and financial aid. The board did not take any action.

Supporters say the higher tuition would give campuses revenue they need to educate students while keeping up quality. They say richer families could afford to pay more.

But some lawmakers and parents worry that it will make college less affordable for middle-income students.

UW System President Kevin Reilly says he has not made up his mind on whether it’s a good idea.

Reilly, as an alum, let me give you some advice. It’s not only a terrible idea, it’s completely moronic.

Go To The Airport, Get Laid

This would be pretty funny if it weren’t so screwed up.

“In an effort to help Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.

Craig is asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to let him withdraw his guilty plea from a bathroom sex sting at the Minneapolis airport. The ACLU on Tuesday filed a brief supporting Craig’s side.”[...].

Like everything the ACLU wants to do, if this is upheld, it will raise taxes. Why?

All public restrooms will have to be relabeled to “Men”, “Women” and “Hookers”.

This is Bad News

President Bush and Congress, have now decided to protect the stupid, greedy and inept by freezing the rates on sub-prime mortgage loans. You can see details of the plan in The Wall Street Journal, The MJS and here on the BBS.

From The Wall Street Journal.

WASHINGTON — President Bush is set to announce a plan to help struggling homeowners avoid losing their properties, including a temporary freeze on low, introductory mortgage-interest rates that would otherwise jump higher in the next few years.

The plan, expected to be announced today, seeks to combat a rising tide of foreclosures by making it easier for lenders to freeze the “starter” interest rate for certain borrowers for five years, according to a document being circulated by the Treasury Department.

Now, why is this a bad idea?

It removes the stupid penalty. It also punishes homeowners who are managing to meet the payments with the new interest rates.

Since the lenders will be losing money during the freeze-out period, they will be less likely to make standard mortgages by making the requirements so high that people with “average” qualifications (under normal conditions) won’t qualify thus slowing down the housing market even more. All of this to bail out a bunch of stupid buyers and lenders.

It seems to me if you have a debt obligation which could reset as a part of the contract, you MIGHT want to see what the highest rate could be and see if you can afford the maximum payment. Since many people can not, the taxpayer has to subsidize stupidity by all parties.

A quicker fix, and one that would be better in the long run would be to just let the market sort itself out. It always works and despite some possible short-term pain, will lead to a better long term situation.

Why Do We Bother To Pay Taxes?

35-year-old Brian Poulin of Hebron was arrested Sunday after police said he called 911 several times and asked them to bring him beer.

Hebron was charged with disorderly conduct.

HT Ace of Spades

This Does Not Look Good

Regional transit control backed

Just a way for Milwaukee to get more transit funds from the suburbs? Or a backhanded way to build a train no one will ride and end up costing taxpayers MORE money to subsidize.

I thought this was kind of funny.

Funding: Although most officials agree transit should be weaned from the property tax, they don’t agree on how to do it. Some, such as Kenosha County Executive Allan Kehl, want a regional sales tax. Barrett says any new sales tax revenue should be shared with municipal police and fire departments. Walker wants some of the state’s vehicle sales tax revenue earmarked for transit. And Waukesha County Executive Dan Vrakas thinks money can be found by chopping transit workers’ health benefits.

Notice how they keep talking about NEW sales taxes? Typical Wisconsin thinking.

Anyone want to take odds that (if this goes through) it will involve an APPOINTED board with taxing authority?

You Have GOT to be Kidding Me (Sadly They’re Not)

From MJS Watch

THURSDAY, Aug. 16, 2007, 10:16 a.m.
By Steve Walters
Legislators OK Minnesota tuition pact

Madison - Wisconsin legislators today approved a new college tuition reciprocity agreement with Minnesota, continuing a pact used last year by almost 27,000 students from both states.

The new pact was approved, 15-1, by the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee.

A new arrangement had to be negotiated after Minnesota officials balked at continuing the old system, complaining that their colleges and universities were losing money. Last year, 14,453 Minnesota students enrolled in Wisconsin colleges and universities, and 12,542 Wisconsin students enrolled in Minnesota schools.

Under the new deal, Wisconsin will make a payment of about $1.3 million by mid-2009 to cover the difference in tuition between the two states. When the new agreement is fully implemented, Wisconsin will pay an estimated $10.4 million to Minnesota schools in the 2011-’12 school year.

Legislators whose districts border Minnesota praised the new deal, saying it would make sure that a successful program continues.

When Wisconsin students enroll in Minnesota colleges and universities, it saves Wisconsin taxpayers from having to pay to duplicate those majors and instructional programs, said Rep. Kitty Rhoades (R-Hudson), co-chairwoman of the Finance Committee. No “drawbridge” separates the two states, she added.

College students “cross borders for a variety of reasons,” said Sen. Bob Jauch (D-Poplar).

Summary of the proposal here.

So let me see if I have this right. Minnesota’s tuition costs less than Wisconsin’s tuition. So Wisconsin TAXPAYERS have to send tuition reimbursement to Minnesota which, for some reason, can’t raise its tuition. So Wisconsin students go to UofM knowing they will have cheaper tuition than UW and Wisconsin taxpayers make up the difference.

The measure passed 15-1 in the Joint Finance Committee.

Kudos to the one member who had the wisdom to vote against this moronic proposal. Taxpayers in Wisconsin are now subsidizing TWO Big Ten Schools thanks to the morons in Madistan.

Let me put the proposal in a nutshell so you asshats who voted FOR this proposal can undertand. This sucks big time.

Anyone wonder why Wisconsin is a tax hell spiraling deeper and deeper into the black hole?

Looks Like Arnold’s Universal Health Care Needs a New Rx

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial today which reveals what the Dums in Madistan refuse to realize. You can see a reprint of the editorial here. (Any emphasis mine.)

Arnold’s Health Flop

After Arnold Schwarzenegger unveiled his universal health-care plan for California in January, almost everyone was laying down palms in Sacramento. Here was a Republican Governor putting aside political squabbling and “doing big things that Washington has failed to do,” as Time magazine put it. What a change seven months later, with the plan on the cusp of collapse. There’s a lesson here about health-care “bipartisanship” when it’s merely a cover for bad policy.

The California legislature is now in the second month of the fiscal year without a budget. Deadlocks are routine because the state requires a two-thirds majority of each house to pass spending bills, though they rarely drag on this long or bitterly. Republicans are taking a hard line on spending and a $1.4 billion operating deficit; and even though the budget is just one Senate Republican vote shy of passage, a deal is unlikely before a recess ends on August 20.

Since the legislative session ends in September, that would mean it’s curtains for Governor Schwarzenegger’s health-care reform. The estimated $12 billion in new taxes that the plan requires also need a two-thirds majority of both houses. Which is unlikely when the legislature can’t even agree on a budget without them. To get around that, the Governor calls them “levies,” not taxes. Nice try.

he health-care plan is one reason for the gridlock, which speaks to a political as well as policy failure. In trying to round up Democrats, the Governor ended up alienating Republicans. No wonder: His plan was never that conservative or market-based. Like former Governor Mitt Romney’s plan in Massachusetts, it turns on an individual mandate. That is, it requires all residents to buy insurance or get it from the state or their employers — or otherwise face penalties such as garnished wages.

Once again, a state’s universal health-care dreams have run up against fiscal realities. Besides the budget fight, the plan’s viability was contingent on $3.7 billion in annual subsidies the Governor has been requesting to expand MediCal (Medicare) and “Healthy Families,” part of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. This money is unlikely to materialize, given that the 2006 federal budget called for $4.6 billion in health-care cuts to California over the next decade.

The plan also ran into a buzzsaw because of the damage it would do to California’s employment and insurance markets. In what’s called “play or pay,” businesses would have to cover their employees or pay a 3.5% payroll tax to fund a new state-run insurance program for low-income workers. Doctors would be required to pay 2% and hospitals 4% of gross revenues to fund the same — assuming they could stay in practice at all.

Governor Schwarz-enegger’s “bipartisanship” also provided an opening for state Democrats, who have long desired, but have usually been frustrated in passing, a liberal overhaul of the health-care system. They saw his plan and raised, proposing a 7.5% payroll tax — another example of “play or pay” becoming “pay or pay.” It would also compel onerous insurance regulations like mandated coverage levels and premium ceilings.

The Governor has tried to make the Democratic plan a selling point for his “less burdensome” alternative. But he would merely over-regulate insurance in other ways. He wants “guaranteed issue,” which means insurers must accept all comers, allowing people to wait until they’re sick to buy insurance. He also wants “community rating,” which means that insurance premiums cannot vary based on age or health status. Cost-drivers like these are already a main reason between four million and 6.5 million Californians are uninsured now.

In beating the drum for his plan, Mr. Schwarzenegger has often deplored what he calls the “hidden tax” of the current health-care system. Supposedly that describes the extent to which the costs of treating the uninsured shift to those who have insurance, thus making an argument for universal care.

Yet researchers at Stanford led by Dan Kessler ran the figures and demolished this claim. The total burden of this “cost shifting” in California amounted to only 2.8% of premiums in the 2000s. That’s not nothing, but in the Governor’s hands this modest hidden tax is an excuse for larger unhidden taxes. Perhaps the puncturing of this argument will prevent it from being deployed in the 2008 health-care debate, though don’t count on it.

If Arnold’s plan does fail, it will join “universal” health-care dreams in Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and other states that were also unveiled to hosannas but flopped once the fine print and costs were exposed. Alas, the failure of these state reforms probably won’t diminish political agitation for similar attempts that Democrats or Mr. Romney might propose in Washington. But it should.

Remember, when you read the editorial that the proposal for “Healthy Wisconsin” requires a 10.5% payroll tax. (!) Notice in the links provided here and here that the cost of the “Healthy Wisconsin” moronic Socialist proposal plan are the true costs mentioned. Also remember that the board for HW will consist of 16 members appointed by the governor. They will have the ability to raise taxes. Just what Wisconsin needs. Unelected hooples* who love to raise taxes (and they will). For a real spin on this moronic Socialist Nonsense Healthy Wisconsin, see this

Any time you hear “fair share” in Wisconsin head for hills with plenty of ammo.

*Hoople=Ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag.

OK…Let’s Make It an Opening Bargaining Position

A certain Bryan Kennedy, a professor of Portugese at UWM wants professors in the UW System to be able to form a union.

The egregous postion imposed on the good professors? They will have to contribute to their own pensions.

[...]“Last month, Republicans in the Assembly proposed that state workers who don’t belong to unions pay 5% of pension contributions. Who are the “state workers who don’t belong to unions”? It is the faculty and academic staff on UW campuses. Because we do not have a union, we are targeted for a 5% pay cut.“[...]

Maybe a liberal can explain to me how saving/investing for your retirement is a “pay cut”. God forbid professors should have to join the real world.

Before anyone in Madistan considers this proposal, three NON-NEGOTIABLE points in any union vote agreement must include the following:

1. Any professor who is in a union is NOT ELIGIBLE for tenure at any time during their employment in the UW System. I.E. Tenure is abolished.
2. Any professor who is in a union must pay for their own health insurance, no taxpayer funds will be allocated for any subsidies in any form whatsoever.
3. Any professor who is in a union is not eligible for a “defined benefit” pension other than that which may be offered by the union and funded by the union and the professors.

You don’t like the above, Mr. Kennedy? Get into the real world. See how long you last.

Any other non-negotiable positions on the part of taxpayers are welcomed in the comments. Positions from trough feeders are not welcomed.

Other People’s Money

Looks like Judy Robson, the Wisconsin State Senate thug leader has no problem spending OUR money.

“Madison — Senate Majority Leader Judy Robson (D-Beloit) said this morning the Assembly Repulicans proposed spending level for state government was a “non-starter” in budget negotiations.

As the second meeting of the budget conference committee opened at 11:30, Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch (R-West Salem) said Republicans wanted to limit spending over the next two years to $56.3 billion, which would block any tax increases.

Robson said that was unacceptable because it would prevent the expansion of Medicaid as proposed by Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle and would hurt funding for schools and the University of Wisconsin System.

Huebsch countered that he simply wants to set an overall spending level both sides can agree on, but that he is not yet proposing funding levels for schools or other programs.

The Democrats have proposed spending $66.1 billion, with most of the increase used to pay for universal health care that would eliminate the need for private health insurance.

The committee, formed to iron out differences between the two houses, continues to meet this morning.”

Note to Mike Huebsch: Keep up the good work. Just continue to say “no” to Robson’s armed robbery of the good people of Wisconsin.