U.S. Communists?

This entry was posted on 2/20/2008 10:42 PM and is filed under Elected representatives,Communism.

Sad to say....some U.S. leaders have communistic tendencies.

    communism (noun)
        ......control of wealth and property to the state:
        ......the state controls the economy.
                                                                         
Looking at the energy and environmental records and statements of the four most likely Presidential candidates on www.ontheissues.org (come on, you know Mayor Bloomberg is going to run as an independent) reveals some startling truths.

Should the market or the government be the prime mover to solve our environmental and energy issues?  Which do you trust more to effectively utilize tens of billions of dollars?  How well did it work for the Soviet Union to have 'government on high' picking winners and deciding what was best?

Recommendation:  Instead, enact a phased-in, federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy.  This will be tax neutral, provide a real incentive for energy conservation, and stimulate the renewable energy industry.  Change the rules of the game and let the market decide.

As an example, when non-renewable energy prices increase under a phased-in plan, the 'Big Oil' companies will very quickly become Energy companies.  We live in a capitalistic society - if you were the CEO of Exxon Mobil, you'd be slurping down the fossil fuels too.  Your job is to maximize profit.  It's up to our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES to recognize that we need to enact policies that will make this change occur.

Based on the www.ontheissues.org excerpts below, Communistic tendencies candidate #1 is:

Senator Hillary Clinton

   I have proposed a strategic energy fund that I would fund by taking away the tax break for the oil companies,.... And we could spend about $50 billion doing what America does best. It's time we start acting like Americans again.  We can solve these problems if we focus on innovation and technology.  Alternative forms of energy are important.  So is fuel efficiency for cars and so is energy efficiency for buildings.
Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007

$50 billion (!)  I don't care where she plans on getting the money from.  Having the federal government decide how to most effectively use $50 billion is ridiculous.  Which technologies?  How much for each?  How much is wasted on overhead?  How would performance be measured?  Accountability?  If you want performance measurement and accountability, let companies invest their own money.

Regarding "alternative forms of energy are important" and "fuel efficiency for cars and energy efficiency for buildings", Senator Clinton doesn't say HOW these important things will be accomplished.  Presumably with the $50 billion federal government program.  Or another communistic program she supports - CAFE standards.  What a crock.  Instead of big government forcing automakers to make more fuel efficient cars, why not create a market for increased fuel efficiency via a tax shift?

A real plus for Senator Clinton (in my book):  with respect to nuclear power she said, "Until we figure out what we're going to do with the waste and the cost, it's very hard to see nuclear as a part of our future."
Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007


Senator Barack Obama

   As president, I will place a cap on carbon emissions and require companies who can't meet the cap to buy credits from those who can, which will generate billions of dollars to invest in renewable sources of energy and create new jobs and even a new industry in the process.
Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference Jun 19, 2007

Same problem as Senator Clinton, billions of dollars that the federal government is going to decide how to use.

And, for 'Cap & Trade' what about the greenhouse gases emitted from automobiles? (same for Hillary)  Why not simple solutions with real price signals instead of a hidden political game.  Another Senator Obama communistic tendency -->

    Obama highlighted legislative proposals he has offered. They include a bargain with the big three automakers that would help them with their high retiree health costs if they use the savings to invest in fuel-efficient cars. 
Source: Should Barack Obama Be President?, by Fred Zimmerman, p.44-5 Oct 17, 2006 

What a crock.  Communism.  Change the rules and let the market decide.

And another -->

    We cannot drill our way out of the problem. Instead of subsidizing the oil industry, we should end every single tax break the industry currently receives and demand that 1% of the revenues from oil companies with over $1 billion in quarterly profits go toward financing alternative energy research and infrastructure. 
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.167-169 Oct 1, 2006 
   
Mostly good ideas - for example, more drilling is not the answer and ending tax breaks.  But, DEMANDING "that 1% of the revenues from oil companies with over $1 billion in quarterly profits go toward financing alternative energy research and infrastructure."  Ridiculous.  Why not .5%; 1.2%?  3%?  Why is 1% the right percentage Chairman Obama?  "Over $1 billion"....why not $.4 billion??  Then Senator Obama suggests (as does Senator Clinton) that the federal government will know how to effectively use the dollars brought into federal coffers via this demand.


Senator John McCain

The least communistic of the three leading Presidential contenders.  He voted YES on:

    targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. Dorgan Amdt. No. 865; To require that the hydrogen commercialization plan of the Department of Energy include a description of activities to support certain hydrogen technology deployment goals. Part of S 14 Energy Omnibus bill; this vote would pass an amendment that would call for the Department of Energy to set targets and timelines to maintain the production of 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010, and 2.5 million vehicles annually by 2020. It also would call for the department to set targets for the sale of hydrogen at fueling stations. The bill would require the Energy secretary to submit a yearly progress report to Congress.
Reference: Bill S.14 ; vote number 2003-212 on Jun 10, 2003

There's no cost listed, but the same arguments above hold.  Some research and development by the government...sure.  Creating some private/public partnerships....sure.  But let's not potentially waste money large scale.

With respect to oil company profits he said, they "....ought to be reinvesting it. And one of the areas that they ought to be involved in is nuclear power." 
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007  

Wrong.  We live in a capitalistic society.  Change the market conditions if you want companies to act differently.

Other tidbits to be found on Senator McCain on www.ontheissues.org include:
 
   - He's for Cap & Trade  Source: 2008 GOP debate in Boca Raton Florida Jan 24, 2008 
   - He says climate change is real and must be addressed  Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Republican Debate Dec 12, 2007
   - He says nuclear power is the answer to climate change --> We have now a confluence of two national security requirements. One is to address the issue of climate change, and nuclear power is a very big part of that. And it's also a requirement to not allow Chavez in Venezuela, Putin in Russia and the president of Iran to dictate world events and use oil as a weapon which would probably further terrorism and endanger this nation's national security.
Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Yep, every day we cede more and more control over our economy to other nations because of our addiction to oil.


Mayor Michael Bloomberg

Not big on any communistic ideas.  He says -->

    - We have to stop ignoring the laws of economics. As long as greenhouse gas pollution is free, it will be abundant. If we want to reduce it, there has to be a cost for producing it. The voluntary targets suggested by Pres. Bush would be like voluntary speed limits--doomed to fail. If we're serious about climate change, the question is not whether we should put a value on greenhouse gas pollution, but how we should do it. [I prefer a direct charge over cap-and-trade].
Source: Keynote Address to the US Conference of Mayors Nov 2, 2007 

Here, here.  How about a federal tax shift as a direct charge?

    - The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bali, which was my privilege to address, was an historic gathering. It set the stage for a global compact that advances the progress begun some 10 years ago at Kyoto.  However, between now and the Copenhagen Conference next year, we must establish, I think, the preconditions for such progress. Both developed and developing nations must recognize the need to alter their policies and make serious commitments to change. And I believe that our experience in New York City, and the experience of many of the world's other great cities, too, can help guide that process.  The first precondition for making the Copenhagen negotiations a success, I believe, is that the US, which leads the world in greenhouse gas production, must finally set real and binding carbon reduction targets. And I believe the American people are prepared to accept our responsibility to lead by example.
Source: Speech to the United Nations on tropical hardwoods Feb 11, 2008

Here, here.  Leadership.

##################################

P.S. - another U.S citizen with communistic tendencies.......  Demand Big Oil build more refineries by Bill O'Reilly (May 2007)

Excerpts:

    It is beyond frightening that both Democratic and Republican administrations have not insisted more oil refineries be built.  The only way a catastrophe can be headed off is for Congress to get serious with the oil companies and demand they upgrade and expand refining capacity and play fair on prices.

Again, we live in a capitalistic society.  What would Mr. O'Reilly's attitude be if he were part of big oil?

And, in closing, just for fun from the same article:

    Appeals to conserve energy are swell but won’t work. We are an immediate gratification society. We want what we want, and if it’s a Hummer, blank you if you don’t like it.

Scary, I agree with most of this.  So what are we going to do to change this mindset and solve global warming and our dependence on foreign energy?

        

Trackbacks

• No trackbacks exist for this entry.

Comments

• 2/22/2008 1:44 PM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
  As always, I totally agree that pricing the externalities into all products and letting the market decide is the way to go.
  
  But most "citizens" in the US are really just "consumers," having largely abdicated the responsibilities of true citizenship, leaving the plutocratic-communistic-authoritarian corruptibles in charge, unfettered by anything more than polling data. How on earth can sensible long-term policies be pitched to the public in an environment where powerful forces regularly argue against common sense and the hoi polloi are too undereducated and ill-informed to sift through the ideas and insanity and allow good-willed politicians to do what needs to be done?
  
  Until we free government from the grip of corporations and demand more of citizens, we will be left with picking technologies and subsidizing them. In absence of a best solution---tax shifting---I guess I'd rather have a second-best solution, such as promoting the most likely sustainable technologies at the expense of the most undesirable.
  
  P.S. McCain is nuts on hydrogen -- it's a black hole for money.
  Reply to this
  1. 2/23/2008 11:16 AM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     
     Wow....nicely and concisely written.
     
     The question is.....how to break-out of this trend?  I believe electing representatives that are not dependent upon and therefore (at least an iota) beholden to corporations and interest groups is the most important step we need to take.  If anyone ever tries to register www.solvethebiggie.com they'll find it's taken.  Someday that could be blog #2.  "The biggie" is getting money out of elections via public financing of campaigns.
     
     Anyway........picking technologies for some government R&D (preferably public/private partnerships) is OK.  Other than that, agree, we need to price externalities into all products and let the market decide.
     
     Hydrogen is a great example.  I don't pretend to know whether it has at least a niche in the market that could then grow.  What do investors (using THEIR money) think about the promise and potential return?
     
     Reply to this
• 2/23/2008 9:27 AM Jim Blair wrote:
  Hi,
  
  What's wrong with hydrogen? I mean for those who realize that it is only a way to transmit and store energy generated from a primary source.
  
  IF we were to greatly expand the use of solar and/or wind, hydrogen (from water hydrolysis) would be the likely best option.
  
  And did you see that the UW-Madison is to be the base for a massive new government subsidy to improved bio-fuels?
  
  http://www.greatlakesbioenergy.org/
  
  While I don't think bio-fuel is the best answer (food vs fuel, etc) this money is likely better spent than most federal subsidies. Because it will expand basic research into plant biology and genetic engineering.
  
  And I predict that in a few years we will see the Green Power and "renewable energy" and "anything but nuclear" crowd complaining about releasing GMO "Frankenplants" into our environment.
  Reply to this
• 2/23/2008 1:17 PM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
  Hi Paul --
  
  << how to break-out of this trend? ... "The biggie" is getting money out of elections via public financing of campaigns. >>
  
  Right. Beyond the ridiculous notion foisted on us by the Supreme Court that campaign finance limits are largely unconstitutional, opponents of public financing often argue that using taxpayer dollars on campaigns is just wasting more tax money. But the cost of campaigns is small compared to the cost we currently bear of the federal government rigging the world in favor of corporations.
  
  But even if you got rid of PAC contributions to politicians, you'd still have non-candidate ads and influence campaigns run by the corporations, their PACs ,and their pit bulls (like the American Enterprise Institute). In the end, the real solution is to break the political power of corporations. That is not an anti-capitalism statement, it is a pro-democracy statement. Money corrupts, absolutely. Corporations, by statute, are only allowed to worry about money.
  
  << Hydrogen is a great example. I don't pretend to know whether it has at least a niche in the market that could then grow. What do investors (using THEIR money) think about the promise and potential return? >>
  
  Exactly. When do we see wall streeters running towards hydrogen and nuclear? On the former, it's mostly where research subsidies are available, which is fine for now---that's where we are with hydrogen -- lots of R&D needed. Which points out the problem with most corporate structures. They are not oriented to long-term profits---that's not how the stock market instructs them to act. If government doesn't make it unpalatable for people to trade stocks like baseball cards, the hegemony of the plutocrats will continue forcing corporations to focus on the short term, ignoring society's long-term needs (and areas for profitability).
  
  Hey, we ended up back at tax reform!
  
  Mark
  Reply to this
• 2/23/2008 1:19 PM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
  Hi Jim --
  
  << What's wrong with hydrogen? I mean for those who realize that it is only a way to transmit and store energy generated from a primary source. >>
  
  As a long term solution, hydrogen is probably a good one. My argument is that we should disabuse ourselves of any notion that a decade from now we'll all be driving hydrogen cars, with the looming oil crisis will have been solved by some "Hydrogen Apollo Plan." There are just too many problems still to be solved with this technology. Joseph Romm (The Hype About Hydrogen) has a number of good interviews around the web on this subject. Interestingly, he used to work with Amory Lovins---one of hydrogen's biggest boosters. I don't hate hydrogen, I just think we should keep proper perspective on it.
  
  << IF we were to greatly expand the use of solar and/or wind, hydrogen (from water hydrolysis) would be the likely best option. >>
  
  If you look at the energy transfer inefficiencies, it's my understanding that electricity and batteries are currently much more efficient that hydrogen generation and fuel cells. AND there is already an infrastructure for the former. Wind/solar/wave/tide electric generation + plug-in hybrids is likely the smartest path. Lester Brown has a good chapter on how this is possible in the next decade. See: http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/Contents.htm -- ch 12.
  
  << While I don't think bio-fuel is the best answer (food vs fuel, etc) this money is likely better spent than most federal subsidies. Because it will expand basic research into plant biology and genetic engineering. And I predict that in a few years we will see the Green Power and "renewable energy" and "anything but nuclear" crowd complaining about releasing GMO "Frankenplants" into our environment. >>
  
  Hey, I ALREADY complain about Monsanto and all the other franken-corps. If between nuclear and GMOs, I could pick just one to vanish, it would be GMOs -- that's how dangerous I think they will prove to be in the long-term. Nanotech will likely be even worse. It's not that GMOs and nano are more dangerous than nuclear, it's that we treat them as if they were. We're twiddling around down at the level of the basic building blocks of life and matter. That's a dangerous business -- we have knowledge and little wisdom.
  
  Mark
  Reply to this
• 2/24/2008 10:30 PM Jim Blair wrote:
  Hi,
  
  Just to remind you all that we are building new coal power plants and investing billions to develop new GMO crops to produce bio-fuels, all because we refuse to expand nuclear electric and reprocess the "waste" from it.
  
  And there are really few other options for reliable electricity given current technology. Tidal power can only work near the ocean, and environmentalists would balk at its use. Imagine the response to a dam under the Golden Gate bridge to use the tides in SF Bay. Ted Kennedy is already blocking a wind farm off of Cape Cod. In Alberta there is a conflict between "environmentalists" and "preservationists" over wind turbines spoiling the view of the prairies.
  Reply to this
  1. 2/25/2008 12:50 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     
     We also, to this point, refuse to pay the external costs of our energy use so it's cheap and we waste a high percentage.
     
     When citizens recognize the true costs of energy, seeing wind turbines won't be a problem.
     Reply to this

Leave a comment