... that is, the ones not made up out of thin air by the Republicans.
Barack Obama said he'd stop torture and hold those responsible accountable. Instead, he's fighting in the courts to continue indefinite imprisonment and protect Bush's military commissions,* while torture continues under his watch at Bagram in Afghanistan. He's also blocked any possible investigation, never mind trial, of those who committed torture or who authorized it, even while our allies are moving forward with their own trials in the face of American hostility.
Barack Obama said he'd pull us out of Iraq by 2010. In fact, even by the end of 2011 there is supposed to be a permanent 50,000 troop presence for purposes of "training."
Barack Obama said he'd put a stop to funding wars through off-budget supplemental bills. He lied about that one, too.
And, most recently, he promised a moratorium on the issuing of new permits to drill deep-ocean oil wells... and then kept right on issuing those permits, with not even so much as a slow-down.
Guantanamo is still open.
The PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act are still law, and there is no bill even filed, much less likely to pass Congress, to repeal them.
And the Obama White House worked hard to water down both health care reform (making it into little more than a taxpayer hand-out to insurance corporations) and financial reform (so that no company Too Big to Fail would suffer).
I honestly cannot see any reason to support- or even TRUST- this man anymore.
* Take note: he nominated the lawyer who argued in favor of permanent imprisonment without due process of law to the Supreme Court.
Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts
Monday, May 24, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Don Blankenship: Teabagger, Racist, Greedy, Sociopathic... Republican
So the big news the past couple days is the big mine explosion in West Virginia.
This is by no means the first time that a mine belonging to the Massey Corporation has caused the deaths of workers. The CEO of the corporation, Don Blankenship, has said in an interview that despite the multitude of safety violations, there was nothing wrong with how the mine was run:
Yes, this nitwit does not realize- or will not admit- that safety regulation violations are a definitive sign that the mine IS unsafe.
Of course, you'll notice that he mentiones the Mine Safety and Health Authority, the state government, and his employed engineers... but he doesn't mention union safety crews or inspectors. That's because, over the past decade, he's purged the United Mine Workers of America from his corporation's mines.
And the above is a Forbes article from 2003- in other words, that was his closest FRIENDS writing about him. His allies in big business were, at the time, sharply critical of his short-sighted policies combined with his monopolistic desires- as you see above, his corporation controls a third of all coal in Appalachia, and holds near total dominion over West Virginia, where coal is the only industry.
Here's what his ENEMIES say about him, and it's based on more recent material:
Scared yet? That's only the beginning:
So here we have a man who has no value whatever for the lives of other people, who believes that any form of regulation or conservation is Communist tyranny, who attacks and abuses other people and routinely gets away with it...
...oh, and did I mention he's one of the biggest Republican donors in four states, to the point that he's de facto boss of the Republican machine in West Virginia?
And look down in the comments:
And what did Blankenship get for his money? An attorney general who ordered Virginia universities to discriminate against gays and lesbians, and a governor who just declared April to be Confederate History Month... and then left out slavery altogether from his proclamation because:
Yeah... because the single biggest reason the secessionists themselves cited for forming the Confederacy isn't significant enough to be part of history.
So... Don apparently got what he paid for there.
And how did this nutbar not only survive, but prosper, in the decade he's been CEO of Massey? One word: politics.
In short language: Blankenship is one of many crazy, self-obsessed CEOs who have bought off the government. We can only wait and hope that this fresh tragedy actually goads a Democratic federal government into putting some teeth into the regulations and nailing Blankenship's hide to the proverbial war.
But, since the Democratic Party is the Party of Caving In to Evil, I'm not holding my breath. No doubt they have More Important Issues to Focus On. No doubt they Don't Want to Alienate Republicans in Congress. No doubt they wish to Seek Bipartisanship.
If the Democrats don't act now, and act definitively, it will be merely another example of why we desperately need some other party besides the Big Two- one irredeemably evil, the other useless.
This is by no means the first time that a mine belonging to the Massey Corporation has caused the deaths of workers. The CEO of the corporation, Don Blankenship, has said in an interview that despite the multitude of safety violations, there was nothing wrong with how the mine was run:
I mean violations are unfortunately a normal part of the mining process. You have inspections every day and it’s hard to differentiate sometimes between head count or number counts of violations and the seriousness or type of it.
[Upper Big Branch] was a mine that had violations. I think the fact that MSHA and the state and our firebosses and the best engineers you can find were all in and order this mine and all belive it was safe … speaks for itself.
Any suspicion that the mine was improperly operated or illegally operated or anything like that would be unfounded. None of these groups would have allowed this mine to operate had it been unsafe.
Yes, this nitwit does not realize- or will not admit- that safety regulation violations are a definitive sign that the mine IS unsafe.
Of course, you'll notice that he mentiones the Mine Safety and Health Authority, the state government, and his employed engineers... but he doesn't mention union safety crews or inspectors. That's because, over the past decade, he's purged the United Mine Workers of America from his corporation's mines.
The combative head of the nation's sixth-biggest coal company has benefited greatly by facing down the union. But it's not his only enemy. Environmental regulators, who he says are in cahoots with the union, aren't particularly fond of him either. They say he runs some of the industry's dirtiest mines. Now Wall Street has joined the party. The cocky, independent streak that served him so well has led to bad decisions, such as hiring cheaper but inexperienced workers.
. . .
The 53-year-old made his name in 1985, when Massey insisted on separate negotiations for each of the company's mines. In protest the United Mine Workers of America struck at mines run by Blankenship. But after 15 months, with one worker shot to death, 91 others sent to the hospital, three of Blankenship's armored cars trashed and those 11 bullets fired into his office, the union caved in, agreeing to less featherbedding and less job security. Now Massey's liabilities for future retiree benefits and land reclamation equal $11 for each ton it ships annually; its three biggest rivals average $20 a ton.
. . .
The 53-year-old made his name in 1985, when Massey insisted on separate negotiations for each of the company's mines. In protest the United Mine Workers of America struck at mines run by Blankenship. But after 15 months, with one worker shot to death, 91 others sent to the hospital, three of Blankenship's armored cars trashed and those 11 bullets fired into his office, the union caved in, agreeing to less featherbedding and less job security. Now Massey's liabilities for future retiree benefits and land reclamation equal $11 for each ton it ships annually; its three biggest rivals average $20 a ton.
. . .
Blankenship, making a contrarian bet that the supply of low-sulfur coal will fall even faster than demand as more eastern miners fold up shop, has bought mines in West Virginia. Massey now has a third of Central Appalachia's proven and probable reserves. It mined 44 million tons last year, up from 13 million in 1990. "We're skating where the puck is going to be," says Blankenship.
. . .
n October 2000 the floor of a 72-acre wastewater reservoir built above an abandoned mine in Kentucky collapsed, sending black sludge through the mine and out into a tributary of the Big Sandy River. The sludge killed fish and plants for 36 miles downstream... Blankenship says the accident "could have happened to anyone" and partly blames faulty maps of the old mine . . . the reservoir had shown signs of leaking right before the accident and Massey failed to report that fact to regulators as required, according to the U.S. Mine Safety & Health Administration. The cleanup has cost $58 million so far.
. . .
The state's Surface Mine Board, which includes the vice chairman of the state lobbying group for the coal industry, called Massey's actions at Madison "absolutely the worst behavior by any company that any member of this board has ever seen over the decades that this board has been in existence."
Over the two years through 2001 Massey was cited by West Virginia officials for violating regulations 501 times. Its three biggest rivals, mining twice as much coal in the state as Massey, were cited a collective 175 times. Blankenship says Massey is unfairly targeted by regulators. "We don't pay much attention to the violation count," he says.
. . .
In the winter of 2000-01 electricity demand rose and the spot price for Central Appalachian coal jumped from $24 a ton to $48 a ton. Mining companies began digging furiously, hiring more workers and pushing up wages. Blankenship refused to match the increases. Miners quit in droves. The timing was awful. Blankenship had planned to increase Massey coal production for the coming year from 44 million tons to 56 million tons and so needed to add staff. He had to turn to people with little experience. By the end of 2001 half of his 5,000-person staff were new hires.
The company's cost of sales, which includes miner's wages, jumped 11% in 2001 for each ton of coal sold. And, despite the surge in coal prices, Massey's operating margin fell a third, to 13%, that year. Blankenship says his decision to let the old workers go will be vindicated as savings from lower wages pile up.
And the above is a Forbes article from 2003- in other words, that was his closest FRIENDS writing about him. His allies in big business were, at the time, sharply critical of his short-sighted policies combined with his monopolistic desires- as you see above, his corporation controls a third of all coal in Appalachia, and holds near total dominion over West Virginia, where coal is the only industry.
Here's what his ENEMIES say about him, and it's based on more recent material:
Here's something else about Don Blankenship and Massey Energy Company: Blankenship spent over $1 million dollars along with other US Chamber buddies like Verizon to sponsor last year's Labor Day Tea Party, also known as the "Friends of America Rally."
. . .
Massey ranks among the nation’s top five coal producers and is among the industry’s most profitable. It has a spotty safety record.
The federal mine safety administration fined Massey a then-record $1.5 million for 25 violations that inspectors concluded contributed to the deaths of two miners trapped in a fire in January 2006. The company later settled a lawsuit naming it, several subsidiaries and Chief Executive Don Blankenship as defendants. Aracoma Coal Co. later paid $2.5 million in fines after the company pleaded guilty to 10 criminal charges in the fire.
. . .
The Manville Trust filed the case in July 2007 against company Chairman, CEO, and President Don Blankenship and certain other current and former officers and directors. The plaintiff sought several corporate governance reforms, specifically regarding environmental compliance and worker safety. Citing several incidents involving Massey Energy, including a major federal water pollution lawsuit, penalties for two coal miners' tragic deaths and other safety and environmental compliance problems, the lawsuit claimed that a "conscious failure" by the defendants to ensure compliance with federal and state regulations and other legal obligations posed a "substantial threat of monetary liability for violations."
. . .
Blankenship will spend millions to keep the Massey Energy's workforce non-union, is perfectly happy to discriminate against union workers even if it means being sued and losing, and might hate unions as much as he hates 'greeniacs'.This is the same mine where the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently ruled that Spartan Mining illegally discriminated against 82 UMWA members by refusing to hire them because of their union membership status.
“This settlement highlights yet again the treacherous and backhanded manner Massey treated the miners who had worked at the Cannelton mine for decades,” UMWA International President Cecil E. Roberts said. “While it was discriminating against these experienced miners because of their age or union status, the company was at the same time publicly crying about the lack of experienced miners in the coalfields.
“But it wasn’t that Massey couldn’t find experienced miners,” Roberts said. “They were there all along and wanted to work. It was that the company would rather break the law than allow its employees to have a strong voice at work and the tremendous benefits of a union contract.
Penny-wise, pound-foolish. An investment in experienced workers trained in state-of-the art safety measures combined with OSHA compliance and mine safety measures might have saved at least 25, and possibly 29 lives.
Instead Don Blankenship spent that money and more on a US Chamber of Commerce corporate-sponsored tea party to convince good, hard-working honest people to work against their best interests.
Scared yet? That's only the beginning:
On April 3, 2008, ABC News reported that Blankenship attacked an ABC News photographer at a Massey facility near Belfry, Kentucky . . . "If you're going to start taking pictures of me, you're liable to get shot," Blankenship stated in the video.
. . .
A former employee of Blankenship, Deborah May, has filed a lawsuit claiming that stress from personal abuse forced her to quit her job as Blankenship's personal maid in November, 2005. The lawsuit claims that a wrong breakfast order from McDonald's, misplaced ice cream in the freezer and an improperly hung jacket in the closet caused difficulties with Blankenship.
. . .
He referred to the support of President Jimmy Carter for energy conservation in the 1970s to communism: "Buy a smaller car? Conserve? I have spent quite a bit of time in Russia and China, and that's the first stage."
In a letter to the editor of the Charleston (WV) Gazette dated Oct. 30, 2009 Blankenship denied that global warming exists, and states: "Why should we trust a report by the United Nations? The United Nations includes countries like Venezuela, North Korea and Iran."
In 2005, Blankenship wrote a memo to employees telling them that maximizing coal production was more important than spending time constructing things like support beams or ventilation shafts: "If any of you have been asked by your group presidents, your supervisors, engineers or anyone else to do anything other than run coal (i.e., build overcasts, do construction jobs, or whatever) you need to ignore them and run coal."
So here we have a man who has no value whatever for the lives of other people, who believes that any form of regulation or conservation is Communist tyranny, who attacks and abuses other people and routinely gets away with it...
...oh, and did I mention he's one of the biggest Republican donors in four states, to the point that he's de facto boss of the Republican machine in West Virginia?
Don Blankenship, the CEO of Massey Energy — which owns the Whitesville mine — is a looming figure in West Virginia politics. Indeed, it's difficult to think of a figure like him in any other state in the current century. He financed a takeover of the state Supreme Court that wound up setting U.S. Supreme Court precedent around politics and the judiciary, and then tried to take over the Legislature.
And look down in the comments:
1) Massey Energy is based in Richmond; 2) Massey's Knox Creek site in Tazewell County "was one of ten sites in the country to be cited for major health and safety violations last October"; 3) our fine Attorney General is not only NOT cracking down on Massey, he "is actually working with Massey Energy on his lawsuit against the EPA;" and 4) Massey hearts Virginia Republicans, having donated $61,000 to Virginia Republicans in 2009 ("and $0 to the Dems"), not to mention $441,463 to Virginia Republicans since 1997 (just $8,250 to Democrats), including $40,000 to Bob McDonnell for Governor and $10,000 to Ken Cuccinelli for Attorney General.
And what did Blankenship get for his money? An attorney general who ordered Virginia universities to discriminate against gays and lesbians, and a governor who just declared April to be Confederate History Month... and then left out slavery altogether from his proclamation because:
"there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia."
Yeah... because the single biggest reason the secessionists themselves cited for forming the Confederacy isn't significant enough to be part of history.
So... Don apparently got what he paid for there.
And how did this nutbar not only survive, but prosper, in the decade he's been CEO of Massey? One word: politics.
Blankenship was abetted by former employees placed at the highest levels of the federal mine safety system. Massey COO Stanley Suboleski was named a commissioner of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission in 2003 and was nominated in December 2007 to run the Energy Department’s Office of Fossil Energy. Suboleski is now back on the Massey board. After being rejected twice by the Senate, one-time Massey executive Dick Stickler was put in charge of the MSHA in a recess appointment in October 2006. In the 1990s, Stickler oversaw Massey subsidiary Performance Coal, the operator of the deadly Upper Big Branch Mine, after managing Beth Energy mines, which “incurred injury rates double the national average.” Bush named Stickler acting secretary when the recess appointment expired in January 2008.
. . .
U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, wife of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), oversaw the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Chao “put on the brakes” on the MSHA investigation into the spill by placing a McConnell staffer in charge. In 2002 a $5,600 fine was levied. That September Massey gave $100,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, chaired by McConnell.
. . .
In May 2007 the EPA filed suit for $2.4 billion against Massey for violating “Clean Water Act more than 4,500 times from the beginning of 2000 to the end of 2006″ in West Virginia and Kentucky, including the Martin County spill. In January 2008 Massey agreed to pay $20 million to settle the case.
In short language: Blankenship is one of many crazy, self-obsessed CEOs who have bought off the government. We can only wait and hope that this fresh tragedy actually goads a Democratic federal government into putting some teeth into the regulations and nailing Blankenship's hide to the proverbial war.
But, since the Democratic Party is the Party of Caving In to Evil, I'm not holding my breath. No doubt they have More Important Issues to Focus On. No doubt they Don't Want to Alienate Republicans in Congress. No doubt they wish to Seek Bipartisanship.
If the Democrats don't act now, and act definitively, it will be merely another example of why we desperately need some other party besides the Big Two- one irredeemably evil, the other useless.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
What Have I Got Against Obama?
Some of you coming into this blog cold may be confused- I was an Obama supporter, vanished for a year and a half, and came back an Obama basher. What gives?
Well, I wasn't totally silent in that year and a half- I just gave up doing a separate political blog and dumped everything on LiveJournal. And here below are links to the many and various reasons I have for thinking Barack Obama has turned his back on those who voted for him and does not deserve a second term as president. (For a while I even advocated his impeachment- because impeachment is the only constitutional punishment for a lawbreaking president- but I retracted that when some racist teabaggers opened up an impeachment website.)
Here's my reasons:
First, let's begin with one of my last pre-hiatus LYAN posts, where I called out then-candidate Senator Obama for voting for telcom immunity for illegal Presidential-ordered wiretaps. Despite that, I voted for Obama, on the grounds that he would restore a constitutional presidency and constitutional government after eight years of Bush/Cheney's "unitary executive."
So, what did we actually get? Well, Obama telegraphed his intent before he was even inaugurated when he said that Dubya was a nice guy who just made some bad policy decisions with the best of intentions. (Yes, because apparently torture is only "a bad choice.") He went on to nominate an attorney general who promised, as part of his nomination hearings, not to prosecute anyone for ordering torture or committing other war crimes. Obama's officials made it crystal clear that there would be no prosecutions so long as they could prevent it, going so far as to continue the Bush administration's cover-up policies and to squash attempted prosecutions in Spain and Great Britain through diplomatic threats. They even defend the use of torture in our courts and defend those who claimed that it isn't torture if it doesn't kill or maim you.
And finally, even when Obama issued his famous executive order banning the use of torture, he left a loophole that allows the CIA to continue torturing- with special permission from the President. This marks Obama, bluntly, as pro-torture. At the very least, he and his advisors refuse to rule out the use of torture in the future.
Torture, and protecting those who did it, was not the only way Obama betrayed his promises of change. Obama's Justice Department vigorously defended illegal warrantless wiretapping, White House secrecy, and the indefinite/permanent imprisonment of prisoners in Guantanamo and Bagram. This initially was with Bush-appointed lawyers, but Obama appointees were just as vigorous in defending warrantless wiretapping. He's even resisted court orders to release Guantanamo prisoners found completely innocent. He declared his intent to continue the use of presidential signing statements in order to ignore the laws passed by Congress. He protected the corrupt AIG executives whose trading of credit default swaps nearly destroyed the world economy. He sided with the big corporations on copyright extension and enforcement- that is, suing downloaders.
On a less obstruction-of-justice level, Obama pursued bipartisanship at the cost of his own agenda. He sabotaged his own stimulus package by allowing Congress to craft it... with his only contribution being a demand that tax cuts be included, over the objections of his own economists and advisors. He personally intervened to quash a Supreme Court hearing to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell, while his Justice Department chose a rabid homophobe to write a defense of the Defense of Marriage Act that basically implies homosexuals have no civil rights worth respecting.
And in personal peeves, he cut hydrogen technology research funds in favor of horribly polluting and inefficient biofuels, he supported the weakest and worst of the five committee bills on health care reform, killed what could have been a workable 60-vote public-option Senate bill, backed Joe Lieberman's filibuster threat...
... and as you read yesterday he's about to effectively kill manned exploration of deep space.
All of THAT is why I'm angry at Barack Obama... and regret having voted for him.
Well, I wasn't totally silent in that year and a half- I just gave up doing a separate political blog and dumped everything on LiveJournal. And here below are links to the many and various reasons I have for thinking Barack Obama has turned his back on those who voted for him and does not deserve a second term as president. (For a while I even advocated his impeachment- because impeachment is the only constitutional punishment for a lawbreaking president- but I retracted that when some racist teabaggers opened up an impeachment website.)
Here's my reasons:
First, let's begin with one of my last pre-hiatus LYAN posts, where I called out then-candidate Senator Obama for voting for telcom immunity for illegal Presidential-ordered wiretaps. Despite that, I voted for Obama, on the grounds that he would restore a constitutional presidency and constitutional government after eight years of Bush/Cheney's "unitary executive."
So, what did we actually get? Well, Obama telegraphed his intent before he was even inaugurated when he said that Dubya was a nice guy who just made some bad policy decisions with the best of intentions. (Yes, because apparently torture is only "a bad choice.") He went on to nominate an attorney general who promised, as part of his nomination hearings, not to prosecute anyone for ordering torture or committing other war crimes. Obama's officials made it crystal clear that there would be no prosecutions so long as they could prevent it, going so far as to continue the Bush administration's cover-up policies and to squash attempted prosecutions in Spain and Great Britain through diplomatic threats. They even defend the use of torture in our courts and defend those who claimed that it isn't torture if it doesn't kill or maim you.
And finally, even when Obama issued his famous executive order banning the use of torture, he left a loophole that allows the CIA to continue torturing- with special permission from the President. This marks Obama, bluntly, as pro-torture. At the very least, he and his advisors refuse to rule out the use of torture in the future.
Torture, and protecting those who did it, was not the only way Obama betrayed his promises of change. Obama's Justice Department vigorously defended illegal warrantless wiretapping, White House secrecy, and the indefinite/permanent imprisonment of prisoners in Guantanamo and Bagram. This initially was with Bush-appointed lawyers, but Obama appointees were just as vigorous in defending warrantless wiretapping. He's even resisted court orders to release Guantanamo prisoners found completely innocent. He declared his intent to continue the use of presidential signing statements in order to ignore the laws passed by Congress. He protected the corrupt AIG executives whose trading of credit default swaps nearly destroyed the world economy. He sided with the big corporations on copyright extension and enforcement- that is, suing downloaders.
On a less obstruction-of-justice level, Obama pursued bipartisanship at the cost of his own agenda. He sabotaged his own stimulus package by allowing Congress to craft it... with his only contribution being a demand that tax cuts be included, over the objections of his own economists and advisors. He personally intervened to quash a Supreme Court hearing to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell, while his Justice Department chose a rabid homophobe to write a defense of the Defense of Marriage Act that basically implies homosexuals have no civil rights worth respecting.
And in personal peeves, he cut hydrogen technology research funds in favor of horribly polluting and inefficient biofuels, he supported the weakest and worst of the five committee bills on health care reform, killed what could have been a workable 60-vote public-option Senate bill, backed Joe Lieberman's filibuster threat...
... and as you read yesterday he's about to effectively kill manned exploration of deep space.
All of THAT is why I'm angry at Barack Obama... and regret having voted for him.
Friday, December 28, 2007
How to Look Concerned Without Really Doing Anything Dept.
Today I found out about a new program created in the 2007 Texas legislature that I'd entirely missed in the news coverage, or lack thereof.
I introduce to you: the Low-Income Vehicle Repair Assistance, Retrofit, and Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Program.
Sounds good, right? Well, um, no.
First, you can't make more than twice the poverty line in your household.
Second, your car has to pass everything except emissions checks. (This, of course, requires that you live in a county that HAS emissions checks, and for at least a year prior to applying. It also requires your car be rolling, and that you have a clean title.)
Third, the director of a state agency- the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality- can put any additional restrictions on the program he or she sees fit.
If you get through these three obstacles, though, what do you get? Between $30 and $600 to bring your car up to code, or between $600 to $1000 to replace the car if it can't be brought up to code.
Furthermore, you can't get the $1000 unless the old car is completely parted out or destroyed outright. You can't sell it as a car or use it as a trade-in at a dealership.
Now, for most causes of emissions failure, $600 is not nearly enough to cover the work needed to bring a car up to snuff. Nor are you going to get a car that passes emissions tests for $1000. In fact, a car that passes inspection isn't likely to be available for less than $3000, and more likely more than $5000.
My personal prediction? This program is going to dole out only a tiny trickle of its billion-dollar budget to the poor. The rest is going to go either to bureaucrats under "administrative costs" or to friends of the current GOP leadership in Texas who can weasel their way through a loophole somewhere.
I personally believe that, if the government is going to concern itself at all with replacing people's old hooptys, it ought to just give folks a new car and be done with it.
Here's how I'd do it: first, set aside a certain amount of dough, say a billion a year, for the program. One million- 0.1% of the total budget- for overhead costs should be sufficient. Give a handful of officials full authority to go out and buy the cars the cheapest way- whether that's direct from the manufacturer or off a car lot. Don't set up any bureaucracy that requires years of applications and review before the cars get delivered; it doesn't stop crooked bureaucrats from giving their buddies a special deal. Instead, investigate the receipts after the fact and make an example of anybody who gets too grabby.
What kind of cars should be bought? No-frills models, certainly- the absolute base standard package. There should be a mix of different vehicle types, but since the program would focus on urban areas the bulk should be small passenger cars. I'd also recommend a mix of hybrids, all-electric, and hydrogen vehicles as they become available; save energy, reduce pollution, and encourage the construction of support infrastructure by the private sector. (Stanley, should we get our hydrogen at Shell, BP or Chevron?)
Given the above, the average price per car should be about $33,000, or a million bucks for thirty cars. If a billion bucks per year is budgeted for the program, that comes up to nearly thirty thousand cars given away per year. Presuming one car per person in Texas (in reality it's more), that's a bit more than 0.1% of all cars in Texas being replaced per year at taxpayer expense. (Which is OK, because most people can afford to upgrade their own rides.)
Anyway, divide up those thirty thousand cars among the urban areas in Texas that require emissions testing, by population. (Living in the sticks as I do, that would make me and about five million Texans ineligible.) People living in those areas can apply for an annual lottery to get the car; pledge your current car as a trade-in, and if your name is pulled, get a new car back. Restrict it to cars ten years or older, but otherwise allow anyone, regardless of income, one chance at a car.
Now let's weight the odds in favor of giving the cars to poor people with polluting, gas-guzzling beaters. Give five extra chances to anyone who shows evidence that the car they're pledging runs, but flunks emissions. Give five extra chances to any household earning less than double the poverty line, and twenty extra chances to any household earning the poverty line or less. Finally, give one extra chance for every two years older than ten the trade-in car is.
Then comes the lottery day, and the winners (plus alternates) are picked. The agency takes delivery of the old car and hands over the new, no taxes, no fees, nothing but a full tank/charge. The old cars can be auctioned off to recover a tiny bit of the cost of the program; the odds are they'll end up as parts, scrap metal, or new offerings in a Mexican car dealership. In any case, they'll be off Texas roads and, more likely than not, off the road altogether.
Is this a legitimate government function? No, not really- at least it's not a core function.
But it's a much better way of actually helping poor people drive cleaner than the abomination the Texas legislature actually came up with.
I introduce to you: the Low-Income Vehicle Repair Assistance, Retrofit, and Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Program.
Sounds good, right? Well, um, no.
First, you can't make more than twice the poverty line in your household.
Second, your car has to pass everything except emissions checks. (This, of course, requires that you live in a county that HAS emissions checks, and for at least a year prior to applying. It also requires your car be rolling, and that you have a clean title.)
Third, the director of a state agency- the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality- can put any additional restrictions on the program he or she sees fit.
If you get through these three obstacles, though, what do you get? Between $30 and $600 to bring your car up to code, or between $600 to $1000 to replace the car if it can't be brought up to code.
Furthermore, you can't get the $1000 unless the old car is completely parted out or destroyed outright. You can't sell it as a car or use it as a trade-in at a dealership.
Now, for most causes of emissions failure, $600 is not nearly enough to cover the work needed to bring a car up to snuff. Nor are you going to get a car that passes emissions tests for $1000. In fact, a car that passes inspection isn't likely to be available for less than $3000, and more likely more than $5000.
My personal prediction? This program is going to dole out only a tiny trickle of its billion-dollar budget to the poor. The rest is going to go either to bureaucrats under "administrative costs" or to friends of the current GOP leadership in Texas who can weasel their way through a loophole somewhere.
I personally believe that, if the government is going to concern itself at all with replacing people's old hooptys, it ought to just give folks a new car and be done with it.
Here's how I'd do it: first, set aside a certain amount of dough, say a billion a year, for the program. One million- 0.1% of the total budget- for overhead costs should be sufficient. Give a handful of officials full authority to go out and buy the cars the cheapest way- whether that's direct from the manufacturer or off a car lot. Don't set up any bureaucracy that requires years of applications and review before the cars get delivered; it doesn't stop crooked bureaucrats from giving their buddies a special deal. Instead, investigate the receipts after the fact and make an example of anybody who gets too grabby.
What kind of cars should be bought? No-frills models, certainly- the absolute base standard package. There should be a mix of different vehicle types, but since the program would focus on urban areas the bulk should be small passenger cars. I'd also recommend a mix of hybrids, all-electric, and hydrogen vehicles as they become available; save energy, reduce pollution, and encourage the construction of support infrastructure by the private sector. (Stanley, should we get our hydrogen at Shell, BP or Chevron?)
Given the above, the average price per car should be about $33,000, or a million bucks for thirty cars. If a billion bucks per year is budgeted for the program, that comes up to nearly thirty thousand cars given away per year. Presuming one car per person in Texas (in reality it's more), that's a bit more than 0.1% of all cars in Texas being replaced per year at taxpayer expense. (Which is OK, because most people can afford to upgrade their own rides.)
Anyway, divide up those thirty thousand cars among the urban areas in Texas that require emissions testing, by population. (Living in the sticks as I do, that would make me and about five million Texans ineligible.) People living in those areas can apply for an annual lottery to get the car; pledge your current car as a trade-in, and if your name is pulled, get a new car back. Restrict it to cars ten years or older, but otherwise allow anyone, regardless of income, one chance at a car.
Now let's weight the odds in favor of giving the cars to poor people with polluting, gas-guzzling beaters. Give five extra chances to anyone who shows evidence that the car they're pledging runs, but flunks emissions. Give five extra chances to any household earning less than double the poverty line, and twenty extra chances to any household earning the poverty line or less. Finally, give one extra chance for every two years older than ten the trade-in car is.
Then comes the lottery day, and the winners (plus alternates) are picked. The agency takes delivery of the old car and hands over the new, no taxes, no fees, nothing but a full tank/charge. The old cars can be auctioned off to recover a tiny bit of the cost of the program; the odds are they'll end up as parts, scrap metal, or new offerings in a Mexican car dealership. In any case, they'll be off Texas roads and, more likely than not, off the road altogether.
Is this a legitimate government function? No, not really- at least it's not a core function.
But it's a much better way of actually helping poor people drive cleaner than the abomination the Texas legislature actually came up with.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Follow-Up: Electric Companies Inefficient at Infrastructure Maintenance
Follow-up from yesterday's post:
Texas state Public Utility Commission Cracks Down on Power Companies
Notable quote: "I think it is approaching a number where it is cheaper for (companies) to just write a check than it is to make the repairs," Commissioner Barry Smitherman said during a discussion of the TXU penalty.
Also note just how complicated the regulations are, just in the brief mention given by the Houston Chronicle's report. Effective? Probably not.
Would a statewide or nationwide government-run transmission system be any more efficient? Almost certainly not- but at least you wouldn't have paper-pushers levying useless fines in an effort to look like they're actually working.
Texas state Public Utility Commission Cracks Down on Power Companies
Notable quote: "I think it is approaching a number where it is cheaper for (companies) to just write a check than it is to make the repairs," Commissioner Barry Smitherman said during a discussion of the TXU penalty.
Also note just how complicated the regulations are, just in the brief mention given by the Houston Chronicle's report. Effective? Probably not.
Would a statewide or nationwide government-run transmission system be any more efficient? Almost certainly not- but at least you wouldn't have paper-pushers levying useless fines in an effort to look like they're actually working.
Saturday, December 9, 2006
Wind Power: Good News, Bad News
The good news: with current petroleum prices, wind power is currently competitive with other methods of electric generation even without tax subsidies.
The bad news: Congress will almost certainly renew those subsidies next year- despite the fact that wind power companies no longer need them to be competitive.
Here's the Houston Chronicle's article on the subject.
Note the following numbers in the article:
COAL FIRED ELECTRICITY: 4.2 cents per kilowatt-hour
WIND POWER (subsidized): 4.6 cents per kilowatt-hour
WIND POWER (without subsidy): 6.0 cents per kilowatt-hour
NATURAL GAS FIRED ELECTRICITY: 6.8 cents per kilowatt-hour
The article also goes on to note infrastructure costs are fairly high for wind power. Viable wind generation sites are limited to remote areas- deserts, plains, or offshore sites- all of which require long-distance transmission wires to be installed. Furthermore, the high cost of wind turbine construction has caused a bottleneck for expansion of wind generation projects, making them more expensive. These, plus the call to make electric generation affordable for all, are the justifications cited for the tax credit.
HOWEVER.
If an industry is so successful that it has maxed out its ability to expand... why does that industry need tax dollars to survive?
As for transmission line costs... the same argument should apply to rural electrification projects, including the one I live on. Yes, I indirectly receive a government subsidy- because electric service to my area would never have been profitable without a massive initial government outlay. Even now my electricity comes not from a commercial provider, but from the regional co-op that owns the electric lines. In many, if not most, places the electric wires are run on publicly acquired rights of way, but the wires themselves are privately owned. This has led to monopolies in the past and mind-boggling regulations today.
There's a very simple solution to this. We have government owned roads to rural areas so that people who live and work there can get goods to and from the market- enriching all. We have government operated sea ports and airports for the same reasons. Let's extend this public service to transmission infrastructure- in short, publicly owned electric wires. Charge the electric companies a tax per kilowatt hour for maintenance- say, a nickel per- and let anyone with generation capacity into the market. This simplifies the current absurd regulations that try (and fail in many cases) to make the current private infrastructure open to competition- while opening that competition wider than ever.
The anarchists in the Libertarian Party, of course, would never go for this. In fact, there are some who with a straight face call for all public roadways to be auctioned off to the highest bidder- immediately. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not pay a $5 toll just to leave my driveway... and I don't like the "toll" electric companies charge for the use of their wires. This is a case where monopolies will exist UNLESS government acts... and I'd like to abolish all natural monopolies in such a manner.
But in the meantime, let's stop giving taxpayer money to companies owned by Goldman Sachs, hm? Subsidies are only justifiable as a temporary assistance to growing industries which, without them, could not get started. Wind power has its feet under it now- in fact, it's growing by leaps and bounds. It's time to get Goldman Sachs and other investors in wind power off the Welfare rolls... for a start.
The bad news: Congress will almost certainly renew those subsidies next year- despite the fact that wind power companies no longer need them to be competitive.
Here's the Houston Chronicle's article on the subject.
Note the following numbers in the article:
COAL FIRED ELECTRICITY: 4.2 cents per kilowatt-hour
WIND POWER (subsidized): 4.6 cents per kilowatt-hour
WIND POWER (without subsidy): 6.0 cents per kilowatt-hour
NATURAL GAS FIRED ELECTRICITY: 6.8 cents per kilowatt-hour
The article also goes on to note infrastructure costs are fairly high for wind power. Viable wind generation sites are limited to remote areas- deserts, plains, or offshore sites- all of which require long-distance transmission wires to be installed. Furthermore, the high cost of wind turbine construction has caused a bottleneck for expansion of wind generation projects, making them more expensive. These, plus the call to make electric generation affordable for all, are the justifications cited for the tax credit.
HOWEVER.
If an industry is so successful that it has maxed out its ability to expand... why does that industry need tax dollars to survive?
As for transmission line costs... the same argument should apply to rural electrification projects, including the one I live on. Yes, I indirectly receive a government subsidy- because electric service to my area would never have been profitable without a massive initial government outlay. Even now my electricity comes not from a commercial provider, but from the regional co-op that owns the electric lines. In many, if not most, places the electric wires are run on publicly acquired rights of way, but the wires themselves are privately owned. This has led to monopolies in the past and mind-boggling regulations today.
There's a very simple solution to this. We have government owned roads to rural areas so that people who live and work there can get goods to and from the market- enriching all. We have government operated sea ports and airports for the same reasons. Let's extend this public service to transmission infrastructure- in short, publicly owned electric wires. Charge the electric companies a tax per kilowatt hour for maintenance- say, a nickel per- and let anyone with generation capacity into the market. This simplifies the current absurd regulations that try (and fail in many cases) to make the current private infrastructure open to competition- while opening that competition wider than ever.
The anarchists in the Libertarian Party, of course, would never go for this. In fact, there are some who with a straight face call for all public roadways to be auctioned off to the highest bidder- immediately. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not pay a $5 toll just to leave my driveway... and I don't like the "toll" electric companies charge for the use of their wires. This is a case where monopolies will exist UNLESS government acts... and I'd like to abolish all natural monopolies in such a manner.
But in the meantime, let's stop giving taxpayer money to companies owned by Goldman Sachs, hm? Subsidies are only justifiable as a temporary assistance to growing industries which, without them, could not get started. Wind power has its feet under it now- in fact, it's growing by leaps and bounds. It's time to get Goldman Sachs and other investors in wind power off the Welfare rolls... for a start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
