The Energy Information Administration, who touts themselves as “Official Energy Statistics from the US Government”, released a rather astounding conclusion. While most people have been scare-mongering by saying Waxman-Markey will practically bankrupt most lower income people through much higher energy prices, EIA says this is not true at all:
ACESA increases energy prices, but effects on electricity and natural gas bills of consumers are substantially mitigated through 2025 by the allocation of free allowances to regulated electricity and natural gas distribution companies. Except for the ACESA No International/Limited Case, electricity prices in five of the six main ACESA cases range from 9.5 to 9.6 cents per kilowatthour in 2020, only 3 to 4 percent above the Reference Case level.6 Average impacts on electricity prices in 2030 are projected to be substantially greater, reflecting both higher allowance prices and the phase-out of the free allocation of allowances to distributors between 2025 and 2030. By 2030, electricity prices in the ACESA Basic Case are 12.0 cents per kilowatthour, 19 percent above the Reference Case level, with a wider band of 11.1 cents to 17.8 cents (10 to 77 percent above the Reference Case level) across all six main policy cases.
According to them, the cost of energy will be 3 to 4 percent higher until about 2030. At that point, it will jump to possibly 77% higher. But, since we’ll be using substantially less electricity, the overall impact will be mitigated. They even prove it by drawing a chart:
Sounds great to me. In the meantime:
- Utility Duke Energy seeks 12.6 percent rate increase for North Carolina customers
- Duke Energy will ask South Carolina regulators to boost rates by an average 9.3 percent for residential customers that it says it needs to cover costs and provide a fair return for investors.
- Duke Energy Kentucky announced today it has filed a request with the Kentucky Public Service Commission seeking a rate increase for natural gas delivery service of approximately $17.5 million, or 14 percent on total gas revenues, to be effective in early 2010.
- Appalachian Power Company has proposed a new rate increase that could raise electricity bills by 18 percent.
- Vermont’s second largest electric utility is asking the Public Service Board for permission to raise rates 4.84 percent on Oct. 1.
- On May 15, 2009, National Grid filed a petition with the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) requesting an approximately $111 million increase in rates as of January 1, 2010. For residential customers, this is an 18% increase in distribution rates (5.5% for total bill).
- As Salt River Project officials try to sell a proposed 8.8 percent increase in electric rates, critics say the utility is avoiding a big question: Where will the money go?
- Kansas regulators on Friday approved a $32 million increase in electric rates for Westar Energy Inc., raising customers’ monthly bills for the third time this year. The latest increase takes effect Monday and will help Westar pay for improvements on pollution-control equipment at its generating plants.
- Less than six months after it raised electric rates by $163 million, AmerenUE is going back to Missouri regulators in search of another, larger increase. The St. Louis-based utility on Friday sought approval to boost rates by 18 percent, or $402 million, to help compensate for higher fuel prices, financing costs and reliability improvements.
- Allegheny Power, the electric delivery business of Allegheny Energy, Inc., submitted a request to the Public Service Commission of West Virginia for an interim rate adjustment of $82 million for the recovery of fuel and purchased power costs. Allegheny has requested that the adjustment be effective October 1, 2009.
- State regulators on Tuesday said Consumers Energy Co. can enact a $53.5 million rate increase over the next six months, as a rate case continues in which the utility sought $214.5 million.
Those are some of the increases since June 26, 2009. That’s when Waxman-Markey passed. This is where it gets beautiful. EIA projects increases of 3 to 4 percent initially. Before the report was even printed, rates have increased by as much as 26%. Someone want to tell me exactly that margin of error is? It’s got to be pretty bad.
Some people are suggesting EIA was more concerned with political issues than math. I can’t see how that can not be disputed. I mean, all EIA had to do was read the headlines to know that 20% is probably the baseline to start with. It will only go up from there.
Meanwhile, the White House is still wanting to know who is spreading disinformation regarding health care. And, if they think you’re spreading misinformation, they’re sending in the SEIU. So, I guess if the EIA says it will be 3%, regardless if it’s already 20%, then it shall be 3%. Where have we heard that logic before?
All I’ve heard since last week was how the woefully underfunded Cash for Clunkers program needed another $2 billion to keep it going. This had to be done RIGHT NOW since it was such a wildly successful program. I heard more than one analyst tell me it was a key cog to kicking the economy back in gear. For those unaware, the Cash for Clunkers program gives you money for your outdated clunker based on the greenness of what you are trading it in for. People went crazy and rushed in to get rid of their gas guzzlers in an effort to save the environment, the economy, and of course, themselves some out of pocket cash. The reason people here are telling me it needs to get a lot more money RIGHT NOW is because it’s creating jobs in Michigan. So, I finally was made privvy to how this program is actually going. We all know they are selling all kinds of cars. But, what cars are they? Given that we had just shelled out a few billion dollars to save GM and Chrylser, I figured there would be some icentive to buy American. Where are the jobs being created? Obama promised Michigan and Indiana he’d fix all their problems.
Let’s look, shall we?
| Rank | Vehicle | Mileage | Manufacturing location | Co. Hdq. |
| 1 | Ford Focus | 27-28 | Wayne, Michigan | USA |
| 2 | Honda Civic | 24-42 | Canada | Japan |
| East Liberty Ohio | ||||
| 3 | Toyota Corolla | 25-30 | Japan | Japan |
| Brazil | ||||
| Canada | ||||
| China | ||||
| India | ||||
| Indonesia | ||||
| Malaysia | ||||
| Pakistan | ||||
| Phillipines | ||||
| South Africa | ||||
| Taiwan | ||||
| Thailand | ||||
| Turkey | ||||
| United Kingdom | ||||
| Venezuela | ||||
| Fremont, California | ||||
| 4 | Toyota Prius | 46 | Japan | Japan |
| 5 | Ford Escape | 20-32 | Ohio | USA |
| 6 | Toyota Camry | 23-34 | Georgetown, Kentucky, USA | Japan |
| Japan | ||||
| Australia | ||||
| Russia | ||||
| China | ||||
| 7 | Dodge Caliber | 22-27 | Illinois, USA | Italy |
| 8 | Hyundai Elantra | 26-28 | South Korea | South Korea |
| 9 | Honda Fit | 29-31 | China | Japan |
| Brazil | ||||
| Thailand | ||||
| Japan | ||||
| 10 | Chevy Cobalt | 25-30 | Ohio | USA |
Of the bailout monies, only the Chevy Colbalt is on the list. Of the American made and owned, Ford does quite well, placing two cars, Chevy makes it three. Japan however clocks in with five cars our clunker money is going to. South Korea and Italy round out the clunker cash. However, this clunker cash is susbidizing countries all over the planet. Including, of course, Venezuela. Some cars such as the Prius and Elantra, are manufactured completely abroad, and all the profits go abroad.
That’s what your tax dollars are doing with the Cash for Clunkers program that needs another $2 billion RIGHT NOW. I don’t know exactly what the percentage of the Cash for Clunkers program actually benefts US bailout companies. Obama’s super-transparent administration refuses to release those numbers.
I receive several newsletters in regards to what I do at work. This is one I received this morning.
Kentucky lawmakers discuss possible effects of federal energy bill
FRANKFORT – State lawmakers shared comments and concerns about a federal bill that proposes, among other changes, a three percent cut in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 and a 17 percent cut in emissions by 2020 during a meeting of the state legislative Special Subcommittee on Energy today.
The comments followed testimony by Kentucky Public Service Commission officials on the bill, named the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill after sponsors Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Ed Markey, D-Mass. PSC Executive Director Jeff Derouen said that the bill, which passed the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee on May 21, could mean significant increases in utility rates over time.
Derouen said possible rate increases under the climate and energy bill could range from 15 percent to 60 percent, although most experts estimate that rate increases would fall in the 20 to 35 percent range.
“They (rate changes) wouldn’t all come at once, and there’s still a moving target even among utilities about what it would mean in real dollars,” Derouen said.
Sen. Robert Stivers, R-Manchester, said he is concerned about the impact such increases would have on Kentucky industry and jobs. Per Stivers’ request, the subcommittee asked for more detail on the bill’s potential impact on large employers who rely on Kentucky’s historically low electricity rates.
“What bothers me…especially in this economy, is what there will be in terms of impact to the A.K. Steels of the world, the Ford plant in Louisville, the Toyota plant in Georgetown, the GM plant in Bowling Green—these high-end users that have come to the state because of low energy costs for production,” Stivers said.
What emissions are taxed will ultimately affect how much Kentuckians are taxed, Derouen said. He explained that Kentucky’s average utility rates are currently ranked 48th nationally while emissions from utility plants are ranked 7th. That ranking falls to 13th if all emissions, including vehicle emissions, are considered.
“So if the federal government chooses to tax all emissions including vehicles, the impact on us would be less than if they just taxed carbon emissions from utility plants,” he said.
Rep. Harry Moberly, D-Richmond, said the climate crisis gives Kentucky opportunities to be an energy leader—something it has been working toward for several years in the General Assembly and the research field.
“I truly think there are bits and pieces of this puzzle being worked on all over the country and nobody has pulled that together, but that can be done and we can do that in Kentucky,” he said. “We can be the lead state in carbon management.”
In response, Subcommittee Co-Chair Sen. Brandon Smith, R-Hazard, said that while there are some concerns by some members, “…we are looking forward to playing whatever role we can in moving forward.”
On a motion by Sen. David Boswell, D-Owensboro, the subcommittee passed a resolution to recommend to the 2010 General Assembly that Kentucky’s resources be combined with available federal and other states’ resources to move forward on the use of carbon dioxide outside of the realm of carbon capture and storage.
“We’ve talked about coal conversion. We’ve talked about utilization of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, we’ve talked about all these things. We’ve not only talked, we’ve spent hundreds of millions of state and federal dollars in the process. And we’ve come to the conclusion that we can do all these things if we just figure out what to do with carbon dioxide,” Boswell said. “What’s been said here today I think exemplifies the desire of this Legislature to move forward and kind of quit talking about it and let’s pull all these resources together.”
Carbon capture and storage involves removing carbon dioxide—a greenhouse gas that has been attributed to global warming–from fossil fuels and storing it hundreds of meters below ground indefinitely, potentially for millions of years.
This just reinforces the opinion I expressed May 18th. This is California’s payback for losing their industry due to their making their energy costs too expensive. They’re putting the screws to the rest of the country rather than just fessing up that what they did neither helped the climate or their economy. Need the pudding? Henry Waxman, the primary sponsor of this disaster, is from California.
I got news for Harry Moberly, Kentucky can not lead in carbon management. We don’t have the means for generating alternative energy. We also don’t have the financial resources to convert to other means of energy. Our state government is broke, as are most. They are cutting back on essential services much less funding extremely expensive conversions. And, it the cost estimates above are correct, energy costs will both sap state funds by means of energy subsidies to the poor, as well as deplete the state’s abilities to attact new industry to generate additional revenues. I would like to hear Moberly’s explanation of how he thinks a bankrupt state government will lead the way in something most people don’t think we need in the first place while they watch their utilility bills explode. I might even make it a point to go to a public function just to hear Moberly’s explanation.
For me, this entire issue was summed up best by David Boswell:
“We’ve talked about coal conversion. We’ve talked about utilization of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, we’ve talked about all these things. We’ve not only talked, we’ve spent hundreds of millions of state and federal dollars in the process. And we’ve come to the conclusion that we can do all these things if we just figure out what to do with carbon dioxide.
For hundreds of millions less of state and federal dollars, I could have told them that was the problem in the first place. This entire thing is a bad joke. A very, very, bad joke. I would laugh if it wasn’t already causing people problems……
and it hasn’t even started yet.
Daniel Mongiardo has announced he is running against incumbant Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning. Now, Bunning’s been considered vulnerable since a little before the Iron Age. He keeps making goofy comments. For some reason, he just keeps winning. Mongiardo is on a roll. He lost to Steve Beshear in the primary, but teamed up as his Lieutenant Governor and Steve won. So, by virtue of not winning any races, he’s #2 in the state. About the only thing Mongiardo could possibly do to lose this race would be something self-inflicted. Wonder if this would do it:
Now, “Advisor B” is not just some by-stander, he’s all over the indictment. I would imagine when the trial starts for Blago’s corruption charges he’ll be all over the news again as well. I have no clue whatsoever what Mongiardo was thinking when he hired this guy. However, Bunning couldn’t have asked for an easier issue to be handed to him.
My guess initially, with the issues plaguing Washington, and Mongiardo bringing Chicago’s dirty politics to Frankfort, Bunning will once again escape the easily predictable political demise people have expected for a generation or two.
23
Feb
Just got the numbers for the Medicaid add-on from the stimulus package. I don’t deal with Medicaid directly, but it indirectly affects what I do in a large way. As such, I was interested in the numbers. However, the bigger picture bugged me more than the dollars I was assigned to look at. In essence, Barack Obama has preached bipartisanship. With the stimulus debate, although the Republicans were not allowed direct input into the final package, they were expected to vote for it purely in the spirit of bipartisanship. Now, bipartisanship goes a lot deeper than just simply voting as expected. Partisan politics permeates the entire government system. Now, if Obama wants bipartisan support from the Republicans, he needs to enforce bipartisanship throughout his administration. Given that, this is what bugged me. Here’s the breakdown of the Medicaid Add-on state by state with some additional data tossed in:
| State | Voted | Medicaid Add-on | Population | Avg Per Person | State Dev | |
| Alabama | McCain | $ 850,000,000 | 4,661,900 | $ 182.33 | $ (89.11) | -33% |
| Alaska | McCain | $ 220,000,000 | 686,293 | $ 320.56 | $ 49.13 | 18% |
| Arizona | McCain | $ 1,980,000,000 | 6,500,180 | $ 304.61 | $ 33.17 | 12% |
| Arkansas | McCain | $ 730,000,000 | 2,855,390 | $ 255.66 | $ (15.78) | -6% |
| California | Obama | $ 11,230,000,000 | 36,756,666 | $ 305.52 | $ 34.09 | 13% |
| Colorado | Obama | $ 880,000,000 | 4,939,456 | $ 178.16 | $ (93.28) | -34% |
| Connecticut | Obama | $ 1,320,000,000 | 3,501,252 | $ 377.01 | $ 105.57 | 39% |
| Delaware | Obama | $ 320,000,000 | 873,092 | $ 366.51 | $ 95.08 | 35% |
| District of Columbia | Obama | $ 300,000,000 | 591,833 | $ 506.90 | $ 235.46 | 87% |
| Florida | Obama | $ 4,390,000,000 | 18,328,340 | $ 239.52 | $ (31.92) | -12% |
| Georgia | McCain | $ 1,730,000,000 | 9,685,744 | $ 178.61 | $ (92.82) | -34% |
| Hawaii | Obama | $ 360,000,000 | 1,288,198 | $ 279.46 | $ 8.02 | 3% |
| Idaho | McCain | $ 300,000,000 | 1,523,816 | $ 196.87 | $ (74.56) | -27% |
| Illinois | Obama | $ 2,900,000,000 | 12,901,563 | $ 224.78 | $ (46.66) | -17% |
| Indiana | Obama | $ 1,440,000,000 | 6,376,792 | $ 225.82 | $ (45.62) | -17% |
| Iowa | Obama | $ 550,000,000 | 3,002,555 | $ 183.18 | $ (88.26) | -33% |
| Kansas | McCain | $ 450,000,000 | 2,802,134 | $ 160.59 | $(110.84) | -41% |
| Kentucky | McCain | $ 1,030,000,000 | 4,269,245 | $ 241.26 | $ (30.18) | -11% |
| Louisiana | McCain | $ 1,660,000,000 | 4,410,796 | $ 376.35 | $ 104.91 | 39% |
| Maine | Obama | $ 470,000,000 | 1,316,456 | $ 357.02 | $ 85.58 | 32% |
| Maryland | Obama | $ 1,630,000,000 | 5,633,597 | $ 289.34 | $ 17.90 | 7% |
| Massachusetts | Obama | $ 3,090,000,000 | 6,497,967 | $ 475.53 | $ 204.10 | 75% |
| Michigan | Obama | $ 2,270,000,000 | 10,003,422 | $ 226.92 | $ (44.51) | -16% |
| Minnesota | Obama | $ 2,030,000,000 | 5,220,393 | $ 388.86 | $ 117.42 | 43% |
| Mississippi | McCain | $ 790,000,000 | 2,938,618 | $ 268.83 | $ (2.60) | -1% |
| Missouri | McCain | $ 1,600,000,000 | 5,911,605 | $ 270.65 | $ (0.78) | 0% |
| Montana | McCain | $ 180,000,000 | 967,440 | $ 186.06 | $ (85.38) | -31% |
| Nebraska | McCain | $ 310,000,000 | 1,783,432 | $ 173.82 | $ (97.61) | -36% |
| Nevada | Obama | $ 450,000,000 | 2,600,167 | $ 173.07 | $ (98.37) | -36% |
| New Hampshire | Obama | $ 250,000,000 | 1,315,809 | $ 190.00 | $ (81.44) | -30% |
| New Jersey | Obama | $ 2,220,000,000 | 8,682,661 | $ 255.68 | $ (15.75) | -6% |
| New Mexico | Obama | $ 630,000,000 | 1,984,356 | $ 317.48 | $ 46.05 | 17% |
| New York | Obama | $ 12,650,000,000 | 19,490,297 | $ 649.04 | $ 377.60 | 139% |
| North Carolina | Obama | $ 2,350,000,000 | 9,222,414 | $ 254.81 | $ (16.62) | -6% |
| North Dakota | McCain | $ 110,000,000 | 641,481 | $ 171.48 | $ (99.96) | -37% |
| Ohio | Obama | $ 3,010,000,000 | 11,485,910 | $ 262.06 | $ (9.38) | -3% |
| Oklahoma | McCain | $ 960,000,000 | 3,642,361 | $ 263.57 | $ (7.87) | -3% |
| Oregon | Obama | $ 830,000,000 | 3,790,060 | $ 218.99 | $ (52.44) | -19% |
| Pennsylvania | Obama | $ 4,070,000,000 | 12,448,279 | $ 326.95 | $ 55.52 | 20% |
| Rhode Island | Obama | $ 470,000,000 | 1,050,788 | $ 447.28 | $ 175.85 | 65% |
| South Carolina | McCain | $ 860,000,000 | 4,479,800 | $ 191.97 | $ (79.46) | -29% |
| South Dakota | McCain | $ 120,000,000 | 804,194 | $ 149.22 | $(122.22) | -45% |
| Tennessee | McCain | $ 1,620,000,000 | 6,214,888 | $ 260.66 | $ (10.77) | -4% |
| Texas | McCain | $ 5,450,000,000 | 24,326,974 | $ 224.03 | $ (47.41) | -17% |
| Utah | McCain | $ 320,000,000 | 2,736,424 | $ 116.94 | $(154.50) | -57% |
| Vermont | Obama | $ 280,000,000 | 621,270 | $ 450.69 | $ 179.25 | 66% |
| Virginia | Obama | $ 1,470,000,000 | 7,769,089 | $ 189.21 | $ (82.23) | -30% |
| Washington | Obama | $ 2,060,000,000 | 6,549,224 | $ 314.54 | $ 43.10 | 16% |
| West Virginia | McCain | $ 450,000,000 | 1,814,468 | $ 248.01 | $ (23.43) | -9% |
| Wisconsin | Obama | $ 1,240,000,000 | 5,627,967 | $ 220.33 | $ (51.11) | -19% |
| Wyoming | McCain | $ 110,000,000 | 532,668 | $ 206.51 | $ (64.93) | -24% |
There are some deviations from the conclusion, but not many. To come to a simple conclusion of your own, just match the colors. See how many are red on the left side, and on the right. Then look to see how many are blue on the left, and blue on the right. Some conclusions from the Medicaid release:
- States that voted for Obama got over $65 billion in Medicaid funding. States that voted for McCain, $21 billion.
- States that voted for Obama averaged $403.36 per person. States that voted for McCain got $231.77.
- The state that got the most per capita is New York at $649.04, which went to Obama. The state that got the least per capita is Utah at $116.94, which went to McCain.
Draw your own conclusions. These are the numbers given to me by Medicaid. It can be argued that demographics and such mixed into the numbers. However, this is an add-on. It’s not the actual expenses per se. I don’t know what the actual criteria was for determining the add-on values. But, I just don’t think a person needing Medicaid assistance costs nearly five times as much in New York as they do in Utah. If that truly is the case, then we need to start moving those people to cheaper places. However, before we go to that extreme, I’m gonna guess it doesn’t really cost five times as much and something else affected those numbers.
Think about that the next time Obama preaches about bipartisanship.
13
Jan
Here we go. The members of the US Senate class of 2008 haven’t even been fully seated and we are already sepculating on 2010. CNN has already decided the Republicans are in trouble in 2010 simply because, get this, they had trouble in 2006 and 2008. Logical huh? Wikipedia references something called the Cook Political Report as the official word on what is going to happen in 2010. Their breakdown has it looking something like this:
| DEMOCRATS | 17 HELD SEATS | ||||||
| SOLID D (11) | LIKELY D (5) | LEAN D (1) | TOSS UP (0) | LEAN R (0) | LIKELY R (0) | SOLID R (0) |
| Lincoln (AR) | Boxer (CA) | Bennet (CO) | ||||
| Dodd (CT) | Reid (NV) | |||||
| Kaufman (DE) | Dorgan (ND) | |||||
| Inouye* (HI) | Murray (WA) | |||||
| IL (Obama) | Feingold (WI) | |||||
| Bayh (IN) | ||||||
| Mikulski (MD) | ||||||
| Schumer (NY-A) | ||||||
| NY-B (Clinton) | ||||||
| Wyden (OR) | ||||||
| Leahy (VT) | ||||||
| REPUBLICANS | 20 HELD SEATS | ||||||
| SOLID D (0) | LIKELY D (0) | LEAN D (0) | TOSS UP (4) | LEAN R (2) | LIKELY R (2) | SOLID R (12) |
| FL (Martinez) | KS (Brownback) | OH (Voinovich) | Shelby (AL) | |||
| Bunning* (KY) | Specter* (PA) | Coburn (OK) | Murkowski (AK) | |||
| Vitter (LA) | McCain (AZ) | |||||
| MO (Bond) | Isakson (GA) | |||||
| Crapo (ID) | ||||||
| Grassley* (IA) | ||||||
| Gregg (NH) | ||||||
| Burr (NC) | ||||||
| DeMint (SC) | ||||||
| Thune (SD) | ||||||
| TX (Bailey Hutchison) | ||||||
| Bennett (UT) | ||||||
Basically, it’s a pretty simple chart. If you’re a Democrat, you’ll likely win. If you’re a Republican, it could be a toss-up. For instance, it lists Kentucky as a toss-up because the sitting senator might be retiring. That’s based on actions Bunning made in 2007. In 2008, he’s running. That’s how accurate these things are at this point.
Most people are painting the Republicans in trouble primarily because of what happened two months ago. However, history tells them, and me, that things are probably not going to be as easy in 2010 as they were in 2008. There are several things people need to take into consideration before lumping the Democrats unbeatable forever.
- Most pundits, especially the slightly more liberal ones like ABC, CNN and MSNBC, predicted Democrat super-majorities based on the 2008 elections. That didn’t happen. In Kentucky particularly, the Republican Senator won and Obama lost. So, these coat-tails that some media have been assuming is there never has been in some places. The Republicans did surprisingly well in Kentucky given that Kentucky is a 2.5 to 1 Democrat state and the head of the Democrat ticket was being lauded by all media as the greatest candidate of all-time. Something went wrong somewhere.
- History has been brutal on the majority party during the first election following a presidential election. The wildly popular Bill Clinton had his legs taken out from under him in 1994. The exception noted by CNN and most people was 2002. However, there was an event in very late 2001 that affected the elections of 2002. Barring some catastrophe in 2009, I expect history to repeat itself for several reasons. Partially, in large part, because the “wildly popular” Bill Clinton was never truly “wildly popular”. The media just loved him. The majority of people in the United States did not. 43% of the vote just isn’t a terribly long coat tail.
- The dynamics of the 2008 election have been horribly abused by the media. Although the Democrats nominated someone farther to the left than is typically successful, the Republicans nominated a moderate that failed to capture the base of his own party. This left the Republicans putting more resources into the presidential race as the presidential candidate was unable to compete financially with the Democrat. As such, their efforts in the Senate races were not well coordinated or financed. In 2010 the Republicans will not have this distraction and typically outspend the Democrats. Whether people like it or not, money talks very loudly in local races. Expect a much more coordinated effort from the Republicans in 2010. Because:
- Obama is pro-civil rights to the point of being extremely anti-business. A lot of his views border on Marxism. Sure, I know that has been tossed around a lot, but it is true. What little legislation we’ve seen coming out of the House in 2009 so far has been pro-civil rights, anti-business. Even with the economy in the tank, the liberal arm of the Democrat party is in full socialist mode, attacking businesses. That will bite the Democrats very quickly.
- Nancy Pelosi is in charge of the House. She got to where she is as a one trick pony. However, that one trick is now biting her. Running on purely ethics issues and against “the worst president ever”, she now has neither issue to fall back on. In addition, she is as liberal or moreso than Obama, and purely committed to partisan politics. Her stance that no Democrat ever had anything to do with the economic mess we’re in now flying squarely in the face of reality should mean something more if the economic situation continues into 2009. A very simple campaign platform for the Republicans would be that this mess didn’t occur until the Democrats took over the House. If it’s not resolved by election time, look for a lot more people to believe that argument.
- Harry Reid is in charge of the Senate. His ineptness and flip-flopping on issues has not only confounded people outside of Nevada like myself, it’s apparently tiring people in Nevada to the point where some are questioning whether he can even hold his seat. Some pundits are even calling Reid the most vulnerable Democrat up for re-election. If Reid is vulnerable in 2010 as the Senate Speaker under the most popular elected president in the history of the world, something’s amiss. If his leadership is so out of touch that it jeapordizes his long held seat, that could present problems for the DNC in 2010.
- Balance of power. This country has been unkind to the party in power. Bill Clinton had it all of two years. George HW Bush had it for a few years and lost it as well in 2006. It would most likely have been earlier, but the dynamics of the 2002 elections were skewed, and the Democrats shot themselves in the foot repeatedly in 2004. By 2006, things returned to normal and the people voted for balance. I’m not saying we’ll have that balance by 2010, but I think people will be working towards it.
- Failed expectations. People set the bar way too high for Obama. He can’t meet all those expectations. It’s just impossible. He can do well. But, well isn’t good enough. Because of that, expect some backlash over time as people realize he is not the messiah. He’s not at this point even controlling his own party. As much as he preached bipartisanhip, Nancy Pelosi has put the screws to that already. I expect he’ll survive. But, expect some backlash with the constituency.
- Iraq. If the troops aren’t out of Iraq by 2009, look for serious backlash.
- Economy. If the economy’s not back on track in 2009, look for serious backlash.
- National security. Obama painted a picture by choosing Leon Panetta as CIA director. If there is a major terrorist issue in 2009 or early 2010, expect that to affect things.
- Scandals. A lot of the gains the Democrats made in 2006 and 2008 were based on self-inflicted wounds within the Republican party. However, those players are out of the spotlight and now we’re looking at Democrats such as Blago, William Jefferson, Sheila Dixon, and others.
I could go on and on. Each race will have its own dynamics. However, the bottom line to me is this could be 1994 all over again. The only question to me at this point is if the RNC is capable of capitalizing. Now, I’m moderate. However, I’m not moderate on any real issue. No one is. The Republicans hung their hat on conservative issues with Reagan, and that’s what got them in charge. Over time, people confused conservative values with a reliance on religious values. That eroded some of the base. Abuses of power, inept leadership, and in-fighting took them down. However, the culmination was running a moderate for president. He appealed to me to some degree, but wasn’t anything I could get real excited about. It’s hard to get excited about any moderate. That’s just the nature of the beast being open to any issue. When Clinton won, he had to be more moderate, but won on liberal views. When Bush II won, he won on conservative values but had to move to more moderate views as well. Now, Obama has won running on extremely liberal credentials but moved to the middle during his campaign, and I expect will lurch even moreso to the middle once the realities of his decisions hits him ( which I think they arlready have ). I think this is a lot of the reason for the second year curse that seems to hit most modern presidents. As the figurehead abandons the ideology that got him and his minions elected, the public revolts in the democratic way. Obama can not possibly remain as liberal as he ran and was perceived and be an effective president. He’s already abandoned several campaign issues ( we’ll be in Iraq a lot longer, his tax incentives will be moderated ). As such, I expect the revolt to begin in 2010.
That’s all I have to say about that. Today.
That’s the argument being made today after the collapse of the Big Three bailout. For the record, it came because UAW refused to bargain.
Now, this argument is so bogus it’s amazing. People are actually debating this issue as if it’s fact. One of the states being singled out is Kentucky because of Mitch McConnell. Now, I know Kentucky kinda well. What people are not wanting everyone to know is Toyota isn’t the only car manufacturer here.
Ever seen one of these?
That folks, is a Kentucky car. GM only makes Corvettes in Kentucky.
Ever seen one of these?
![2007-ford-explorer-front-view[1]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/3102743672_8eeac54fe8.jpg)
That folks, is another Kentucky only car.
So, don’t feed me the bull that Kentucky Republicans don’t have to worry about GM or Ford because we have one Toyota plant. The facts are totally against that and the media’s not too concerned about making sure people making that argument are corrected.
The real reason GM is in the shape it’s in is not because Kentucky Republican Senators are against making sure union dues are made by people making on average triple what I do to put a nut on a screw, it’s because people in California will not buy American made cars. Mitch McConnell writing the UAW a check for $15 billion will not fix that.
Earleir this year, Ford announced the KENTUCKY plant that makes the massive Explorer SUV’s will be re-tooled to manufacture alternative fuel cars. GM has already done that to some degree at the KENTUCKY plant that manufacters the $80,000, 8 mpg sportscar. A big part of the domestic auto manufacturing future is in Kentucky. So, the argument that Kentucky Republicans have nothing to lose by opposing this bill is completely bogus. We have a lot of jobs invested here. Some people, me included, know that for those jobs to be there in the future, “Detroit” is going to have to adjust their business model to be more competitve, and people in California will have to adjust their attitude that anything made in the US sucks.
When that happens, then I expect my Republican Senators will have a much different outlook. And, when that happens, the Big Three won’t be begging for handouts.
That’s the headline on CNN. The headline NOT on CNN is:
And, the reason they decided to give up?
Director Don Burgin said the London-Laurel County “Y” struggled with $6,000 monthly utility bills and its budget was further stretched by an increase in the minimum wage.
And of course, who do some people blame for the failure of a non-profit due to an unfunded mandate?
Nancy Pelosi just LOVES ignorant voters.
Last year Kentucky elected a new governor to replace the one we had. The one we had had been accused of inappropriate hiring practices. That never was resolved since the person making the charges decided to drop the charges so he could run for governor, and lose.
So, Kentucky ( not me ) elected a guy with a shady past of representing both sides on a huge bankuptcy case a few years ago. Not terribly ethical, but Democrats particularly felt his unethical past wasn’t that big a deal.
So, his first session amounted to getting basically nothing accomplished. Even he was disappointed at how little he got accomplished. They did however, manage to pass the budgets.
Or so we thought.
After the veto deadline had passed, Steve Beshear decided to veto the road spending bill. Now, since this was in the spring, it was something I shrugged off as another attempt to assure that nothhing got done.
But then he did something strange, he decided he would enact his own road spending budget.
Now, besides being illegal, it strikes me as being kinda unethical. Steve Beshear by profession is a lawyer. He has dealt with several huge cases. The Kentucky Central bankruptcy probably was the biggest, and I would imagine the most complex. So, I don’t understand how he is interpreting these instructions:
Those instructions are from the Kentucky Constitution. People have understood those instructions clearly clearly since September 28, 1891.
The President of the Senate has filed suit against Beshear for circumventing the Constitution.
So, what does Beshear do to assure people his ethics are so much better than the person he replaced by running a campaign on ethics? He hires his largest campaign contributor and former partners.
This is what you get for voting for “change” without figuring out what hat change might be.
Now, by definition, this could lead to an impeachment process. I’m sure Beshear would be thrilled at the thought of how much his partners who donate to him could make on that lawsuit.
10
Mar
I read this post on Independent Sources and loved it so much I thought I’d run with it here. Namely:
37-year old Arelia Margarita Taveras is an attorney with a serious ethics problem. She also has a gambling problem and lost her law practice, her apartment and her parents’ home, and she owes the IRS $58,000. Worse, she dipped into clients’ escrow accounts when she needed money and still faces criminal charges over that. Fortunately for her, and unfortunately for society as a whole, if her legal training has taught her anything is that fault should always lie on a deep pocket. In this case, it’s the casinos that allowed her to lose her money……
Now, you might think this is an odd post for a political blog. Well, due to circumstances in Kentucky, it’s not. Last year we had a gubernatorial election. The incumbent had been dogged by ethics issues, mostly trumped up political stuff. The challenger ran on the promise of bringing gambling casinos to Kentucky. The challenger, Steve Beshear, won. Immediately upon taking office Beshear announced the state was running about $400 million annually short of money and told higher education to expect massive cuts in funding. They didn’t like that. Now, he’s proposed legislation to legalize gambling that will raise ( drum roll please ), about $400 million annually, which would fix higher education. Beshear is basing his entire argument on the fact that gambling would generate revenues for the state at no cost.
As Independent Sources points out, Beshear couldn’t be more wrong. It comes with a heavy cost to society that does affect the state balance sheet. Along with gambling, we’d need increased police forces, gambling addiction programs, and increased funding for the court system to deal with the people who lost it all and resort to stealing to support their habit. Nothing is farther from the panacea Beshear makes it out to be, just Arelia Taveras.
In the meantime, let’s enjoy something good to come from gambling ( do I really need a reason to play Boz Scaggs? ):
