What’s Fiscally Conservative

A thought experiment today.

In recent years, Republicans in the US Congress, and in state legislatures as well, refused to approve budgets unless they cut programs.  Which programs?  Well, the ones that benefit the low and middle classes at the expense of the wealthy, of course.  There are a number of kinds of hypocrisy here, to be sure.  Two occupations and private defense corporation operations to the tune of $2,000 billion and counting?  Republicans didn’t bat an eyelash to approve all of that.  Tax cuts for the wealthy that weren’t balanced in the budget?  No eyelash there either.  A prescription drug program that cost additional billions of dollars?  Yup, still no eyelash.  Those are only a few examples of real costs that Republicans forced American taxpayers to pay for.  Cost that grew the national deficit and debt – issues that Republicans cared about only when a Democrat (and a black one at that) became President.  The Teabaggers didn’t get organized until the Kochs told them to get organized after Obama took office.  I don’t want to go through with this experiment, but if a Republican in 2016 is elected President, I’m willing to bet the Teabaggers wouldn’t object to continued deficit spending – so long as it’s their ideological causes that receive the largesse.

Given all this, I play “what if” when I read news stories.  Earlier this week, there was news that the Obama administration wanted to spend $236.3 million to eight states to improve electricity infrastructure in rural areas.  Which got me to think, “Where would Republicans demand spending cuts for “fiscal conservatism” to remain true to their debt fetish?”  Of course, Republicans will not demand spending cuts.  But maybe Democrats should.  In order to remain deficit neutral, what should we cut to spend $236.3 million taxpayer dollars – dollars that primarily came from urban areas by the way?  Should we cut agriculture subsidies?  Should we cut rural road spending?  How about drought and flood insurance subsidies?  See, this is where the rubber meets the road, Republicans.  What are you willing to give up to spend money to ensure rural areas have power in the face of weather losses?

Or how about the problem of forest fires?  By and large, this is a wilderness and rural problem.  Fires are burning in Washington and Oregon right now.  Where does the money come from?  Again, primarily urban taxpayers.  If Republicans want to cut SNAP money to veterans and children, why won’t they also propose cutting rural firefighting dollars as well?  Because they know the former affects more urban Democrats and the latter affects more rural Republicans.  Why don’t the mountain folks pull themselves up by the bootstraps and fight their own fires?  Why must they continue their federal welfare addiction?  Why do they like the nanny state so much?  Wouldn’t fighting their own fires instill a little confidence in themselves so we could reduce the federal debt?

How much do Republicans really care about the debt?  Only so much that it hurts their political opposition.  Republicans are considered serious thinkers when they propose cuts to programs that keep people out of poverty, that keep American children educated, that keep our food and water safer than they otherwise would be – programs that by and large impact more urban people.  The corporate media would make a clown out of any Democrat that, in the name of fiscal responsibility, proposed cutting programs that benefited rural populations.  I for one would sure like to know when Republicans are ready to get serious about debt reduction.

News Items 10/13/08

The Treasury has come up with some solution details.  First: purchasing troubled mortgage-back securities.  That’s okay, I guess.  Second: buying mortgages, particularly from regional banks.  That’s a lot better.  Third: insuring mortgages and mortgage-backed securities.  That’s a good idea too.  Fourth: purchasing equity in a broad array of financial institutions.  That’s a darn good idea.  If taxpayer money is being used to take assets off company books, taxpayers should be in line for any potential future gains.  Fifth: helping delinquent borrowers stay in their homes.  That’s kind of vague, but it’s a good summary statement.  I’d really like to see some details on just how they’re planning on achieving this goal.  [Update]: These details and weekend-long meetings among the largest economic powers had a positive effect on U.S. markets today: the Dow gained 936.42 today, as an example.

67% of Coloradans would rather protect pristine national forest lands and not increase oil and gas protection in them. 70% thought that the high number of already unused leases was reason enough not to grant the industry new ones on public lands.  56% were intelligent enough to recognize that opening drilling up in the lands wouldn’t lower gas prices.  Just one more reason why “Drill, baby, drill” isn’t working out West: we live next to the areas where the drilling would actually occur and we don’t think it’s a good idea.

Google has come out with a 21st century energy plan (ClimateProgess’ take) and it’s darn good.  Here is their top-level summary of goals:

Our proposal will allow us to reduce from the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) current baseline for energy use:

• Fossil fuel-based electricity generation by 88%
• Vehicle oil consumption by 38%
• Dependence on imported oil (currently 10 million barrels per day) by 33%
• Electricity-sector CO₂ emissions by 95%
• Personal vehicle sector CO₂ emissions by 38%
• US CO₂ emissions overall by 48% (40% from today’s CO₂ emission level)

The cost of Google’s plan?  $4.4 Trillion!  Ah, but the savings of Google’s plan?  $5.4 Trillion!!  I’ve heard estimates of the cost of business-as-usual, but I forget what they are.  I’ll follow up on this in the future.

A Siegel also provides a take on Google’s plan.

The effects of climate change in Colorado are being assessed.  Among them: change in river flows through mid-century. Climates are expected to migrate upward in elevation.  Supplies of water will decrease.  Demand is likely to increase.  Guess what will happen to costs.  Or we could actually do something about our climate change forcings.  See the Google plan above.  It’s a step in the correct direction.

Help 350.org send 35,000 invitations to Sen. Barack Obama and John McCain to attend the December U.N. Climate Meetings.

The hysteria over Amendment 41 continues among wonky circles. It shouldn’t, as info from the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission came out last week. Scholarships, insurance policies and dinners are allowed, just like A41 supporters have maintained.  A41 banned gifts from lobbyists and anything over $50 in value from non-lobbyists.  The Colorado Supreme Court has refused to look at A41’s constitutionality until the law was applied or enforced.  I think the intent behind A41 was apparent to voters.  I don’t think the Commission will whittle away the intent, as opponents claim.

Arctic sea ice volume likely set an all-time minimum this year.  While the areal extent reached the second lowest value on record, the volume of the remaining ice was less this year than last.  It’s not hard to figure out why this is.  A record low areal extent last year meant the ice that formed last winter was new and thinner than ice that formed over decades or longer.  That ice melted easily this summer.  The small area of thicker ice?  It melted more this year because of the warmer ocean waters underneath it.  As those waters get warmer year after year, the ice above it has less long-term viability.  The NSIDC should continue to verify the final volume value for 2008.

Republicans have maintained their stranglehold on local and state politics with their GOPAC program – it trains folks how to push fringe policies to the public.  That’s how they’ve gotten so many extremists in positions of power.  Want to counter it?  Throw a little something toward Progressive Majority.

What does it mean to be fiscally conservative?  CONServatives certainly don’t know the answer.

Random Pieces 7/28/08

George W. Bush continues to set record after record. Five of the worst deficits? They’re Bush’s and his extremist allies in Congress. This year’s deficit will amount to around $482 billion. Bushies are of course trying to spin the number, citing two worse deficits in our history, based on percentage of GDP. There’s a lot of that going around as the economy tanks and businesses post record-setting losses themselves. It’s only the third worst yearly deficit ever! Brought to you by folks who convinced voters they were fiscally responsible. One more reason not to vote for McCain and dozens of other candidates.

***

One out of five bridges in the US is 50 years old or older, according to American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Why is 50 years worth mentioning? Engineers design bridges to last 50 years. And the amount of traffic using those bridges far exceeds what was estimated 50+ years ago. Last year, a bridge collapse in Minnesota killed 13 and injured 144 people. And yet the same conservatives who have run up record deficits continue to argue that we shouldn’t invest in our national infrastructure. Indeed, immoral corporations like Halliburton and Exxon are gleefully accepting corporate welfare while our infrastructure edges closer to failure.

***

So someone went to a church in Tennessee with a shotgun and killed two people while injuring seven others.  Who is this person?  Another psychotic white male.  He was pissed off at “liberals and gays” and frustrated he couldn’t find a job.  He believes that all liberals should be killed.  Where did he get such crazy thoughts?  Unsurprisingly, his reading included Bill O’Reilly, Mike Savage and Sean Hannity.  Their writings and general use of language, along with other extremist right-wingers, have been identified as infused with violence.

I recommend reading Jeffrey Feldman’s “Outright Barbarous” to get a clearer idea of this – he takes a short stroll through right-wing pundit-land and examines their rhetoric.  His conclusion: that the level of violence in their rhetoric prevents any real discussion of the issues we all face today.  I’m actually surprised even more outbursts like this haven’t been seen.

I’m curious if Jim David Adkisson will be charged as a terrorist.  Based on the fact that he’s not brown and doesn’t have a Muslim-sounding name, I doubt it.

Wind Farm Developer Opens in Broomfield

Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc. (RES Americas) was welcomed by U.S. Rep. Mark Udall and Colorado Senators Ken Salazar and Wayne Allard Sunday for their headquarters’ grand opening in Broomfield.  RES Americas is moving its headquarters from Austin, Texas, to Udall’s congressional district bringing dozens of high-paying renewable energy jobs to the state.  The wind farm developer says it plans to relocate 70 full-time jobs from Texas to Broomfield and to add 70 more Broomfield-based employees in the next year.  Operations in Broomfield began tomorrow.

More and more jobs are being created in Colorado by letting it be known that the state is friendly to the burgeoning industry.  This is good news for those who recognize our occupation of Iraq and our dependence on Middle Eastern oil unnecessarily weakens our national security.  Also, steps taken now to shift our energy portfolio from fossil fuels to renewables will keep future costs of doing so down.  It’s good for the planet, increases security here at home and is fiscally responsible.