Grey Matters

The Persian Gulf mess has got the statists in Washington, D.C. calling once again for a National Energy Policy (NEP). It behooves responsible citizens then to consider just what such a policy might entail.

For starters, any NEP should not rely too heavily on any one energy source. Diversity is the key here. Oil, coal, solar, hydro, nuclear, wind, geothermal and even biological sources all have something to contribute and we should use each of them as appropriate.

By “appropriate” I mean that, while we may very well be able to convert automobiles to run on peanut shells or fly an airliner under nuclear power, that doesn’t mean that we should. The costs of doing so would be prohibitive. In most cases we should look for the most cost-effective energy source for a particular application.

Photovoltaic power (electricity from solar cells), for example, is more costly than conventionally generated electricity. Even so, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use it. The need for mobility or the remoteness of a site, for example, may make photovoltaic the best choice when you consider the cost of running wires to the place where the power is needed. We may even come out ahead from an energy standpoint; if you don’t need to run wire, then you save the energy needed to make the wire.

So, a NEP should recognize that no two situations are alike and Washington should avoid handing down mandates that are arbitrary or, worse yet, politically inspired. Let decisions regarding energy sources be made by the people closest to the problems and who understand the local situations the best. Usually, this will be the consumers of the energy.

A good energy policy should also encourage conservation of energy supplies. Incentives should reward those who find a way to the same job with less energy. Everyone then has the potential to relieve the “energy crisis.”

Finally, a good National Energy Policy would encourage development of new energy sources. These days, trash and municipal refuse are successfully being used as fuel for the generation of electricity. Methane gas is being collected from existing landfills and burned in place of other fuels. Each such new source of energy adds to our energy stockpile and reduces dependence on oil imports. New ideas should be explored where there is a chance of: 1) widespread adoption; and 2) accompanying improvements in efficiency or economy.

The foregoing comprise a sound, efficient and economical energy policy and it can be had by simply keeping government out of the energy business. When Washington tinkers with the works, the market mechanism runs at less than its best.

I suppose that what a lot of people mean when they say they want a National Energy Policy is that they want freedom from dependance on foreign oil, freedom from cooercion by the likes of a Sadaam Husein. If that’s the case then they should say so rather than call for the government to meddle in every aspect of the energy market.

The energy situation, some would say “mess,” that we have now is a direct result of national policies. Also state and local policies. They’ve obviously made it more practical or economical to buy oil that’s been pumped somewhere overseas and hauled here in tankers than to pump oil from our own backyard.

The reasons for this are many and varied. Energy policy does not operate in a vacuum. It is affected by everything from tax considerations to environmental and employment regulations. Right now the mix of factors creates the incentive to import rather than pump. If depending too much on importing is undesireable, change the incentives.

This is a mess of our own making. You’d have thought the OPEC oil embargo of 1973-74 would have been a wake-up call but, no. We’re more dependent than ever on imported oil. It isn’t the lack of policies concerning energy that is the problem, it’s that we have too many policies making it hard to become energy independent. We can’t drill for new oil sources, we can’t build refineries. Perhaps if government meddled less in matters of energy, we’d be able to solve our energy crisis.

It would be easy to jump on the bandwagon and join in condemning the entire state of Arizona as Racist. To do so would stand me in good stead with a great many intellectualoids and thought leaders who have themselves wasted little time and even less research before condemning Arizonans. But that would be too easy.

In case you missed it (have you been in a coma?) the voters of Arizona narrowly defeated proposition 302 which would have created a paid state holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr. No sooner had the vote totals been announced than the Voices of Reason rose up in protest to declare that the heathen bigots in Arizona are racists one-and-all.

The written denunciations appeared by the truckload. The papers were chock-full of protests by right-thinking folks bemoaning the backward Neanderthal mentality which could manifest itself as rejection of a paid MLK day. One political cartoon (my favorite) showed a group of people standing around doing nothing discernible. One of these was wearing a sheet and a pointy hood and from this character had come the words, “Why, yes, I am from Arizona. How could you tell?” Which brings up the question: How can this cartoonist and his fellow editorialists know that Arizonans are racist?

Is it that easy to tell? One question? A single criterion? Was everyone who voted against a paid MLK holiday motivated by racial hatred? That’s quite a stretch of the imagination but it’s apparently what has passed for reality among those who favored this particular paid state holiday. I have to believe that these people have pointier heads than the Kartoon Klansman.

The people of Arizona have been cast into a stereotype. You remember stereotypes, don’t you? That’s when you say that all African-Americans are lazy louts on welfare, all fat people gorge themselves at every opportunity, white men can’t dance, Italian-Americans are mobsters, Asians can‘t pronounce “R’s,” American Indians are drunks, blonds are dumb and, well, you get the idea. The stereotype is a tool, no, make that a weapon, of the narrow-minded — the bigot. Bigots don’t care about the qualities of individuals; they’d rather put everyone into nice neat categories based on some superficial characteristic. Such as branding all Arizonans racist.

If the motivation of those who voted against the MLK day can be called into question then I suppose balance requires that we also inquire into the motives of the proponents of the measure.

From the proponents we often heard that the state of Arizona stands to loose countless millions of dollars in tourism and convention business. It has been a continuing theme. Why, only a day before the election we heard again that the NFL (National Football League) would pull the 1993 Superbowl from Arizona if a Martin Luther King paid state holiday were not enacted.

It becomes obvious then that crass commercialism, simple greed was the impetus behind the pro King day forces. It‘s clear that while hiding behind the facade of professed brotherhood and feigned admiration for Dr. King all they really wanted to do was line their pockets while the taxpayers of Arizona are stuck footing the multi-million dollar bill for an eleventh paid holiday for state employees. Fortunately, the sensible, decent, hard-working, tax-paying people of Arizona saw what was really happening and gave the avaricious exploiters their comeuppance.

Does that seem preposterous? Is it a fair characterization to say that simple greed is the only reason anyone wants a paid MLK state holiday? Of course not. It’s absurd. But less absurd than the outrageous charge that the ballot proposition was defeated simply because Arizonans are out-and-out racists.

During the more than five years that this issue has been tug-of-warred in the state of Arizona I don’t recall hearing anyone say, “We don’t need no holidays for negroes.” In fact I don’t recall hearing or reading anything even remotely like it. The issue of race has never come up except when the forces favoring the holiday attempted to use guilt like a bludgeon on their opponents by accusing them of being racists.

On the other hand, the dire commercial consequences which would attend a failure to pass the King holiday have been prominently featured in the print and broadcast media. Government officials, captains of industry and commerce and numerous assorted busy-bodies and do-gooders, including newscasters and columnists have all opined that the state of Arizona needed this paid state holiday else we would be shunned by convention-goers and the state economy would suffer. Clearly, there’s a much more solid basis for the greed theory than the racism theory.

So there you have it. Did the people who voted against the MLK holiday do so because they’re racists? Did the people who voted for it do so because they’re greedy opportunists? Or are both of these simple-minded characterizations just so much malarkey?

To the forces in favor of the holiday, there is simply no acceptable reason for not enacting it. And that, it seems, is justification enough to brand all Arizonans as racist.

The battle over a deficit-reducing federal budget (an oxymoron) is providing the American people with a much needed reality check. For years We The People have been electing a Republican president and a Democratically-controlled congress. We elect a congress that promises to give us more and better of everything and we elect a president that promises to get the government off our backs and out of our pockets. If it seems contradictory, that’s because it is.

We’d all like to eat our cake and have it too. Our politicians told us we could. We all seek after the mythical Free Lunch. Our politicians tell us it’s out there for the taking (the “rich” have it), just help ourselves. This is politics at its finest. Politics, you know what that is, that’s where the perception is the reality. It doesn’t matter what the truth is, only what people perceive it to be. The perception is such a powerful force for politicians that they will knowingly proceed with a harmful policy if the perception is that it is a good policy. Likewise the opposite is true. They don’t let the fact that a bill would be good for the economy prevent them from voting against it if the folks back home are against it. Apparently, We The People are too stupid to understand the complexities of it all so we fall back on The Conventional Wisdom. Well, either us or our politicians.

As seen in the recent budget vote, it is a prescription for gridlock. The budget proposal called for 134 billion in new taxes. The Democrats voted against it because the taxes would “hit hardest at the poor.” At the same time, the Democrats vowed to vote against any reduction in the Capital Gains tax because it would be “a giveaway to the rich.” It is long past time to set the record straight.

First off, 134 billion in new taxes is 134 billion in new taxes, is 134 billion in new taxes. And that’s a lot of money even to a congressman. It doesn’t much matter who “officially” pays it – that is, fills out the paperwork and writes the check, it all comes out of all our pockets. Those “rich” corporations have a place in their ledgers for taxes. Taxes are a cost of doing business. As the cost of doing business increases, so do the prices of the products or services the corporation supplies. So we all pay for corporate taxes.

And who owns all those big corporations anyway? We do, that’s who. Sure there’s the occasional really rich guy who owns a bunch of stock but the rest is probably owned by “institutional investors.” This means your insurance company, your union pension fund, your institution of higher learning, the mutual fund that your brother-in-law got you into, maybe even your church. So when corporations are taxed we all pay, but we don’t write the check so the perception is that someone else is footing the bill.

Certainly the average congressman is smart enough to figure this out but who wants to hear that if you want something you have to pay for it? Everyone wants to see some belt-tightening and all insist it must be someone else’s belt. Better to let people think that someone else is actually paying for it. That way they’re grateful. That way they vote for you. So what if their taxes go up? They’re just getting what they asked for.

And how about that Capital Gains Tax? Here’s another place where reality is ignored in favor of the perception. It’s touted as a tax break for the “rich” (So what?) and therefore unpopular with Democrats for whom that perception is like waving a red cape at a bull. Fact is, historically, every time the capital gains tax rate has been cut it has resulted in increased revenues from capital gains. Raising the rate actually diminishes the revenue from capital gains. Now, the Democrats know this but doubt whether you or I do. The simple-minded Conventional Wisdom has it that it only helps rich people so your populist Democrat votes against it knowing full well that revenues would be better (read “higher”) if the rate was lower.

So the smoke-and-mirrors guys keep giving us what we ask for and we’re paying for it but would like to think that we’re not. Time for a Reality Check, America. Time for a Reality Check, Mr. Congressman.

The battle over a deficit-reducing federal budget (an oxymoron) is providing the American people with a much needed reality check. For years We The People have been electing a Republican president and a Democratically-controlled congress. We elect a congress that promises to give us more and better of everything and we elect a president that promises to get the government off our backs and out of our pockets. If it seems contradictory, that’s because it is.

We’d all like to eat our cake and have it too. Our politicians told us we could. We all seek after the mythical Free Lunch. Our politicians tell us it’s out there for the taking (the “rich” have it), just help ourselves. This is politics at its finest. Politics, you know what that is, that’s where the perception is the reality. It doesn’t matter what the truth is, only what people perceive it to be. Perception is such a powerful force for politicians that they will knowingly proceed with a harmful policy if the perception is that it is a good policy. (See the seventh law.)

Likewise the inverse is true. They don’t let the fact that a bill would be good for the economy prevent them from voting against it if the folks back home are against it. Apparently, We The People are too stupid to understand the complexities of it all so we fall back on The Conventional Wisdom. Well, either we do or our politicians do.

As seen in the recent budget vote, it is a prescription for gridlock. The budget proposal called for 134 billion in new taxes. The Democrats voted against it because the taxes would “hit hardest at the poor.” At the same time, the Democrats vowed to vote against any reduction in the Capital Gains tax because it would be “a giveaway to the rich.” It is long past time to set the record straight.

First off, 134 billion in new taxes is 134 billion in new taxes, is 134 billion in new taxes. And that’s a lot of money even to a congressman. It doesn’t much matter who “officially” pays it – that is, fills out the paperwork and writes the check, it comes out of all our pockets. Those “rich” corporations have a place in their ledgers for taxes. Taxes are a cost of doing business. As the cost of doing business increases, so do the prices of the products or services the corporation supplies. So we all pay for corporate taxes.

And who owns all those big corporations anyway? We do, that’s who. Sure there’s the occasional really rich guy who owns a bunch of stock but the rest is probably owned by “institutional investors.” This means your insurance company, your union pension fund, your institution of higher learning, the mutual fund that your brother-in-law got you into, maybe even your church. So when corporations are taxed we all pay, but we don’t write the check so the perception is that someone else is footing the bill.

Certainly the average congressman is smart enough to figure this out but who wants to hear: if you want something you have to pay for it? Everyone wants to see some belt-tightening and all insist it must be someone else’s belt. Better to let people think that someone else is actually paying for it. That way they’re grateful. That way they vote for you. So what if their taxes go up? They’re just getting what they asked for.

And how about that Capital Gains Tax? Here’s another place where reality is ignored in favor of the perception. Cutting the Capital Gains tax is touted as a tax break for the “rich” (So what?) and therefore unpopular with Democrats for whom that perception is like waving a red cape at a bull. Fact is, historically, every time the capital gains tax rate has been cut it has resulted in increased revenues from capital gains. Raising the rate actually diminishes the revenue from capital gains. Now, the Democrats know this but doubt whether you or I do. The simple-minded Conventional Wisdom has it that it only helps rich people, so your populist Democrat votes against it knowing full well that revenues would be better (read “higher”) if the rate was lower.

So the smoke-and-mirrors guys keep giving us what we ask for and we’re paying for it but would like to think that we’re not. Time for a Reality Check, America. Time for a Reality Check, Mr. Congressman. Mr., Mrs. and Ms. Middle American, you’re paying for that free lunch.

I saw a rerun of an old “Dennis the Menace” TV show the other day and was struck by the remarkable similarity between Dennis the Menace and the United States Congress. There was Dennis, all wide-eyed and astonished saying, “Gee, Mr. Wilson, you just stuck your foot right in that bucket of paint!” Mr. Wilson had, of course, just become the victim of unwanted and unneeded “help” as Dennis had moved the paint bucket closer to where Mr. Wilson was working.

Likewise, each of us is “helped” in countless ways each and every day by The Government. Much of this help is unwanted, most is unneeded and we’d all be better off with less of it. Certainly, our lives would be much less complicated for while most of us are unaware of the myriad ways in which we’ve been “helped” we do see the effects which tend to be obstructions to going about our business. But, like Dennis the Menace, The Government cannot see the connection between their prior actions and the resulting catastrophes. (“You should be more careful, Mr. Wilson!”) The help continues unabated.

So Dennis grows up and goes off to congress where, remembering the plight of “poor ol’ Mister Wilson” he drafts Federal Paint Can Closure Standards. And, while he’s at it, banning paint roller trays. (“There’s an accident waiting to happen!”) And the Mr. Wilsons of the country are saddled with further petty nuisances complicating their lives.

Government is forever meddling and tinkering, trying to make things better for the Mr. Wilsons but succeeding only in botching things up. Name one of “society’s” ills and it’s a better than even money bet that if the government didn’t create the problem themselves, they’re at the very least making it worse. All the while earnestly believing that they’re “helping” we-the-people go about the arduous business of living our lives.

Eventually, after years of tinkering, fine-tuning, regulating and generally wreaking havoc, Dennis retires from government “service” with a fat pension (paid for by the Mr. Wilsons) and shortly thereafter lands a lucrative contract as a consultant to the congressional Coating and Surface Preparation Containerage Standards Oversight Subcommittee.

And if all this seems strange consider this: it’s the Mr. Wilsons that keep electing the Dennis-the-Menaces.