The EPA is currently working on new regulations that will likely reduce the amount of sulfur in gasoline from what we scientist-types refer to as “itty-bitty” to “teensy-weensy” levels instead. If taken, this action will be hugely expensive and raise gas prices by as much as 25 cents per gallon, with virtually no environmental benefit to offset the expenditures.
Gasoline used to contain up to 300 part per million (ppm) of sulfur. New regulations promulgated under the Clinton administration reduced that to 30 ppm, the current standard that went into full effect in 2007. Now, Lisa Jackson’s anti-fossil-fuel, anti-reality USEPA is considering reducing the standard to as low as 10 ppm. If implemented, this new standard would require refineries to retrofit with new technology at an estimated initial capital cost of $17 billion and would lead to an increase in annual operating costs of $13 billion. That would translate into increased gas prices of around 15 to 25 cents per gallon for consumers.
Former Congressman and Reagan Administration Budget Director David Stockman roasts corporations that are fattening themselves at the trough of crony capitalism. This discussion with Bill Moyers is well worth watching. You’ll learn why government bailouts and corporate welfare are so harmful to the economy, corrupting of government, and dispiriting to business people and consumers who believe in free enterprise.
I had the pleasure of appearing on the Butler on Business radio show yesterday to chat with Alan Butler and Jason Riddle about the EPA and the effect that particular agency has on our economy. It’s always gratifying to talk with people who get it, particularly when we have a President who so clearly doesn’t.
You can also find your truly in the Washington Times today, discussing an issue that is going to be more and more important as time goes on: continuing to develop America’s vast reserve of shale gas and the radical environmentalists desire to bring the industry to its needs. Having effectively killed coal in the US already, natural gas is the next target of the zealots and we need to stop them if the nation is to have any chance of prospering once more.
The caucuses in Iowa and the primary in New Hampshire have made Rep. Ron Paul a credible alternative to Mitt Romney going into the primaries in South Carolina and Florida. The Republican establishment is not happy. Pity.
The conventional wisdom is that a moderate or even a strong conservative will have to move toward the center in order to capture the independents in between conservatives and liberals. That is like two armies going head-on toward each other.
But there is another popular military strategy. It is called flanking the opposing army, and it means attacking from behind in addition to a direct frontal assault. That, in policy terms, is what Ron Paul is doing.
Among all the candidates, including of course the president himself, Paul has the most complete economic policy for a recovery. Put simply, it is to reduce government spending and curtail the policies that continue the recession, such as those of the Federal Reserve. In addition to the best economic policy being offered by any of the Republican candidates, Paul has a set of social policies that appeal to liberals, especially young ones. He is against foreign wars that are not related to domestic defense, and he is for decriminalizing marijuana, to mention a couple.
The latter has received a strong push-back from the Republican establishment. Their thinking is that such a policy will lose Paul the conservative base, and therefore he cannot be nominated.
As the gradual implementation of Obamacare continues and debate over the intelligence of socialized medicine mounts, the budgetary malaise of the current Medicaid system should be a red flag to supporters of the President’s health care plan. The current degree of governmental control over healthcare is proving calamitous for states with financial troubles, and the expanded bureaucracy that is Obamacare will only make matters worse.
The contradictions and logistical maladies manifest in government-controlled healthcare have never been more evident than in the recent series of cuts in the Pennsylvania Medicaid apparatus. Over the next nine years, $1.2 trillion in reductions will mean the elimination of care for 150,000 people (43,000 of which are children) and more than 80,000 in job losses.
The uncertain economy has meant a surge in those receiving Medicaid across the nation, but since the summer of 2011, Pennsylvania has seen a steady decline because of the Department of Public Welfare’s (DPW) efforts to cut those no longer living in state and those who are dead or otherwise ineligible for aid. Patient advocates are saying otherwise, calling the cuts “disastrous.”
The bureaucratic nightmare that the cuts have unleashed on eligible patient care could be called Orwellian, as Pennsylvania’s push to close the backlog of cases has resulted in an overload for an already understaffed DPW. Hundreds of thousands of pending cases were “reviewed” in a matter of weeks, and technical omissions that would regularly necessitate simple clarification from the patient, such as lack of information, resulted in the cancellation of thousands of cases.
But the bureaucratic incompetence doesn’t end there.
Earlier this month, two Ohio economists published a paper downplaying the economic impacts of natural gas drilling in Ohio. They argued that optimistic employment projections should be shifted downwards and that the overall employment effects will not be as significant as the industry would have you believe.
A singular focus on the exact number of jobs created is less important than the understanding that this development will provide mobility and opportunity for people in the effected communities and beyond. Natural gas, when responsibly extracted, can add value to communities and drive job creation in disparate geographic regions and sectors of the economy.
Two articles released yesterday provide great snapshots of the different ways in which economic activity manifests itself in relation to the shale gas boom.
Culturally and politically, the United States and Great Britain have much in common; a shared heritage, similar economic and foreign policy goals, and a recently, a mutual proclivity toward socialized medicine. As opposition to Obamacare continues to mount in the U.S., an examination of how socialized medicine is fairing in light of global financial troubles is necessary.
The UK’s National Health Service, or NHS, established in 1948, is experiencing massive cutbacks, to the tune of $31 billion by 2015. As the Service’s 2011/2012 budget is approximately £106 billion pounds, such cuts are already taking a toll.
In order to compensate for its losses, the NHS is reducing the number of treatments given and medical personnel employed. Surgeries deemed to be “non-lifesaving” are being postponed, waitlists for simple procedures are growing longer and longer, and more than 50,000 doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals will be let go in the next four years, according to The Telegraph.
It makes sense then, that those unable or unwilling to postpone surgeries or submit to months of waiting seek out private “self-pay” services instead. As the Daily Mail points out:
In the midst of state budgetary turmoil, it is not surprising that legislators are turning to unconstitutional regulatory measures in the pursuit of a few extra tax dollars. Arkansas, Connecticut, Colorado, North Carolina, and Rhode Island are among those states that have attempted to force Amazon.com to collect taxes on Internet sales. The tax has become a reality in Illinois, with Gov. Quinn’s signing of the “Mainstreet Fairness Act.” The online retailer has challenged and resisted these attempts at taxation, shutting down its affiliates program in the aforementioned states in retaliation.
Justifying the selective elimination its affiliates, Amazon points to the economic losses that are starting to add up as a result of these regulations. In a letter sent to its affiliates in Arkansas and Connecticut on June 10 2011, the company asserted that the increased regulatory efforts are the work of “big box retailers” hoping to harm the competition:
The North Pole is aware that the United States fiscal outlook is grim, but at least to them – the solution is obvious.
Mike the Elf, Santa’s economic adviser to Elf Capital Management, was on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange today alongside CNBC’s Rick Santelli, encouraging greater fiscal discipline to our leaders in Washington. Enjoy.
On the orders of President Theodore Roosevelt, from December 16, 1907, to February 2, 1909, two squadrons of naval vessels circumnavigated the globe in a display of the United States’ growing naval power, and consequential increased global influence. This action, taken by what was known as the “Great White Fleet” would serve as a precursor to decades of political and military dominance by the United States on the world stage.
Today, the need for a powerful naval force has never been greater, and with constant innovation, the United States Navy continues to be a world leader in the pursuit of freedom and all those who threaten it. This continued dominance is achieved through perpetual increases in technology, not only in weaponry, but in the means of powering our fleet — from coal, to steam, to nuclear power, the development and advancement of fuels has been closely tied to the larger abilities of the U.S. naval force.
A recent undertaking by the Department of Defense, however, raises questions as to whether the military’s commitment to innovation may be endangered by political pandering — especially in the face of the announcements earlier this year that 3,000 sailors nationwide, approximately one out of every one hundred people in the force overall, will be forced to leave the Navy. The creation of a so-called “Great Green Fleet,” a series of improvements designed to make the military more “eco-friendly,” seems a contradiction in the face of increased Department of Defense cuts (a possible trillion dollars over the next ten years).
The EPA is currently working on new regulations that will likely reduce the amount of sulfur in gasoline from what we scientist-types refer to as “itty-bitty” to “teensy-weensy” levels instead. If taken, this action will be hugely expensive and raise gas prices by as much as 25 cents per gallon, with virtually no environmental benefit to offset the expenditures.
