US Debt Dilemma

Tomorrow I have the opportunity to meet with our Congressman regarding a popular federal program that is of local significance and has  been zeroed out of the proposed budget. I will defend the program and urge my representative to fund it.

BUT like some of my like-aged friends, I was raised by depression era parents and there was no deficit spending in our budget (except that house loan that was paid off early). It's in my blood to live by a balanced budget and avoid debt.

 While I recognize that a rich nation like ours can carry a large deficit, there are limits - such as the deficit affecting national security and the economy. How much farther can we go?

My congressman will probably hear from thousands of people like me defending their favorite program and so will all the congressman across the nation. Even some of the most ardent budget hawks have favorite programs or strong constituencies for programs. Therein lies the dilemma - most people would like to reduce the deficit but not at the expense of  the program that helps them or their community.

 There will be winners and  losers. I will support my program and hope they can find some cuts elsewhere. How about a couple billion out of  the 54 billion INCREASE for defense or a couple billion out of the 12 (20?) billion for the great wall?

Someone smarter than me will say we just have to contain are exploding health/entitlement costs. Good luck with that.

Science, Climate and Policy

The most disturbing aspect of the climate change issue has been the attack on science. Science in its purest form is apolitical. Follow the evidence and let the chips fall where they may. But of course, science is done by people and people have biases. Certainly some questionable science has been done in ways to support a particular point of view. That said, science and the scientific method have brought us incredible discoveries and understandings of our world by mostly being unbiased.

When science uncovers something that suggests that changes should be made in policy and those changes could be expensive or inconvenient, the response has been to attack the science. It is not that the attackers are necessarily anti science in the bigger sense, they just don’t like this particular science because they are afraid of the implications. Don’t face up to the implications—kill the messenger.

 The basic science of climate change is not about the many remedies that might, or should be taken (that comes later) but is simply the facts as presently known from observation and experimentation. These facts, by their very nature, suggest solutions but it is not the role of science to dictate the solutions .  It is the responsibility of elected officials to consider the evidence, consult with science about the range of solutions and take action.

I would be much happier with the “climate deniers” if they would just be honest and say something like “Our best scientists have found that human activities, particularly burning fossil fuels, have resulted in the world’s climate warming faster than would be expected by natural processes. We have looked at the range of solutions and find that they are too expensive and too inconvenient for us to take action. We are counting on the people to find their own solutions and adapt to the changes as they occur”.

We can’t continue to reject science that reveals “inconvenient truth” because we then risk the perils of rejecting any science that reveals unpleasant consequences. That is a road we don’t want to travel.

Social Costs 2

There is a lot to be concerned about in the recent executive orders regarding environmental regulation. Looking beneath the headlines here is some detail that points to the complexity of some of the issues. One of the executive orders requires the EPA to revisit the Clean Power Plan. This is the plan that would reduce carbon emission by 30% by 2030. The basis for the plan is found in the Clean Air legislation that gives the EPA the power to regulate emissions that are harmful to human health.
The Supreme Court ruled that if the EPA finds that carbon is harmful to human health then it must regulate carbon. The EPA found it it to be harmful and the Clean Power Plan proceeded from there. Furthermore a Federal appellate court ruled "while the record shows that there is a range of values [for the social cost of carbon], the value of carbon emissions reduction is certainly not zero.” This led the EPA to calculate a cost which is also an important factor in rationalizing the Clean Power Plan.

The executive order cannot overturn the Supreme Court ruling that the EPA is required to regulate carbon but it does tell the EPA to ignore the current calculations on the cost of carbon. Certainly there is "guesswork" or "best available science" in such a calculation. What will be the "best avaialble science" for a new calculation?

Ending the war on coal

Coal executive: Trump 'can't bring mining jobs back' | TheHill: "The head of the largest private coal firm in the U.S. says President Trump won’t be able to bring back coal industry jobs despite a push this week to deregulate fossil fuels. 

Robert Murray, the founder and CEO of Murray Energy, said Trump should “temper his expectations,” given the way market forces — rather than regulations — have hurt the coal industry and reduced employment. 

“I suggested that he temper his expectations,” Murray told The Guardian. “Those are my exact words. He can’t bring them back.” 

Tru"



'via Blog this'

Jeff

Jeff Sessions is caught up in the "Russian scandal" but it seem unlikely that Jeff was up to anything nefarious. But those other guys - who knows.



'via Blog this'

Privatizing the Profits and Socializing the Costs

One of the fundamental differences between the conservatives now in power and liberals is the belief in "unfettered capitalism". This leads to the big big push for "rolling back job killing regulations".
I'm sure there are many bothersome regulations, particularly those that are mostly  "paperwork" that don't accomplish anything. That said, unfettered capitalism has a long history of working hard to maximize profits   while ignoring the social cost of realizing those profits. More recently, instead of just ignoring the social costs, clever corporations get the government (us) to pay. Example: Walmart employs a lot of people at low wages with few benefits while earning pretty big profits. Workers often qualify for government programs  that help make up the difference. Walmart keeps the profits, we pay the social costs.

This privatizing profits while socializing costs really comes to a head when we think about those "job killing, over reaching, environmental regulations" When a business, landowner, developer, etc. degrades the environment we all pay for it whether it is in health costs, increased costs for drinkable water, lost recreational opportunities, etc . But the "business" keeps all the profits for itself. What is the rationale that supports the enterprise not paying the true costs (controlling emissions, discharging only clean water, keeping sediment and chemicals from  washing into waterways)?

Our modern  American culture recognizes the many benefits of a vibrant, capitalist economy while
understanding that business costs are not limited to raw materials and workers pay but include the costs of making sure that the enterprise "does no harm", In most cases, environmental regulations are simply an attempt to get businesses to pay the true costs of production.