South Carolina Endorses Green Socialism

Back in 2007, Gov. Mark Sanford created the South Carolina Climate, Energy & Commerce Advisory Committee (CECAC). Today, it was announced that CECAC had produced it’s final paper on the results. And they are scary…

First, what I didn’t notice until now is the composition of the group. Take a look through the list. Notice anything? There’s lots of academics, industry leaders and special interest groups represented. But not a single “common man”. Nobody is there representing the people of South Carolina. Which makes the recommendations not that surprising.

Here’s the final report in all of it’s glory. Covering 600+ pages, I doubt that anyone is going to take the time to read through all of it’s heft, including the myriad of policy suggestions that the group is making. Here, I’m going to focus on the “cross-cutting” issues, because those are the policy ideas that are the most disturbing to me, and to anyone who values freedom of ideas.

Mostly this is on the basis of “education”. This is the FIRST paragraph on their education section:

A well-articulated, meaningful, broadly implemented and sustained educational process is the means to achieve effective and durable actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Much of
the response to climate change requires a disciplined alteration in lifestyle that shares many things in common with a healthy lifestyle. Furthermore, people have to be motivated to attempt and succeed with basic changes in lifestyles. Individual responsibility, community action, conservation, and prevention are the principles upon which change of this magnitude is accomplished. It is no less than a shift in culture. The effort will benefit all aspects of society.

The educational process must define the basic aspects of climate change, including the evidence for cause-and-effect issues; it must specify the significance of climate change for the target audience and each individual; it must clarify and emphasize the role of the target audience and each of its members for a plan of action to mitigate and adapt to climate change; and it must relate the necessary changes in all aspects of people’s lives and their basic beliefs and values— e.g., health, environment, and economic viability.

Public education and outreach programs must build upon existing efforts and institutions, avoid unnecessary duplication, and promote best practices. The sustained success of policy actions recommended by the CECAC, as well as those that might evolve in the future, depends upon lifestyle changes resulting from education, experience, and practice. (All emphasis added)

This is a shocking amount of changing people that’s involved here. But that’s just the start of it. Here are some sections of the policy recommendations that should be, at the least worrisome for anyone who values academic freedom:

• Future generations—Integrate climate change and healthy lifestyle issues into educational
  curricula, post-secondary degree programs, and professional licensing. Emphasize the common basis and goals of response to climate change with protecting the environment and
  achieving optimum health for all people. Consider creating the South Carolina Health Corps, as outlined in Annex B of this document.

• What this means: Teachers will HAVE to follow the party line if they want to be certified as teacher. It will also mean that some climate change education may become required for graduation from HS or college, and this education will have an environmentalist bend to it. I’ll go into the Hitler Youth Health Corps further down.
• The coordinators for each of the target audiences should be credible with those audiences and have the ability to recruit and energize statewide networks of volunteers within each target audience. The state legislature should provide funding for the basic operations of the committee and the coordinators. Funding should be structured in such a way as to take maximum advantage of established mechanisms for education of each of the audiences.
• What this means: The idea is to get as many people “fired up” about climate change as possible. And it’s going to be paid for by your money, whether you like it or not.
• Level of Group Support: Unanimous
• What This Means: All of the people in the advisory panel approved of these measures. There was probably strong pressure to put out a united front (about 90% of these had unanimous approval). I don’t know how you get 20+ supposedly independent people together and get them to agree THIS MUCH on something as controversial as climate change/environmentalism. This goes to speak to the probability that the people put on the committee were selected more on ideological purity than representativeness.
• The state legislature should provide funding to support development and ongoing revision to the
  state Climate Change Adaptation Plan, including (but not limited to) funds to support the analyses needed to guide and inform the development and implementation of the plan and to cover expenses incurred by the Commission on Adaptation to Climate Change and its members.

• What This Means: A legislative blank check for the panel. Not surprising considering that this is coming from the group that would BENEFIT from the blank check.
• Add climate change to public education performance standards for science and social studies; identify gaps in climate change education and specific curricula to fill gaps. [From their notes] Someone has to be the initial teacher of the science of climate change. Integrate climate change and sustainability into core college curricula. (A more direct way of saying what I gleaned from above.)
• Introduce core competencies on climate change into professional licensing programs (energy efficiency in building design and construction, use of recycled materials, etc.).
• What This Means: Now even your plumber has to know the party line on climate change.
• Identify individual community leaders who are not yet acting on climate change, and make a special effort to educate and encourage them to act.
• What This Means: Target the politicians and those in the community who do not parrot the environmentalist/global alarmist policy. May include shaming or punishing those people.
• Develop and use a state-based “brand” on climate awareness and action.
• What This Means: You probably start seeing the Palmetto Tree/Crescent Moon tied into environmentalist agitprop. Possibly the same with “Carolina Girls: Greenest in the World”.

And that’s just ONE section. I’m going to go after the Hitler Green Youth in my next post, because it’s just that troublesome.

And these ideas are not just limited to South Carolina, as 30 other states have done something very similar. For example, compare the South Carolina website to the Montana website, or the Vermont website.

Look similar. I can only hope that South Carolina didn’t spend too much for the Center for Climate Strategy’s expertise. Because they’re pretty much copying the same exact template for every state. Which means that it’s pretty likely that Gov. Sanford got steamrolled on this one. Which is a shame, because Gov. Sanford is supposed to be a maverick Republican, who’s supposed to be a hawk on fiscal issues. I guess not here.

Bush Approves Transfer: America Adds $8 Billion in Debt

From the AP (via Forbes):

The bill transfers $8 billion from the Treasury’s general fund to shore up the financially teetering highway trust fund, which supports road and bridge projects around the country. In July, the White House threatened a veto, saying taking money from the general fund was “both a gimmick and a dangerous precedent that shifts costs from users to taxpayers at large.”

Supporters of the transfer argued that the Treasury was merely returning $8 billion it took from the then-prospering trust fund in 1998 for deficit reduction.

So basically, to cover “paying off the deficit” back in the 1990’s, lawmakers took money out of the highway trust fund (the checking account where all the gas tax revenues go). Which is funny because I thought the budget surplus was from income tax revenues, but I guess everything gets included in this. So now that the Schumer hits the fan (I swiped that from www.survivalblog.com, which I think is a great euphemism for the actual phrase, if not accurate), the money gets “loaned” back. Of course, this just means that whatever “debt reduction” is done is actually just been eliminated. Awesome accounting guys.

But this also means that the states get their precious highway money, construction companies’ political contributions and lobbying did not go in vain, and whatever useless highway projects that this money is being spent on can continue. At least until next year.

What I also found interesting is that one proposal floated by the Bush administration was to reduce the MASS TRANSIT portion of the trust fund. Motorists, you’ll be happy to know that your gas taxes are going toward those empty regional transit buses you’re stuck behind on the road. Of course, the Democrats wanted nothing to do with that, being that they love mass transit, even if it is cross-subsidized by motorists.

And the same thing has already happened with Social Security. The government has been using the money in the SS trust fund to pay for the usual stuff. So in about 2020, when the trust fund starts to run out, the government will just “get the money back” from the Treasury, since it was already “loaned out”. So don’t worry, Social Security WILL BE SAVED. You’ll just end up paying 50-80% income taxes to do it.

Government: The largest legal Ponzi scheme ever created.

More on the Gas Run

Gas prices surge as Ike moves in | ajc.com.

States warn gas stations against price gouging

These stories is just full of juicy quotes about indignant consumers (read: voters) about this gas run.  I’ll present some quotes:

Larry Ruiz of Duluth said it cost him $45 Tuesday to fill up his small pickup. Friday, it cost him $60. “It really is just too expensive,” he said. “The government has lost control of the gas.”

Larry, the government doesn’t have control over gas prices.  At all.  It controls one thing, the location and siting of oil refineries.  You know who has control over gas prices?  You.  But I bet you’re not willing to take responsiblity for your actions.  It’s alot easier to set blame on the government than yourself.

The wholesale price for a gallon of gasoline rose about $1, to $4.25, Thursday morning, topping the high price five years ago when hurricanes Katrina and Rita raked the Gulf Coast, said Tom Kloza, publisher of the Oil Price Information Service in Wall, N.J. It was uncertain whether that price spike will filter down to the retail level.

“It’s pure panic,” Kloza said. “It’s related to the fact that there are worries about whether there’s going to be enough (gasoline) in the distribution system to satisfy some of the September pumping needs on the Gulf Coast.”

More proof that this is a run.  People don’t know if there’s going to be supplies, so they hoard.  This will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“Every time there’s a hurricane this happens. They’re just doing this to rip people off,” said 19-year-old Megan Cohen, a South Carolina college student who settled for paying $4.11 a gallon after going to three stations.

Uh, this wasn’t the case in any other hurricane season except following Katrina, Megan.  It hadn’t happened with any of the hurricanes this year, including Gustav, which hit another large section of the oil and gas producing area of the country.  But Megan, you’re not helping by going to three gas stations and “settling” for $4.11 a gallon.  This means that you didn’t need gasoline (then why go to three stations unless they were out, and there’s an easy way to figure out if the station is empty: noone’s getting gas).  But Megan probably has never taken an economics class at her South Carolina college, otherwise she would know about SUPPLY AND DEMAND.  It’s not that hard people.  Less supply means prices go up.  Demand going up sharply because of panic buying means prices go up even futher.  Or, if they don’t go up quickly enough, there’s a shortage.

S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford asked residents to avoid filling up unless necessary. “Instead, this is a time to think of ways in which each of us can make a difference on what may come our way if refineries in Texas are significantly damaged,” Sanford said in statement. “It might mean riding to the football games with a neighbor or on Sunday riding to church with a friend. It might mean watching a video at home rather than going to the movies or riding to work with a co-worker.”

I know there’s not alot that can be done legally, but as the leader of a state, can’t Mark do something with a little more leadership?  Making a difference?  Throwing out silly suggestions?  This is wimpy politico talk here.  Man up, Mark!  Tell people to stop being so stupid and panicking, if this isn’t a problem.  If it is… be more forceful in telling them that this might be the case for a while.  But if this is his idea of leadership, then this state’s got problems.  This was also true of the Hanna situation, which was equally feeble in the public response.

In South Carolina – where gas prices increased about 20 cents a gallon on average Friday – Attorney General Henry McMaster said gas stations that price gouge would face criminal prosecution. He did not set a threshold, saying each case must be investigated separately to see whether prices were raised to an “unconscionable” level.

But putting the gouging laws into effect?  Now THAT’S going to make things better!  Making the suppliers walk on egg shells in pricing so that if some 19-year old tart with no clue of how things work gets pissed off and files a complaint, then you’ll have to deal with investigations for the next year.  Or you could price it so low that you’ll be out in 5 minutes, but you don’t have to deal with the state lawyers.  Or you could just go on vacation for the next 15 days until this expires.  Then you’re fine and it’s only the customers who get screwed.  But we already knew that about these types of laws.

North Carolina Republican Congressman Robin Hayes called for a federal investigation into some prices rising more than $1 per gallon in a day.

“I understand there is a substantial hurricane in a sensitive area of the country, but this dramatic spike in gas prices is breathtaking,” he said.

I just wanted to point out the party of the pandering politician here.  What’s a federal investigation going to do that the myriad of state investigations won’t?  Oh, that’s right.  Make it seem like you’re doing something about it.

How Much Does the Government Spend on Energy Subsidies?

Thanks to the Energy Information Agency, I get little email every once and a while alerting me to when they have produced something called “Energy in Brief.” So this week, I got one in the email called:

“How much does the Government spend on energy-specific subsidies and support?”

Jackpot.

And the answer to this question: $16.6 billion just in the past year. To put that in pork perspective, that’s 45 to 60 Bridges to Nowhere, depending on which figure you use (total price of bridge to nowhere or just the famous 2005 earmark). That’s right, we can connect 45 to 60 small towns with their airports for just how much the government gives out for energy.

And what does the government do with this money? Not much, by the EIA’s own accounting:

Have Subsidies Affected Prices or Production?

Between 1999 and 2007, the average real price of total energy per British thermal unit (Btu)3 consumed increased more than 80%. Meanwhile, total energy consumption or demand, including imports, grew by about 5%. Most subsidies and support to energy producers should stimulate supply; so too should higher prices and rising energy demand. Yet in 2007, the United States supplied roughly 72 quadrillion Btu from domestic resources, about the same amount as in 1999. This leaves the impression that energy subsidies had little effect on net domestic production other than to help prevent further declines. But the enactment of various production-oriented tax incentives in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and subsequent legislation may have contributed to the slight increase in primary energy production over the last two years.

So as a result of billions of dollars in subsidies and tax incentives, the US might have had a slight increase in energy production. At least with the 45 to 60 Bridges to Nowhere, we would have ACTUAL BRIDGES, not possible things that people would be hard pressed to identify.

You’d think that because of T. Boone Pickens’ ad campaigns that we don’t do anything to support wind energy right now. And, like most things T. Boone Pickens says, this is pretty wrong. Again from the EIA:

Did You Know?
The estimated value of production tax credits to wind producers in FY 2007 was $666 million. The benefit was distributed over an estimated 27.7 million megawatthours, making wind power the largest beneficiary of production tax credits among all renewable technologies.

And this doesn’t even include other incentives given to wind producers that AREN’T tax credits, like direct subsidies. And this doesn’t even take into consideration that wind power DOESN’T produce much energy. So the per unit cost is an astronomical $.02/per kilowatt-hour. Considering that your energy bill is anywhere from $.08 to $.20 / kWh per unit, wind gets a subsidy that’s equal to 10 to 25% of your per unit costs. That sounds like it’s doing a whale of a job.

But believe it or not, wind ISN’T even the worse offender when it comes to government largess. That would be “clean coal”, which gets $2 billion to produce a tiny fraction of the energy in the US. But once again, clean coal and coal-to-liquids have huge backers in the Senate in the form of Robert Byrd and Mitch McConnell. And that’s money that’s not doing a lick of good.

So before we start heaping MORE money on renewables, a la the Pickens Plan, we should look to see what works and what doesn’t. Right now, wind and solar aren’t.

John McCain Uses the Pickens Lie

From John McCain’s acceptance speech last night:

My fellow Americans, when I’m President, we’re going to embark on the most ambitious national project in decades. We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don’t like us very much. We will attack the problem on every front. We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we’ll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles. (Emphasis added)

I’ve documented the fact that $700 billion is a bald-faced, economically illiterate number that was conjured up by T. Boone that has no basis on the realities of the oil market or just plain facts. Add to the fact that McCain just lumped natural gas in with solar and wind (“one of these things is not like the other, one of these things is just not the same”), and T. Boone must have been jumping for joy with the speech last night. I’m sure one of the first things McCain will reach across the aisle to Nancy Pelosi is to force private fleet vehicles to run on natural gas.

So if you oppose the Pickens Plan, or don’t like the fact that it’s based on sketchy numbers, has a significant chance of screwing up our electricity market and backed by someone who has a huge financial stake in it, then you don’t have a choice in the election. Well you do, but you won’t hear about it in the media.

I would call on John McCain’s campaign to fully disclose their relationship with T. Boone and fess up to the fact that he cited a horribly incorrect number during a nationally televised speech. It’s the least that he can do “for the country.” But I doubt that will happen.

McCain Invents New Constitutional Power

Again, from John McCain’s acceptance speech:

We need to change the way government does almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children. All these functions of government were designed before the rise of the global economy, the information technology revolution and the end of the Cold War. We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington.

I must’ve missed that part of the Constitution where it says that the government sets the standards for transportation fuel. Yes, yes, I know I’m in a minority opinion, where the Supreme Court has given the federal government carte blanche to do whatever it wants with the economy. Of course, no one has opposed the ethanol mandates, or the EPA gasoline/diesel requirements yet either, at least not successfully. Of course, as a nation, we have long accepted federal limits on economic freedom. Perhaps when you’re required to trade in your gasoline powered car for a T. Boone special, you might make a peep, or not.

Regardless, this is just another way that McCain is letting everyone know that he’s going to be fulfilling the Pickens Plan when he gets into office. He just doesn’t want to say it so directly. So much for that openness and accountability that he’s running on.

Sanford issues oxymoron

Sanford issues voluntary evacuation order – Local – Myrtle Beach Sun News.

What’s a voluntary order?  This is one of the more amusing things I’ve heard about the storm that really isn’t, but the media really, REALLY wants it to be.  They’re hoping that it’ll get back to hurricane force winds, though the prognosis isn’t very good for that to happen, especially considering that Hanna continues to weaken.

And as he was announcing the order, even the Governor had to reiterate that it was voluntary.  So why give the order in the first place?  How about issuing an advisary?  Or a suggestion?  But it has to be an order to make it sound important, even if it doesn’t have any meat to it and most people are going to ignore it anyway.

And the best part:

Gov. Mark Sanford just told beachside South Carolinians in Horry and Georgetown counties that if they feel more comfortable getting out of the wind and rain forecast for the next 36 hours, they can begin to evacuate.

So South Carolinians needed to be told by the governor that it’s ok for them to evacuate.  Thank God he said this, because people might have been forced to STAY if they weren’t comfortable with being in the storms path.  Yeeesh.  Have we become so dependent on the state that we can no longer take our safety into our own hands?

The answer is:  of course not.

So far, we have the Governor issuing the voluntary order, the local schools closing up shop for the day as well as the local university, and yet everyone I talked to today was pretty much unfazed with this storm.  As usual, it’s a matter of the tail wagging the dog, as the media is trying to make something out of this.  And as a result, it’s forcing the government to make sure it doesn’t look bad with the media.  In fact, it’s IKE that the people I talked to today are more worried about than Hanna, but that would require long term planning, something the drive-bys are uninterested in doing.

Meanwhile, while the local government employees will get their day off, I’ll be making the drive to the beach, like I do everyday.  Except they have me going from SOUTH to NORTH, instead of NORTH to SOUTH like I normally do.  Which makes no sense, but the bureaucratic dictates of someone two hundred miles away and has probably never done the drive before must be obeyed.  So I have to do something useless and more likely to be problematic, just because someone thinks they have a better idea of how to do my job than the person who has done the job for the past year.  Just like pretty much every bureaucracy.
And I’m sure they also didn’t think that this would force me into the major evacuation route instead of driving against it.  But they wouldn’t think about important details like that.  So I’ll probably be stuck in traffic on US 501 or US 378 tomorrow, all because some genius in middle management came up with a great idea.

Politics as Usual with Palin and the Media

So we’ve gone through a weekend of hearing about Sarah Palin as the new Republican VP nominee. And, to no one’s surprise, it was all about personal characteristics and almost nothing on policy.

There were thousands of stories on Palin’s children, both newborn and almost adult. But that’s the essence of the game as the liberal media and the blogosphere tried to find something against Palin that would stick in terms of criticism. I know it’s hard to find some actual information on three day’s notice, but I was somehow able to find information on her in five hours on Friday afternoon. You’d think the media could do that, since they’re getting paid for it after all. But instead, we get innuendo and slander, going after her personality, but not her policies. And it’s not like she’s a blank slate, as she’s got two years as governor and a couple of years as mayor to find information on. So, as usual, the ancien media fails at their job of investigation and reporting.

Meanwhile, the GOP side of the media is just ecstatic about the pick, as if this is all the people needed to warm up to McCain. To his credit, he did reinforce his social conservatism at the Rick Warren forum, and it appears that this is another pick along those lines. Which is why the anciens wanted to go after her personal life as to make the hypocrite tag stick. But there’s nothing to those attacks, which is why the GOP side is going after them on this issue. So instead of introducing their candidate and filling in the gaping holes on her policy ideas and where she stands on the issues, they’re, once again, playing on the other team’s field. But as this weekend has shown, there’s nothing to this issue, which is why the GOPers are attacking this hard.

But it doesn’t help us in the minority who actually, you know, still care about the issues and policies that government puts in place. And more to the point, both sides have been strangely silent on Palin’s energy policy while in Alaska. It’s supposed to be her strong point, and she even mentioned it in her introductory speech. But as I outlined in my Palin on Energy post, it’s at best a political pander, and at worst, a contradiction of the national Republican policy on taxation and a gold mine for the Democrats, if they’re going to take the bait.

In case you don’t know, Palin instituted a new severance tax on oil pumped from state-leased lands. And contrary to usual Republican policy, this tax was higher than the previous level. In fact, it became a windfall profits tax, as the structure of the tax was that it increased as the price of oil increased, the very definition of a windfall profits tax.

But people aren’t interested in the fact that it’s a tax increase out of the Obama handbook, they’re more interested in covering it up as “giving a tax rebate back to the people”, as epitomized by the Rush Limbaugh show this afternoon:

CALLER: And you asked him a specific question, and what he picked out was so mundane, I mean it was on everyone’s mind. You asked him what were Sarah’s accomplishments here, and he had an ability to tell you a whole litany of things. And he picked out oh, you know, “She’s going to send us some money.” Well, yeah. It’s a small part of a much larger plan by the state —

RUSH: Well, but wait a minute.

CALLER: — to help us out.

RUSH: No, I knew what he was talking about at the time. Alaskans — she gave them a rebate on rising gasoline prices added to whatever it is you guys already get for allowing the Alaska pipeline and other things up there, but she was simply saying, she made it a point in her announcement to say that she didn’t keep the money as a governor and put it in government coffers; she sent it back to the people who were experiencing this rapid increase in gasoline prices. Remember, Obama at the time the gasoline prices were skyrocketing up, said, (paraphrasing) “I’m not really worried about the price but I am concerned about how rapidly it went up.”

CALLER: Yeah, it was disgusting.

RUSH: She turned it back to the people, that’s all. No different than a tax rebate.

CALLER: Right, which was the original idea of the original permanent fund in the first place, because the oil revenue of the state, according to Hammond, our governor at the time, belonged to the people. And so the people get a tiny little portion of the interest, and that’s what that dividend is about, but I wouldn’t have chosen that as her most important accomplishment. Frank Murkowski was expected to be a really good governor, and he was just a bust. She beat him in the primary, and she filed his deal that he had made with the gas companies — or the oil companies, she filed that right in the trash. (Emphasis added)

First of all, it’s not a tax rebate, as the $1200 doled out by each citizen was never collected from the citizenry. It was collected from the oil companies and redistributed to taxpayers. That’s NOT a tax rebate. It’s the same problem that the Bush tax rebates/stimulus payments have, the rebates are uncorrelated with tax payments. So it can’t be a rebate if you don’t pay the tax in the first place.

But the bigger problem is that there is this entitlement to the oil company revenue because the oil came out of state-owned land. The fact that the state owns any land is something entirely different, but that’s different from a federally owned parcel (which was in most circumstances expropriated and definitely unconstitutional). Under the Alaska Constitution, the state can own land, and lease mineral rights, but it doesn’t own the oil. Well, they can own the oil, but they allow private entities to explore and produce the oil, at least until politicians decide to take over the production as a whole (or just go ahead and tax it 100%).

In the grander scheme of things, this should sound at least some concern for conservatives, but I haven’t heard a peep from either side of the aisle, but it’s actually pretty obvious once you think about it.

Republicans don’t want to dirty up the image of Palin, especially when she says that it’s not a tax increase, but it’s getting a fair valuation on the resources. If a Democrat tried doing that on a tax on… anything, Republicans would skin that Democrat alive.

Democrats are either waiting for a “gotcha” moment, possibly during the debate or closer to the election. The question will be obvious: “During your time as governor of Alaska, you passed a tax increase on oil companies that were then sent taxpayers as an energy rebate. Barack Obama has proposed the same thing, but John McCain and the Republicans have attacked this proposal. Do you support Obama’s plan that is very similar to your policy in Alaska?” And then she’s going to have to square the circle, saying that it’s ok to do it on the state level, but not on the national level, or backtrack on her record in Alaska. Either way, the Republicans are going to have to figure that one out quickly, because either she’s going to piss off fiscal conservatives or be attacked (rightly so) as a flip-flopper.

Right now, there’s no sign of what she’ll do, even if she highlighted the policy (in a limited way) in her speech in Dayton. But unlike the pregnancy/child issues, this is a serious issue that could very well put her in a bad position.

(UPDATE: The Cato Institute has done some research into her tax policies: Gov. Sarah Palin’s Record on Taxes and Spending and Palin: Uninspiring Tax Policy Record. Leave it to the libertarians to do the political work of the partisans. There’s a thesis to be had there, do non-mainstream party outlets cover the issues that the Big Two parties do not want to have discussed? I’m also thinking Obama/climate change and environmental parties.)

Sarah Palin on Energy

As most people know, Sarah Palin is now the VP nominee for the Republican Party. Everyone knows the obvious stuff: she’s a woman with 5 kids, current governor of Alaska, former mayor, elected on an anti-corruption kick.

But there’s not so much that people know about her policies and her accomplishments. So I’m going to try and fill in the blanks, especially on energy (It’ll be tougher to get her policy ideas on transportation, but they’re there in the land of the Bridge to Nowhere). I first had my antennae up when both McCain and Palin in this afternoon’s rally mentioned that she had fought against “Big Oil.” It might just be cover to make sure that she doesn’t get politically attacked for being cozy to oil interests or attacking her as “continuing Bush’s presidency.” Referring to the oil industry as “Big Oil” is not something the Bush presidency was known for.

So I found this website, run by a lawyer named Beldar, who jumped on the Palin bandwagon early and often, as shown in the link. As for what she’s done in office:

• She’s spoken out against putting polar bears on the endangered species list. While only tangentially related to energy, putting the polar bear on the list would enable federal regulation of pretty much the entire economy, as the specious reasoning for putting the polar bear on the list as “threatened” is due to global warming climate change. If anything makes climate change worse for the polar bears, it can be regulated by the feds, according to the Endangered Species Act. This is a no-brainer, but it’s a politically risky action to take, for fear of being labeled a “Big Oil” supporter, or anti-green. But she makes up for it with…
• She signed onto the punitive damages case that was eventually brought to the Supreme Court. This case, stemming from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, was about the $5 billion in punitive damages that were sought against Exxon (now ExxonMobil). Exxon thought that this was excessive and fought all the way to the Supreme Court to have them lowered. Exxon won in a 5-3 verdict to lower the damages, though the 4-4 split meant that there could actually be punitive damages under maritime law. The actual Court decision can be found here (warning, lots and lots of legalese). Funny thing, Palin found herself on the side of Breyer, Ginsberg and Stevens, and against Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy and Souter. But as you can see in the video below, this is mostly a populist action, since there were 33,000 people, businesses, and associations impacted by this. It’d be political suicide to not support this, but the populism still remains:
  
• In another populist move, she signed onto a tax increase. On oil companies (scroll to see discussion on “serverance” tax vs. “income” tax vs. “windfall” profits tax.) Here are the details of the actual tax. Key points:
  1. Increases base rate on all oil from 22.5% to 25%.
  2. Adds surtax on value of oil between $30 to $92.50 of .04%
  3. Adds surtax of .1% on all value above $92.50

  Whether you want to call it a windfall profits or a severance tax, she raised taxes on oil output, and made them progressive instead of flat. That’s pretty counter intuitive to pretty much all conservative tax thought, as we would like taxes lower and flatter.

  (As a side note, it CAN be argued that this is a windfall profits tax as this tax is increased as the value of the oil increases. The value of the oil increases NOT on the production capabilities of the oil company but on factors outside their concern, making additional profits prohibitively “windfall”. A flat tax would not be a windfall tax, as the tax would not increase as prices increase, but because of the progressive nature of the tax, it becomes a windfall profits tax. This makes any progressive tax a windfall profits tax, though it’s worse for income, because presumably, the increased income is through increased work, which is not a windfall to the user. Arguments against the windfall profits tax should be the same as arguments against progressive income taxes. It also increases the incentives for oil companies to increase their production costs (or more accurately, persuade the government to increase the production costs allowance) to avoid paying higher taxes, a perverse economic incentive.)

• And with these new tax revenues, she gave them back to the state already flush with government handouts. From the Seattle Times:
  Alaska’s oil windfall by the numbers
  $6 billion – Estimated revenue collected by state of Alaska from new tax on oil profits this fiscal year.
  $10 billion – Estimated total oil revenue collected by state this year (old plus new oil taxes).
  $1,200 – Special payment to each Alaskan resident this year from new oil tax.
  $2,000 – Estimated annual dividend each Alaskan will receive this year from oil-wealth savings account, not counting the new oil tax.

  So Gov. Palin raised taxes by more than 100%. Though to say this is on profits is somewhat disingenous, as it’s just on oil price above production and transport costs, which means that this isn’t even a tax on profits, as it ignores other costs (R&D, maintenance, marketing, etc.). So it’s even worse than a profits tax.

  But the revenues at least went straight back to the populace instead of funneled through all sorts of government programs. That would be even more wasteful and economically illiterate. First she wanted to create a debit card system for energy payments but instead settled on a straight check to “help with rising gas prices” although the money will probably be spent on things other than energy (like the stimulus checks). The straight check at least is good that it doesn’t increase government any more than it already does (the creation of a government check card bureaucracy), since they already have a system in place for doling out the money that they had already received.

  So this tax was in essence a populist ploy to get more oil money redistributed to the citizens of the state. It smacks me of being a little on the road to nationalizing the oil fields there (state-izing?). What happens when the citizenry wants more of it’s $1,200 dollars. The tax goes up. No surprise there.

• Lest I seem too negative on Palin, there are some points that I do like about her. She supports drilling in ANWR and completed the natural gas pipeline to the US through Canada. The natural gas pipeline will be an immense help to the US natural gas market, even if you have to travel through Canada to get there. I don’t know enough about the pipeline as to whether the gas will be intermingled with Canadian gas or not, which would be an interesting trade issue, at least statistically.

So overall, I would peg Palin as a conservative populist on energy. This seems to fit with her overall philosophy, as so far as it can be determined by ontheissues.org:

But we’ll get a closer idea of what she brings to the table as the campaign unfolds.

Response to a Barrett Comment

From the comments on the Gresham Barrett Brings the Stupid post:

Right on, Mike! I’m with you all the way. Next time I’d like to hear you thoughts on Jane B Dyer the Democratic Party’s candidate for Barrett’s job.
She is the kind of candidate SC needs but the media seem to be conspiring to keep her candidacy quiet. She’s been an Air Force flier, She is now a FEDEX captain on one of those big freighters besides being a Mom and a Grandmother. She lives in Easley and she needs the help of guys like you.
Bill

Well, lest anyone think that I’m partisan in my distrust of politicians (unlike most of the media out there), here’s my thoughts on Ms. Dyer:

Sorry Bill, but it looks like Barrett doesn’t have any kind of competition in this race. Ms. Dyer is parroting the same rhetoric that has become standard for all politicians. But I think she’d get the T. Boone Pickens seal of approval.

Below is a more detailed look at Ms. Dyer and her environmental energy policy.