www.editedforbias.com » energy

Gingrich vs Waxman a contrast in style (and position)

Ed F Bias — Fri, 22 May 2009 13:53:39 +0000

A contrast in style. Waxman makes himself an idiot. He never expresses an opinion or listens to the input. He only berates the messenger. This seems to be the standard Liberal argument to all opposition to the growth of government. It is tough to actually find the argument for these tax increases. I have no problem finding complaints about people that do not support tax increases on (100% of Americans). I wish they would defend their position on taxing every American and simply stand their ground.

I have to respect Newt’s reaction in simply sitting back and smirking while Waxman goes off. If you opponent is making and idiot of himself let him go. Newt has learned a lot since his time as speaker.
He does get a few nice points squeezed in their on the fundamental difference of using incentives for people versus penalizing people.

Taking in this context the basic argument from Waxman is that the government needs more money. How do you plan to give us more?! Never a brain cell thinking about the people, a complete view of everything from the government point of view.

Cap and Trade…aka… A Great BIG TAX!

Ed F Bias — Mon, 11 May 2009 03:10:12 +0000

Those are not my words but the words from Rep Dingell (a Democrat) that supports the concept. Even more interesting is that he even mentions that we examples of it being tried and it simply fails. So the answer, of course, is to do it anyway and tax on the other end as well.

As with many of these posts. The basic words are only the beginning but they are enlightening. Cap and Trade is not about the environment (not to Dingell) it is about Revenue. I will say for All Gore it seems to be more about the environment. And since he believes in this Carbon credits crap, I will at least give him credit for being honest. Even honest enough to mention his “world view” of taxation.

For the other side of this discussion… the Heritage Foundation has published a simple read about Cap and Trade. What I find most interesting is that both sides agree… that the American people to not understand that it is A TAX and a GREAT BIG TAX.

Now you do.

Electricity comes from…thin air…and oil!

Ed F Bias — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 02:32:00 +0000

It would seem that the Democrats believe that electricity comes from thin air. They continue to pick winners and losers in this energy crisis. They have obviously decided that oil and natural gas, stagnant in the ground, is the loser and electricity and food for energy is the winner.
I simply do not understand it. Oil sits in the ground. Trillions of barrels of it already discovered and recoverable, but we do not want to get at it. I understand we do not want to use it all but even the amounts we have already found will last us 50+ years.

So instead we are to change over to electric cars. Electricity generated predominantly by lovely, clean burning COAL. Can’t generate it via nuclear, too dangerous; Solar, too inefficient; Hyrdo, too destructive to those fish. Well if those are out of reasch we can always generate electricity by burning heating oil.

But we can also go after that other green technology, FOOD. So we do not burn oil buried in the ground, used for nothing else, but we burn food. We take fertile soil, clean water, farm equipment [what does that run on?], trucks, trains and processing plants to turn food into a liquid that we can burn. Yeah that makes sense.

Then we wonder why the price of food goes up and why the poorest of the poor go hungry. The term “you reep what you sew” has never been more literal [or did I mean to say liberal].

60% dependant on foreign oil is not acceptable.

Ed F Bias — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 02:31:00 +0000

We do not need to “lessen our dependence on foreign oil” we need to “eliminate” our dependence on foreign oil. These dribs and drabs of 5% here and 3% there are useless and only serve to distract from the problem. Politicians want you to believe that they are doing something. Moving from 70% dependent to 60% dependent is progress but of little long term value.

I have learned enough from politicians and business to know that when setting goals you should always aim high. You may not succeed but you are guaranteed to do better than if you set lower goals. I expect that the 10% goal of our current politicians will end up being 5% and deemed a huge success. I say aim higher. Aim for 100% US production. Yeah we may not get there but we will get far closer then hoping for a few percentage points here and there.

Drill off Florida, Texas and California. Drill in that postage stamp inside ANWAR and get moving on that shale from the Rocky Mountains. Increase Nuclear, Wind and Hydro power. Pursue new technologies. None of these alone will make up the 70% short-fall. T. Boone Picken’s plan aims for 20% wind power. OK, that helps and we still have 50% to go. If we all inflate our tires as Obama would suggest that can get us 3-5% more. Still leaving 45% that has to come from somewhere.

When you set the proper goal it is easier to see that none of these are the right answer, all of them are. Let’s get moving.