Take your solar power and stick it where the sun don't shine

Comments on "Desert Vistas vs. Solar Power" NY Times December 22, 2009.

The environmentalists have been pushing solar energy as the pollution free energy source. But wait...we can't put it where the sun shines!

I understand how competing uses for the desert can create a debate...but this isn't a debate. This is the Queen of California terrorizing her constituents who wouldn't speak publicly for fear of antagonizing a powerful politician.

Have we moved from a democracy to an aristocracy? If they did antagonize Senator Feinstein, what would she do? Shoot bolts of retribution to those that disagree with her?

As soon as citizen are afraid to speak up for fear of antagonizing a powerful politician we have lost a critical element in our country.

The whim of the Queen of California...first we demand the utilities develop renewable energy, then the Queen stops the solar projects.

This isn't about the environment. This is about the "whim of royalty."

in reference to:

"Union officials, power industry executives, regulators and some environmentalists have also expressed concern about the impact of the monument legislation, but few would speak publicly for fear of antagonizing one of California’s most powerful politicians."
- Protection of Desert Land Faces Off With New Energy Sources - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

OK, let me get this straight...

Taming the Fat Cats, NY Times December 19,2009

President Obama is upset (now this is a helpful emotion for a president) the way America's VORACIOUS bankers leveraged hundreds of billions in taxpayer bailouts to line their pockets.

He is UPSET? Has he tried stamping his feet? Throwing a temper tantrum?

Gosh, just what America needs a president that shows how much he cares by being UPSET.

OK, let me get this straight. First, the Fed keeps interest rates very low, exacerbating the real estate bubble. Then it passes the community lending bill that forces banks to lend to high risk home buyers. Then it mismanages the Macs who are at the epicenter of the the financial collapse.

Then, when the banks get caught playing the game defined by the Fed and Congress and their agencies... when the music stops they get bailed out.

IMHO the free markets only work when we are disciplined by reality. Congress has insulated them from reality and now it bails them out because they are too big to fail. Really? They should allow reality to meet out the punishment they deserve for not paying attention to systemic risks.

Now that the Feds set up the crash, created perverse incentives for the banks, regulated the banks into bad lending practices (for the social good of course), failed to regulate their own housing agencies, then they shovel billions of dollars at the banks....

President Obama is upset at how the banks are handling the money?

Maybe the solution is HOLDING HIS BREATH until they lend they way he wants them to. Oh...wait...isn't this how they got into the problem...by bad lending practices encourage by the Feds?

I know some of my readers will be agitated, claiming this whole financial mess was created by greedy capitalists...but I would argue that this could only happen on this scale when the Feds provide massive incentives.

This article concludes that the government needs to align banking compensation with performance. How about we just don't bail them out?

Curbing the bankers appetite for risk as suggested should apply FIRST to the government and its agencies. The huge debt, the mismanaged entitlement programs, the social programs that fail year after year.

After reading my own blog I realize that "I" am upset. Yes, I am really upset. Me and President Obama are VERY UPSET.

We are both going to hold our breath, stamp our feet until bankers stops making money from the billions we gave them.

in reference to: Editorial - Taming the Fat Cats - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Part of the solution seems so obvious

New York Finds Extreme Crisis in Youth Prisons
NY Times December 13, 2009

Why don't we simply de-criminalize drug use. The reasons not to are emotional and not rational.

The damage our drug laws do far outweighs any potential benefit.

We can stop destroying the lives of young people in trouble by simply stopping what we are doing. Why don't liberals push hard for this change? It is a natural for them...what is stopping them? Comments?

in reference to:

"New York Finds Extreme Crisis in Youth Prisons"
- Task Force Finds Crisis in New York’s Juvenile Prison System - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

We know what New Orleans Needs

In reference to NY Times December 11, 2009 editorial "What New Orleans Needs."
http://bit.ly/8pzTwt

How does the world run without Washington? Apparently rather poorly according to the NY Times editorial telling New Orleans what it needs to develop affordable housing.

Can you believe the local politicians want to use federal funds to clear abandoned buildings! Oh no!

It is complicated. People's decisions on what to spend their money on, (i.e. rent) is driven by personal considerations that we cannot comprehend on an individual basis or heaven forbid, on a group basis.

Rents in a competitive market place reflect supply and demand. High rents, mean high demand. This may be a temporary condition because the market place hasn't been attracted to building to meet the demand yet, or it could be structural, (i.e.government restraints on building which I understand there are).

I know nothing about the situation in New Orleans. But I will bet that the problem is political structure that prevents the market place from building.

Tell me I am wrong.

in reference to: Editorial - What New Orleans Needs - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Democrats advocate a regressive tax

OK, in the NY Times article "Many See the VAT Option as a Cure for Deficits" this trial balloon is being floated to raise more money from the taxpayer.

A "VAT" or value added tax is like a sales tax that is levied at the various stages of production. It doesn't matter what your income level is, you pay when you buy.

So, if I understand correctly, this tax will make everyone poorer by billions of dollars. Each family or individual will have less money to spend on what they need to survive and thrive.

Now, the part I am confused about, is how does making everyone a bit poorer help them out?

The answer is that the money collected by the Feds will go to pay down the deficit! Yes, we have less money to spend on surviving so we can pay down the deficit!

Let's get this straight...the politicians in Washington, (yes both parties) have spent more money than they have for years. The Democrats have promised to pay for these programs by taxing the rich. Oooppps. Not enough money there...so let's tax the middle class and the poor!

We as voters deserve what we get. It just amazes me that my liberal friends just don't see this coming.

in reference to: Payback Time - Many See the VAT Option as a Cure for Deficits - Series - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Put down the guitar and pick up the sledge hammer

The unemployed are kind of like pawns. If there are too many of them, heck, let's move them around the board and make them useful.

Is this just me or do you sense an arrogance in this piece "Tear Down That House?"

The "unemployed" are actually people who are unique and running their own lives the best they can. A teeny weeny percentage have demolition experience. I know my niece doesn't...and it would play hell on her long nails.

So, we have the feds giving money to the cities...who will look at this as another boondoggle to get federal funds...and then they will be effective at figuring out what properties need to be leveled? Real estate acumen isn't a skill likely to be found in city bureaucracy.

Yes, we have no idea how many abandoned properties are out there. It is arrogant to think that if some bureaucrat in Washington can come to a number and then allocate funds that will go to financially strapped cities who will then hire my unemployed niece (hey, be careful of her fingernails).

It gets complicated with union rules...oh my god...

How about auctioning off the properties...let private individuals and companies figure out what to do with them.

Mr. O'Neill...you aren't smart enough to make a complex program like this work...I mean you are smart, this isn't a comment on your intelligence, but a comment on the difficulty creating the outcome you want in a complex adaptive world.

in reference to: Op-Ed Contributor - Tear Down That House - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Amazing, Only the NYT could view charitable giving as a government cost

If something costs me money, it means that something I own (money) is exchanged for something else. The only way charitable giving can cost the U.S. if you make the assumption that they really own my money.

Non-profits are "Exploiting" the tax code? Oh my god...they should be good citizens, and not follow the law, but Ms. Strom's personal preferences of how she would like the law interpreted. Perhaps we should set up a "Supreme Strom Court" that gives our charitable institutions further "guidance" about what is acceptable and what isn't so that they can have clear guidelines and stop "exploiting."

The $300 billion donated to charities makes Americans the most generous people on the face of the earth.

"...so we need to do something to make sure taxpayers are getting a big enough benefit in return.” It is as if the money belongs to the government and they need to make sure that "their" investment gets a return.

The assumptions in this article are astounding and leave me grasping for words. Perhaps Ms. Strom would like us to give ALL our money to the government so they can give it back to us and make sure we don't mismanage it.

in reference to:

"so we need to do something to make sure taxpayers are getting a big enough benefit in return.”"
- More Charities Seek Tax Break for Donors, Costing U.S. Billions - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)