Gotta Love those Numbers

We know that most statistics are bogus in one way or another.  Oh, the margin of error might be 2.73844692% or some other just about as valid number, however the truth is not in the numbers but rather in the questions asked or the data chosen for the report.  I’d like to take two examples that I feel are very suspect, both from last Friday’s (Feb 18, 20110 USA Today.

The first one entitled “Late Mortgage Payments Declined” began:

The Mortgage Bankers Association said 8.2% of homeowners missed at least one mortgage payment in the October-December quarter.  The figure, adjusted for seasonal factors [emphasis mine] improved from 9.1% in the previous quarter.

My question is, how does one reasonably seasonally adjust late mortgage payments?  We see it every month with the phony labor statistics where unemployment is “seasonally adjusted”.  Is it that if you don’t have a job in the wrong season that you’re not really unemployed?

Either you made your mortgage payment or you didn’t.  Is it OK not to pay your mortgage during the late months due to holidays?  Is is OK not to pay your mortgage during summer when you might be on vacation rather than paying your mortgage?  What is it?  If you know, please post a reply here.

The other problem was with an article entitled “Most consumers OK with new bulbs,” which tries to prove that the Republicans are wrong to try and repeal the phase out of 100-watt incandescent light bulbs.

According to the study, most Americans are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the new compact florescent (CF) or light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs so what’s the beef?  The article implied that the Congress was wasting its time on this subject and therefore by extension were in favor of frying the planet and hasten Global Warming.  They couldn’t say that with winter being as cold as it is, so they have to imply it.

The problem I have here is that the questions merely asked about the performance of the new bulbs.  One should be satisfied if one turns on the light switch and the light comes on.  However, the people were not asked how they felt about being forced to spend upwards of 10 times the cost of the old bulbs for a new one.

The people were not asked how they felt about needing at least 5 years on some of their bulbs to break even due to the increased cost versus energy savings.

The people were not asked how they felt when a 7-year CF didn’t last even 2 years before it needed to be replaced,thus never realizing the energy cost savings.

The people were not asked how they plan to dispose of these poisonous mercury-containing bulbs that cannot be thrown out in the normal trash or even discarded in recycle bins.

The first article mucks with the numbers by scrubbing the data.  The second article asks a question that is meaningless to the true issue at hand and thus drawing a false conclusion.

The sad thing is that we have to read the newspaper as critically as they should have been when they wrote their articles.

What can you expect, however, from the liberal media?

Cap and Trade away our Way of Life

Most rational people who are not Socialist Democrats feel that last Tuesday’s election was a repudiation of the Obama agenda, an agenda and set of policies that the majority of Congress embraced over the past two years.  One of those agenda items is called “Cap and Trade”.  Cap the amount of pollution you can create and trade credits if you produce less.

Like most liberal ideas, on the surface it sounds good.  Lower your pollution and you can make money.  Those that don’t have to buy someone else’s unused pollution permits.  The free market will set the price.  Sounds good but we have to dig deeper.  Where can I, the small investor, find credits to “buy low and sell high”?  Sadly, you can’t unless you’re rich or have set up a dummy company to qualify for credits that you’ll never use.

What’s wrong with cutting down on pollution?  Absolutely nothing. I’ve written before on how little I believe that humans are responsible for Global Warming so I won’t cover it here.  (Check the links below for the topic that amuses or intrigues you.)

The problem with Cap and Trade is that you can’t win.  There won’t be enough credits to sustain a recovery let alone fuel one, assuming, of course, that there would be enough Cap and Trade credits to begin with.  After all, isn’t the US the chief cause of man-made global warming?  Regardless of how much we lower our pollution, it will never satisfy the jealous xenophobes around the world until we become like the socialist countries who have tried to manage their societies: bankrupt.

This so-called solution to this assumed problem is totally backward.  Instead of punishing energy users who fuel our economy and improve the quality of life, the push should be toward providing alternative sources of energy.

Where are the nuclear plants?  France generates about 70% of its electricity with nuclear energy.  We don’t.

Where is the conversion to use methane (an even more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide) rather than release it into the atmosphere?

Where are the windmill farms?  Now that Ted Kennedy is out of the picture, we can build them off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard where there’s plenty of wind.  Yes, there are arguments that a bird or two might fly into one but if it does, it probably was sick anyway.  They won’t destroy habitats.  They, like the Alaska pipeline, may even improve the habitat for some wildlife by providing a man-made reef in the water and shade on desert lands.

Where are the tidal generators?  Put undersea watermills in the Gulf Stream, Hudson River, and other swift moving waters.  We don’t need to dam them up to tap their energy.  The East River pilot project seems to have been a success.  Why not expand this use?

Where are the geothermal generators?  Lord knows we have enough hot rocks around Yellowstone, Mount St. Helens and other volcanically active places in our western regions.

Why are we using ethanol?  Studies show that its production produces more CO2 than it saves.  Has anyone looked at methanol?  It works great in the Indy cars and won’t take corn out of the food supply (which also raises food prices, of course).

Where is the Hydrogen for fuel cells?  Where are the fuel cells to use it?

Electric cars are an interesting concept.  Unfortunately the current technology generally available makes it infeasible for long trips due to recharge times.  We need work there.

There are several ways to solve energy crises without bankrupting industry by limiting what they produce.

Their Fair Share

I stopped to get gas when I was on my way home today.  As I was filling up my tank, I saw a Prius and two other hybrid vehicles drive by.  I started thinking about the all-electric cars coming and asked myself a question: Are they paying their “fair share”?  That’s only natural to ask that, I suppose.  After all it is the election season.

“Their fair share of what?” you may ask.  Their fair share of the taxes that build and maintain the roads upon which we drive.

I believe Congress and state Legislators suffer from some kind of group multiple personality disorder.  On the one hand, they mandate ever higher gas mileage averages for the auto makers.  Then they turn around and steal (they call it “reallocating”) money from highway trust funds for purposes other than building or maintaining highways for those vehicles.  In the vernacular, I believe we call this being “schizo”.

Higher mileage means you buy less gas.  Less gas sold means less gas tax money.  Less gas tax money means reduced highway funds (or what’s left of them).  Reduced highway funds means construction, maintenance and safety suffer.  I don’t know many people (other than politicians) who think this is a good way to maintain roads.

It gets even worse with electric cars coming out.  Let’s say I buy an all-electric car that I can charge up in my garage.  How much gas will I need?  Zero.  How much highway gas tax money will I “contribute”?  Zero.  Not only that, I would also get (if it hasn’t expired) a tax credit!  At least the hybrids use some gas and pay some tax.

I don’t think it will be long before the legislative “powers that be” wake up to this fact and start getting back some of that tax credit money they gave you to buy those more expensive cars.  They’ll get it back by giving you some kind of a “non-gasoline tax”.  You’ll probably pay it along with your auto registration or with your vehicle inspection.  Hybrid taxes will be lower than all electric vehicles because they do pay some fuel taxes (but not “enough”, I’m sure).

Don’t worry, they’ll come up with some fancy name like “alternative fuel highway reconciliation usage fee for the children”.  They will call it a “usage fee” and not a tax and it will be “for the children” so it will be OK, I’m sure.  It probably will come out to be so many cents per mile per year based on your odometer readings.  Like all taxes it will start small.  Nevertheless, once they get the taste of that new tax in their collective mouths, there will be a feeding frenzy so fierce that the Discovery Channel will have to preempt Shark Week for it.

To be sure the died-in-the-wool tree hugger will whine and moan that they shouldn’t have to pay this “fee”.  After all, aren’t they saving the world by not burning fossil fuels?  Well, maybe they’re not burning them but the power plant that generates their electricity is burning them or creating radioactive waste for them.  It doesn’t fly.  If you use the roads, somebody has to pay for them.

Don’t get me wrong.  Unless we privatize all roads (an ultra Libertarian view, I believe), and as long as Congress has the Constitutional requirement to regulate interstate commerce, governments will build and maintain roads.  The question will be how to fund it.

I’m not opposed to usage fees, including those to use our roads.  In a way, the gas tax is one form of that.  The more I use the roads, the more gas I use and the more tax I pay.  It’s progressive in that poorer performing cars pay a higher tax because they burn more fuel.  The crime is that we pay for roads but they’re not maintained well and bridges fall.

The question will be how to balance electric non-gas vehicle usage with the more traditional usage.  Maybe we abolish the gas tax and implement a straight forward mileage charge.  Chances are, though, that Congress will impose both.

Because We Can!

If President Obama needs a campaign slogan for his assumed 2012 bid for re-election, let me suggest, “Because We Can!“

Why do I suggest this?  Do you really have to ask? This president, more than any other, has pushed more combined regulations, requirements, taxes, and debt on the American people.  Why?  Because We Can!

In an unprecedented move, President Obama appointed Dr. Donald Berwick as the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  He did this in a recess appointment.  Now, recess appointments are not uncommon.  I believe every president in recent history has made them.  The unprecedented part here is that Berwick’s nomination wasn’t even discussed or debated while the Senate was in session.  Nobody there had a chance to voice either support or objection to this man who is a lover of the British rationed health care system.  Why did Obama do it (obviously with Democrat Senate support)? Because We Can!

While we’re on health care, let’s talk about controlling yours.  The NY Times reports that there are new rules (read that “requirements”) for physicians and hospitals to keep and eventually share your records electronically.  The government will pay them up to $27 Billion to convert.  If it’s such a good idea and will reduce health care costs all around why have they not already converted on their own initiative?  However, more important, why impose these rules at all? Because We Can!

I will write a separate article on why this is dangerous at another time.   This blog entry is just an overview.

In my opinion BP has acted very irresponsible with regard to our oil and our environment.  They recklessly drilled without the proper safety procedures and inspections such as those imposed by Great Britain after their North Sea Piper Alpha disaster back in 1988 where 167 people died.  On an economic level, I can’t blame BP for taking the shortcuts; on the human and environmental level, however, I can and do.  The US government doesn’t require these enhanced procedures, regardless of how much they protect life and the environment.  Why does BP (and others, to be fair to BP) ignore them?  They take a cue from President Obama.  Because We Can!

The Gulf disaster struck.  Lives were lost.  The environment is being crippled.  Oil is being lost.  Yet Obama waited two months to talk to BP execs.  This president who criticized you-know-who for delaying after Katrina wasted no time hitting the golf course while tons of oil gushed from an out of control hole in the sea bottom, thus wasting potential energy, and polluting fishing beds and the environment in general.  Why?  Because We Can!

Obama’s “untiring” leadership on this actual crisis consisted of three vacations and untold numbers of golf outings while the fishing industry was being devastated, tourism virtually halted in most Gulf Shore areas, and oil production stopped.  He’d rather pick on Arizona who wants to stop terrorists from crossing its border (more on this below).  Why?  Because We Can!

Obama’s big achievement?  Put a failed moratorium on all drilling because of one bad player.  That’s like grounding all cargo transportation because one ship sinks.  There are players playing by the rules.  Why penalize everyone?  Because We Can!

One player has already pulled out of the Gulf and is on its way to Egypt due to this moratorium.  I do give Obama credit for his tenacity.  If at first you don’t succeed (or even if at second, when the moratorium is struck down on appeal), try, try again with another moratorium.  Obama’s actions will kill our quest for energy independence.  Why?  Because We Can!

I find it interesting, if not ironic, that this liberal president bucked liberals by declaring that he was opening up areas for oil exploration and drilling only to then declare a moratorium on drilling.  That’s just a side observation.

Arizona passed a law giving its law enforcement officers the authority to assist the US government agents in enforcing federal immigration laws.  It’s not racial profiling which the US Attorney General implies it might be.  It’s not supplanting the US government’s responsibility.  Arizona says that if the US government can’t supply the manpower to enforce the laws, the state will help nab illegals.  Obama wants to stop them from stopping illegal aliens, not just the illegal landscapers but the smuggled terrorists as well.  Why? Because We Can!

Obama plans new financial regulation that is already working its way through Congress.  This is on top of the reforms that Congress already passed in the past year or so.  There is even talk of more bailouts for failed friends of the Democrat-controlled Congress and President.  Why? Because We Can!

Bailouts don’t work.  All they do is reward stupidity and failure.  If some company is “too big to fail”, then split it up so it can divest itself of the failing parts.  Don’t give the leaders money to award themselves bonuses.

Obama won’t secure our border from terrorists.  Obama won’t take reasonable measures to make health care affordable short of taking over the entire industry.  He won’t implement and enforce reasonable safety measures but instead he will stop the oil industry in its tracks.  He won’t stop spending but rather supports even more giveaway programs.

How far down the road to economic destruction will he take us before he turns around (if he’ll turn around at all)?  Why does he do this?  Because he can.

Clinton is Right

Don’t get upset and don’t get me wrong.   For once, I agree with former President Bill Clinton.  I’ll wait until you catch your breath.

Former President Clinton is in Haiti.  It’s partly a photo op but he’s a politician so everything he does is a photo op.  I do believe he cares about the people.  He’s a liberal.  As long as he can spend other people’s money on a situation, he cares about it.  So why do I agree with him?

Clinton has said that only about 10% of the aid money promised to Haiti has come.  The earthquake was six months ago.  It’s now hurricane season.  With millions in refugee tent cities, a major storm could kill thousands with no effort at all.  The Global Warming crowd should be very concerned.  If we get even close to the number of named storms predicted, the odds are that some have to come close to, if not hit Haiti.

This is not a global warming tirade.  It’s about doing what’s right.  If you don’t want to give money to Haiti, just don’t.  Don’t say you will and then not do it.  That’s being hypocritical.  If the money was promised by governments, the world community should call them out as an embarrassment.  If the money was promised by individuals, they should be ashamed of themselves.

If the money the US promised is part of that 90%, get off the dime (no pun intended) and give them the money.  You give it to everyone else, many of whom don’t deserve it.  Let’s give what we promised to people who need it.