Radioactive Communist Zombies

More People Not Paying Taxes

(Hat Tip: Instapundit)

While you filling out your tax forms this year to determine your refund, think about this: 36% of tax filers will pay no tax.  That means their refund will be at least as much as they paid in through withholding.  That's 51.6 million filers.  And some of them earn as much at $50,000 per year.  All that according the the Tax Foundation using IRS numbers:

Nonpaying status used to be a sure sign of poverty or near-poverty, but Congress and the President have changed the tax laws to pull much of the middle class into the growing pool of nonpayers. The income level at which a typical family of four will owe no income taxes has risen rapidly, now topping $51,000.

Two records were set in 2008: highest percentage not paying and highest income not paying.

So the question becomes, with more and more people paying less taxes, who's going to fund government?  That would be those of us who will be paying more and more taxes.

Celebrity Culture

I remember back in the 1970s when People magazine came out from Time-Life (or whatever it was called back there).  I wondered who was going to read that treacle.  But I also thought in the back of my mind that, yes, this will be a successful enterprise.

Now we have many celebrity magazines such as Us and OK and who knows what else (I don't pay that much attention).  It seems a lot of people simply read about celebrities.

But now it seems the mainstream media is getting in on the celebrity craze.  Over the past two days the follow celebrity stories have have shown up in my news feeds:

Cory Haim died of a drug overdose.

Charlie Sheen is out of rehab and going back to work on his show "Two and a Half Men"

Lindsay Lohan is suing E*Trade over it's ad featuring a baby named Lindsay.

And Farah Fawcett was "dissed" by not being part of the "In Memorial" part of the Oscars.

(Except fo the Cory Haim link, those are not the original places I saw the stories.)

And these came across AP and Reuters news feeds.

Has the culture of the celebrity magazine reached into the main news media?  The Democrats in Congress are trying to socialize 1/5th of the economy and this is what the news media covers?  No wonder people are idiots.

Government Kills (More Than Toyota)

There's been a lot of hype lately about Toyota's cars having "unintended acceleration" (some of it hyped by the government that owns large chunks of two of Toyota's competitors: GM and Chrysler).  And it's apparently a real problem and Toyota is addressing it.  

But as Investor's Business Daily points out in an unsigned editorial:

Sudden-acceleration events in Toyota and Lexus vehicles have been blamed for at least 19 fatalities and 815 vehicle crashes since 1999. That's fewer than two fatalities a year in a country that makes 1.8 million cars annually.

But no one is screaming about the thousands killed yearly by CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) except me and Investor's Business Daily:

A study done by USA Today, using data from the NHTSA and the Institute for Highway Safety, found that through 1998, weight and size reductions undertaken by automakers to meet fuel efficiency standards had resulted in 46,000 deaths. That's the population of Pocatello, Idaho, wiped out by misguided federal regulations.

Now the deaths due to Toyota's sudden acceleration problem are no less tragic than the deaths of people killed by CAFE rules.  But one is unintentional (and fixable) and the other the policy of the government (and just been expanded).

Unintended Consequences

When Congress passes a law or a bureaucrat makes a regulation, there are almost always unintended consequences.  Often the law or regulation will make things worse than the problem it was supposed to solve.

Case in point: the Department of Transportation made a regulation penalizing airlines if they leave passengers sitting in a plane on the tarmac for more than three hours.  Sounds reasonable (although the fine of  $27,500 per passenger seems excessive since that would be millions per plane).

And what's the unintended consequence?  Canceled flights and not being able to reach your destination.

Continental Airlines plans to cancel flights rather than risk stiff fines under new federal rules designed to punish carriers for delaying passengers.

CEO Jeff Smisek said Tuesday the result will be that passengers will have more trouble getting to their destinations . . .

Smisek said many passengers on delayed flights "really want to go to LA or Mumbai, but the government by God says, 'We're going to fine you $27,500.' Here's what we're going to do: We're going to cancel the flight."

Because airlines have cut flights, leaving the remaining ones more crowded, passengers will have fewer chances to rebook on another flight. Passengers, he said, won't get to their destinations "for maybe days."

Oh, and the cause of those delays: often the antiquated air-traffic control system the government has refused to update.

So, which would you rather deal with: a delay of 3 hours sitting in an airplane, or spending days in an airport trying to get home?  Well, a bureaucrat has made that decision for you.

Economic Recovery Depends on Private Investment

Yesterday we discussedhow there's been little job creation during this "great recession" and that is why unemployment is so high.  Another reason the economy is not recovering, is due to low private investment.  That according to Robert Higgs writing in today's Investor's Business Daily:

Gross private domestic investment peaked in 2006. Between the first quarter of that year and the second quarter of 2009, it fell precipitously, by nearly 34%.

During the second half of 2009, investment spending increased by only 10%, so that late last year it was still (when measured at an annual rate) running 29% below its early 2006 level.

This huge decline in investment spending portends an extended period of slow economic growth, lasting several years and perhaps longer. Worn-out equipment, obsolete software, ill-maintained structures and depleted inventories are not the stuff of which rapid, sustained economic growth is made.

But why is investment so low?  Because of the spending by government:

Federal government spending, meanwhile, has raced ahead. From 2007 to 2009, government purchases of newly produced final goods and services — the federal government's "contribution" to GDP — increased by over 13% in constant dollars.

Unfortunately, while private investment is the engine of economic growth, government spending (despite what generations of Keynesian economists have asserted) is the brake. To understand this negative relationship, we need only scrutinize how the federal government's spending is determined: namely, by political processes devoid of economic rationality.

In this light, we can appreciate that enhanced government spending does not bulk up the economy, nor merely crowd out worthwhile private activity. Instead, it undercuts, penalizes and distorts everything that private parties attempt to do to create wealth. Ham-fisted government regulations and additional taxes are known killers of economic growth.

The investors' famine and the government's feast therefore are not merely coincidental, but causally connected.

So what's the solution?  Well, how about restoring stability and reducing uncertainty by not threatening new taxes and new onerous regulations?  In other words, just the opposite of what the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress are doing. 

But as Glen Reynolds often points out: tax cuts don't give opportunities for graft.

It's the Job Creation, Stupid

Guess what.  This "great recession" we're in (or just coming out of) had fewer jobs lost in the first six months than the 2001 recession.

Let me say that again: in the first six months of each recession, the 2001 recession (which was comparatively mild) had more job losses than the current "great recession."

So why is unemployment so much higher in this recession?  According to the Heritage Foundation, the difference is there's been a lot less job creation.  As Investor's Business Daily reports in an unsigned editorial:

Through the first two quarters of 2009, the economy created just 40 million jobs vs. the 47 million it created two quarters into the 2001 recession. Now, eight months into a recovery, the economy still isn't adding positions. In fact, it has lost an additional 1.1 million jobs — including 36,000 last month — despite a rebound in gross domestic product growth.

So why no job creation?  Simple: taxes.  In 2001 the Republicans cut taxes to stimulate growth.  Now there's been no tax cuts and threatened tax hikes.

Studies show cuts in individual tax rates encourage new business startups, the catalyst for job creation. And there's nothing now to incentivize existing small businesses to create jobs.

According to the Census Bureau, average yearly employment from startups accounted for 3% of total employment from 1980-2005. Without the new business formed during that period, employment growth would have been negative. This recovery has favored big companies, while small businesses are still not expanding — and most Americans work for small businesses.

So, the stimulus did stimulate, and without tax cuts to stimulate job creation, unemployment is around 10%.  And things are only going to get worse:

The president is preparing vast new taxes, including raising the top individual rate to 45% from the current 35% with a 5.4% surcharge, plus the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. These tax hikes will hit small businesses especially hard.

So look for longer term unemployment to stay high.  Because without incentives to grow, businesses won't.  And if business doesn't grow, it won't hire.

NIMBYism vs. Green Energy

One problem with wind power is it takes lots of real estate (compared to, oh, a nuclear power plant).  And the more real estate it takes up, the more likely it is to be near someone who object.  For example, the residents of the fine town of Union, Oregon.  According to Oregon Live.com, plans to build a wind farm near the town of Union are meeting heavy opposition by the locals (links original):

A Texas company has proposed building a wind project across 47,000 acres on the slopes that overlook two sides of town. Plans for the Antelope Ridge Wind Power Project call for 182 turbines, some within 1 1/2 miles of the town center. With blades fully upright, towers would be as tall as 520 feet -- 24 feet shy of Oregon's tallest building, the Wells Fargo tower in Portland.

Union -- fearing spoiled views, damage to wildlife habitat and other problems -- rolled up its sleeves for a fight. The City Council declared its opposition to the project in December, and a hastily formed group papered the town with "Say NO" posters.

And it's not just residents, but the usual suspects of greenies that are opposing wind farms:

Two groups, meanwhile, are trying to block three wind farms planned for the north flank of Steens Mountain in the state's southeast corner.

The Oregon Natural Desert Association and Audubon Society of Portland object to installing turbines on a state icon. They also worry about damage to wildlife, including the sage grouse, which is being considered for federal protection as an endangered species.

(The sage grouse didn't get the protection.)

You know, if you built a nuclear power plant rather than wind turbines, you'd have a lot less people to anger and worry about NIMBYism (Not in My Back Yard-ism).  But nuclear power isn't politically correct.  Even though it has yet to kill a bird (can wind turbines make the same claim?).

High Speed Rail to Nowhere

Watch this:

So why are we building high-speed rail?  Because it sounds good.

The Low Carbon Fuel Standards Scam

California is implementing a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels (i.e., gasoline and diesel).  According the the Washington Policy Blog (which is about Washington State, not D.C.), Governor Gregoire wants to put the same standard in place in Washington State.  Only problem is, there is no such thing as a "low carbon fuel."  The CO₂ emitted per gallon of gasoline is constant (20 pounds according to the federal government's website).

So what is the purpose of the LCFS?  According to the Washington Policy Blog, it's not about low carbon fuels, but about making fuels (that is, the gasoline you need for you car) expensive and hard to find:

Peel back the layers of the LCFS onion, and it becomes clear that it’s a policy designed not to make the fuels in our tank any better or more efficient than they are today – but to make those fuels harder to find and more expensive to purchase. Achieve those two things, LCFS supporters candidly admit, and you reduce the demand for energy by making it so expensive that folks will learn to live without it. Of course, that’s not exactly how those supporters are selling it the public. But once you come to terms with how an LCFS works, it’s tough not to arrive at precisely that conclusion.

In other words, it's a gas tax in disguise (and to fight global warming environmentalists say we need a gas tax).  And will make it harder for you to buy gasoline.  Yes, that will reduce the demand for gasoline and thus reduce carbon emission.  But politicians should at least be honest in their goals and not sneak in a gas tax and gas rationing in the name of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

$7 a Gallon Gasoline Needed to Fight Global Warming

In order to reach the EPA's goal of reduction of greenhouse gases from transportation by 14% from 2005 levels by 2020, gasoline must be more expensive.  How expensive?  Try $7 a gallon.  That according to a Harvard study.  The New York Times Dot Earth blog explains:

Researchers said that vehicle miles traveled will increase by more than 30 percent between 2010 and 2030 unless policymakers increase fuel taxes.

And that will increase, not decrease the amount of CO₂ put out by cars, trucks, etc.  So the solution, raise gas taxes until gas costs $7 a gallon.

Now remember what havoc was wreaked by $4 a gallon gas?  Imagine paying nearly double that for gasoline.  And, of course, the cost of diesel will have to come up too, raising the cost of everything that is delivered by truck or rail (which is . . . everything).

If you don't think that'll ruin the economy, you must be an EPA economist. 

Green Energy Bad for Humans?

Imagine if you will, that people living near a nuclear power plant complain of headaches, sleeplessness, inability to concentrate, and other problems.  What would be the reaction?  There'd be a 60 Minutes special and the MSM would splash it across their front pages or opening stories and trial lawyers would probably be lining up to sue.

But what if the problems people were experiencing were due to wind turbines?  Well, then, it'd deny deny deny.  As Robert Bryce relates in today's Wall Street Journal, it's a real problem:

In 2007, a phalanx of wind turbines were built around Charlie Porter's property in rural northern Missouri. Soon, Mr. Porter began to have trouble sleeping. So did his wife and daughter. The noise, he told me, made sleeping almost impossible. "We tried everything—earplugs, leaving the TV station on all night." Nothing worked. Late last year he moved his family off their 20-acre farm.

Mr. Porter's story is no isolated event. Rural residents in Texas, Maine, Pennsylvania, Oregon, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, France and England have been complaining about the noise from wind turbines, particularly about sleep deprivation. Dozens of news stories—most of them published in rural newspapers—have documented the problem.

And the reaction of the green-power lobby: ignore and when that doesn't work: deny:

The wind lobby has publicly rejected these claims. In December, the American Wind Energy Association in conjunction with the Canadian Wind Energy Association, issued a report titled "Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Review Panel." It declared: "There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects." It also suggested that some of the symptoms being attributed to wind turbine noise were likely psychosomatic and asserted that the vibrations from the turbines are "too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans."

But even the report admits there's been no study of the health effects of wind turbines on people.

We're supposed to get 20% of our energy from wind by 2030 according to the wishes of environmental groups.  That's a lot of turbines.  And could be a lot of sleepless nights for people unfortunate enough to live near them. 

Global Warming Derangement

(Hat tip: The Corner)

So, what harm does it do to over-hype global warming in order to influence policy?  Other than making Al Gore rich, what's the downside of global warming alarmism?

Well how about people who do bizarre and deranged things because of their fear of global warming?  It happens, in this case, in Argentina:

Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their daughter and her toddler brother before killing themselves.

Their son Francisco, two, died instantly after being hit in the back.

However, their unnamed daughter cheated death after the bullet from her father's handgun missed her vital organs.

Andy why did these parents kill one child, try to kill another, then commit suicide?

Her parents said they feared the effects of global warming in a suicide note discovered by police.

Just in case you thought all the derangement in the world happened on the right.