Fiscal Malpractice
In recent weeks, America’s fiscal crisis has, day by day, worsened and the stark realities we face have been made more and more clear. Yet in the face of disaster, Congressional Democrats scream about cutting a few billions, accusing Republicans of wanting to kill 70,000 children when we are facing deficits in the tens of trillions. President Obama has been essentially absent, apparently adopting the childish tactic of ignoring the deficit in the hope that it will simply go away and stop bothering him. If that was all that he did--or didn’t do--it would be bad enough, but of late, he has taken a number of policy steps that clearly indicate that he has no idea of economics, or simply could care less.
Mr. Obama has announced (here) his executive order to replace all 600,000 federal vehicles with “advanced technology” vehicles by 2015. “Advanced technology,” of course, means hybrids and electric vehicles such as the Chevy Volt, which is essentially a needly complex plug-in pseudo hybrid retailing for $41,000, but costing as much as $65,000. The costs of this bit of economic lunacy are staggering. Every Volt purchased will cost more than double the price of a comparable sedan and will also require a huge investment in charging stations at federal installations across the nation. Even hybrids commonly cost thousands more than comparable conventional vehicles. Mr. Obama has also announced his intention (here) to double--to $900 million dollars--the Federal Government’s budget for purchasing privately owned land, ostensibly for conservation. The Feds already own 1/3 of all land in America and, according to Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, cannot come close to properly maintaining it, an assertion many Americans who have recently visited a national park can confirm. In fact, the only way the Government can possibly afford to properly maintain the land it now owns would be to sell large portions of it to raise the money necessary to maintain the rest. There are a great many additional examples of Mr. Obama’s utter lack of adult seriousness regarding debt reduction, but these are illustrative. Certainly, there are political motivations in these two situations. Mr. Obama clearly intends to buy large numbers of Chevy Volts, in effect, to create a market where one could not otherwise exist. In doing this, he continues to put money in union coffers, and in turn, his 2012 campaign chest. It is no coincidence that Mr. Obama’s crony and advisor, Jeffery Immelt, president of General Electric, has committed GE to buying 12,000 Volts. It is likewise an amazing non-coincidence that GE manufactures the charging stations that will be necessary to support fleets of electric vehicles with limited utility and even more limited range (about 25 miles in real world experience). Mr. Obama has also recently expressed his support for an all-of-the-above energy strategy, but everything he has done to date indicates just the opposite. Putting more land under direct government control almost certainly means that much more land closed to coal, oil, nuclear and natural gas development and production. Any rational adult serious about cutting spending would actually cut spending. Mr. Obama is manifestly not rational or serious in his non-pursuit of fiscal sobriety. But for a man who non-fights non-wars, we should be non-surprised. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama’s lack of attention to American’s welfare will result, and sooner rather than later, in all too real consequences.
Posted by: MikeM at 06:03 PM
Comments
no idea of economics, or simply could care less."
Everything he does contributes to the development
and exacerbation of the looming fiscal crisis. A
Manchurian Candidate could hardly do worse for the
country. What reason is there, really, to assume
that Zero is not acting with informed intent, his
own or his master(s), to destroy the economy?
Posted by: Yarrl Dleifsarb at April 06, 2011 02:35 AM (qYH4w)
Posted by: Bob at April 06, 2011 04:33 PM (2hFse)
Posted by: davod at April 07, 2011 04:58 PM (C5U9L)
New energy indeed. The most common figure I've seen is that even if it is developed to the levels many of its proponents desire, wind power will never produce more than 2% of our energy needs, and that only intermittently. A recent long term British study indicates that wind power has produced far, far less then even the minimal projections of its proponent there. Thirty percent? Perhaps in an alternate, very consistently windy reality...
Posted by: mikemc at April 07, 2011 06:26 PM (eBZkn)
Well, that's if you're travelling less than, say 60 MPH, where the electrics run out so fast that the gas motor is used anyway.
And did I mention the total lack of heating? Well, it's not total - there are seat heaters - just wear your gloves, so your hands don't freeze to the wheel... and hope the defroster works...but then, there goes your electric range, right down the toilet. But remember, it pollutes less running on gas than coal...
I won't even mention summer.
Stupit twit. Obama, I mean. Electric cars have been the coming thing for 100 years now, still no better than then.
Posted by: Bill Johnson at April 09, 2011 11:42 PM (9X1+H)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0093 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0077 seconds, 13 records returned.
Page size 8 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.