Cap and Trade

The idea of a cap and trade system will more than likely be in the news for the next week or so, therefore, let’s have a little cap and trade lesson and a legislative update on climate change.

Lets start with the legislation. Numerous bills.......a lot......tons......even a new committee (no legislative abilities, but still a new committee). All of the legislation fits into just a couple of categories, and I believe only two. The two categories are those that will work and those that won't. There is only one currently that works.......there should be two, but it will happen at some point........it is the Dingell bill. The Dingell bill is a carbon tax.

What is that? Political Bear thinks a tax can solve a problem? Actually, yes, at least better than the other ideas. The Dingell bill makes the sacrifices obvious, so voters would really have to support solving (?*) climate change. The Dingell Bill has two problems: 1. It would ruin the economy, enough said. 2. He knows it won't pass and he is just making a point.

The Second types of bills are the cap and trade bills. These bills would create a cap or ceiling on the amount of CO2 that a company can produce, and if they have extra they can sell it to other companies or if they need more emission credits they can buy them from others. The media calls this the market based solution to climate change. The media is wrong. Cap and Trade creates a "play market." Randomly creating a commodity and then enforcing a cap is not a market. There are times that the system will look like a market, but if the government creates something does it ever just leave it be? (no). Every time the Government changes the cap and trade market it will further effect the users of the energy. Who will be more effected by changing prices.........me? No- while I might not use as much energy as before when the prices increase, I have a job............the elderly? yes-many elderly are on fixed incomes, and need climate control......the rich? no-their energy bills will be higher like the rest of us, but as a percentage of the income, it is nothing.........the poor? Yes. They will be hurt badly.

So, why is the consensus to solve (?*) climate change with a cap and trade bill? I have no idea. A hidden regressive tax is not a good piece of legislation.

*We can't solve climate change. We can save lives by adapting, but the earths climate has changed again and again in our past, and it is naive to think that we can stop it. Oh, and humans do have an impact, but it is a fraction of a percent using pollution and atmospheric data.

Letter to the Editor

I am tired of people whining.

Life is hard. suck it up.

On the other hand...........why don't don't you just keep complaining and maybe even quit trying.

That makes it even easier on me.

Why am I just writing a rant today? I am sending a letter into the WSJ, so I have to give them time to accept or reject it. However, the message that it is in the letter is basically the one above.

Charlie Rangel on taxes

If you don't him, Charles Rangel, the current Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is wild.

He is a flamboyant, in the New Yorker sense, Democrat who if you were to see him on TV sounds more like a Rev. Jackson or Al Sharpton (these guys are great leaders in their own right, but not the people that I want in charge of the tax code, SS, medicare, medicaid.......etc), than a well versed and knowlegdable Chairman of one of the most powerful Committees on Capitol Hill.

In person, Mr. Rangel is thoughtful and fair.

That brings me to a Wall Street Journal yesterday: Rangel Expresses Openness To Corporate-Tax Rate Cut

There are two possible motives to this and I believe that it is the better of the two.

Motive #1: With the present forecasts of the American economy- Loss of our AAA rating, possible de-pegging of currencies, low dollar....etc. New Yorkers, no matter their party are starting to see an uprising from Wall Street. So, we now have Sen. Chuck Shumer, who is now for some tax cuts just to make sure American companies, Wall Street still has an edge in the world market. Therefore, is this what Charles Rangel is doing?

Motive #2: After reading the Treasury paper that was released in July he thought the time was right. The paper suggested that by removing certain tax preferrances, such as a deduction for firms that keep production in the U.S. , the top corporate rate could be dropped from 35% to 27%.

The Answer: Timing = Motive #2! Mr. Rangel is politically savvy enough to know what he is doing and when he is working on something. If he wanted to be anti Bush on this he could have been, but he thinks it is a good idea and he is being fair about it.

For more, visit my website Political Bear

Talking point seeds- golden nuggets of information

A few items mentioned in Newt's speech:

Thatcher- ~"First you win the argument. Then you win the vote."

The Pragmatic approach will always win-- What does the evidence tell you

Democrats are not stupid. They are good people that deeply believe in dumb ideas

Sarkozy knew that he couldn't win the French media over, so he started 16 channels on YouTube and let the media cover his discussion with others on YouTube.

For more, visit my website Political Bear

Contract for America Remembered

Newt Gingrich.............. he is such a nerd

It would be great to be able to elect him. Yes he has some faults, but the simple way that he can break big thoughts down is unparalleled.

His main problem..........He is a better leader of revolutions than a leader of day to day life.

If I had one issue or problem with my personality I might take his problem.

Ok, so why am I talking about Newt?

I listened to him speak yesterday. It wasn't the best speech that I have heard him deliver.....it was kind of an infomercial for his new projects, but it did bring up stories regarding the Republican Revolution and the Contract for America. If you don't know me---I was still in high school at that time-so politics wasn't my focus. My boss re-told a story about how he was at the briefing where Newt announced the idea for the Contract America.

My boss said that so many parts were hard to follow because they were foreign. Republicans were the minority........that was just the way that it was. Republicans never even thought about being the majority. Then Newt came along and changed that.

In this briefing my boss remembered Newt talking about Reader's Digest. At the time staff thought he was crazy! He talked about the readership numbers of Reader's Digest (huge), the placement of the ad, the type of paper that it should be printed on.......etc. Newt had this thought out. Sure enough that summer everyone had the Contract for America on the refrigerators.

I don't care if what party you are in that is a great story.

Side note: I don't find reader's digest to be innovative. Hayek's Road to Serfdom gained its popularity after being condensed and included in reader's digest. I believe that Reagan and Goldwater both have mentioned the Reader's Digest version as catalysts to their political careers.

If you like what I am talking about here, you should visit my website Political Bear

Wall Street Journal....How I love thee......

That might be nerdy, but today the WSJ got it right. Two op-eds.......thats right, two.....attacked the perception (I say media) of current events on Capitol Hill. The first mis-conception was what about the message Petraeus and Ryan Crocker delivered yesterday. The media seems to think their message was that troops could be withdrawn. No......troops could be withdrawn because of the good news in their updates!

Pataeus's message- Surge is working. We are gaining control.
Ryan Crocker's message- Economic growth is expected to be 6% in Iraq this year. (that is huge)

That is the message that each of these gentleman testified about yesterday. However, all we got out of the main stream media were withdrawal numbers. Argh. The article goes on to mention that the way to gain ground is not by troop withdrawals and that we should have learned this lesson after Vietnam. Politically, it might be a hard call, because everyone with a heart wants our troops home, but we all know that if we do what we need to do to shore up the issues in Iraq before leaving we will all be better off.

I am not saying that there were no mistakes made, and we didn't need to change tactics, but a blind chant for troop withdrawal isn't exactly a policy change.

The second article that was amazing in the WSJ today was one regarding more tax increases. "Paid to Listen" was the title and it detailed some of the argument/debate around raising taxes on private equity firms. A little background: Private equity firm (ghetto definition): Booky - closer definition: investor.

I wanted to give the "booky" definition because that is why these firms are legally getting away with only paying a 15% capital gains rate instead of their gains being taxed as wage income at the top rate of 35% (all of these people would be at the top rate), they are gambling. Additionally, their gambles are long term.

Private Equity firms are great for the economy. They provide the venture capital for entrepreneurs. However, like usual Congress wants to tax them. Everybody wants at them. More money is mantra, but the blinders they have are blinding them from the effects. Argh. Let the economy grow. We need to teach them that mantra........then maybe we can teach them the advanced version "help" the economy grow. baby steps.

Therefore, thank you WSJ

Wall Street Journal Op-ed: Congress and Recession

For some reason this makes me think of the bad sitcom, "Married with Children." Love and Marriage, Love and Marriage............ is how the opening song started. So here it is..........my song writing debut-- Congress and recession, Congress and recession---goes together like a gun and depression----Oh I tell you brother.

The economy is good (mainly), but you can't just do anything in Congress and believe there will not be any effect in the economy. However, as stated in the Wall Street Journal, the current congress has put a stop to all pro-growth economic policies. This is my favorite quote from the article,

"On fiscal policy, Democrats have proposed or discussed raising taxes on cigarettes, oil and gas companies, hedge funds, private equity, capital gains, dividends, the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies, and individuals eaning more than $500,000 a year (which includes millions of small businesses filing under Subchapter S). Add the promise of every Democratic Presidential candidate to repeal the Bush tax cuts if he or she wins in 2008, and no wonder investors are growing more cautious."


My only real question- Who is going to stop the madness? (The article asks this question as well)

It is very easy to point the finger, but someone must also verbalize the problem.........and oh yeah, provide the answer (for those of you trying to follow, but not quite there.....Answer= keep with the pro-growth stuff). Not easy to do in a 30 second sound bite, but if I can.......... The current Congress has stopped pro-growth policy.....scareing off investors and driving our economy closer to bad/evil/awful/deep/long/devastating recession and we must stop them. We need to restore faith in the economy by restoring pro-growth policies that encourage wealth and prosperity for all.................wow, harder than I thought (not).....someone in the place to speak up can as well.

Who is going to come out and say it? I would hold my breath, but I don't want to pass out.

Wall Street Journal Op-ed: Who Pays for Health Insurance

Hooray for the the Wall Street Journal. (If this keeps up, they are wil need to start paying me as a sponsor)

In "Who Pays for Health Insurance" there are multiple things that are right. First, they praise President Bush.........before you slit my throat read on. Second, they look at the health care system as a market.

Ok, here is the support for Bush (the only reason you might not know this is that he seems to have a communications team that actually works against him.) President Bush's health care proposals are excellent, innovative, and should be bi-partisan. Actually, in my opinion the only reason they aren't bi-partisan are because of the politics and not the ideals. One of the big changes in the President's proposal is to uncouple health care from employers. Everyone, that purchased insurance would be able to receive a tax credit. This would allow more people to get insurance, it would increase insurance stability, and it would also change the market by letting people know exactly how much they spend on health care.

Amazing right? It sounds like he has a heart.

I have heard about this plan in my wonky legislative meetings, but I don't think that I have heard this in the media at all. That is until now, and at that you have to count the WSJ op-eds as the media (The are not.)

And to talk about health care as a market is amazing. Not too many people understand the fact that health care is a market, but that is only because government has distorted it so much already that it barely resembles one. Users of health care need to have choices, and currently they do not. Employers dictate what insurance plan their employees are offered. Inurance companies decide what drugs the user can have........etc. This system is awful.

If you haven't done so................I don't care how much you hate him.........check out the President's Health Care Reform Proposals. (I will put a link here....hopefully tomorrow.)

Summary of Governor Romney Speech to the Young Republicans

Governor Mitt Romney's Remarks At The Young Republican National Convention
Saturday, Jul 07, 2007

• We need change
o We need to do it in a Republican way by looking to our heritage
o Rely on ourselves and not Government
• Individual initiative is at the heart of America’s rise to leadership
• Democrats do not support the right kind of change
o They support higher taxes and bigger government
• I want to make the Bush cuts permanent, stop the death tax, and zero tax rate on dividends and capital gains for the middle class
o I will show fiscal restraint
o I will streamline government
• One difference between the parties are our health care solutions
o They want big Government
o I want people to have their own private, affordable, and private insurance
• Another difference is illegal immigration
o They want Amnesty
o I don’t
• Can’t hide like the Democrats want from the Asian Markets
o We must charge head first and compete• We are now facing new national security challenges
o The President has made some mistakes
o We should thank him for the good things he has done
o I will be aggressive towards terror as President
• We need someone strong for all this change
o The American People are strong
• It is not a time to shrink from conservative principles
o It is a time to rally around them
• America is Great

Summary:
Well the main summary is what I edited out of the outline to get the main points that you see above. Democrat bashing. While I do like the effort, it is not what America is looking for in a President. As far as the summary I was left with, it was not a deep speech, but did make some statements. For one, he lays out most of his plans for the economy: making the tax cuts permanent, stopping the death tax, zeroing out taxes on dividends and capital gains for the middle class, show fiscal restraint, and streamline government. He also talks about the need to compete with Asian countries instead of retreat. Even mentioning Asian markets in a statement is bold because many candidates are scared to even approach the topic. In a last strong move Governor Romney threw some support behind President Bush. That was strong.

In general Governor Romney used this speech to prove how far right he is on the wing..........and for that he did a good job. However, as soon as this speech is looked at outside the context of a speech to the Young Republicans it loses all credibility. I am a big believer that the higher up the political ladder you campaign the more every speech should be delivered in a way that any potential voter that wathches the speech would be proud to vote for you. That would obviously not be the case here. That is ok, Governor Romney is still rookie on the national scene. He will learn.........he just better hope it is fast.

The Art of Conversation: Part 2

Well, I have been silent on the Senator Craig issue. What do you really say about a Senator playing footsy in a bathroom? So, I think this is a good time to look at the rules of conversation.

Rule #1- Tell the truth.

The truth is an effective tool. In any debate, conversation, plea, or argument the truth will always be stronger than even the most well thought out lie. How agonizing is it to watch politicians use bold faced lies?

The thought process behind these blunders is amazing. A group of people have to sit in a room and decide that a lie is the best thing they can come up with (admittedly a lot of the time, the people in the room are actually advising for the truth to be told). Second the speaker has to deliver this lie.

What is actually needed in each of these situations is the truth.

It is impossible, in hindsight, to argue that even if these politicians would have just told the complete true story in the first place that they wouldn’t have been better off, if only for the simple reason that they had to tell the truth eventually anyways.

This same premise works in your home and everyday conversations as well. Tell the truth. So, how is the truth used? Carefully.

Explanation: Is there only one version of the truth, and can only one set of words be used to explain the truth? The answers, no and no! Since more than one set of words can be used to explain the truth, more than one version of the truth exists. Making even the truth a slippery talking point. However, any argument based on the truth will beat out a lie every time.

Roll Call: Response to article re:Thompson

Wow.

I like the word wow. "Wow" is exactly how I feel about an article that was in yesterday's Roll Call. For those of you who don't know about Roll Call, you should get a subscription if you are reading this blog, it is one of the better Captiol Hill Newspapers.

The article titled "How Thompson Hurt His Own Prospects- And Helped Romney's" goes on to explain just that. The author believes that Thompson's delay in announcing his bid for the Republican nomination, not only hurt himself but also helped the other candidates that are currently trailing Giuliani.

I am not going to quote dates right now, I don't have them handy, but this is one of the earliest campaign cycles in the history of the run for the White House. Thompson is running under the theory that voters will burn out on the other candidates. He is also being very strategic in announcing after August. The political news outlets go dead with Washington during the summer, so if he would have announced before he would now look like all of the other candidates.

Does this mean that I am supporting Thompson? No. But, I might, and I definitely do not think that announcing after August has hurt him in the slightest, and might have been the smartest move that he has played in the Republican primary.

The old school thought process has to change. We are now in the modern world. Short attention spans.......Oh, wait.......that isn't new.......as I said earlier this campaign season is one of the earliest yet.

Political Bear: Hillary Clinton Health Care Speech

New You Tube Video

Wall Street Journal: Reaganomics 2.0

Wow!
Someone gets it, and it is a member of the Journal's editorial review board. Not that I have anything but respect for the Journal's editorial review board, but I would not have thought they would so daringly call the democrats out and, even more pointedly, call John Edwards out for the backwards understanding of tax policy that they hold in regards to the new global economy.

One upfront declaration. I am not completely cold hearted, I think that the people that John Edwards wants to help with his programs are very deserving of a helping hand......I just think he is backwards in his belief of how to pay for that assistance, and for that matter his belief that the government should help and not the private sector. Currently, that belief can also be extended to most of the Democratic party as well and almost depressingly can be extended to many republicans.

A lot of politicians have forgotten either the ideas that got them into office, the problems with the previous congressman that gave them an advantage in the election in the first place, or their economics 101 classes.

In Mr. Moores, Reaganomics 2.0 op-ed he points out what the rest of the world is doing with their tax code, and explains how the current Congress is trying to take America in almost the completely opposite direction. Yes, not only have we forgotten how to cut taxes, but we have forgotten why we should and the global advantage that it gives America.

We can now call Reaganomics dead. (Don't fret reaganers we have 2.0 it just isn't in America yet)

As Communists around America rejoice, they should also think about the loss of revenue over the long run that this will cause. With other countries around the world cutting capital gains tax rates, corporate tax rates, and simplifying their tax codes America is going to lose.

So, thank you Mr. Moore.......it was time that somebody talked about what is going on across the big pond. They are now leading the economic charge. We now need to step up to the plate and show the rest of the world the power of Reaganomics 2.0 when used America. Or, we could just sit on our haunches and watch the rest of the world pass us by.

For more information about candidate beliefs visit my website Political Bear.