World Cooled Over The Last Decade; Debate Concerning What It Means

Republican Punk is not a site to debate complex science (or pseudoscience, for that matter), so this post is not meant to argue over whether the significant fall in temperature since 1997, which was an El Nino year and thus naturally hotter, means that global warming is a hoax. Instead, we would like to point out a couple of significant lines from the article concerning this fall in temperature and attempts to rebuff the ensuing sceptics:

A decade of level or slightly lower temperatures is only a temporary dip to be expected as a result of natural, short-term variations in the enormously complex climate system, they say.

"Natural variability can account for the slowing of the global mean temperature rise we have seen."

"These short term fluctuations are statistically insignificant (and) entirely due to natural internal variability," Easterling said in an essay published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in April. "It's easy to 'cherry pick' a period to reinforce a point of view."

The climate system is enormously complex, and while man is very likely affecting the temperature in some way, it is very unlikely that any measure we take as humans could unravel these effects. To believe otherwise is incredible hubris. Thus, while Republican Punk supports a carbon tax to fix the market failure created by the lack of a carbon price, it needs to be done in such a way that it doesn't destroy the economy, because we aren't stopping global warming, whether it was man-made or not. It is sad, but true, and there is no reason to mitigate the problems we fact by ignoring cost-benefit.

Also, liberals need to follow their own advice when it comes to not cherry-picking science. Accept that there is a debate. There is a majority viewpoint and a minority viewpoint, but it only takes one scientist to be right and these people aren't insane. There are arguments to be made on both sides, and policy makers are right to pay attention to both. While men like James Inhofe are wrong to ignore climate science showing carbon-caused warming, people like Barbara Boxer and Henry Waxman are just as wrong to ignore contrarian science and refuse to consider cost-benefit analysis when writing bills.

Source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/74019.html

Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) Supports Further Confusing The Tax Code...for Pets?

This blog is always happy to print any story about the best named vaudeville villain...um, Congressman. However, it is unfortunate though that this "conservative" congressman doesn't believe in flat, broad-based taxes, but instead credits for favored interests (see: car industry.) But who knew the pet industry had a lobby?

U.S. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-Mich.], has introduced legislation to create a tax deduction for pet owners’ expenses related to their pets.

According to the pet industry trade magazine, Pet Product News, McCotter, a Livonia Republican, introduced the legislation July 31 in conjunction with a Pet Product News survey on the industry.

The legislation is being supported by the lobbying arm of the pet industry, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC).

According to the PPN story, the proposed legislation will amend the IRS code to allow pet owners to deduct up to $3,500 in pet related expenses, including veterinary care.

Source: http://washingtonindependent.com/54265/michigan-gop-congressman-supports-government-funded-health-care-for-pets

When Communists Are Telling You To Stop Taxing So Much...

This is in reference to America expanding its taxing of citizens and firms living abroad to be even stricter in Asia. It is important to note that the United States is the only developed country to still use this archaic, growth stifling form of accounting. Anywho, here's the quote:

"America is locking itself in behinds its own great tax wall," says Laurence Lipsher, a certified public accountant in China.

Source: The Economist, July 25th Issue

Americans Still Not Willing To Make Choices

Since the stimulus package, Americans have seemed to understand that it is better to ride out a recession than to pour out what little is left in the federal purse. Unfortunately, they continue to refuse to accept, to fix the hole Presidents Bubama (as in, Bush & Obama) have torn in the budget, that they will have to take some combination of spending cuts and tax raises.

A new CBS News/New York Times poll shows 53%-31% refusing to take cuts in services (that number increases to 42% if you let them only cut "a few things"), with 56%-41% opposing tax hikes.

The good news, politically, is that people are (slightly) less willing to accept an increase in taxes than they are to letting go of some domestic/economic aid. That will help Republicans in 2010, and especially 2012, when the President is forced to make some tough choices.

Unfortunately, this crisis is not about politics. It is about an American government that is threatening to lose all sense of fiscal reality and fall into a debt trap that would ensnare every citizen, and probably the entire world. The next Republican leader will hopefully be the one who can combine conservative austerity measures with the Roosevelt-Kennedy skill at rallying the country behind a necessary cause. And he is probably going to have to raise taxes too. It is impossible to know who that is (David Petraeus, if he chose to enter politics, comes to mind), but for the sake of everyone, pray they're out there.

Ahnuld Watch: New Film Industry Tax Credits Take Effect

All eyes are back on the biggest RINO (that's Republican-In-Name-Only) in the country, Arnold "bounce the bi's off the tri's" Schwarzenegger, as California approved inevitable Oscar winners Beverly Hills Chihuahua 2 and Naked Gun 4 for tax credits under "The five-year, $500 million incentive program, signed into law in February, began accepting applications on July 1. In a statement, Schwarzenegger said the tax credits were crucial for retaining film and television productions — and the economic multiplier effects - in California."

Oh Ahnuld. You do not understand that the reason the movie industry is starting to spread out is the same reason every other major industry is leaving: high taxes and regulations. Meanwhile, Texas, arguably the most fiscally conservative state in the nation, is barely feeling a recession and is getting a constant influx of new citizens. Seriously, a U-haul rental from San Francisco to Houston costs nearly three times as much as the same distance and time going the other way. That is the market speaking in spades right there.

So here's an idea: rather than taking away revenue from one of the largest budgets disasters in American history, you should remove the many subsidies for favored industries you've instituted as Governor and lower taxes for ALL industries (and more importantly, people). Hollywood will come back, as there are economies of scale already, but then the market will form new industries in other areas where California has comparative advantage, that you are nowhere near smart enough to realize.

Maybe than you can run a conservative government instead of a Corporatist one. Again, just a thought.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25556.html#ixzz0MfcGzePb

Strange Bedfellows: Republicans Are Joined By Greens In Opposing Maine Tax Reform

If the endorsement of the Wall Street Journal editorial board and The Economist magazine weren't enough to let the Maine Republican Party know they were wrong in opposing the Democrats' tax reform, this should be the final sign needed. The GREEN PARTY...yes, the party of Ralph Nader, Jello Biafra, and Pat LaMarche...is joining the Republicans in opposing the reform by calling it a "flat tax."

A quick recap of the reform: it would simplify the current four-tiered progressive income tax code that ranges up to 8.5% for the top bracket by cutting it to 6.5% for families earning under $250,000 and 6.85% for everything above that. To make up for the lost revenue, it expands the sales tax to cover previously exempt favored industries such as amusements, repairs, tourism, etc. and raises the tax by 1% on lodging and meals. So basically, it makes the tax code simpler, flatter, and broader. In essence, more fair and a step in the direction Republicans supposedly want.

Lower and flatter income taxes are always a good thing because it creates incentive for workers to keep working. Broader taxes mean that the state will avoid the trap seen in California, New York, and some European countries, whereby all the taxes come from a small percentage of the population and once a recession hits, revenue plummets.

Republican opposition to this package is based solely on politics. They smell blood, thinking that the Democratic control from top to bottom within the government during a recession will allow them to retake the Blaine House for the first time in 16 years and the legislature for the first time in 30+ by whipping up populist rage. And it is this kind of petty, anti-ideological politics that explains why they haven't.

Read More: http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/news/local/6664630.html

Maine's Public University Fiscal Crisis

This month, the independent task force charged with standing Maine's public universities on a firm fiscal footing, released their report (read highlights here: http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/news/local/6600967.html). While much of what was recommended makes sense (standardised accounting standards, cut low-enrollment classes and departments that constantly graduate less than 5 students a year, etc.), it doesn't get to the root of Maine's problem.

Public universities are just like any other state-subsidised corporation; they do not act within financial reality. Honestly, beyond community colleges that teach life skills needed to keep communities running and prepare students not yet ready to enter a four-year college, the government probably has no place in the higher education game. Since that is not politically realistic, let us look at a radical proposal for opening these colleges up to the market while preserving our support of education.

The reason public universities are so distorted is due to the state subsidy that allows them to offer lower in-state tuition. How about we replace this subsidy with refundable tax credits for all Maine high school graduates to attend any college they want. This way, someone who wants to attend Colby (or Bates or UNE or an Ivy or Daniel Webster or...the list could continue forever), would not have a perverse incentive to attend a school that is less right for him.

This would mean some of the universities would probably shut down. But that wouldn't be a bad thing. High school students would still receive the subsidy to attend college, and stronger schools like UMO (with its engineering and forestry programs) and UMF (with teaching) would be even better off as they would not be filled with high school graduates better suited elsewhere.

Finally, and bringing us back to the original point, strong chancellors like Rebecca Wyke (a Democrat this blog could get behind if she decided to throw her hat in for a higher office) would be able to truly see what U Maine's finances look like.

Health Care Bill May Cover Abortion

On “Fox News Sunday” this past weekend, budget director Peter Orszag said he is “not prepared to rule ... out” taxpayer financing for abortions.

Regardless of how you feel about abortion, there is no doubt that it is a very contentious issue, and no one should be forced to pay for abortion unwillingly, which would happen if:

A) the public plan covers it (paid by tax dollars), or
B) the bill mandates health insurers to cover abortions (which would mean that anyone who wants health insurance would have to pay premiums that would go towards abortion)

Keep an eye on this interesting new front in the health care debate. It has the potential to go undiscussed in the mainstream media, but pay attention to what the actual bill ends up saying before you decide how you feel.

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25237_Page2.html#ixzz0M1EJnmsS

Update:
Here's Obama speaking on the question:

KATIE COURIC: Do you favor a government option that would cover abortions?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know-- the-- the-- the-- what I think is important, at this stage, is not trying to micromanage what benefits are covered. Because I think we're still trying to get a framework. And my main focus is making sure that people have the options of high quality care at the lowest possible price.

As you know, I'm pro choice. But I think we also have a tradition-- of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of-- you know, government funded health care. And, you know, my-- you know, rather than wade into that issue at this point-- I think that it's appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station.

Hat Tip: Ben Smith

Definition of Insanity: We Want A New Housing Bubble!

Politicos on both the left and the right are getting upset with President Obama for his inability to stem rising foreclosures. There are calls for revisiting the idea of letting bankruptcy judges modify mortgages, a terrible precedent that would further trample creditors' rights. Even normally reasonable economists such as Mark Zandi are calling for some kind of new Homeowners stimulus. Of course, Barney Frank and Anthony Weiner (the Hot Dog reps) are looking to loosen Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae's lending standards, this time to help condo owners.

The fact of the matter is that the market is recorrecting itself, and the only way the government could stop this would be to form a new housing bubble through targeted tax cuts and subsidies and reduced lending standards. Unfortunately, some seem to be ok with that, which brings to mind Benjamin Franklin's famous definition of insanity.

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25095.html

Democrat-Appointed Head of Congressional Budget Office Says What John McCain and Virtually Every Health Economist Has Been Saying For A Year

In an ominous sign for proponents, Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf told the Senate Budget Committee that none of the bills he has seen would contain health care costs to reduce them significantly over time. This is the main argument offered by Obama and Democrats as to why Congress can spend $1 trillion and save money.

“In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount,” Elmendorf said.

“And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.”

Elmendorf said health analysts say the way to do it by changing the preferential tax treatment for health insurance.

“We have a subsidy for larger health insurance policies in our tax code, and that like other subsidies encourages more of that activity,” Elmendorf said. “Reducing that subsidy would reduce that.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25031.html

Rangel's Surtax Plan

We should all be happy that the Democratic party is ignoring its baser instincts and leftist members, as there does not appear to be much support to Rep. Charles Rangel's (he of the many Harlem housing/naming rights controversies) proposed plan to soak the rich to pay for the misguided House health care plan.

“I think we’re going to have a different approach,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said of Rangel’s plan Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

“We understand that we have to combine cuts in actual spending on health care, savings from hospitals, from doctors, from health insurance companies, along with some new revenue,” Durbin said.

Rangel has said that his plan would include three different surtax rates for individuals making $280,000, $400,000 and $800,000 a year, and couples earning $350,000, $500,000 and $1 million a year. Rangel said the rates would be small, ranging from 1 percent to 3 percent, and would bring in about $540 billion toward a health care overhaul that is anticipated to cost at least $1 trillion.

Relevant Link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24842.html#ixzz0L9yfrA0b&C