Basic Income: Not All It's Cracked Up to Be

Image obtained from Colorado Peak Politics

After I had published my previous post reacting to an article at FiveThirtyEight extolling some benefits of a Universal Basic Income, Michelle Ray (the same GaltsGirl) tweeted a link to an article at The Bloomberg View, by Paula Dwyer. Interestingly, the tweet for the article shows as something like “Basic Income might be the next big thing”, but the article is actually titled “A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing” (emphasis mine in both cases). But I digress.

Dwyer begins with a short description of the idea of UBI, then talks about trials and studies around the world. She links to an article from Boxing Day, 2015, in the English publication The Guardian, that talks about a pilot program in The Netherlands. That program is limited to 20 municipalities, and will include only “small groups of benefit claimants”, to be qualified by their current income. It is not universal, and the amount is only around $950/month. It is apparently intended to be a supplement to whatever odd jobs they can get, rather than the envisioned substitute for a meaningless job while the citizen pursues education, training, or practice to follow a higher calling.

Dwyer then explains that some see UBI as a way to reduce poverty and inequality. But how can that be? If every citizen gets the same amount from the government, but is still free to have any other career and make any amount of money they can on their own, the same inequality of income will exist. And poverty? It will just be “defined upward”—the poverty level income will go from $12,000 to $25,000 to $40,000 and beyond. People receiving the UBI and nothing else will still be considered poor, and people who find a lucrative market for their skills and work hard to sell themselves will still be considered rich, and people who raise an outcry against this inequality will continue to cry out.

Dwyer also mentions the “about $1 trillion” of current US welfare spending, and admits to the approximate $3 trillion price tag I came up with (even with a US citizen population of only 322 million, rather than the 350 million I presumed). She then attempts to reduce the expense by eliminating segments of the population: Social Security recipients, households earning more than $100,000 annually, children. Now I agree with this last, because a “citizen” must be an adult who is capable of fulfilling the obligations of citizenship in order to partake in its pertinent rights and benefits. But when you start excluding other groups, even high earners, not only is it not universal, it is not equal. It is no longer something that every citizen can enjoy, but once again simply a wealth-transfer program. (Not that it ever was not intended to be.)

Dwyer does write about how a UBI program could be designed to eliminate the multiple, overlapping assistance programs at the federal and state levels, and acknowledges that some totalitarian collectivists—whom she calls “liberals”—object to it because of this. She says they “worry” that the bureaucrats currently administering all those programs could lose their jobs. I say, oh, but then they would be receiving the UBI, and maybe they could get better private sector jobs, or even become artists, writers, and the like! (But they would no longer be dues-paying public-sector union members, and the size of the bureaucracy, and some administrators’ domains, would shrink. I suspect those are bigger worries for some.)

In conclusion, Dwyer expresses hope that perhaps this isn’t so fantastic, this approach she calls “Social-Security-for-all”. Well, all but those evil rich folks.

Use the Power of Language, Part III



Well, Rhino-sized, anyway.

Apparently on Tuesday, the Senate Democrats decided to take the “SQUIRREL” of the poorly- or non-functioning HealthCare.gov site and inflate it to elephant proportions, to distract us from the story of millions of individual medical insurance policyholders having their policies cancelled because they do not meet the requirements of “Obamacare”, and this phenomenon being known to the Obama administration as early as 2010. This led to a whole bunch of tweets (on Twitter) that continually irritated me, because opponents of this law were using language promoted by proponents of it, rather than words that accurately describe what we’re talking about.

I sent out a few tweets about it, and I’ve decided to repeat and expand on those here.

1. The law that has been dubbed “Obamacare” is not the “Affordable Care Act” (ACA). It is the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (PPACA). Please don’t forget both empty promises when writing or tweeting about it.
2. What the law requires individuals to buy is not a “health plan”. It is a medical insurance policy.
   A health plan is a course of action intended to promote and maintain the health of an individual, created by that individual usually in cooperation with physicians and other advisors.
   A medical insurance policy is a contract wherein the buyer pays a premium in consideration of the risk that the insured will incur expenses due to certain treatments, which the insurance company will bear at least most of the cost of.
   The health coverage required by the PPACA is not so much a medical insurance policy as a pre-payment contract for scheduled services. Actually, many employer-sponsored “health insurance plans” are also that–especially the HMO type.
3. The arrangement where all medical services are provided by the State is not “single payer”. It is an “everybody pays” arrangement. Except, of course, for those who do not pay in to the system. People who receive benefits paid for only by other people are called “Free Riders”.
   (In my tweet, I mistakenly attributed my awareness of this term to The Czar of Muscovy, of the Antient and Noble Order of the Gormogons. It was actually this entertaining and informative post by GhettoPuter. I apologize to ’Puter–and as appropriate, to the Czar–for this error.)
   Considering what employer-sponsored group health plans have become, each one is a sort of micro-everybody-pays system. Not so bad, as long as they are voluntary. But what if participation were mandatory, and everyone were forced to pay for everyone else’s pre-existing conditions and routine personal maintenance, like contraception? Welcome to the PPACA.

Addendum: I also saw some video and quotes from Barack Obama being shared where he said that nothing in this law will force people out of their current policies, with the claim that he was lying. Technically, though, it appears that his claims may be true; it was the rules and regulations written by the Department of Health and Human Services that forced insurers to cancel those policies, rather than having them grandfathered in as acceptable. However, this is just another case of lawyer-ese, saying something that is technically true, while knowing the end result will be different.

Use the Power of Language, Part II

Logo from Boston.com

Earlier today, Laura Walker tweeted a link to a post about forensic analysis of the bombs used at the Boston Marathon:

Excellent, detailed guide to analyzing the remnants of the IEDs used in the Boston Bombings: http://www.trackingterrorism.org/article/examining-improvised-explosive-devices-how-did-boston-bombers-do-it/introduction via @spearheadbroken

People in the media understand how subtle connotations can be used to shape opinion. Laura's tweet hit me today as an example of just that. The phrase “Improvised Explosive Device” and its abbreviation “IED” have become so commonplace that it seems any non-military explosive is designated as such. But is it accurate?

Are we using the word “improvised” to mean “home-built”? Because buying materials and learning methods to build a specific thing is not improvisation. In fact, the word “improvise” comes from a word that literally means “unforeseen”. Was McVeigh’s and Nichols’ truck bomb improvised? The materials they used were not designed to be an explosive, but they purchased those materials expressly to make an explosive. Hardly unforeseen. Acquiring skill and materials with intent to perform a specific action is not improvisation.

To me, this means that the term “Improvised Explosive Device” was invented, or at least more broadly applied, in order to disguise the fact that terrorist groups are at work. “Oh, he’s no terrorist! He just became angry at the US and threw together a little fireworks to express himself.”

Of course, the quick acceptance of the term may have had more to do with the catchy abbreviation and disregard for the actual meaning of the words, and no sinister plotting was involved. In fact, a variation on a theme admonishes us never to ascribe to malice what may be explained by mere stupidity. Ah, well, I guess I just wanted to rant.

Campaigns are Useless

At least in their current form–which if we are to believe reports, goes back to ancient Greece–campaigns are useless. That is, each candidate telling the public about all the things the other candidate stands for, or wants to do, is not persuasive.

You see, the reason this is useless is that all the things one side paints as the worst thing in the world that the other guy stands for, the other side actually supports. I'll use the Nevada Senatorial campaign as an example.

Shelly Berkley claims that Dean Heller wants to remove federal funding from things like PBS, Medicare & Medicaid, and the mortgage modification program, and to repeal the PPACA. Well, she's probably right, and I support all those positions.

Dean Heller claims that Shelly Berkley wants to take money from profitable small businesses and give it to people who bought houses they couldn't afford, people who make television shows that teach children to depend on society for their basic needs, and people who cheat and game the welfare system so they don't have to work. He's probably right (except maybe on the particulars of the last point), and the people who support Berkley are all for it.

So you see, the problem is not the campaign; it's the diametrically opposed philosophies of the two major factions of society. The campaigns, and the ancillary phenomena like robo-calls, polling calls, pundits dissecting campaign commercials, and debates–and the endless ensuing discussions–are just annoyances. Huge annoyances, but merely annoyances nonetheless.

It Worked, All Right

The Washington Examiner yesterday published a piece telling us about a campaign fundraising speech that Barack Obama gave in Oakland, CA Monday night.

Notice the jump in 2009†

In that speech, he contrasted George W. Bush’s policies of slower growth of federal spending and bureaucracy to his own. Of Bush’s policies–which he claims Romney would continue–he said, “We tried that and it didn’t work.” He went on to say that “…we tried our plan–and it worked.”

Spending vs. Growth†

The tone of the Examiner article seems to be one of incredulity, of belief that this shows how out of touch the MOOP* and his speechwriters and advisers are. Nearly all the tweets and blog posts I’ve seen referencing this story share this attitude.

The best laid plans…

I think there’s another way to look at this, and the only post I found even hinting at it begins a forum thread at Above Top Secret. It may be that “their plan” (to use the MOOP’s words) has indeed worked.

It may be that the plan that has been followed unfailingly by the Obama administration was intended to stifle the opportunity for individuals to create their own wealth, and encourage more and more Americans to become dependent on the federal bureaucracy for their every need. In that case, the Obama administration’s plan has worked on a scale not seen since the Great Depression.

*Man Occupying the Office of President
†These graphs are from a Mercatus Center white paper.

In which I call ’em like I see ’em

 Over at Castle Gormogon, the Czar of Muscovy presented a fine example of this administration’s coherence and competence. It inspired me to write this letter to him in response.

Your Excellent Majesty,

That was a marvelous piece of Mr. Carney’s work you selected. I had thoughts on the question from which it sprang. Were I in the position of answering that question, it would go something like this:

“Well, the difference is, you see, that when the companies Bain invested in went under, it was Bain and its rich, white, fat-cat investors who lost the money. When Solyndra went belly-up, the people who got soaked were, well, you. And me. And all the poor saps who read your paper or see me on the tee-vee. That’s the difference that really matters, right there.”

Which is likely why they didn’t call me when Gibbsy called it quits.

Your minion,
ScottO

Shaking My Head (Part 1, probably)

As I was getting on the freeway this morning, in front of me was a late-model gold-colored Subaru Outback (NV plates 912-TKR) with a “Keep Tahoe Blue” sticker. For those who don’t know of the League to Save Lake Tahoe, it’s a local environmentalist group focused on water clarity, but also concerned with scenic beauty.

You can imagine my shock and surprise, then, when the driver tossed a blue cardboard package out the window.

Now, I do not know for certain that the driver was the owner of the car, and the sticker. It may be that he was borrowing the car, and didn’t want to forget to remove his trash when he returned it. I only know that he is a litterbug.

P.S. I had tweeted a couple of weeks ago about seeing a KTB sticker in Russian. It is an official product of the LSLT, as is the Spanish-language one.

So the Massachusetts Individual Mandate was to Promote Responsibility!

On On the Record Friday night, Griff Jenkins had a report on the differences between the Massachusetts medical insurance law (“Romneycare”) and the PPACA (“Obamacare”). Griff was talking to Eric Fehrnstrom of Gov. Romney’s campaign, and asked about how the individual mandate differed between the two laws. After mentioning the restrictions of the U.S. Constitution, Mr. Fehrnstrom said that the reason it was included in Romneycare was to address “a peculiar issue to Massachusetts.”

He described a situation where there was a “very small” group of people who refused to buy medical insurance, even though they could afford it. When those people went to the hospital or urgent care, the taxpayers would end up paying for it. Mitt Romney was so concerned with the principle of personal responsibility, that he took away their responsibility to decide to insure themselves by mandating that everyone do it.

What the hell would be wrong with just eliminating the State paying for people's medical care?! Make those people pay for their own services! If we wanted to promote personal responsibility, wouldn’t that be the way to do it?

Is it too late for me to get in the race?

URL UNAVAILABLE

THE WEB SITE YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO VIEW HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF USING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. ACCESS TO THIS WEB SITE WILL BE SUSPENDED UNTIL INVESTIGATION IS COMPLETE. CHECK BACK IN, OH, ABOUT 3-5 YEARS.

Today, 18 January 2012, many sites on the internet are participating in a protest of the so-styled SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act) legislation being considered in Congress. This post is my participation in the protest.

Just imagine if a site you really liked (not mine, one like TMZ or ESPN) were suddenly unavailable because they used a clip from REMEMBER THE TITANS, or THE DUKES OF HAZZARD, and someone accused them of piracy. Please contact your Representative and Senators and tell them SOPA and PIPA are bad legislation, and should be defeated.

The GOP Candidates are Either Lying or Ignorant

OK, I chose that title for sensationalism, but here's what I mean:

In the past few weeks, I've seen reports that candidates are saying they'd "boycott" or "not participate in" the Nevada GOP precinct meetings, AKA caucuses, if the date were moved into January. I've asked what this means, and no one could give me an answer other than "It means they won't participate."

The source of my confusion is that I attended the 2008 caucus, and helped with the 2010 caucuses for my area of the county. I know how they worked then, and I also got the skinny on how they're going to work in 2012. For your edification and amusement, I hereby present

The 2012 Nevada Caucus Primer*

• The precinct meetings are designed for party organization.
• The chief responsibility of the precinct meeting is to select delegates to its county convention. In Presidential election years, there is also a "straw" or preference poll for Presidential candidate. More on this later.
• The county conventions in turn select delegates to the state convention, which selects delegates to the Republican National Convention. A second duty of the state convention is to establish or modify platform planks for the Nevada Republican Party.
• The National Convention, of course, nominates the Republican candidate for President.

In 2008, the delegates to the National Convention could vote for whichever candidate they wished. I'm not absolutely certain how it works, but I imagine one or two candidates are eliminated in each round until one candidate reaches the required number of votes to be nominated. I also recall seeing on TV that generally in what is expected to be the final round, a state's delegates all agree to support one candidate.

In 2012, the rules are a bit different. Remember that preference poll I mentioned? Let's say the results, statewide, were something like Cain 35%, Romney 25%, Paul 15%, and the rest split the remaining 25% (see, I can count). In the first round of voting at the National Convention, Nevada's delegates will be divided proportionately: 35% will vote for Cain, 25% for Romney, 15% for Paul, etc. After the first round, the delegation is no longer bound and the delegates may vote however they choose.

So you see why I am mystified by what the candidates mean by threatening not to participate in our caucuses. They already do not participate, except as names on a sheet of paper in an informal poll. What do they propose to do, demand their names be taken off the sheets of paper? All that would do is ensure they get no votes in the first round of voting at the Republican National Convention. I don't see them intentionally doing anything that would lead to that result.

All this is, of course, likely academic. The Nevada GOP will most likely set a February date for the "caucuses", according to this AP story. I plan to participate again this cycle, and this time around I will try to be selected as a delegate to the Washoe County Convention. I believe it would at least be a good learning experience.

*Source for the information not in italics is Phyllis Westrup, Secretary of the Washoe County Republican Central Committee.

Redirection

A tweet from @meredithdake brought a funny thought to my head. Her tweet was:

Rather than focusing on Obama, anchors are forcing GOPers to explicitly talk about their nuanced theology on homosexuality.

I thought a good response would go something like this:

Anchor Dave: So tell me, would you rather see homosexuals interned in prison camps, or just outright slaughtered?

GOP Candidate: Well, personally, I don't care if you're gay, Dave, but President Obama does. He wants to treat you differently from everyone else. He wants to create special programs and grant special favors to you. That is, if you're gay, Dave.

Chris Christie: Man of the People, or Ruling Class?

Many praises have been heaped on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie by liberty lovers and opponents of the Obama administration. I'm beginning to suspect, though, that what attracts people to him is his blunt and unyielding manner in dealing with critics in the press and other generally left-leaning groups.

Christie drew fire recently for using a State-owned helicopter to travel to his son's baseball game. While family is important, his son was happy he could come, and a State spokesman said the helicopter would be in use for training at the time anyway, it still has the appearance of impropriety.

Now there's a report that Christie has ordered flags in the State of New Jersey to be flown at half-staff on Thursday, to honor deceased saxophonist Clarence Clemons's contributions to the state and its people. Personally, I don't mind honoring Clemons as a great and popular musician. On the other hand, such an order is beyond the provisions of federal law.

The federal law regarding "Position and manner of display" of the United States flag is contained in Title 4 USC, Ch. 1, Sec. 7. Subsection (m) lists the situations in which the President or a Governor may issue a half-staff proclamation. Note that "death of a popular musician" isn't one of them.

Of course, the report doesn't say that the US flag will be flown at half-staff. It may be only the New Jersey State flag, and that may be entirely consistent with law.

After all, isn't a consistent application of the rule of law something all lovers of liberty would want?

Viewing the Brain the Right Way

Cross-posted from The Landmark Report (see link in previous post).

On Thursday, the online specialist journal Current Biology published a study that indicates the brains of Big Government proponents ("lefties") and the brains of Limited Government proponents ("righties") are actually physiologically different. Most of the other pieces I've found about this study are either re-postings of the pretty neutral Agence France Presse article, or lefties' trumpeting it as proof that righties are irrationally fearful and agressive. This article will attempt to present the right perspective.

The study's authors cautioned that it did not show a causal relationship. They don't know whether the affected areas were larger, and therefore cause lefty or righty behavior, or whether environment encouraged certain behavior, causing growth in those areas. Keep that in mind.

The stories state that lefties tend to show more mass in an area of the brain that "monitors uncertainty and conflict." The study says this means it is "conceivable" that lefties "have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts…." Well, duh. The lefty universe is a mass of conflict. I often hear and read fellow righties wonder how lefties can possibly reconcile all the conflicting, seemingly hypocritical positions they claim to support. I've done it myself. This study seems to indicate how that is possible. Lefties may recognize that there is conflict, but they don't mind.

Tolerating uncertainty can be seen in the recent "budget battle", and the fact that the Democrat-controlled Congress refused to draft, let alone pass, a budget for FY 2011. What can be more uncertain than a whole nation not knowing whether its federal bureaucracies will be funded to continue intruding on our lives?

The righties in the study show more mass in an area of the brain that "processes emotions related to fear." This leads to righties' being "more sensitive to disgust" and "more sensitive to threatening facial expressions." Those who lean right also tend to "respond to threatening situations with more aggression". This explains a whole laundry list of things.

The lefties are interpreting the first statement to mean that righties are driven by fear. Just the opposite is true. Righties have greater capacity to process fear and related emotions, and come up with a rational solution to counter the perceived threat. Also, righties will be less hesitant to implement such a solution or respond with aggression. I submit that since lefties have lesser capacity in this area, they are the ones who are more subject to acting irrationally out of fear.

It also offers insight into why certain wealthy families produce left-leaning progeny. After all, if a family is wealthy enough, they can hire bodyguards, accountants, and attorneys to handle their responses to threats for them. It helps explain the arguments surrounding ownership and use of firearms. It sheds light on the current administration's promotion of outreach and apology to those who would see us dead. The sensitivity to disgust manifests itself in righties' vs. lefties' reactions to political corruption and sex scandals.

One last point is that if, in fact, it is a habit of behavior that causes growth in the relevant brain region, it explains why Marxism was not developed until the Industrial Age. Up until that time, people were too busy doing the things it took to live. With industrialization came more and greater labor-saving devices, and more time devoted to leisure, as well as greater political stability and fewer attacks to fend off, at least in Europe and North America. This gave people the time to embrace less focused, more conflicting ideas. It opened our minds to the manipulation of those who would wield power over us.

Follow the (Dirty) Money

It is way too late and I'm tired and cranky, so please forgive me if the tone of this post gets a little brassy. I couldn't sleep without getting this out, though, so here we go.

It hit the news Monday that the "eco-friendly" water-saving low-flow toilets that have been installed in San Francisco--heavily promoted by city/county government--have resulted in a backup of waste material in the city's sewer systems. This is because there isn't enough water flow, now, to push the sludge through the century-plus-old system before it sticks to the old sludge that's there. The backups cause a stench to rise to the streets, especially during the summer when it's warmer. If you've been to a Giants game at AT&T park, you probably know what I mean.

In both those articles, a spokesman for the Public Utilities Commission is quoted as saying that water consumption has been reduced by "about 20 million gallons", as if that is a significant amount. There is no mention of the total consumption, or what part of the total 20 million gallons represents.

Well, over at Lew Rockwell's blog, Jim Brownfield has references and shows his work, and comes up with a figure of 0.08%. Let me say that again. Water consumption in San Francisco has been reduced, since the installation of low-flow toilets began, by 8/100 of 1%, or 8/10,000 of the entire consumption. And that's rounded. The actual figure is around 0.078324%.

I'd also like to point out that Jim uses consumption figures from 2007-2008, which, if you still want to claim the low-flow toilets have had any effect, may already have been reduced. That means the actual reduction percentage would be less than what he calculated.

There could be any number of factors contributing to the reported reduction. It's been wetter than usual here in western Nevada the past few years, and the storms generally come through the Bay area first; maybe people just aren't watering their lawns as much. Or maybe people are getting sick of the nanny-city, or can't find work or afford the taxes, and are moving out. Maybe the toilets really have contributed to the reduction, which is statistically insignificant.

Oh, the articles also mention that over $100 million has been spent so far on sewer system upgrades, with more likely to come. I wonder if some of the same manufacturers or distributors of those low-flow toilets also supply sewer system parts? Or if some of the same people own large shares of companies that supply both?

Pondering

I've been thinking about this today, and I can't wrap my head around it.

The Bible says drunkenness and extra-marital sex are wrong, and Christians generally tend to avoid those behaviors, or at least agree that they should avoid them.

The Book of Mormon (I've been told) says that "hot drinks"--meaning coffee and tea--are bad and should be avoided, and the Mormons I know do avoid them. Many of them avoid caffeine altogether.

The Q'uran says to avoid alcohol (of the vine or the grain, according to The 13th Warrior), and devout Muslim do not drink alcohol.

Even outside of the realm of spiritual religion, people who believe that fast food is bad for them generally avoid it. Vegetarians avoid eating meat, and vegans (how is that pronounced, anyway?) avoid all animal products, including dairy, eggs, and animal oils used in foods.

So why is it that people who believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) use electricity? Unless it's generated by nuclear or water power--both considered by many to be environmental hazards themselves--virtually all electricity is the result of burning fossil fuels. Isn't it hypocritical for people to use computers to write about how we should reduce or stop burning fossil fuels? What about going on television? I can't even imagine the power consumed by television cameras, studio lights, transmission towers, let alone all those big-screen plasma sets to tune it in. I'm not even going to mention those who travel the country, or the world, in gasoline or diesel powered vehicles and in jet aircraft, to rail against the very civilization that gave them those tools, for using those tools.

Why don't people who believe in AGW go live on a self-sufficient plot of land far away from electrical transmission lines? Maybe some Amish in Pennsylvania would be willing to sell part of their land.

Rep. Cohen's Goebbels Reference was Not Inappropriate

At the risk of angering some of my Twitter followers, I wish to disagree with what most of the pundits--professional and amateur--are saying about Rep. Steve Cohen's speech. Fox News has played the relevant part of the speech several times, and it seems to me there was no comparison made between opponents of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or Republicans) and Nazis. Here's what I heard:

1. Opponents are lying.
2. Like Goebbels famously said, if you tell a lie long enough and often enough, people will believe it.
3. This was done with the recently-in-the-news "blood libel" in times past.
4. This was done by the Nazis to justify the actions that became the Holocaust.

Rep. Cohen may not have stated his points in the best way, but I prefer not to attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity--or in this case, clumsiness of speech. I may be wrong, as I've heard reports that he has not tried to clarify his statements or retract his words. But it seems to me the "big lie" is something a member of the national socialists' party would know all about.

Er, the Socialist Democrat party.

The socialistic Party of the Democrats.

You know what I mean.

Smart Grid Features Available Now!

In Wednesday's mail (2010/05/25) was the scariest piece of literature I've seen in a long time. No, it was not a piece of political campaign literature, although our primary is less than two weeks away. (I voted early, as soon as the polling place opened on the first day of early voting, so I simply throw away all candidates' mailings I receive.)

No, this was an offer from the utility company to participate in the "Cool Share" program. Just for signing up, we would be supplied with a "web-programmable thermostat"! These thermostats "can cut your cooling and heating costs by as much as 10% annually", according to estimates from the U.S. Department of Energy. And they allow me--and who knows how many bureaucrats--to manage my home's energy use. Remotely. From the internet. Regardless of how I've set it.

Now, they are careful to point out--on the reverse side--that these thermostats "do NOT allow [the utility company] to 'control' your home temperature". They say nothing about other organizations, such as the Department of Energy.

Of course, one of the bullet point advantages of these thermostats is that they "help…Reduce greenhouse gas emissions".

In a sidebar on that side, there is an explanation that in the Cool Share program, when it is very hot (104°F and above), the air conditioning unit will be placed in "conservation mode" for generally no more than three hours. They claim that this would typically happen only on weekdays, not weekends or holidays, except in case of…wait for it…"emergency."

As an additional enticement, participants can get $1.00 for each of these "conservation period[s]", up to a maximum of $29.


UPDATE 2010/06/12 I received a card in the mail explaining that this program is available only in Southern Nevada. That explains the references to 104° temperatures.

Collectivists Live by Projection

I've touched on this idea in this space before. Here now are a couple of short posts I sent to Posterous, combined into one place for linking purposes.

---

Collectivists live by projection.

If they are violent, they accuse Constitutionalists of violence. If they are racist, they accuse me of racism. If they want to shut down free speech, they accuse me of wanting to shut them up. (I want them to say exactly what they believe.)

If they are blindly following some Marxist leader, like George Soros, John Podesta, or Andy Stern, they accuse me of having no intelligence of my own and blindly following someone like Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh. On the contrary: O'Reilly is not conservative enough for me; Rush and Glenn simply echo my beliefs. Sometimes, even they do not go far enough. (See my post with my "precinct card.")

I believe in the Constitution, and I will oppose you even if I don't hear one national voice with my viewpoint! In fact, if the current few voices are silenced, you will hear the voice of MILLIONS against you!

---

(Part 2)

As I write this, Rush Limbaugh is finishing up his coverage of the story of a woman with cancer who was on Medicaid, scheduled for a transplant. The Social Security Administration contacted her, offering disability benefits for her 3-year-old son. She accepted, and the disability payments caused her to be ineligible for Medicaid. They've canceled her coverage, and the hospital will not do the transplant because of liability issues.

Earlier this morning Fox News featured a short bit about effective tax rates going up in 2011, including a mention of the Death Tax phase-out (so that the estate tax rate is 0 this year) expiring at the end of the year. Estates of decedents who die in 2011 could face a tax rate of 55%--that is, the State Bureaucratic Apparatus will take OVER HALF of what someone has EARNED during his or her LIFETIME. That is on top of whatever taxes were paid on that money when it was earned.

All this reminds me of Alan Grayson's placard presentation, claiming the Republicans want you to die quickly. It's obvious that it is in fact the COLLECTIVISTS who want that. In effect they're saying, if you're going to die in the next couple of years, and you want to preserve your estate, you had better die in 2010--in a word, quickly. If you have a chance to get a transplant to extend your life a bit, but you're going to be on public assistance for the rest of your life, anyway, we'd rather you don't get the transplant, and die quickly.

When a collectivist accuses a conservative of something odious and despicable, it's nearly always projection.

Hunger is Inevitable

We just had a volunteerism promotion meeting at the office. The organization promoting it provided a sign to hang on the wall that reads:

Hunger is defined as, "The physical and mental condition that results from not eating enough food, due to insufficient economic, social, and community resources.["]

It doesn't say who defined hunger that way, but the inclusion of a "mental" component leads me to believe it involved some modern, non-religious, perhaps collective ideology.

Now remember that the collectivists' chief aim is to guarantee the same outcomes for all people. But look at that definition. What is "enough"? The same amount may be enough, or more than enough, for some, but not nearly enough for others. If every person has the same amount, there will still be some who have plenty, and others who are hungry. This applies in the figurative sense, as well as the literal, food-related sense.

Therefore, it is better to allow each individual to attempt to earn what he (or she) can. Those who earn more than they need, especially in America, are very likely to give willingly to those who need more than they earn.

On a side note, I am glad to see that whoever authored that sign used the serial comma.

To Those Who Insist on Compromise

No!

The first memories I have of being told that compromise is the best way to get things done are from Sesame Street. The children's "educational" program. On public television. Run by progressives, I must assume.

Compromise is the best way for progressives to get bits of their agenda done. That's why they push it so much.

Now is not the time for compromise. Now is the time to stand up for what we believe; to defeat the progressive agenda; not to allow "a little bit more"; to insist on doing what's right.