How about some Micro-blogging?

This blog has been sadly neglected of late.

You can find me on a variety of other places online, including twitter, linkedIn, facebook and some others I can't think of now.

My user name on the ones mentioned is pretty easy to remember: efroymson.

One of the advantages of having an uncommon last name is that it is usually available on these things. The downside is that sometimes my gmail gets emails for other Efroymsons.

I don't tweet that much either, but it has been a lot more than what shows up here!

Carbon Tax

A friend pointed me to a blog post about Energy taxes, and asked what a Tea Party response might be. While I am not a Tea Partier, I've followed them a bit, and will give it a shot.

First, the Tea Party would have no philosophical objection to Energy Taxes, provided they are revenue neutral, or revenue negative. In other words, if Carbon tax increases are offset by Income tax reductions, no problem. The issue is not the source of tax revenue, but the amount, and more importantly the spending.

Anyone advocating Carbon Taxes without a reduction in other taxes is essentially advocating that the government receive a larger share of the national income, which may or may not be a good thing, but it has nothing to do with "Green". Some of us feel that the government is too large already, which is why we like to call ourselves "Small Government Conservatives".

It is important to note that understanding that Carbon taxes are a good way to reduce Carbon consumption is an important lesson. It is not clear that the lesson has been completely learned though. If taxing something reduces it, what means an income tax? That we don't like Income? The Friedman article approves of Chinese investment in Battery powered cars. Presumably the entrepreneurs building those businesses will make a good income, as will many of their employees. Do we wish to discourage that? If so then why are we talking about raising taxes on income?

The Left has an even bigger problem with a Carbon tax though: it is quite regressive. What has been noted about food is surely true about Carbon also, it is a bigger proportion of a poor persons budget than a rich one. Rich people may drive bigger cars and fly abroad more often than poor people, but the ratio will still be less, when compared to income.

Green voters who supported Obama and then watched him splurge his political capital on an unpopular Health Care bill while Cap and Trade lies dead in the water may wonder if the Green-Dem alliance is paying dividends. Republicans tend to be interested in security, and eliminating the need for oil imports plays well there. It is a matter of framing the debate, not a matter of policy.

In sum I agree, if you want to be Green, you should think about these things before you vote.

Alma

Alma Danielle
Born 10:21 am
6 lbs 2 oz
Mom and baby doing great.

Infiltrator?

I don't think this guy is a real tea-partier. If you can read his sign, you will understand my suspicion.

Half Mast Flag

Went to the Post Office today to buy some stamps, noticed that the flag was at Half-Mast. Searched to recall if anyone important had died recently. Couldn't think of any. My brain came up with the Icelandic Volcano, but while 100,000 stranded travelers is certainly a big deal (especially for them and their families) it didn't seem to rate lowering the flag.

The folks at the Post Office said "we lowered it because our computer told us to" which is a pretty good answer.

It turns out the real answer is that:

President Barack Obama has proclaimed April 19, 2010 as National Day of Service and Remembrance for Victims and Survivors of Terrorism, 2010.

This is in honor of the individuals who lost their lives as a result of terrorism.

Give me my country back

Like the earlier photo, this is from the Tax Day Tea Party here in Albuquerque. As you can see, it was a family affair, and there were a fair number of Doug Turner supporters in evidence.

Tech: again with the 25mm lens, this time at F8 or so.

Tea Party Poster

The sun was pretty harsh, so photography was difficult.

Clarence Reading

Tech details: 24mm f1.4 1/125 sec. focussed as close as possible.

The Health Care Bill is Unconstitutional

The recently passed Health Care Bill violates the US Constitution. If the Government can force people to buy a highly regulated item (health insurance) under the guise of "regulating commerce", then what can they *not* force someone to do? In a year and a half or so Justice Roberts will ask a government lawyer this question, and there will not be any sort of reasonable answer forthcoming.

Just so you don't think this position is heartless, it is important to note that there is a lot that could be done to make access to health insurance easier without violating the founding document of our nation. For enthusiasts of single payer, even that could be achieved within the bounds of the constitution, by using the Federal power to tax. Of course the reason this was not done was that the amount of tax to be levied would have been so high as to make passage of such a bill a political impossibility.

A better solution is to introduce competition into the insurance market. If Health Insurance that qualifies to be sold in any state could be sold in every state, there would be real choice, which would put downward pressure on prices, allowing more people to be covered. Equally importantly, the employer tax credit should be eliminated, and replaced with an individual credit capped at a reasonable amount (i.e. that would not cover so-called "cadillac plans"). That way regular folks could look at different plans, see what was covered, see how much they cost, and decide how much insurance they wanted. A bit of tort reform, some funding for health clinics, and (perhaps most importantly) a shifting of costs back to consumers, and we'd be on our way.

Potato Insurance. Imagine if the potato market worked like the Health Insurance market. You wouldn't buy potatoes at the grocery store. Instead, your employer would provide you with potato insurance. Depending on your company, that would qualify you for a couple of pounds a week, or maybe only ten pounds a year. When you wanted potatoes you would ask for them, never quite knowing how much they cost.

What would that do to the price of potatoes? Of course it would dramatically increase it. The consumer would never notice, after all, just the HR department. Potato farmers might grumble about all the paperwork, but they would enjoy the high prices. Now imagine that everyone was required by law to buy potato insurance. How the farmers would rejoice!

Think about that the next time someone tells you this bill was about "standing up to the insurance companies". Wouldn't you love to be selling something that everyone is required to buy?