Global Cooling Past 15 Years Despite CO2 increases

Over the last 15 years, we've been told that human CO2 emissions would cause global warming to accelerate to new dangerous levels, and this "unequivocal" warming would generate fantastic, catastrophic climate change disasters - the IPCC's climate models told us this, and truth be told, they were absolutely and spectacularly wrong.

Hadcrut global cooling co2 ipcc climate models global warming june 2012

As the U.S. has baked during the hot summer of 2012, the rest of the globe has been treading water, so to speak.  As the HadCRUT global temperature chart above shows, the large growth in atmospheric CO2 levels continues. Yet the 15-year trend of stable to a slight global cooling remains.

This extended 180-month period of non-warming was not predicted by a single global climate model.

The IPCC's climate models obviously have very serious, fundamental issues that can't just be 'tweaked' away. The most serious issue is their being CO2-centric, thus minimizing other factors (i.e., forcings) that influence temperatures and climate. Water vapor and solar variation don’t even make it into the IPCC computer climate models.

From recent experience, it is quite clear that the climate models' sensitivity to CO2 levels is likely to be way overstated - in other words, the climate is not as sensitive to CO2 as the programmers thought.


Socialism does not work

Socialism in Europe and in this country always starts the same way – promise people free health care and free retirement and free housing and whatever free stuff wins political favor and gets you reelected. This is what progressive liberals do and what Obama is doing. And people keep voting for them because they love "free stuff".  They don't care where the money comes from. 

Some claim that the "rich" will pay for it all. But, the rich do not have enough money. They may have enough to pay for the very poor, but not for everyone. So, the socialists borrow the money. That way, they are still giving the populace free health care. But, at some point you can't borrow the money anymore because the people you are borrowing it from realize that they will never be paid back. This is the tipping point at which socialism fails. Past this point, you have to tax the people to whom you promised the "free" stuff in order to pay for their "free" stuff (those people are the middle class).

The people understandably don't want to give up their free stuff  -- or have to pay for it. But, they will have to do one or the other. And, an entire generation will suffer. Have a look at the EU right now and you can see it in all it's gory details. And -- make no mistake -- we're right behind them unless we wise-up real fast.

I have liberal friends who try to tell me that the austerity and pain in Europe today is because of GOP “Policies”. Europe’s pain and contraction is precisely because  20 years of profligate Socialist spending and borrowing is no longer working. When a country’s debt to GDP ratio gets into the 100% range, rating agencies begin to downgrade government debt. It is simple math. Sooner or later, the Piper will be at the door carrying an AK-47.

What is Trickle-Down Economics?

“Trickle down” is of course a disingenuous misnomer invented by the left to stigmatize conservative supply-side economic policies. It implies favoring the rich—that doing so will “trickle down” to everyone else. Nonsense. Conservatives don’t care any more or less about the rich than do liberals. The point for conservatives is not to help the rich, but to limit the harm done to incentives by tax policy so individuals have greater opportunities to become rich. President Obama misrepresents supply-side economics and then goes on to misinform his audience that it’s never worked. People are entitled to their own opinions, but they’re not entitled to their own facts.    Every time supply-side economic policies have been tried, tax rate reductions were applied to every income group — lower-income, middle-income, and upper-income alike — giving everyone a better shot at success. This is true regarding supply-side policies of the 1920s, 1960s, 1980s and 2000s.

Economist Thomas Sowell has written that the actual path of money in a private enterprise economy is quite the opposite of that claimed by people who refer to the trickle-down theory. He noted that money invested in new business ventures is first paid out to employees, suppliers, and contractors. Only some time later, if the business is profitable, does money return to the business owners—but in the absence of a profit motive, which is reduced in the aggregate by a raise in marginal tax rates in the upper tiers, this activity does not occur. Sowell further has made the case that no economist has ever advocated a "trickle-down" theory of economics, which is rather a misnomer attributed to certain economic ideas by political critics.

Although the term "trickle down" is mainly political and does not denote a specific economic theory, some economic theories reflect the meaning of this pejorative. Some macro-economic models assume that a certain proportion of each dollar of income will be saved. This is called the marginal propensity to save. Many studies have found that the marginal propensity to save is considerably higher among wealthier people. Policies, including tax cuts, that seek to increase saving are often aimed at the wealthy for this reason. Saving usually means some form of investment, as even money placed in savings accounts is ultimately invested by the banks.

The first known use of trickle-down as an adjective meaning "relating to or working on the principle of trickle-down theory" was in 1944.   In an economic slump, some say the government should make efforts to increase the supply (output or production) of an economy. Say's Law states that the way to economic growth is to boost production, and demand naturally follows. This flew in the face of the belief of the time, which was that a lack of money -- and thus lack of demand -- caused bad economic times. Say asserted that there will always be a demand for the right kind of products.

You could think of it this way: If there are people willing to work during a recession, they obviously want money in order to consume something. They must already have a demand that is not being met -- what they demand is either too expensive for them to afford or is not being produced. Producing in-demand products and driving down costs will create profit for the seller, and thus the means for him to satisfy his or her demand. Hence, production greases the wheels of the economy. This logic made sense to major thinkers of the time, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

A century later, the tide had turned in the United States. By the time the Great Depression hit in the 1930s, many legislators held the opposite view. The most notable opponent to Say's Law during this time was John Maynard Keynes, a British economist. Keynes argued that there are such things as overproduction and lack of demand, and the key is to increase demand rather than supply. Government should promote consumer demand rather than entrepreneurial production. When people consume more, they create more jobs and production.

Laffer's curve shows that when tax rates are at zero, revenues are zero as well -- the government makes no money when it taxes nothing. But it's the same result if the tax rate were 100 percent. The Laffer Curve postulates that once the rates get too high, the steep taxes discourage work to an extent that the revenues themselves suffer. Laffer showed examples in U.S. history where lowering high tax rates increased not only government revenue, but also increased gross domestic product (GDP) growth and lowered the unemployment rate.

Sowell, an ardent supporter of trickle-down theory, argues that the popular definition gets it backward. Instead of benefiting the wealthy first, the policy actually benefits the working class first. This may sound impossible -- after all, it's the wealthy who get the tax breaks, not the poor. However, Sowell maintains that because the wealthy make investments in order to make a profit, they spend the money first on expenses of the business venture. (In other words, spending money to make money.) These wealthy investors must pay workers, thus creating jobs, before they can expect to see any profits. Therefore, it's the workers who receive the most immediate relief.

There have been a number of well documented studies showing that it is a combination of spending cuts and reduction of tax rates that is the most effective way to stimulate economic growth. So before you start bashing "trickle down economics", study the facts.


Why I'm Voting for Mitt Romney

Romney is making this election about Barack Obama.
Considering the current state of the economy, Barack Obama has a record that he simply cannot run on. This is why the "Generic Republican" did so well in the primary season polls against Obama.  Republicans are putting forward a contrasting vision, but the election is ultimately a referendum on Obama.  Romney is correctly focusing on that issue.

Romney has a history of turning things around.
With the economy still limping along, only a 63 percent labor force participation rate, and American debt dangerously spiraling out of control, this country absolutely must have a change in direction.  Fixing entities that are in trouble is exactly what Mitt Romney has spent much of his life doing. As CEO of Bain Capital, Romney oversaw the investment and renovation of numbers of struggling companies, with an 80% overall success rate.  He successfully led the effort to save the 2002 Winter Olympics, which had previously been plagued by a bribery scandal and a huge budget deficit. This is the kind of turnaround management that America needs right now. Obama has not only demonstrated his complete lack of experience in this area but has actually instituted policies that have made things much worse.

Romney knows how to create jobs.
Republicans need a nominee that understands how to create jobs.  Mitt Romney has a proven record of job creation.  People can argue about exact numbers, but there is no argument that Romney is the only candidate that has contributed to significant job creation in both the private and public sector. He understands that the way to get the economy moving is to remove the uncertainty and provide a stable business environment for growth. He's had a detailed 160 page economic plan on his web site for almost a year:  http://goo.gl/8mnsx   What's more, Romney fully understands the looming dangers and costs of Obamacare and has vowed to get it repealed.

Romney has executive experience.
The presidency is a unique role that can only be compared to the executive position at the state level. Romney is the only Republican candidate that has executive experience.  As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney had to perform executive duties similar to those that will be required of a president.  Considering how complex our government has become and the example Obama has set for what happens with an inexperienced president, executive experience is an important trait for the nominee. Mitt Ronmey also understands that now is the time to begin the long, slow restoration of a representative republic as our founding fathers envisioned it, as opposed to the Socialist entitlement "Nanny State" promoted by Obama.

Romney will be responsible to conservative goals as president.
Romney will require a full coalition of Republican voters to win.  He understands that conservatives will oppose and fight him when he strays.  As Jonah Goldberg said, “it is better to have a president who owes you than to have one who claims to own you”.  Mitt Romney will owe conservatives if he is elected, and that is a debt he will have to pay to be a successful president.


The US Can Learn A Lot From Europe

1. Higher taxes lead to higher spending, not lower deficits. Evidence from Europe shows that politicians almost always claim that higher taxes will be used to reduce red ink, but the inevitable result is bigger government. 

2. A value-added tax would be a disaster. The statists won’t be able to impose a European-style welfare state in the United States without first imposing this European-style money machine for big government.

3. A welfare state cripples the human spirit.

4. Nations reach a point of no return when the number of people mooching off government exceeds the number of people producing. The welfare state, unchecked, inevitably leads to fiscal collapse. One need only look to Greece to see this in action.

5. Bailouts don’t work.   Imagine how much better things would be in Europe if Greece never received an initial bailout. Much less money would have been flushed down the toilet and this tough-love approach would have sent a very positive message to nations such as Portugal, Italy, and Spain about the danger of continued excessive spending.

European Central Bank Research Shows that Government Spending Undermines Economic Performance

Europe is in the midst of a fiscal crisis caused by too much government spending, yet many of the continent’s politicians want the European Central Bank to purchase the questionable debt of reckless welfare states such as Spain, Italy, Greece, and Portugal in order to prop up these big government policies.

So it’s especially noteworthy that economists at the European Central Bank have just produced a study showing that government spending is unambiguously harmful to economic performance. Here is a brief description of the key findings:

“…we analyse a wide set of 108 countries composed of both developed and emerging and developing countries, using a long time span running from 1970-2008, and employing different proxies for government size… Our results show a significant negative effect of the size of government on growth. …Interestingly, government consumption is consistently detrimental to output growth irrespective of the country sample considered (OECD, emerging and developing countries).”

The evidence shows that the problem is government spending, and that problem exists regardless of whether the budget is financed by taxes or borrowing. Unfortunately, too many supposedly conservative policy makers fail to grasp this key distinction and mistakenly focus on the symptom (deficits) rather than the underlying disease (big government).

The second key takeaway is that Europe’s corrupt political elite is engaging in a classic case where one bad government policy is used to justify another bad government policy. In this case, they undermined prosperity by recklessly increasing the burden of government spending, and they’re now using the resulting fiscal crisis as an excuse to promote inflationary monetary policy by the European Central Bank.

The ECB study, by contrast, shows that the only good answer is to reduce the burden of the public sector. Moreover, the research also has a discussion of the growth-maximizing size of government.

The key lesson here is that government is far too big in the United States and other industrialized nations, which is precisely what the scholars found in the European Central Bank study.  The number one message from this new ECB research is that lawmakers – at the very least – need to  make sure government spending grows slower than the private sector. Fortunately, that is quite possible to do.

In the early 1960s a young Roman Polanski made a short experimental film behind the Iron Curtain that perfectly expressed the problems of communism and socialism. Two tramps are running through a snow-covered forest headed for somewhere that never becomes clear. They are traveling by taking turns carrying each other. One jumps on the other's back and trots for a couple of hundred yards. Then he hops down and they very formally switch places. They go on for another hundred yards or so and then switch places again. And so it goes.

What happens in the space of the four-minute film is that the distance the one tramp carries the other keeps getting shorter. After four or five exchanges, the carrying tramp only carries the other a few short yards before he quits and wants to be carried again. Finally one tramp jumps on the other's back and they go nowhere. He gets down and they stand mute looking at each other for a moment. End of film.

It is a perfect critique. This is what happens under socialism and Communism. When everybody becomes convinced that everybody else is taking care of things, everybody ends up doing nothing and the economy comes to a stop. Take a look at Greece now to see it in action.


Why Do Conservatives Hate Black People?

First of all, this is just not true. Secondly, this makes an assumption that all conservatives are white. There are many black conservatives.  

Are there racists in the Republican party? Sure, but no more than you’ll find in the Democratic Party. So, why are Republicans being constantly accused of racism? It’s a political strategy. If black Americans weren’t convinced that the GOP was racist, they’d probably break 70/30 or even 60/40 for the Democrats instead of 90/10 and that would be devastating to the left. That’s why the Democrats are desperate to shout "racism" at every possible opportunity. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or false because the political stakes are so high for the left.

Thinking for oneself, loving your country, understanding and embracing the free market capitalist system, and loving your Constitution means you are not “black” but instead you are a "house negro" or a "token" for the Republican party. 

After a half a century of liberal control of Black communities and inner cities, we have rampant poverty; abysmal employment rates, poor educational outcomes and a negative birthrate.  Many are still looking to the Federal Government to accept blame for these problems and fix them, but it cannot.  But others now say that black people must look to themselves.  The breakdown of the Black family is the root of all of these societal ills, and if we repair and elevate the Black Family, every other issue becomes manageable, and will eventually  be cured.

Blacks used to be solidly Republican. Republicans were behind all the major civil rights acts. Republicans ended slavery. Republicans recognized a black person is a whole human, not a fraction of one. Republicans recognized the right of a black citizen to vote. Republicans were behind the drive to end segregation.

The Democrats started a civil war over the fear of losing their slaves, and brought us the KKK and Jim Crow.   They just worked out a sideways method to re-enslave the black man by trying to turn him into a permanently dependent permanent underclass through targeted entitlements and preaching class warfare.

The real racists are the Liberal Democrats who have been trying to suck this country dry, and have managed to fool black people into voting for them.

Black Conservatives are welcome in the Republican Party. You see them today as members of Congress. And, there will be plenty more.