Tag Archives: spending

Oil Buyback

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden now plans to buy 2.7 million barrels of oil to put back into our oil strategic reserve.

Couple things about that.

We had 630 million barrels of oil in our strategic reserve before Biden took office and started selling it to the People’s Republic of China while claiming he was doing it to slow the gasoline price inflation his spending was causing. As recently as 24 November last, our reserve was down to 351 million barrels. According to my second grade arithmetic, that means Biden had reduced our reserve by 279 million barrels in just those two years and 10 months. My third grade arithmetic tells me that those 27 million barrels he’s buying for the reserve is just 1% of what he’s taken out of it. Which makes buying that oil an insulting effort to distract us with his pretense of refilling our reserve after his dangerous reduction.

The other thing is that he’s buying that oil at $79/barrel, which means he’s spending $213.3 million to buy that 1%. To replace all 279 million barrels, he’ll have to pay more than $22 billion at those $79 per. When the prior administration (the Trump administration for those following along at home) refilled the reserve after the Obama admin draw-down, Trump’s buyers paid $30-$55 per barrel. Call it, for this back of the envelope estimate, an average of $42.5 per barrel. At that price, Biden could replace the oil he removed for a total cost of $11.8 billion dollars. Bidenomics is going to cost us ordinary American taxpayers more than $10 billion at today’s actual price. That is, if Biden follows through on refilling our strategic oil reserve.

Update: third grade arithmetic tells me that those 27 million barrels should have been third grade arithmetic tells me that those 2.7 million barrels. Fershlugginer keyboard….

Heat Pump Efficacy

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve mentioned earlier the level of energy efficacy of heat pumps. Here is an example of the level of fiscal efficacy of heat pumps. The fronted lede:

A two-year project to convert a public housing building to an electrically powered heat pump system is nearing completion on the Upper West Side. The 58-year-old 20-story tower at 830 Amsterdam Avenue (100th Street), part of the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) Frederick Douglass Houses development, is being retrofitted to provide heating, cooling, and hot water for residents—and to serve as a possible template for converting more of the 2,410 buildings NYCHA maintains citywide.

The strewn about and buried lede:

The $28 million project….
…
…to replace the aging boilers at 830 Amsterdam Avenue with a heat pump system, called variable flow refrigerant, that would deliver heat, hot water, and cooling to the building’s 159 units.

According to my third-grade arithmetic, and using up all my fingers and toes, that works out to $176,100 per unit.

Then there’s this:

If the 830 Amsterdam project is deemed successful, it could be repeated at other buildings operated by NYCHA or private landlords.

Successful by what measure? That’s certainly not a financial success.

Even accounting for the intrinsic fiscal inefficiency of government projects, this is an expensive template; more, it’s just foolish and negligently wasteful. And disastrous for the city’s taxpayers and for those private landlords. And that’s on top of the city’s taxpayers already seeing truly essential services, like policing and facilities for homeless residents (however inefficiently this one is done by a government), severely financially curtailed in favor of another virtue-signal, housing for illegal aliens in the sanctuary city.

I Have a Thought

Posted on by
Reply

(Yeah, yeah)

The Energy Department’s Office of the Inspector General says that the Department

faces major management challenges ranging from hacking vulnerabilities to foreign espionage and could create “massive new risks to the taxpayer” as it spends tens of billions of dollars in new spending from President Joe Biden’s signature infrastructure initiative[.]

The OIG goes on to say that the fraud risk is similar to the realized fraud from the Federal government’s Wuhan Virus Situation (my term, not OIG’s) spending, where taxpayers now lost an estimated $200 billion government wide.

The OIG also noted that

Fast money must be balanced against the need for thoughtful and effective internal controls and independent audits[.]

In truth, this sort of thing isn’t limited to DoE’s current plan or to the government’s Wuhan Virus response. It’s all too typical of government spending programs.

Here’s my thought. Balancing fast money with thoughtful and effective internal controls and independent audits is necessary, but insufficient. There must be attention-getting sanctions applied, also, for failure to perform, both ante facto and especially post facto.

Congress should, under its dozen allocation bills, proceed with allocations to DoE—and to the other Departments and Agencies—but with these requirements: the funds allocated will be withheld from actual disbursement to the Departments and Agencies until they certify that they have instituted controls that will greatly mitigate the ability for fraud to occur.

Then, if after the allocated funds are disbursed, fraud is discovered greater than, say $5 million dollars in any Department or Agency, that facility will have its subsequent year’s operating budget reduced by the amount of the fraud. If fraud is again discovered in the second year, that facility will have its operating and its personnel budgets each reduced by the accumulated amount of fraud, less any that was recovered from the prior year. In each subsequent year, the facility will have its operating and personnel budgets—again each of them—reduced by the amount of accumulated net fraud.

The facility must either shape up or disappear. The only facilities that can’t actually disappear, though they can be substantially reduced, are the constitutionally implied Departments of State, Defense, and Treasury. The rest of the Departments and all of the Agencies in the Executive Branch are later creations of Congress in conjunction with the President, and they can be eliminated by Congress if they prove unable to control their own fraud.

That will be hard to effect politically, but it’s a Critical Item fiscally.

Disregard and Pass Their Own

Posted on by
Reply

DoD has submitted a budget request that includes $114 million for diversity, equity, and inclusion claptrap [emphasis added].

The Defense Department’s fiscal year 2024 budget request shows the federal agency’s emphasis on diversity, equity and inclusion, including “ensuring accountable leadership with continued emphasis and investments in sexual assault and harassment prevention, suicide prevention, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA), and Insider Threat Programs.”
The DOD document shows that DEI is at the forefront of DOD policy.
[The request said] The Department will lead with our values—building diversity, equity, and inclusion into everything we do[.]

And this:

Six months ago, President Joe Biden asked for cuts in federal spending for border control [and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas defended them], which had lawmakers asking questions about why the president was reducing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) budget when the border was out of control.
[Now,] Mayorkas told the House Homeland Security Committee last week that his department was “under-resourced” and needed $14 billion in emergency funding to address the situation at the border.

These are two more reasons for the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to simply and routinely ignore Biden administration budget requests as wholly unserious. The House, instead, should put together its own budget de novo and pass its own dozen allocation bills within that framework.

So It Should Be with General Infrastructure

Posted on by
Reply

The subheadline outlines part of the problem:

Companies often need to show progress to get government cash but struggle without it

In the body of the Wall Street Journal article at the link is this:

Some of the companies are in Catch-22 situations. Washington won’t issue them loans until they raise outside money and move ahead with projects.

It’s true enough that big, established companies are better able to game the situation. It’s also true that high interest rates—especially after an extended period of no- to low rates—and inflation have hurt, but these only emphasize my point in this post.

It isn’t just “clean” energy: the problem is both broader and more narrowly defined.

What needs to happen regarding Federal funds transfers needs to happen all across the infrastructure terrain, whether the transfers are to individual businesses or to States more generally. Contracts must be let and particular projects must have a minimum of six months of concrete, publicly measurable progress before any taxpayer money can be transferred to the individual business executing the project.

Regarding States in particular, any taxpayer money must be sent directly to the business carrying out the State-identified infrastructure project (and only after the business has satisfied the above criterion), and the State must have already transferred State taxpayer funds to the particular business. Finally, before any Federal taxpayer funds can flow, the business must have a minimum of six months of concrete, publicly measurable progress with the State’s taxpayer money before any Federal taxpayer money can flow to the business.

Sent directly to the business: it’s important, too, that Federal funds entirely bypass the State and go directly to the business in question. Even in honest circumstances, the State’s middlemen siphon off entirely too much of the Federal taxpayer’s money.