Tag Archives: government

Government Shortfall

Posted on by
Reply

Here is another example of the failures inherent in government intrusion into the market.  The Wall Street Journal describes a solar energy project that is about to founder at great cost to at least one of the investing private enterprises.

It seems that First Solar, Inc., a solar panel manufacturer, had sold a 230-megawatt plant to Exelon Corp, an electricity generating company, with the sale contingent on Department of Energy execution of a loan it had made to finance the deal.  No money has flowed from DoE, though, because the Department cannot proceed until “all applicable permitting issues are resolved,” and there is “an issue with a construction permit that First Solar obtained from Los Angeles County.”

The items underlying the “issue” are both unclear and not relevant in this context.  What matters is that the problem exists; therefor, DoE cannot proceed with its loan; so the project, starved of these funds in particular, is in jeopardy.  Since time is short for getting everything finalized, First Solar may end up having to buy the plant back from Exelon, and the project may die on the vine.

This is not a failure of the present administration, in particular, or of the preceding one, though.  It’s not a failure of any particular administration.  This sort of failure is inherent in any government involvement in private markets because of the necessarily different imperatives inherent in government efforts vs those of private enterprise.  In particular, this failure is driven by government’s necessary concern for the use of the citizens’ tax money, its equally necessary caution in committing that money, and its equally necessary concern for not intruding into other governments’ jurisdictions (here the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County).

Even in an ideal world where these concerns could be taken as effectively and efficiently satisfied by government, these three are enough to make labyrinthine any governmental efforts to commit the money.  Private enterprises in a free market, on the other hand, are free to handle these imperatives among themselves according to their own readings of the risks involved—including ignoring them altogether, using Alexander’s bronze tangle-separating implement on the knots, or not structuring the deal in this kind of way in the first place.

Misleading Campaign for the Contraceptive Mandate

Posted on by
Reply

Senators Jeanne Shaheen, Barbara Boxer, and Patty Murray (D; NH, CA, and WA, respectively) have an Op-Ed piece in The Wall Street Journal that contributes to the disinformation being spread about concerning this diktat.

They begin with their opening premise:

…the Obama administration changed the law to require private health plans to provide preventive services including breast exams, HIV screening and contraception for free.

They actually think no one is paying for this mandate?  They actually think no tax increases, no insurance premium increases, no reductions in services or policy option flexibility will result from this?  No, they don’t think that: these are grown, adult human beings, of far above average intelligence.  Of course they know better.

They go on:

…the real forces behind [an alleged campaign to deny this “benefit” to women]…are trying to force their politics on women’s personal health-care decisions.

Of course, this mandate in no way seeks to impose government’s politics to override the fundamental teachings of a broad reach of religions and religious institutions.  Nosirreebob.

And

Contraception was included as a required preventive service on the recommendation of the independent, nonprofit Institute of Medicine and other medical experts because it is essential to the health of women and families.

Aside from the fact that, as feminists used to protest—correctly—pregnancy isn’t a disease, pregnancy prevention (and cancelation) mechanisms are widely available already.  Not overriding religious teachings, not canceling religious tenets, in no way impacts this.

And

Those now attacking the new health-coverage requirement claim it is an assault on religious liberty, but the opposite is true.  Religious freedom means that Catholic women who want to follow their church’s doctrine can do so, avoiding the use of contraception in any form.

It also means that religious institutions—including “institutions that have historic religious ties but also have a broader mission, such as hospitals and universities”—do not have to cast aside their fundamental beliefs, do not have to submit to a government order to ignore those teachings.  Catholic—and other—women still can exercise their religious freedom.  And they still have access to contraception and abortions absent this government intrusion.

The good Senators’ disingenuous claim to the contrary, this mandate has nothing to do with women’s health, except in the most peripheral, side effect way.  It is exactly an assault on religious liberty, it is a deliberate reach for political power and an assertion of government’s authority over what will be permitted to be taught by religious institutions and what teachings will be permitted to be obeyed by related institutions.  This is an attempt to bring down Jefferson’s wall of separation between Church & State, and nothing else.

Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D, WI) makes this plain.  She has said that the church

…can’t impose its religious views on people and whether they can have health care.

However, it’s the government that’s imposing its religious view: religions must act contrary to their fundamental tenets because Government requires it.  Moreover, “the church” certainly can impose its religious views.  It’s what a church is.  It’s God’s Word—regardless of the religion at hand—that’s being taught.  The question of individual conscience, as the Catholic Church (for instance) teaches, is still a matter among the individual, the church, and God—government is, in no way, permitted to interfere here.

Yet government is doing everything it can to interfere.

The Constitution: Who Needs It?

Posted on by
Reply

Certainly not our Progressive Supreme Court Justices.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg doesn’t even think our Constitution is a worthy for others drafting a new one:

I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.

I might look at the constitution of South Africa.  That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary.

The South African constitution is interesting for how it treats individual rights and Justice Ginsburg’s independent judiciary.  There’s this on rights [emphasis added]:

When interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or forum must promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom; must consider international law; and may consider foreign law.

Their Constitution notes this in its Preamble:

We therefore, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic

It wasn’t even adopted directly by the people, as ours was, just by their government.

Their Constitution notes this about their Bill of Rights [emphasis added]:

7. Rights.-
( 1) This Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of democracy in South Africa. It enshrines the rights of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom.
…
(3) The rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to the limitations contained or referred to in section 36, or elsewhere in the Bill

Here is what Section 36 says about limiting those “Rights.

36. Limitation of rights.-
(1) The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including-
(a) the nature of the right;
(b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation;
(c) the nature and extent of the limitation;
(d) the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and
(e) less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (1) or in any other provision of the Constitution, no law may limit any right entrenched in the Bill of Rights.

The Government gave, the Government hath taken away.

I won’t go into the vasty enumeration of “fundamental” rights (34 pages worth!), that is an enshrinement of “rights” that are the fallout of individual decisions made under our Creator-given and inalienable ones.

Now here is Justice Ginsberg’s “independent” judiciary

(4) Only the Constitutional Court may-
(6) decide on the constitutionality of any amendment to the Constitution:

And this [emphasis added]

173. Inherent power.-
The Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Appeal and High Courts have the inherent power to protect and regulate their own process, and to develop the common law, taking into account the interests of justice….

This isn’t “independent.”  This is superior, the final despot.  The people aren’t to be allowed to decide for themselves what their Constitution will say.  Ultimately, the people’s representatives will not be permitted to make the law in their name—the courts’ common law will overwhelm.

This is what a Progressive Justice of the Supreme Court thinks is a superior constitution.

Contradictions

Posted on by
Reply

In an energy policy article in The Daily Caller, Deneen Borelli raises some interesting disconnects between President Obama’s rhetoric and his actions.  She points out the failures engendered by his contradictions:

Despite his class-war rhetoric, Obama’s command-and-control energy policy drains our budget to reward crony capitalists such as General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt and his fellow presidential jobs panel member and billionaire venture capitalist John Doerr.

Ironically, the Obama war on fossil fuels hurts hard-working Americans because high energy prices have a disproportional impact on middle- and lower-income households and jeopardizes U.S. manufacturing.

And although Obama has called for fairness and a level playing field, the mandates and subsidies for renewable energy he favors would stifle competition by picking winners and losers.”

Then she gets specific.

on energy

Obama’s call for more oil and gas drilling in his State of the Union address was meant to deflect attention away from his failure to approve TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline.

Obama’s energy policy excludes coal. Coal now provides approximately 45 percent of our electricity, but regulations generated by the Obama EPA are imposing significant costs on utilities, costs that are forcing some power plants to close and others to spend billions of dollars in order to comply. Those compliance costs will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher electricity prices.

Fossil fuels — coal, oil and natural gas — provide roughly 85 percent of America’s energy needs. Yet, despite the failure of companies such as Solyndra, Obama is doubling down on renewable energy by calling for a national renewable energy mandate, forcing the Department of Defense to buy enough renewable energy to power a quarter of a million homes

on jobs

The president’s refusal to allow construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, at a cost of an estimated 20,000 jobs….

Rule of Law, or Rule by Law?

Posted on by
Reply

Mary Anastasia O’Grady writes about the Obama administration’s disregard for law through its decision to flout it on the subject of Obama’s cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline, and Kevin Mooney writes about this administration’s disregard for law through its carefully selective enforcement vis-à-vis Federal voter registration law.

The Keystone law, an amendment (a rider in O’Grady’s terms) to the temporary payroll tax holiday bill passed last December, required Obama promptly to give thumbs up or down to the pipeline, and if he nixed it, he had to say why.  In his determination, Obama was explicitly enjoined by that law (which he signed, mind you) to consider the economy, energy security, foreign policy, employment, trade, and the environment.

In the event, Obama ruled the pipeline not to be in the national interest because of the State’s view that further environmental studies are required.  This directly contravenes the amendment, though, which specifically required that new environmental impact studies not be part of the consideration—there already having been three environmental studies completed in the last three years, each concluding minimal, if not trivial, impact.  O’Grady explains:

The three bullet points that cover this point in the rider couldn’t be much clearer: First, “the final environmental impact statement issued by the Secretary of State on August 26, 2011, satisfies all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969…and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.” Second, “any [O’Grady’s emphasis] modification” to the route “shall not require supplementation of the final environmental impact statement….” Third, “no further Federal environmental review shall be required.”

And so

…if the law is to be followed, since the president failed to make a national interest determination as specified in the rider, it means that “the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline…shall be in effect by operation of law.”

The only question, as O’Grady suggests, is whether Obama can be made to obey the letter and the spirit of that law—whether Obama believes in the rule of law, or in his rule by law.

In Louisiana, officials are attempting to follow Federal law, specifically the National Voter Registration Act of 1973, also known as the Motor Voter Law.  It seems that the election officials of Louisiana’s state government are following Federal law too zealously (a condition with which Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina, and others are quite familiar).

Obama’s lawsuits focus on the Motor Voter Law’s Section 7, which requires officials at state health and social service agencies, among others, to offer voter registration forms to all eligible adults, even if the same person visits the agency multiple times: that person is to get the forms at each visit.  The Feds have offered no evidence that this is failing to occur beyond the occasional honest error rate; what drew their eye, though, is the state’s adherence to Section 8 of the law.

Section 8 requires the state to purge its voter rolls of deceased and otherwise ineligible voters specifically to reduce the opportunity for voter fraud—which Progressives deny is happening at all.  It seems, though, that several Louisiana parishes have implausible voter registration rates: there are more registered voters in each of these parishes than there are people actually living in them.

The goal here is revealed by the “settlements” Obama’s administration has imposed on other states after similar suits were filed.  New Mexico, Indiana, Rhode Island, and others are now prevented from purging their voter rolls of any ineligible names until after the November elections.  Thus, the dead and other ineligibles, Democrats all, will be permitted to vote in the coming election.

Here, too, this administration’s choice between rule of law and rule by law is manifest.