Energy Subsidies

Mr [Congressman Dave, R, WA] Reichert is co-sponsoring legislation to extend the PTC [Production Tax Credit] because the subsidies “reduce electricity costs and create jobs.”

But what jobs? Lower costs for whom? Who do you think pays that subsidy? Three years later, there still aren’t any in significant number. Electricity costs aren’t lower for the producers, and Reichert still hasn’t explained who’s paying for those subsidies (answer: we taxpayers are).

Mr [Congressman Steve, R, IA] King, who likes to advertise himself as a principled conservative, his line is that “Iowa is a wind energy success story” that only needs the federal government to “provide stable, low tax rates.”

Three years later, again left unanswered: if it’s so successful, why does it need federal subsidies? Why does it need subsidies at all? Why does it need continuation of subsidies as old as 1992—now 23 years on?

Oh, wait:

One need not literally seize the assets of businesses and install gov’t bureaucrats into management position to effectively nationalize those businesses. All it takes is to make them dependent on gov’t and/or direct their activities through regulatory constraints.

Or government subsidies.

Featherbedding?

To paraphrase a Democrat’s remark, never let a tragedy go to waste.

The union for Amtrak’s locomotive engineers urged the railroad on Tuesday to put a second crew member at the controls of trains on the busy Northeast Corridor, where a derailment killed eight people and injured more than 200 others.

Of course. Never mind that an existing technology, cheaper than adding an unneeded employee, should have been in place, and will be in place after this accident.

The featherbedding contained in this union urging is made manifest in the union’s own statement:

Amtrak hasn’t had a second crew member in the locomotive of its Northeast Corridor trains since Congress ended the requirement in the early 1980s, the union said.

How many accidents caused by the lack of a second crew member has Amtrak had over those 30 or so years?

Those Are Some Bills, Bill

“I gotta pay our bills,” says Bill Clinton about his $500k per speech fees. That’s nice work, and I don’t begrudge him a penny of it or the easiness of his earning it.

But is it really just to pay some bills?

Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton earned more than $25 million combined in speaking fees since January 2014, Fox News confirmed Friday.

Hillary, by the way, gets upwards of 200 large for her gigs.

Those are some bills.

The Ex-Im Bank

The Export-Import Bank’s charter is up for renewal in our Congress this spring. The bank is alleged to help American companies by lending money to foreign buyers of and American company’s products so that buyer can afford the purchase, which in turns helps the US company, and its employees.

That’s a pretty good deal, right?

Maybe not so much. It’s American taxpayers who are on the hook—not just the one American company and its employees—if the foreign buyer defaults on the loan. But that’s not all. American companies trying to compete with that foreign buyer also are harmed, whether or not that foreign buyer defaults. See the graph below, from AEIdeas:ExImBank

Don’t renew the bank’s charter.