This site shows why I think government debt is the most serious long term issue for the country. The longer we wait, the greater the pain of the fix - and even now it will cause pain.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Alarming Debt Charts
Simple charts vividly demonstrate the immensity of the exploding debt problem now faced by the United States. The large expansion of debt in World War II looks like a small blip compared to what's coming if we do not change policy. Click here:
http://johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/alarming-debt-charts.html
to see the charts I used to compare U.S. debt history with CBO projections in my Economics lectures at Stanford today. The source is the spreadsheet for CBO's alternative fiscal scenario in its June Long-Term Budget Outlook.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Contradictions
President Obama seems to be confused about who defined the mission in Afghanistan and when it was defined -
BARACK OBAMA
Apparently the Mission Crept Sometime in the Past Five Weeks
Obama, this weekend:
“No, no, no, no,” Mr. Obama replied. He said that he had inherited a strategy on Afghanistan that was “somewhat adrift,” and wanted to restore a sharp focus on defeating the al-Qaeda threat.
“We lost that focus for a while and you started seeing a classic case of mission creep,” he said.
Obama, an entire 36 days ago:
It's why I announced a new, comprehensive strategy in March — a strategy that recognizes that al Qaeda and its allies had moved their base from the remote, tribal areas — to the remote, tribal areas of Pakistan. This strategy acknowledges that military power alone will not win this war — that we also need diplomacy and development and good governance. And our new strategy has a clear mission and defined goals: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies.
In the months since, we have begun to put this comprehensive strategy into action. And in recent weeks, we've seen our troops do their part. They've gone into new areas — taking the fight to the Taliban in villages and towns where residents have been terrorized for years. They're adapting new tactics, knowing that it's not enough to kill extremists and terrorists; we also need to protect the Afghan people and improve their daily lives. And today, our troops are helping to secure polling places for this week's election so that Afghans can choose the future that they want.
Now, these new efforts have not been without a price. The fighting has been fierce. More Americans have given their lives. And as always, the thoughts and prayers of every American are with those who make the ultimate sacrifice in our defense.
As I said when I announced this strategy, there will be more difficult days ahead. The insurgency in Afghanistan didn't just happen overnight and we won't defeat it overnight. This will not be quick, nor easy. But we must never forget: This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is a — this is fundamental to the defense of our people.
What happens when a White House that called a war "fundamental to the defense of our people" starts trying to argue that America "just can't win"?
From http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/
9/22/2009
BARACK OBAMA
Apparently the Mission Crept Sometime in the Past Five Weeks
Obama, this weekend:
“No, no, no, no,” Mr. Obama replied. He said that he had inherited a strategy on Afghanistan that was “somewhat adrift,” and wanted to restore a sharp focus on defeating the al-Qaeda threat.
“We lost that focus for a while and you started seeing a classic case of mission creep,” he said.
Obama, an entire 36 days ago:
It's why I announced a new, comprehensive strategy in March — a strategy that recognizes that al Qaeda and its allies had moved their base from the remote, tribal areas — to the remote, tribal areas of Pakistan. This strategy acknowledges that military power alone will not win this war — that we also need diplomacy and development and good governance. And our new strategy has a clear mission and defined goals: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies.
In the months since, we have begun to put this comprehensive strategy into action. And in recent weeks, we've seen our troops do their part. They've gone into new areas — taking the fight to the Taliban in villages and towns where residents have been terrorized for years. They're adapting new tactics, knowing that it's not enough to kill extremists and terrorists; we also need to protect the Afghan people and improve their daily lives. And today, our troops are helping to secure polling places for this week's election so that Afghans can choose the future that they want.
Now, these new efforts have not been without a price. The fighting has been fierce. More Americans have given their lives. And as always, the thoughts and prayers of every American are with those who make the ultimate sacrifice in our defense.
As I said when I announced this strategy, there will be more difficult days ahead. The insurgency in Afghanistan didn't just happen overnight and we won't defeat it overnight. This will not be quick, nor easy. But we must never forget: This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is a — this is fundamental to the defense of our people.
What happens when a White House that called a war "fundamental to the defense of our people" starts trying to argue that America "just can't win"?
From http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/
9/22/2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Contradictions
Here's an example of why many (including me) are not impressed with the passion of the environmental groups over the crisis of Global Warming - opps - climate change.
Disputed Solar Energy Project in California Desert Is Dropped
o
Article Tools Sponsored By
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: September 18, 2009 New York Times
A proposed solar energy project in the California desert that caused intense friction between environmentalists and the developers of renewable energy has been shelved.
BrightSource Energy Inc. had planned a 5,130-acre solar power farm in a remote part of the Mojave Desert, on land previously intended for conservation. The company, based in Oakland, Calif., said Thursday that it was instead seeking an alternative site for the project.
The Wildlands Conservancy, a California environmental group, had tried to block the solar development, as had Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who proposed that the area become a national monument.
The land was donated by Wildlands to the Interior Department during the Clinton administration, with assurances from President Bill Clinton himself, the group says, that it would be protected in perpetuity. But the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a Bush administration initiative, opened the land to the development of solar projects.
“We salute BrightSource for their responsible behavior,” said David Myers, executive director of Wildlands. “A major conflict between the environment and renewable energy is over.”
The plant would have been “at the heart of a signature valley” filled with bighorn sheep and other natural treasures, said Mr. Myers, who added that he hoped BrightSource would now find a “more appropriate site.”
Representatives of the company did not return calls for comment.
BrightSource, a high-profile company with investors like Google and advisers like the environmental campaigner Robert F. Kennedy Jr., builds large-scale, sophisticated solar plants in the United States, Israel and Australia. It is developing more than four gigawatts of solar power in the southwestern United States, according to its Web site.
The company uses a technique in which hundreds of small mirrors redirect desert sunlight onto a single central tower, where the heat generates steam.
[site: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/science/earth/19mojave.html?_r=1&ref=science]
My conclusion is that if the environmental groups don't treat is as a crisis (except when they want something), I can't get into "crisis mode". And if I'm not in crisis mode, I'm certainly not going to support a massive tax on energy.
Disputed Solar Energy Project in California Desert Is Dropped
o
Article Tools Sponsored By
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: September 18, 2009 New York Times
A proposed solar energy project in the California desert that caused intense friction between environmentalists and the developers of renewable energy has been shelved.
BrightSource Energy Inc. had planned a 5,130-acre solar power farm in a remote part of the Mojave Desert, on land previously intended for conservation. The company, based in Oakland, Calif., said Thursday that it was instead seeking an alternative site for the project.
The Wildlands Conservancy, a California environmental group, had tried to block the solar development, as had Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who proposed that the area become a national monument.
The land was donated by Wildlands to the Interior Department during the Clinton administration, with assurances from President Bill Clinton himself, the group says, that it would be protected in perpetuity. But the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a Bush administration initiative, opened the land to the development of solar projects.
“We salute BrightSource for their responsible behavior,” said David Myers, executive director of Wildlands. “A major conflict between the environment and renewable energy is over.”
The plant would have been “at the heart of a signature valley” filled with bighorn sheep and other natural treasures, said Mr. Myers, who added that he hoped BrightSource would now find a “more appropriate site.”
Representatives of the company did not return calls for comment.
BrightSource, a high-profile company with investors like Google and advisers like the environmental campaigner Robert F. Kennedy Jr., builds large-scale, sophisticated solar plants in the United States, Israel and Australia. It is developing more than four gigawatts of solar power in the southwestern United States, according to its Web site.
The company uses a technique in which hundreds of small mirrors redirect desert sunlight onto a single central tower, where the heat generates steam.
[site: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/science/earth/19mojave.html?_r=1&ref=science]
My conclusion is that if the environmental groups don't treat is as a crisis (except when they want something), I can't get into "crisis mode". And if I'm not in crisis mode, I'm certainly not going to support a massive tax on energy.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Poisonous plants
Here's an interesting little article that should give you something to think about.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4331026.html
A number of these grow commonly in yards and found all over the US. If you are interested in this stuff, the classic text is "Poisonous Plants of the United States and Canada" by John Kingsbury. It's dated now, but quite complete.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4331026.html
A number of these grow commonly in yards and found all over the US. If you are interested in this stuff, the classic text is "Poisonous Plants of the United States and Canada" by John Kingsbury. It's dated now, but quite complete.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
