The Australian Carbon Tax is Confusing and Angering a lot of ‘Green’ Utility Customers

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 12th, 2012

Week in Review

The American Left wanted a carbon tax.  The program they kicked around before dying was referred to cap and trade.  The idea was to cap carbon emissions by forcing polluters to buy certificates to pollute.  Those who pollute below their certificates could sell their pollution certificates (i.e., trade) to someone who pollutes over their certificates.  Simple, yes?  Well perhaps a real example of a carbon tax program will clarify how a carbon tax can work (see Green energy customers paying carbon tax by David McLennan posted 8/9/2012 on The Canberra Times).

Several Canberrans have complained to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission that ActewAGL is charging the carbon tax on its Greenchoice scheme, an economist says…

“ActewAGL understands that this is confusing for many customers and paying the carbon price for a green energy product goes against the grain of common sense. But this isn’t a straight forward matter, and ActewAGL certainly does not benefit from this scheme,” she said.

“In a nutshell, green power is a voluntary government-accredited program that enables customers to purchase renewable energy for their homes, when they actually make that voluntary purchase of green power, they are supporting the product of electricity from renewable sources over and above mandatory government targets that are set by the government. So you cannot separate the electrons; the energy doesn’t directly feed into your home, it is added into the electricity grid … on the customer’s behalf…”

The carbon tax is currently set at $23 for each tonne of carbon emitted and is charged to polluters, but is generally passed on to customers.

Mr Grudnoff said ActewAGL’s Greenchoice scheme – which he takes part in and broadly supports – was too complex and convoluted.

He said that people on a Greenchoice 100 plan – whereby all the electricity they used was “displaced by green sources”, according to the ActewAGL website – should not have to pay the carbon tax…

“When a customer purchases Greenchoice, they pay for the retail rate of electricity that comes from the grid. Then they pay for what we call a large generation certificate, which is a certificate that comes from Greenpower accredited renewable energy generators, such as wind and solar farms,” she said.

“They are two different schemes, so the price of that certificate that we purchase, hasn’t been impacted by the carbon price. So that Greenchoice premium, as we call it, has not been affected by the [carbon price], that is a separate transaction, and the customers still have to pay for that component…”

“When customers opt for Greenchoice, the extra amount they pay is invested in renewable energy generation from sources like mini-hydro, wind power and biomass. Depending on the plan a customer chooses, ActewAGL purchases a certain amount of renewable energy on the customer’s behalf. This can be a percentage of the electricity they use, or a fixed amount each day. In either case, that amount of renewable energy is added to the electricity grid on the customer’s behalf. This helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the generation of electricity from fossil fuels,” the report said.

I don’t know how I can make it any clearer.

Anyway, this is what we have to look forward to if they revive cap and trade.  It may not be the same type of program.  But it will be about as simple and straight forward as this is.  And by simple and straight forward I mean anything but.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Canada may be out of the Kyoto Protocol, but Quebec is Proceeding with their own Cap-and Trade

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 17th, 2011

Week in Review

Quebec is perhaps the most European of the Canadian provinces.  They don’t even speak English there.  Their road signs and billboards are all in French.  People talk to each other in French.  No.  When you’re in Quebec you don’t feel like you’re in Canada.  You feel like you’re in France.  So it’s no surprise that even though Canada pulled out of the Kyoto protocol that Quebec would still be all in for this global warming nonsense.  Because it’s so European (see Quebec goes it alone with cap-and-trade climate plan by Philippe Teisceira-Lessard posted 12/15/2011 on The Globe and Mail).

With global climate-change talks in limbo, Quebec is the first province to push ahead with its own cap-and-trade program.

The province says it’s emulating California as it becomes the first Canadian province to start enforcing cap-and-trade regulations for carbon emissions…

The new provincial program applies to large industrial emitters and will require them to reduce their carbon footprint or buy clean-air credits at $10 per tonne of greenhouse gases.

It is being run in conjunction with the Western Climate Initiative, whose stated objective is to reduce emissions 15 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020. Quebec’s own target is significantly stricter, with a planned 20 per cent reduction from 1990 levels by the end of this decade.

And this gives a little hint why they are all in for this global warming nonsense.  Their stricter requirements will not only punish businesses by making them less competitive, but it will be a windfall for government coffers.  For Quebec is European in more ways than one.  They, like their European brethren, have a costly and generous public sector.  Like all those social democracies of Europe causing that sovereign debt crisis over there.  So they can use this clean-air money to shore up some budget deficits.  Before they, too, have to start living within their means.

The global warming agenda is no different in Canada than it is in Europe.  It’s about the money.  Just another way for governments spending beyond their means to transfer more wealth from the private sector to the public sector.  Apparently the other provinces have made the hard choices and got their budgets in order.  Which is probably why Quebec is going down this road alone.  They refuse to make the hard choices.  So they make the easy one instead.   By raising taxes.  And over-regulating business.  Which, of course, will only hurt these businesses.  Reduce economic activity.  And bring in less tax revenue into government coffers.  Making cap-and-trade a lose-lose proposition for Quebeckers.  As it is for people everywhere betrayed by their governments in the name of global warming.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #73: “Politics is about overspending and vote-buying while getting some poor dumb bastard to pay for it.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 5th, 2011

Washington is Show Business for the Ugly

The founding of America heralded the end of aristocratic rule.  And this is a problem.  For aristocrats.  Those who feel they’re better than everyone else.  Especially those who aspire greatness, and wealth, through political office.  Such as Liberal Democrats.  And RINO Republicans.  Those who like to mingle in the world of the beautiful people.  Rubbing shoulders with the fabulously rich.  And A-List celebrities.  Attending the best parties.  Meeting the best people.  Eating the best food.  Drinking the best booze.  It’s a beautiful life.  The only problem is the price of admission.  You have to be rich and/or talented to get in.  And rich and talented aspiring politicians aren’t.

At least, not at first.  But politics offers them that opportunity.  Rush Limbaugh said Washington is show business for the ugly.  There may be a lot of truth in that.  You see, the beautiful people are, well, beautiful.  That’s their ticket to celebrity and fame.  And access to that beautiful life.  From movie stars being discovered sitting at a drug store counter to talentless reality stars.  Being attractive can be a shortcut to fame.  Beautiful people go the front of the line at the best clubs.  And often get a free pass in.  Because people want to be around beautiful people.  Even if they’re unknown.  That’s the power of being beautiful.  Which can be a problem for the beautifully challenged.

Of course, having talent is a way around not being beautiful.  Those nerds in high school went on to be millionaires.  Even billionaires.  Those geeky guys that never had a date in high school now have the most beautiful women chasing them.  For their money, of course.  But they are still chasing them.  And they learned something.  It’s not important to be beautiful.  As long as you’re rich.  Because it turns out that money can buy a lot of happiness.  Sure it’s the shallow and superficial kind.  But you’ll be at the best parties.  Rubbing shoulders with the other fabulously rich.  And A-list celebrities.  That’s a pretty sweet life.  And one that many covet.  But what do you do if you’re neither beautiful nor talented?  You, of course, go into politics.

You have to be a Real Good Liar

Those with no talent or ability can try to trade in on their appearance.  If they’re considered too ‘ugly’ to get by on their looks alone then they can enter a career of lying.  Politics.  Where you say you care about the little people and promise to give them things if only they will vote for them.  You do anything to get into office.  Because once you do you’re set for life.  Salary and benefits for Congress people are better than anything you’ll get working in the private sector.  And the retirement package is insane.  You live the rest of your life with a large percentage of your Congressional salary.  And you keep a lot of the perks from your Congressional days.  In other words, being elected to office is a ticket into a new aristocracy.  Just like in days of old.  And once you’re in people will treat you as if you are better than everyone else.

It’s a fairytale life.  And a lot of people want it.  People that you have to beat in some election.  Often without the help of any voter election fraud if you’re just starting your political career.  So you have to be a real good liar.  You have to suspend all reason and logic.  And promise, promise, promise.  Even with astronomically high deficits you promise to give people more if they vote for you.  Because you have a plan.  You’re going to shift the tax burden to those who can afford it.  Go after the rich who don’t pay their fair share.  And cut corporate welfare.  With these savings you will be able to spend more on the poor and disadvantaged.  It’s a powerful sales pitch.  And it works well if they are not well educated (thank you public education) and don’t understand taxes and their impact on the job-creating economy.  Also, the more poor and disadvantaged they are the better.  Because the rich and middle class aren’t going to vote higher taxes on themselves.  Only the poor and disadvantaged (who are not well educated on taxes and their impact on the job-creating economy) will continuously vote to raise taxes on those who have more than they do.  Classic class warfare.  So it’s important that your programs fail.  Because you don’t want to help these people.  Not if you’re relying on them to help you sustain your better life.

Of course having a large percentage of the population dependent on your government policies and programs isn’t enough.  It will make the elections easier but it isn’t going to pay the bills.  These people are, after all, a burden.  They consume a lot of the tax base.  But most don’t pay any taxes.  Sure, you can live a comfortable life on a Congressional salary.  But there’s so much more to be had out there with the power to write laws and regulations.  When you can decide winners and losers in the economy you wield considerable influence.  And that influence is worth something.  Especially to crony capitalists.  Who look to profit not by competing in the free market.  But by having friends in high places.  Friends who will reward them well in exchange for a little cash and perks thrown their way.  And by a little I mean a lot.  Of course the good politician makes sure these crony capitalists are only profitable with their help.  Because the less they need their special favors the less of their cash and perks find their way to Washington.

Higher Tax Rates ultimately Reduce the Amount of tax Dollars Collected

Politics is nothing more than a ballet of leverage.  Who has pull.  Who can use it best.  And who is willing to screw the little guy.  You use the poor and disadvantaged to win elections.  But you do everything within your power to keep them poor and disadvantaged so they can keep helping you win elections (we’ve been fighting a war to end poverty since LBJ‘s Great Society of the 1960s and we haven’t won it yet which should tell you something).  You use crony capitalism to enhance your wealth and wellbeing.  But you make sure this corporate welfare only serves one person.  You.  So you don’t necessarily want to see your crony capitalists doing well in the free market.  Far from it.  For if they can do well without your help they’re not going to stay your bitch.

So, to succeed in politics you need to do a couple of things.  You need to redistribute wealth from those who create it to those who don’t.  And form mutually exclusive relationships with crony capitalists.  We call it tax and spend.  And legislation.  They use the progressive income tax system to spread the wealth.  And write legislation that rewards their friends while punishing the enemies of their friends.  Taxes for revenue.  And legislation for power and wealth. 

But the revenue is never enough (as the deficits show).  Despite the progressive income tax system.  Where, in the name of fairness, the richer you are the more taxes you pay.  And the poorer you are the fewer taxes you pay.  But keeping as many people as poor as possible has its drawbacks.  The more poor there are the fewer there are paying taxes.  Which requires raising taxes on the non-poor.  The rich.  And the middle class.  Which has a real big side affect.  After a point, higher taxes reduce economic activity.  It’s the law of diminishing returns.  The higher tax rates ultimately reduce the amount of tax dollars collected.  So they consider other sources of revenue besides the income tax.  Money that is ‘outside’ of the economy.  Money that’s ‘parked’.  Untouched by income and excise taxes.  Such as estates of the dead.  And the wealth of the living.  There is an estate tax.  But no wealth tax.  Yet.  And, oh, do they want one.  Like in some European countries.  Because the rich don’t work.  They invest.  They don’t live on income.  They live on ‘investment’ income.  Capital gains.  Which is taxed at a lower capital gains rate.  Not the confiscatory rate of the progressive tax system.  Worse, as the government sees it, they only pay taxes on their capital gains.  Not their capital.  Their wealth.  And that’s a lot of money parked outside the economy that they want a piece of.

Something ‘outside’ the Economy to Tax

But a wealth tax has its problems, too.  You can move wealth.  If you tax wealth the wealthy will just invest their wealth elsewhere.  Like rich Europeans have done.  No.  They need something better.  Something the rich can’t escape.  And, ideally, finding something ‘outside’ the economy to tax.  Something like the Las Vegas model.  The casinos in Vegas bring a lot of money into the city.  The casinos are very profitable.  And Las Vegas and Nevada profit well, too (before the subprime mortgage crisis, at least).  Many other cities have tried to cash in on these fat profits but have failed to match the success of Vegas.  Caesars Windsor is doing well because it is in a smaller city across the border from a larger metropolitan area.  A metropolitan area with a lot of people.  And if just a fraction of them crossed the border it would swell the Windsor economy.  And like Vegas, Windsor does have a little vice to offer.  A bit of the naughty that you can’t get in that metro area.  For the good people of Metro Detroit have a higher legal drinking age.  They don’t have gentlemen’s clubs with nude dancers that serve alcohol.  And prostitution is illegal.  But all of these things (to a certain extent) are available in Windsor.  Just across the border.  Where, like Vegas, what happens in Windsor stays in Windsor.  Plus Windsor has an active nightlife.  Safe streets.  And a touch of an international flair.  The money poured into Windsor.  When Detroit finally added three casinos to get a little piece of that action that’s what they got.  A little piece.  The casinos were money makers.  But Detroit did not enjoy the boom that Windsor did.  Why?

Windsor did well for the same reason Vegas did well.  They’re both destination cities.  People travel to them.  They’ll fly there for a vacation.  Or cross an international border for a night out.  These are the people spending and losing their money in these casinos.  Not the good people of Windsor.  Or the good people of Las Vegas.  It’s outside money coming into the local economy.  Which is a net add.  The problem Detroit has is that it’s not a destination city.  It’s cold in the winter.  It’s suffered blight and decline.  And still has a reputation as being unsafe.  People aren’t going there.  It’s just the people already there that are gambling away their money.  These people are just going out to dinner less.  Going out to fewer movies.  Going out to fewer clubs.  Etc.  The problem in Detroit is that there is no new money coming into the economy.  All that casino money was just local money people were spending someplace else in the local economy.

Despite what they say, politicians know high taxes don’t stimulate economic growth.  It just transfers money from one person to another to spend.  There’s no net gain.  Like in Detroit with their casinos.  They would love a wealth tax.  But the rich could easily avoid it by moving their wealth.  But there is something that even they can’t avoid.  Taxing energy.  Rather, the emissions created by energy.  In the name of combating global warming.  Cap and trade.  Emissions trading.  Making people buy ‘permits’ for their emissions.  That can be traded.  Creating a permit exchange similar to a stock exchange.  Governments forcing private entities to buy ‘shares’ of pollution.  Brilliant.  Because you can’t escape the use of energy.  It is a part of our very existence.  So you can’t escape it.  And the Europeans have taken it to the Las Vegas model.  The European Union (EU) will force international airlines flying into EU airspace to pay in essence an extralegal tax.  Which is the greatest kind of tax a government can use.  A tax whose full benefits will go to their constituents.  But a not a dime of which their constituents will pay.  If you put this to a referendum, the people will pass it.  Because people will have everything to gain.  And nothing to lose.  Other than the trade war such an extralegal tax would most likely provoke.  And the accompanying economic crash and withering recession.

In the mean time, though, the ruling elite, the new aristocracy, will be able to maintain their privileged lives.  Mingling with the beautiful people.  The fabulously rich.  And A-List celebrities.  Which is really all they care about anyway.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED # 50: “What do the great entrepreneurs have in common with politicians? Not a whole hell of a lot.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 27th, 2011

Cigarettes may be Bad for You, but they’re Good for Government

Government services cost money.  A lot of money.  And there are only a few ways government can get money.  They can tax their citizens.  Borrow money.  Or print money (if they’re the federal government).  When the government provides only the bare essentials for its populace, they can usually pay for those services with the taxes they collect.  This is the best way to pay for things.  It has the least adverse affect on our money.  And our credit rating.  But you have to be careful not to dampen economic activity.  Because taxes are a function of that activity.  And that activity can be a function of taxes.  There is a general inverse relationship between the two.  High taxes often gets you low economic activity.  Low taxes tend to give you high activity.  Other things being equal, of course.

But government spending tends to grow.  For various reasons.  And sometimes when it does, the spending is greater than the amount collected in taxes.  Especially during recessionary times.  So, to cover the deficit between revenue and spending they borrow money.  Or print it.  Lots of governments do this.  You can see record debt levels and record deficit spending throughout the world.  Greece was in the news recently.  Argentina suffered some bad times a few decades ago.  And now the United States is reeling a bit from their crushing deficits and debt.  And there are more.  Few nations are immune from this problem.

As this progresses, governments begin looking for additional tax revenue.  Such as sin taxes.  Cigarettes may be bad for your health.  But they’re still legal.  Why?  Taxes.  Few things do we tax so heavily.  And they’re one of the few things that we can heavily tax.  Because they’re addictive.  Cigarettes are a windfall for the government coffers.  But it doesn’t stop with taxes.  The government even sued Big  Tobacco.  To help pay for the medical costs the government incurs treating people (via Medicare and Medicaid) with smoking related diseases.

Which came First?  The Politician or the Entrepreneur?

Cigarettes may be bad for you.  But this country owes a lot to tobacco.  Back before it was bad for us (well, at least before we knew it was bad for us.  Then again, it wasn’t really all that bad for us back then.  For few were living long enough for it to become a health problem.  But I digress) it was a pretty big cash crop.  Even used for money because it was so valuable.  So an industry grew.  And that industry became a very lucrative one.  With deep pockets.  Producing an addictive product.  A veritable gold mine for a high-spending government.

Now, the government didn’t do a thing to make a single cigarette.  But it profited handsomely off of cigarettes.  It’s sort of like that chicken and egg riddle.  Which came first?  Well, speaking about business and government, it’s not much of a riddle.  Business came first.  For without business, there would be no government.  Because someone has to create wealth first before they could tax it away.  Or sue it away.

You see, that’s the difference between entrepreneurs and politicians.  Government needs entrepreneurs.  But entrepreneurs don’t need government.  Because entrepreneurs create things.  While government takes from people that create things.

Dirty, Sexy Energy is Destroying the Planet

Entrepreneurs have invented some pretty impressive things.  James Watt gave us a pretty efficient steam engine.  Henry Ford gave us a pretty affordable car.  Watt helped to launch the Industrial Revolution.  Ford just took it to new heights.  With his mass production.

The steam engine was the big first motor of the world.  It pulled us forward.  In steam locomotives.  And coal-fired power plants.  It was a giant leap forward for mankind.  Then came the internal combustion engine.  More compact.  And more powerful.  The first diesel-electric locomotive outclassed the state of the art steam locomotive in every way.  This little power plant was smaller.  More powerful.  And cleaner.  (Steam locomotives belched huge plumes of smoke and ash wherever they went.)

It may have been cleaner.  But it was still dirty.  For both the steam engine and the internal combustion engine produced carbon dioxide.  And the environmentalists were saying that this carbon dioxide was warming the world.  They called it global warming.  And it was bad.  Mostly theory.  But the theory pointed to nothing less than apocalypse.  Someone had to do something.  To save the planet.  And, guess what?  Someone was ready.  And willing.

Just give me something to Tax, Entrepreneur

A high-spending government just embraced these environmentalists with wet, slobbering kisses.  Because they knew what to do.  Not about cleaner energy sources.  But about taxing the dirty ones.  And they needed more taxes.  For their high spending.  So the environmentalists and government were rather simpatico.  To say the least.

Their idea?  Carbon taxes.  And carbon trading (i.e., Cap and Trade).  Let’s face it, modern civilization is addicted to energy.  We can’t do without it.  So we’ll never stop using it.  Sort of like cigarettes.  So they would tax carbon.  Or make polluters buy permits to pollute.  Either way they make big money.  All in the name of saving the planet.

Sure, it all sounds nice.  In a touchy feely way.  But taxing energy will kill economic activity.  With the cost of doing business going up, there will be less business.  The carbon taxes/polluting permits may not even offset the loss of tax revenue resulting from this decline in economic activity.  But when times are desperate, they often will try desperate measures.  And when you have deficits and debt at record levels, these are desperate times.  So they’ll try to push carbon taxes.  And pollution permits.  Not to save the planet.  But for the revenue.  And they will thank God for the entrepreneur who was able to make something that people wanted.  That they couldn’t do without.  Because without the entrepreneur, there would be nothing to tax.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

They Just Don’t Make Villains like George W. Bush Anymore

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 6th, 2010

It’s Getting Harder to Lie These Days

The angry Left could not draw as many people to their rally in Washington as Glenn Beck did.  Why?  Byron York explains in Why Big Labor couldn’t match Glenn Beck’s rally in a Washington Examiner 10/4/2010 column.  He says Big Labor is “shrinking, aging and divided.”  No big whoop here.  I mean, the days of Big Labor are gone.  Thanks to free trade, consumers no longer have to be their bitch.  For example, once upon a time we had to buy the pieces of crap that the Big Three were selling.  Because they were the only caterer in town.  But thanks to competition from the Japanese imports, the consumers got a little more respect from the Big Three.  They no longer take us for granted.  And they’re building quality again.  Why?  Because someone else was.  That’s the beautiful thing about competition.  It makes everything better.

Included in this column is this disturbing fact:

In January, the Labor Department reported that for the first time in history, there are more union members in the public sector (7.9 million) than there are in the private sector (7.4 million). That’s despite the fact that there are five times more workers in the private sector than in federal, state, and local governments. In percentage terms, just 7.2 percent of private-sector workers belong to a union, while 37.4 percent of public-sector workers are unionized.

Think about this.  The private sector pays for its union pay and benefits with the revenue from the goods and services they sell. Competition for these goods and services provides a restraint on those union pay and benefits.  The taxpayer finances the public sector.  There is no competition for what they do.  And no restraint whatsoever on their pay and benefits.  So is it surprising that there are more union members in the public sector?

That said, the private sector still outnumbers the public sector.  For now, at least.  Yes there is a ruling elite.  And an aristocratic base (college professors, the mainstream media, unions and government workers) that supports them in exchange for their special favors. But the numbers are against them.  When times are bad, the masses will be heard.  And we heard them at Beck’s rally.  Not at the “One Nation Working Together” rally.  Where their silence was deafening.

Here’s a Thought; Try to Stand for Something

The ads for the Democrats this campaign season are interesting for what they don’t say.  They don’t trump their votes for Obamacare, financial reform, Cap and Trade, etc.  No.  The Democrats are not running on their achievements.  Just as they never campaign for higher taxes and more regulation.  Because, unless you’re a public sector union employee, you are just not for higher taxes and more regulation.  So they don’t run ads about their achievements or their policy agendas.  They just attack their opponents.  Dig up some dirt.  Or fabricate it.  Anything but run on their own record or policy agenda.

Of course, such a campaign strategy is difficult when you have the White House, the Senate and the House.  In the good old days there was George W. Bush.  Democrat enemy #1.  With him in the White House, you never had to campaign on your own record.  Or commit to a position.  Whenever asked about a position you just attacked Bush.  Life was simpler then.  Like York wrote:

Finally, the rally lacked a villain. Back in the days of George W. Bush, merely saying the president’s name could elicit angry boos over and over and over again. Every problem in every part of American life could be attributed to Bush and his gang. Now, with a Democratic president and Congress, speakers can denounce Republicans all they want, but everyone knows who is running the U.S. government. That knowledge took a little of the edge off all those denunciations.

Bush has been gone coming up on 2 years now.  And things are worse now under total Democrat rule.  The Democrats have no choice.  They’ll have to be accountable for their actions.  And this is the reason why the Left couldn’t match the Glen Beck rally.  They can no longer blame George W. Bush.  And where’s the fun in that? 

The mess we’re in is their mess.  We know it.  And they know it.  And they’re beginning to know that we know it.  Which makes the lie that much harder to sell.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Love Dividend Yet from the Apology Tour

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 4th, 2010

Add One Part Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter tried detente.  Make nice to our enemies.  Alienate our allies.  He pointed out the human rights abuses our allies made in their fight against communism.  But he said little about our Cold War foe who raised the bar on human rights abuses.  The plan was to love our enemy.  And they would love us.  How did it work?  During the Carter presidency, the Soviet Union introduced a nuclear first-strike doctrine.  Because they were sure their missiles would land before Carter would ever launch ours.  The Soviets, for the first time since the days of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), were planning to win a nuclear war.

Obama said the Arab/Muslim world hated us because of George W. Bush’s overt hostile rhetoric/actions against them.  He would talk to the president of Iran.  He would engage in diplomacy.  He would change the way the Arab/Muslim world felt about America.  And how is that going?  Not good.  Iran has a nuclear reactor about to go on line, taking them one step closer to becoming a nuclear power.  And now Syria and Iran are cozying up with each other.  A united stand against Israel.  And the United States.  And the thanks Obama got for all his nicey nice?  They dissed him.  They said any attempts at an Israeli-Palestinian peace were only a desperate attempt to boost Obama’s poll numbers.  See Reuters’ Syria’s Assad rebuffs Washington by courting Iran by Robin Pomeroy.

It would appear that the lessons of Carter’s economic policies are not the only lessons Obama ignored.  Our enemies don’t like us.  Really.

Add One Part Richard Nixon

When the Vietnam War expanded into neutral Cambodia, all hell broke out.  On the college campuses.  Four died at Kent State.  And an unpopular war grew ever more unpopular.  But Nixon was playing to win.  The Ho Chi Minh Trail fed the insurgency in the south.  And the jumping off point was in Cambodia.  Where LBJ tried to limit the war Nixon tried to win it.  Nixon would ultimately get a peace treaty in Vietnam.  Backed by the might and will of America.  But Nixon was by then so hated that he would be undone by his own paranoia.  Watergate would throw him out of office.  With him went the might and will promised to South Vietnam.  And soon there was no longer a South Vietnam.

Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan into Pakistan.  Our ally.  The ‘Cambodia’ of that conflict.  And he’s stepping things up.  (See the Wall Street Journal’s CIA Escalates in Pakistan by Adam Entous, Julian E. Barnes and Siobhan Gorman.)  The similarities are striking.  But there’s no unrest on our college campuses.  No concerted media attack by the 3 major networks.  And yet included in the Obama administration is Hilary Clinton.  She participated in the impeachment of Richard Nixon.  Over in the Senate, John Kerry, the Vietnam War protester, is saying that you have to attack these sanctuaries.  My, how time changes some.  Or the political expediency of the moment.  Nixon’s Cambodian intrusion – bad.  Obama’s Pakistan intrusion – good.  So I guess the lesson here is that if you want to run covert military operations on the wrong side of the border, you better be a Democrat.

The anti-war people in the Democrat Party are fuming over this war doctrine.  This is something that they’d expect George W. Bush to do.  Not their guy of hope and change.  Will Obama try to appease the Left?  Give up on Afghanistan?  Like the Left did on South Vietnam?  Let’s hope not.  Politics is politics.  But Americans shouldn’t die in vain.

Add One Part LBJ

LBJ didn’t want to be the first American president to lose a war.  So he tried.  But with far too many rules of engagement.  For he was trying to win the hearts and minds of the world.  The American people, our allies in Southeast Asia and even our enemies (who were trying to kill us and our allies).  And look where it got him.

LBJ wanted it all.  He wanted to win the war in Vietnam.  And the wars against poverty and racism.  But his policies made Vietnam a quagmire.  There were race riots in the United States.  And his domestic agenda exploded government spending, causing runaway inflation in the 1970s and recession.  We call it stagflation.  It gave Carter a single term.  And he’s still bitter about that to this day.

Johnson was a big liberal.  Obama is a big liberal.  Johnson had an unpopular war.  Obama has an unpopular war.  Johnson had an aggressive domestic agenda.  Obama has an aggressive agenda.  Johnson’s Great Society programs have been abject failures (we are still fighting poverty and racism today.  And we’re still paying the hefty tab on those failed programs).  Wonder what history will say of Obama.

Mix Together for One Obama

On foreign policy, Obama came in young, inexperienced and naive.  Some would even say inept.  His apology tour hasn’t changed the hate.  Our enemies still hate us.  Go figure.  Now Iran will soon have nuclear weapons.  And the world will be less safe.  If you’re nostalgic for Jimmy Carter, here’s your chance to relive those dangerous days.

Afghanistan was the ‘good’ war.  But the Left doesn’t have ‘good’ wars.  They want out.  And Obama is trying.  He even is going Nixon.  Attacking the enemy’s safe havens.  Attack a neutral country?  Hell, I’ll attack an ally.  It’s the right military call but will the Left ever forgive him?  I guess time will tell.  As will the college campuses.

LBJ wanted to give everyone everything they wanted.  Yet they still rioted.  And it hurt.  LBJ could not understand.  Nor could he forgive.  At the end of his first full term he had had enough.  He lost Walter Cronkite.  He lost the American people.  So he said goodbye.  And the hated man faded away.  Obama has had an aggressive domestic agenda.  He gave away a lot of free stuff.  But the people who have to pay for that generosity are not amused.  And the polls show that the Democrats in Congress will ultimately pay for Obama’s generosity.  A lot of them may be looking for a new job.

But it’s not all bad for Obama.  There are some who endorse his Cap and Trade policy initiative.  Some believe in the dangers of global warming.  Osama bin Laden all but said so in one of his latest broadcasts (see Reuters’ UPDATE 1-Bin Laden criticises Pakistan relief mission by Martina Fuchs and Tamara Walid.)  So, the American people may be turning away from him, but some of our enemies still support some of his agenda.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,