Spain’s Massive Investment in Solar Power has Greatly increased the Cost of their Electric Power

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 24th, 2013

Week in Review

People think renewable energy is the answer to all our energy problems.  But that isn’t quite so.  In fact, all it does is increase the cost of our electric power.  For sunshine and wind may be free.  But the equipment to harness the energy in sunshine and wind is not free.  It is very, very expensive.  And you need a lot of it.  You will not see one wind turbine service the power needs of one metropolitan area.  You may see a wind farm providing a small percentage of the electric power needs of a large metropolitan area.  And only when the wind blows.

Wind can blow day or night.  But it can also NOT blow day and night.  While solar panels will not work at all at night.  So you have massive investments to install renewable energy generation capacity.  And there will be times when they will provide no power.  So what do you do?  What do you do when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine?  You turn to old reliable.  The electric grid.

This is why renewable energy is so costly.  It cannot replace our fossil-fuel power plants that can provide reliable power day or night in any type of weather.  It can only supplement what we call our baseload power.  Like our beloved coal-fired power plants.  One of the most cost-efficient ways to produce reliable electric power.  Which the power companies have to still run and maintain day and night.  For those who don’t have a wind turbine or a solar array providing their electric power.  And to light up the night.  So instead of one cost-efficient power generation system we have two systems.  One cost-efficient and one cost-inefficient.  And those who invested heavily into renewable energy are now having to deal with these very real problems (see Out Of Ideas And In Debt, Spain Sets Sights On Taxing The Sun by Kelly Phillips Erb posted 8/19/2013 on Forbes).

With so much sunshine at its disposal, Spain has aggressively pursued the development of solar energy: over the past ten years, the government has made significant advances in pressing solar energy and is one of the top countries in the world with respect to installed photovoltaic (PV) solar energy capacity.

It might, however, be too much of a good thing. Spain is generating so much solar power, according to its government, that production capacity exceeds demand by more than 60%. That imbalance has created a problem for the government which now finds itself in debt to producers. And not by a little bit. The debt is said to have grown to nearly 26 billion euros ($34.73 billion U.S.).

So how do you get out of that kind of debt? You propose incredibly onerous taxes and fines, of course. And you do it on exactly the behavior that you encouraged in the first place: the use of solar energy panels. That’s right. Spain is now attempting to scale back the use of solar panels – the use of which they have encouraged and subsidized over the last decade – by imposing a tax on those who use the panels…

…many residents in Spain generate enough electricity from solar that they get paid to selling the excess energy back to producers. This, it turns out, is a problem. The government is putting a stop to that, too: as part of the reform efforts (read: desperate measures), there will be a prohibition on selling extra energy.

If the power companies are providing all the power at night they have to maintain their power plants.  And their power distribution system.  Which means they even have to trim the trees away from their overhead power lines from people who use solar power during the day.  Nothing changes for the power companies.  Except that they can’t sell as much power as they once did.  So their costs of producing power remain the same.  But their revenue has fallen.  Forcing them to operate at a loss.  Or find other ways to replace their lost revenue.  Which they have to.  Because they must have the same capacity available during the day that they have at night.  Even if they aren’t selling as much power during the day as they are at night.  And the last thing they want to do is buy excess power back from homeowners with solar panels on their house when they’re producing their own power that they can’t sell.

Baseload power plants like coal and nuclear take time to bring on line.  They have to produce the heat that boils water into steam.  Then superheat the steam to remove all water from it.  So the steam can spin the generator turbines without damaging the vanes on the turbine.  And once they start these plants up they run these systems at full capacity where they produce power most cost-efficiently.  During peak demand they may bring on some gas-fired turbines that can start and produce power quickly.  And add them to the grid.  When the peak subsides they can shut down these gas-fired turbines and let the baseload generation carry the remaining load.

The Spanish government invested heavily into solar power for whatever reason.  It’s ‘free’ power.  It’s ‘clean’ power.  Or it was just a good way to create a lot of jobs.  But what Spain has now is a surplus of peak power generation during the day that doesn’t eliminate the need to maintain baseload power generation during the day.  Creating a surplus of electric power during the day no one wants.  While requiring power companies to maintain their baseload power during the day so they can provide power at night.  Incurring great costs on the power companies.  Which must be passed on to the same people who paid for the renewable energies subsidies.  The electric power consumer.

This is a classic example of a Hayekian malinvestment.  Friedrich Hayek of the Austrian school of economics said this is what happens when governments interfere with free markets.  They make investments to produce what they think is best while the market demands something else.  The market demanded low-cost electric power.  Which baseload power plants (coal and nuclear) provided.  But the government intervened and subsidized the more costly solar power.  This bad investment—or malinvestment—has only increased the cost of electric power for the Spanish consumer.  And now the Spanish have a big problem on their hands.  What to do with this surplus of peak power no one wants to pay for?  And how to replace the lost revenue of the power companies so they can cover their costs?  Two problems they didn’t have until the government intervened into the free market.


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

Airbus proposing Measures to Reduce the Aviation Carbon Footprint that may make Flying more Dangerous

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 9th, 2012

Week in Review

Airplanes are very complex machines.  They fly at speeds 3-4 times the speeds they land and take off at.  Which requires leading edge slats and trailing edge flaps to curve the wing more at low speed to increase lift.  While flattening it out more at high speeds to reduce drag.  When landing pilots put the engines into reverse thrust to help slow the plane down.  So they even use fuel to slow down.

And speaking of fuel it’s expensive.  Airlines carry as little of it as possible in their airplanes to reduce weight which reduces costs.  Sometimes bad weather forces planes to go to an alternate airport.  Sometimes there are strong headwinds.  Sometimes they fly into Heathrow and have to circle for a half hour or so to land.  Because they only have two runways.  Compounding this problem planes are getting lighter and engines are getting more efficient.  Allowing airlines to carry even less fuel.  So it is not uncommon for a pilot to declare a fuel emergency because of unexpected additional flying time.

When flying in the air highways air traffic controllers keep airplanes separated by large distances.  To keep them from running into each other.  The more distance the better so they can take evasive actions to avoid bad weather cells.  Or allow a plane some leeway in case they have a system malfunction (like plugged pitot tubes feeding false air speed and altimeter readings into the autopilot) that takes the plane off course.  Or in case a plane flies into some clear air turbulence (CAT) and it drops out of the sky 1,000 feet or so.  Or rises 1,000 feet or so.  Two things that allow a plane to recover from unplanned events like these are empty skies around you and altitude.

Aviation has come a long way.  And Boeing and Airbus are making some incredible airplanes.  So they know a thing or two about flying an airplane.  And it shows in their planes.  Which makes it hard to take them seriously when they talk about ways to reduce their carbon footprint by making flying more risky (see Airbus To Present Measures To Reduce Industry’s Environmental Footprint by Jens Flottau posted 9/6/2012 on Aviation Week).

Airbus on Sept. 6 will unveil five measures it says will make the aviation industry environmentally sustainable by 2050 despite projected growth for global air transport…

Airbus also foresees a new method for takeoff, with renewably powered propelled acceleration allowing aircraft to climb steeper and reach cruise altitude faster. This in turn would allow airports to build shorter runways and minimize land use.

Once in cruise, aircraft should be able to self-organize and select the most efficient routes, says Airbus. On dense routes, aircraft could fly in formation, like birds, to take advantage of drag reduction opportunities.

In Airbus’ vision, aircraft will descend without using engine power or air brakes and would be able to decelerate quicker and to a lower final approach speed enabling them to use shorter runways…

Fuel is a key component of Airbus’ proposal, and the manufacturer says the use of biofuels hydrogen, electricity and solar energy will be required to reduce the industry’s environmental footprint.

You simply can’t build shorter runways.  Because planes aren’t perfect.  Sometimes things happen.  If we had shorter runways what would happen to a plane landing with damaged leading edge slats or trailing edge flaps?  And they have to land at a higher speed than normal because they can’t curve the wing to create more lift at lower speeds?  And what if a plane’s thrust reversers failed to deploy?  This is why we have long runways.  To give planes with problems a better chance to land safely.

Flying commercial jets in formation?  Not a good idea.  One of the most dangerous things to do in the Air Force is aerial refueling.  Where two large planes get real close to each other.  If they bump into each other they could cause some damage.  Even cause them to crash.  Flying in formation would be exhausting for a pilot.  Or they could entrust their formation flying to an autopilot.  But if they hit some CAT and get thrown around in that airspace they could get thrown into each other.  Even while flying on autopilot.  Planes also make their own turbulence.  Which is why there are larger distances between the big planes (i.e., the heavies) and the small ones.  So the small ones don’t get flipped over by some spiraling wingtip vortex turbulence off the heavy in front of it.

Solar energy?  Really?  How?  It’s not going to propel a jumbo jet.  And if they think they’re going to save on engine emissions by using solar panels on the wings to produce electricity for the cabin lights and electronics I don’t think that will work.  The emissions from the electrical load on those engines may be negligible compared to emissions they make producing thrust for flight.  And if they add more weight (solar panels) that will only take more fuel for flight.  Which will release more emissions.  Finally, a lot of planes fly at night.  When there is no sunshine.  What then?

Trying to reduce a plane’s carbon footprint will only make flying more dangerous.  It’s one thing to throw money away building solar panels and windmills on the ground.  For that’s just ripping the people off.  But applying this nonsense to aviation may end up killing people.  It’s hard to believe that Airbus is serious with these suggestions.  One wonders if they’re just proposing this to get those proposing that carbon trading scheme to back off as it will increase the cost of flying.  Which will reduce the number of people flying.  And reduce the number of planes Airbus can sell.  Perhaps by dangling this green future of aviation they may buy some time before the carbon trading scheme kills the aviation industry.

Fighting nonsense with nonsense.  It’s just as good an explanation as any.


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

Destroying the Economy, Destroying Health Care – Obama Trying to Surpass Jimmy Carter in Destruction

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 16th, 2011

We Need 14 million Jobs to Break Even Now and a 6.8% Growth Rate on 100,237 Green Jobs just ain’t Going to Do It

According to President Obama, this is our future.  Clean energy.  Renewable energy.  Green energy.  These are the high-tech, high-paying jobs of the future.  And look how they are growing (see California has 1 in 4 U.S. solar energy jobs, study says by Marc Lifsher posted 10/17/2011 on the Los Angeles Times).

One in every four solar energy jobs in America is held by a Californian, and growth in the clean-tech industry is burgeoning nationwide, a new study said.

In August, California had an estimated 25,575 solar-related jobs out of 100,237 for all 50 states, according to the National Solar Jobs Census 2011…

Nationally, employment in all parts of the solar industry, including manufacturing, installation, residential, commercial and large-scale power generation, grew 6.8% in the 12 month period ended in August.

Wow.  Imagine that.  There’s a total of 100,237 solar energy jobs in the country.  Of course, that number is not so impressive when you consider there are approximately 14 million people unemployed right now.

So these solar energy jobs represent jobs for approximately 0.716% of the unemployed.  For these clean energy jobs to be in fact our future they are going to have to do better than 6.8% growth.  Just to put these 14 million unemployed back to work they’re going to have to grow that 100,237 by 13,866.7%.  That’s a lot of growth.  And it’s never going to happen.

It’s funny how President Obama is all for a mix when it comes to deficit reduction.  Spending cuts AND tax increases.  Has to be a mix.  Because he says you just can’t cut the deficit by spending cuts alone.  Which is preposterous.  When you’re spending too much spending less ALWAYS works.  But that’s another story for another time.

Clean energy.  Renewable energy.  Green energy.  These aren’t our future.  They may be part of our future.  But they aren’t going to be THE future.  Unless you don’t care to have jobs in that future.  Which, of course, we need.  Desperately need.  So, at best, these clean jobs can only be a small part of the mix.  A very small part.  Because we need 14 million jobs to break even now.  And we’ll need more to handle normal population growth.  And a 6.8% growth on 100,237 just ain’t going to do it.

Nothing ever Good Happens to those Being Enticed by Bait (Entangling Federal Grants)

It would be hard for the Obama economic policies to be any more wrong.  But they can be.  Thanks to Obamacare.  Whose regulatory costs have frozen business growth.  And it gets worse (see Mackinac Center: No rush for legislators to create health insurance exchange by Jack McHugh posted 10/16/2011 on the Detroit Free Press).

Gov. Rick Snyder is urging lawmakers to create a state health insurance exchange, which some supporters soft-pedal as a Travelocity or Orbitz for health care. Simultaneously, the Snyder administration is pursuing strings-attached federal grants that increasingly commit the state to something very different — a full-blown exchange compliant with regulations mandated by the new federal health care law. That means the resulting entity won’t be an exchange at all, but rather the agency through which the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s mandates, subsidies and regulations will be administered by the state…

But Heritage itself has exploded claims of kinship with Affordable Care Act exchanges. Heritage scholar Ed Haislmaier wrote recently, “Rather than serving as a mechanism for expanding health insurance choice, variety and competition … Congress has perverted the exchange concept into a bureaucratic tool for federal subsidization, standardization and micromanagement.” Haislmaier recommends that states refuse the entangling federal grants that the Snyder administration is pursuing.

Sigh.  The siren song of federal money.  Can no one resist it?

There’s another word for ‘entangling federal grants’.  Bait.  Ever have a problem with raccoons?  Cute little things.  But not in your backyard.  Because they can do quite the damage.  So you call your friendly trap and release animal control specialist.  To trap these cute little critters and release them in the country where they belong.  And do you know how they get these clever little things into these traps?  Bait.  That’s right, you trick them with something that seems really good to them.  Once they enter the trap the door closes.  And they are then at the mercy of the animal control specialist.  Much like any state that takes these federal grants that come with all those federal strings.

Nothing ever good happens to those being enticed by bait.  Some animals learn to avoid traps.  Being human, it should be easier for us to avoid these traps.  Because we can think.  And should know better.

So it’s Bad on the Jobs Front and it’s no Better on the Health Care Front

The only jobs policies we have are bad policies.  Pouring money into industries that can’t grow fast enough to reduce unemployment.  Meanwhile, we hinder job creation by throwing Obamacare at our job creators.  They have no idea what that thousand-plus-page law will cost.  So they’re doing the only thing they can.  Don’t hire.  Don’t grow.  And sit on cash.  Until the uncertainty goes away.  Or Obamacare is repealed.

So it’s bad on the jobs front.  And it’s no better on the health care front.  Obama is working stealthily to entrench this most unpopular legislation as best as he can.  Whether we want it or not.

Destroying the economy.  Destroying health care.  Looks like he really wants to replace Jimmy Carter in the history books as the worst president of all time.


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

The Federal Debt and Public Sector Grow, American Exceptionalism Declines

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 4th, 2011

Obama sets Spending Record, Maxes out Uncle Sam’s Credit Card

As Congress battles over a budget, Timothy Geithner goes back to Congress and warns them that the world as we know it will end unless they increase the debt ceiling.  I’m paraphrasing, of course (see U.S. will hit debt ceiling by May 16, Geithner warns Congress by Jim Puzzanghera posted 4/4/2011 on the Los Angeles Times).

The Treasury Department had estimated that the nation would reach its $14.29-trillion debt limit between April 5 and May 31…

The Obama administration is pushing Congress to increase the debt limit, as it has done 75 times since 1962. The nation has never failed to increase the limit, Geithner said.

But the nation has never spent money it doesn’t have like the Obama administration has.  After some 2 years in office Obama has added about $4.3 trillion to the national debt.  That’s pretty impressive for just two scant years.  And how does that compare with his predecessors?  George W. Bush‘s added $4.2 trillion in eight years.  Bill Clinton added $1.4 trillion in his eight years.  Ronald Reagan added $1.6 trillion in his eight years.  And Reagan is always attacked with the ‘sure he saved the economy and increased GDP but at what cost’ line implying he did it with reckless and irresponsible spending by mortgaging our future.  But Reagan’s debt was chump change compared to the Obama $4.3 trillion added in only 2 years.  Yet the Reagan debt was bad.  While the Obama debt is nothing to worry about.  Funny how that works. 

One thing for sure, Obama sure likes to spend other people’s money. 

Renewable Energy Subsidies are a Slush Fund for Democrats

So what are we spending so much money on?  Oh, lots and lots of things.  Some big (Obamacare).  Some small.  So small that when you look at it as a line item you say, sure, that’s a lot of money, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s chump change.  Like the debt Reagan added rebuilding the American economy and winning the Cold War.  Or solar energy subsidies (see Get A Tax Break For Going Green In 2011 by Ashlea Ebeling posted 4/1/2011 on Forbes).

When [a retired couple], N.J., both 73, file their 2010 tax return this spring, they’ll be getting a $15,000 federal tax credit for going solar. They were expecting to get an additional $11,000 state rebate too, but newly-elected Republican Gov. Chris Christie raided the N.J. Clean Energy Fund last year to help balance the state budget, so the pot of rebate money ran dry. Yet even without the promised state rebate, [they] calculate that their $50,000 investment will be paid off in five years thanks to the federal tax credit and other incentives.

He’s already watching his meter send electricity he generates back to the power company; he figures he’ll save $1,600 a year in electricity bills. And he stands to get up to $6,500 a year for 15 years in state-legislated solar renewable energy certificates…

Okay, so we have a retired couple who could afford to spend $50,000 on solar panels that will never pay for themselves in energy savings unless they live another 32 years in retirement.  You know, that is an awful return on investment.  Which explains why no one is making this investment.  Unless the government gives them about $100,000 in the next 15 years on top of the $15,000 federal tax credit.  And the $11,000 state benefits.  All to save $1,600 a year.  What a scam.

This may stimulate the economy locally for a short time, but it just adds to the debt.  And the long term problems will be far greater than the short term benefits.  Then again, 73 year old people won’t be around to face those problems.  But you can bet that they will be voting for the party that just dropped a boatload of money into their laps to spend in their retirement years.  Let’s not forget that the senior population is growing greater than the younger population.  And they vote more.  So you can see that although the return on investment on solar energy is awful, it pays huge political dividends.  And that’s what it’s all about.  Not the environment.

Obamacare is a Slush Fund for Democrats

And speaking of really enjoying those retirement years, here’s a little pork buried in Obamacare just coming to light (see Uncovered: New $2 billion bailout in Obamacare by Byron York posted 3/31/2011 on The Examiner).

Investigators for the House Energy and Commerce Committee have discovered that a little-known provision in the national health care law has allowed the federal government to pay nearly $2 billion to unions, state public employee systems, and big corporations to subsidize health coverage costs for early retirees.

The legislation called for the program to spend a total of $5 billion, beginning in June 2010 — shortly after Obamacare was passed — and ending on January 1, 2014, as the system of national health care exchanges was scheduled to go into effect.

In other words, if you support Obamacare, we’ll take care of you.  As we always do.  And that’s why they fight for the public sector workers like they do.  They get a lot of union dues and foot soldiers.  In return the government throws them a bone.  Like an additional $5 billion in health care subsidies.

Where is the money going?  According to the new report, the biggest single recipient of an early-retiree bailout is the United Auto Workers, which has so far received $206,798,086.  Other big recipients include AT&T, which received $140,022,949, and Verizon, which received $91,702,538.  General Electric, in the news recently for not paying any U.S. taxes last year, received $36,607,818.  General Motors, recipient of a massive government bailout, received $19,002,669.

The program also paid large sums of money to state governments.  The Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio received $70,557,764; the Teacher Retirement System of Texas received $68,074,118; the California Public Employees Retirement System, or CalPERS, received $57,834,267; the Georgia Department of Community Health received $57,936,127; and the state of New York received $47,869,044.  Other states received lesser but still substantial sums.

But payments to individual states were dwarfed by the payout to the auto workers union, which received more than the states of New York, California, and Texas combined.  Other unions also received government funds, including the United Food and Commercial Workers, the United Mine Workers, and the Teamsters.

Remember the GM bailout?  Obama screwed the GM bond holders.  He called them greedy.  Humiliated them for trying to keep their contract rights.  The Obama administration sent these ‘first in line’ in bankruptcy to the end of the line.  Even behind the UAW who had no investment in GM.  Obama gave the UAW free shares of stock just for being who they were; contributors to the Democrat Party.  When the company went public again, the UAW was able to reap a fortune on that stock gift and fund their poorly funded pension fund.  And now this.  More tax dollars gifted to them for being good Democrat Party contributors.  This time to pay for health care costs of early retirees.  Lovely. 

Privileged life is good.  Obama takes care of the privileged.  And all you have to do is vote for him.  And give him a piece of your union dues.

The Public Sector Grows, the Private Sector Shrinks

But this government generosity is getting out of control.  People see the gravy train.  And they’re getting on it (see We’ve Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers by Stephen Moore posted 4/1/2011 on The Wall Street Journal).

If you want to understand better why so many states—from New York to Wisconsin to California—are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.

It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local governments is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and benefits of state and local employees. Is it any wonder that so many states and cities cannot pay their bills?

The problem with this trend is that the government doesn’t pay for these government workers.  The taxpayers do.  The people with private sector jobs.  And as the public sector (i.e., government) grows, the smaller the private sector gets.  Which has to fund an even greater public sector by ever greater taxes.  But the more taxes we pay the more sacrifices we have to make.  Our lives grow more austere.  While the public sector lives a far more comfortable life than ours.  The government will be the first to condemn this income disparity when they can attack some corporation.  But it’s a different story when the well-to-do are their own people.  So they try to hide this wealth transfer.  Well, they try to hide it from the makers.  Not the takers.

Don’t expect a reversal of this trend anytime soon. Surveys of college graduates are finding that more and more of our top minds want to work for the government. Why? Because in recent years only government agencies have been hiring, and because the offer of near lifetime security is highly valued in these times of economic turbulence. When 23-year-olds aren’t willing to take career risks, we have a real problem on our hands. Sadly, we could end up with a generation of Americans who want to work at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Public sector workers will bitch and moan about their jobs.  How they can earn more in the private sector.  Of course, they never leave the public sector.  Because the pay and benefits in the private sector suck compared to what they get in the public sector.  And no one ever fires them or lays them off.  That’s why they don’t ever give up those jobs.  Even college graduates have learned this.  And to guarantee those sweet jobs you know they will become lifetime Democrat voters.

Over the period 1970-2005, school spending per pupil, adjusted for inflation, doubled, while standardized achievement test scores were flat. Over roughly that same time period, public-school employment doubled per student, according to a study by researchers at the University of Washington. That is what economists call negative productivity.

Why, then, is the answer to our educational woes always more spending?  Because there are a lot of teachers.  Who pay a lot of dues.  That go straight to the Democrat Party.  In exchange for more government spending on education.  Always for the children.  Yet the money never seems to make it to the classroom.  Based on the test scores.  But the money keeps flowing.  So the Democrat Party can always count on the teachers’ vote.

Most reasonable steps to restrain public-sector employment costs are smothered by the unions. Study after study has shown that states and cities could shave 20% to 40% off the cost of many services—fire fighting, public transportation, garbage collection, administrative functions, even prison operations—through competitive contracting to private providers. But unions have blocked many of those efforts. Public employees maintain that they are underpaid relative to equally qualified private-sector workers, yet they are deathly afraid of competitive bidding for government services.

So you could say these public sector workers are 20% to 40% overpaid, couldn’t you?  I mean, in the private sector, it’s the rare person who can demand 20% to 40% more than the going market salary or wage.  People just don’t choose to pay more.  Do you?  Do you hire a plumber whose rates are 20% to 40% higher than the going rate?  No, I doubt you do. I’ve even known union construction workers who hire nonunion workers to work at their house.  Because they, too, don’t want to pay more than they have to.  But public sector workers think they deserve this higher pay and benefits.  As does the federal government.  Who steps in to fight a governor (Scott Walker) who is trying to balance his state’s budget.  Why?  Because public sector workers are loyal Democrat voters.  And donors.  Via their automatically deducted union dues.

The Shining City upon a Hill to become Ordinary?

The national debt is growing out of control for a good reason.  Spending.  Now we’ve had spending in the past that was necessary.  But much of the spending in the last 2 years has had a higher purpose.  To fund the growing public sector.  And to buy loyal Democrat voters.  With the growth in entitlements consuming an ever larger part of the budget, that leaves little for the business of politics.  So they must borrow.  And borrow they do.  More than ever before.  They’ve added more in 2 years than George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan did in their 8-year terms.  And they’re begging Congress to raise the debt ceiling so they can keep on spending.

The future isn’t looking so bright.  Perhaps this marks the beginning of the end of American Exceptionalism.  The point on the historical timeline when we stopped being that shining city upon a hill.  When we became ordinary.  With our best days long behind us.  I hope not.  But it’s been done before.  Great civilizations have come and gone.  Done in by an ever growing public sector that bankrupts nations.  Even empires.  No one is immune.  Not even that shining city upon the hill.


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