Parker County Blog

Where  Has  Common  Sense  Gone?

By

Thomas  Paine

INTRODUCTION

Tax day is April fifteenth.  The citizens of Weatherford, Texas decided to hold a Tea Party, representative of the earlier one in Boston harbor, to protest unreasonable tax burdens. I attended that party and was struck by the number of ordinary citizens who were there. I saw no evidence of any supremacy group representation. I saw little attendance by the very young or by curiosity seekers. What I saw was a broad cross spectrum of Middle Americans of clearly differing ethnic backgrounds. As I contemplated what was motivating this assemblage I started to realize it was not merely a show of discontent for the tax and spend policies of the administration presently resident in Washington, D.C.  Clearly the excesses of tax and spend activity advocated by the present administration is a significant contributing factor to this present upwelling of citizen anger toward big government, but the root cause is the understanding that for a very long time the government has worked against the best interest of the majority of Americans and is now proposing to dramatically accelerate that process. This situation holds true well beyond the Federal level of government.

I talked to a few people I know and again was struck by their desire to have a more responsible government, even though there was no clear majority opinion of how that could be brought about or how to judge the progress to that end.. People have been conditioned to look for more and different ways that the government can do things for them. This is an incorrect and grossly ineffective approach. Complex problems and situations seldom have simple solutions. Often the best solution is a complete departure from what is not working. This solution does not advocate anarchy. It merely asks government to do what it was originally intended to do and not one thing more. Government must remember that its sole purpose for being is to serve the people, not control and direct them. The astounding array of give-away, take-away, special interest subsidies and special interest punishments has spun completely out of control as witnessed by a tax code that is rapidly approaching 40,000 pages in length. The role of a taxation system is to raise revenue; social policy must be approached and delivered in a much different manner than it is today. There is every possibility that the tax code could be reduced to a “mere”400-500 pages that would be comprehensible to tax paying Americans. It only requires a total repeal of the old statues and substitution of new well considered ones.

This and subsequent essays are intended to help ordinary citizens understand what a burden our government has become on the lives of citizens and also provide some insight into the needed changes elected officials should be held accountable for undertaking

WHERE  HAS  COMMON  SENSE  GONE?

(Holding Government to the Appropriate Standards)

No. 1

Thomas Paine – April 2009

Our Federal Government has certain important and defined functions. To support those functions it must raise revenue. All citizens understand and accept this fact. Government can and should tax income and consumption. Government should not tax anything else whatsoever. Every dollar of income should attract some tax, under a modestly graduated tax that is reasonable and that is not changed dramatically or often without exceedingly good reason. All subsidies, without exception, must be eliminated.  Government must stop looking at activity but instead look at results. A limited number of transfer payments are acceptable: social security and veterans benefits being prime examples.  The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has asked the congress to provide metrics which will support and verify the actual economic results derived from government programs. Congress has refused and not even one of the programs O.M.B. verified as ineffective has been cancelled.  By way of example it was demonstrated that only 15% of the jobs programs designed by the government was providing any benefit whatsoever. The programs do however provide employment for an army of civil servants. Government absolutely must start looking at results instead of at activity. There can be no sacred cows allowed to exist that do not economically pay their own way through the quantifiable benefits derived from their actions.

Government’s job is not to provide employment for civil servants but to provide necessary and useful services to its citizens, and it should be buying those services from the best and most cost effective provider. In short, government should lay off significant numbers of staff and shift the work to the private sector. The cost effectiveness gained would allow even more employment with a dramatic increase in work effort and productive results.

The original Thomas Paine understood the use of common sense when railing against the excesses George III had inflicted on his own citizens. George III was an example of arrogance combined with ignorance and power, a truly lethal and disruptive combination. Paine said government needs to remedy the defect of man’s mortal virtue, not help supply it. Today Thomas Paine would likely change the title of his thought provoking paper to:

“Where Has Common Sense Gone?-A.D. 2009”.

(An indictment against big government)

Government must not do the things government should not do. Government must not do things that do not work………

A classis example is the Washington, D.C. Public School System (remember, the Federal Government is solely responsible for and to the citizens of the District of Columbia). Washington public schools are among the very worst performers in the nation by their own admission. A pilot program was started to introduce an education voucher system into the district in order that parents could economically seek a better education for their children. The resulting increase in student achievement exceeded even the most optimistic expectations of the system managers.

What did the government do? Government did away with the voucher program.  When something works the government cuts its funding. If it doesn’t work the government throws more money at it. WHERE HAS COMMON SENSE GONE?

America’s primary and secondary public education system does not much harm those students with greatest ability but it certainly insures that a large number of students will remain at a level without skills necessary to participate effectively in society. This abomination must be stopped and stopped now! Governments subsidize inefficiency. Subsidies create dependencies and eliminate innovation. Any responsible person recognizes that the strongest component of American prosperity and success has been our national characteristic to innovate, create and take risks. This characteristic is being systematically erased from our psyche by big government.

Thomas Paine surely would have asked the government……

What have you done to private citizen property rights?  Why have you usurped instead of protected them? Why have you not codified them in a systematic and responsible way? Why are property rights being decided on an ad hoc basis by individuals who do not necessarily have any special expertise in the area where they operate, but instead are granted much authority just because they met the qualifications of being on a ballot and got elected by individuals with even less understanding of the area they are expected to operate in.  WHERE HAS COMMON SENSE GONE?

What works? Do you know? Do you even know what you are doing? Do you have any idea what you should be doing?  Why do you duplicate so many of the activities of the private sector but do them so poorly?  WHERE HAS COMMON SENSE GONE?

Paine would go on to say………

The question on the floor is…..Why is a particular policy not working?  What public benefit has actually arisen from activity in this area?

The list could go on and on but I believe the point has been made….We must start using our common sense regularly and insist that the government does likewise.  How do we achieve these ends? First we recognize both major political parties have been responsible for our present state of affairs. It does no good to debate by which measure one or the other is most responsible. They need to hear the people’s message in such clear and unambiguous terms that even a government out of touch with reality cannot help but understand the message.  I cannot speak for others but I gladly present my position for others to contemplate.

The answer is at the ballot box. It has taken a long time to reduce the effectiveness of government to its present state. It will likely take at least some time to rectify the situation. Even so, this is not sufficient reason to delay starting the process now! Therefore I share my views of the way I intend to contribute to the process.

I urge each of you to do likewise if you truly believe in liberty and freedom from excessive government intrusion into your life.

I will profess allegiance to no political party. I will make every effort to elect individuals who will install and follow without exception the common sense principals previously referenced. I care not what their ethnic background or political stripe is. I care only that they will systematically help dismantle the non-responsive elements of big government at every level and return our country, state or community to a sound financial basis, while minimizing intrusions into the lives of the citizens. I will do this without exception, and I will try to help educate others so that they may clearly understand how to correctly judge the actions and results of their elected officials.

T.P. (2009)

WHERE  HAS  COMMON  SENSE  GONE?

(Holding Government to the Appropriate Standards)

No. 2

Thomas Paine – April 2009

Essay No. 1 noted the need to eliminate all subsidies. Subsidies seldom achieve the intended objective and very often do much unintended damage to other elements of the economy. At the very least they create dependencies that are self-perpetuating and costly to the taxpayer. Who among you can recall the elimination of a subsidy? Even worse who among you can remember a subsidy that achieved its stated goal without causing significant unforeseen consequences?  Who remembers the corn to ethanol subsidy?

Hardly had I time to put down my pen from writing Essay No. 1 than another new subsidy was announced in the local newspaper.

April 22, 2009, a front page story in the Weatherford Democrat announced: Senate Passes Solar Incentive Bill.  The vote in the Texas State senate was 26 for and 4 against.  Environmentalists hailed the bill as a big step toward a greener future for Texas.

How could any elected official vote against this bill unless they wanted Texas to remain brown and never achieve green status?  Surely every responsible person wants to shepherd the environment and promote conservation when it is approached in an appropriate manner. The expanded use of solar power is certainly positive so long as those citizens least likely to derive advantage from it are not penalized in some manner.

We should recall that four senators did vote against this bill and I submit to you that they are likely the only four who actually thought about what this bill would do and would not do. We should remember them so we can reward them at the ballot box when they next seek to retain their elective office.

We start our consideration of the actual manifestations of the bill by seeing what the bill’s sponsor said.  Senator Troy Frasier [R] Horseshoe Bay said that while the funds for this direct subsidy to homeowners would come from a tax levied on every user of electricity in Texas, this would be a small price to pay for the thousands of dollars Texans might collect in rebates from federal tax incentives and lower electric bills.  REALLY? Frasier’s bill is designed to collect over 100 million dollars annually from Texans and Texas businesses.

No one will be immune from this additional tax on their use of electricity no matter how burdensome their electric power payments now are. Frasier’s bill also REQUIRES developers to offer solar as an option in any development of 50 homes or more.

What is wrong with this approach?

The answer is plenty!  It perfectly typifies more and more government intrusion into every citizen’s freedom and liberty. Firstly it seems suspiciously like the bill was embraced by politicians who were more concerned with not appearing to be green in the eyes of extreme environmentalists than they were about confirming they are tax and spend politicians. After all tax and spend has been going on for years, we should all be used to it and accept it by now.  Why should a politician running for reelection ever vote against such an earth saving plan?  The trouble is this logic is flawed and private citizens have finally become fed up with tax and spend without accountability on the part of the government. The citizens have now reached the point that they intend to start electing officials who will demonstrate well considered responsibility to the taxpayer. I am certain as I sit here that, with the possible exception of the four “Nay!” votes, not one politician voting on this bill did sufficient review and analysis to determine whether or not the taxpayer money would be utilized in a way that could be economically justified. After all, aren’t appearances better than substance?  Not when it is the citizens paying for the purely political appearances of politicians. Those politicians in tune with the will of the citizens are the ones who voted against this measure. It is important we remember them and reward them with our votes.

The persons who can expect to receive some direct benefit from this bill are almost certainly those persons who currently are relatively immune from the tough economic times the average citizen is facing.  They are persons who DO NOT need a subsidy to help them make a solar decision if indeed it is beneficial to them. They are the owners of generally upscale homes without an underwater mortgage. They are fortunate and we applaud them, but their solar decisions should be based on free markets and not government caprices and interventions. All the rest of the citizens either live in apartments, or have little likelihood of reaching a point at which solar is attractive to them personally from an economic standpoint. Never mind, we will tax them anyhow! They must not be allowed to stand in the way of green progress even if that progress cannot be economically justified without a large measure of overlapping subsidies and credits.  One should ask….. Did these other subsidies come from some other unnamed tax source? You bet they did! The tax credits and tax abatements will be recovered through other taxes on even more people.

Therefore is this proposed bill really as effective as is being presented? Almost certainly not!

WHERE HAS COMMON SENSE GONE?

The time to elect representatives who display a large measure of common sense is now!

Vote for substance not appearances the next time you vote.

T.P. (2009)

WHERE  HAS  COMMON  SENSE  GONE?

(How Manipulating the Tax Code Promotes Bad Government)

No. 3

Thomas Paine – May  2009

Essay No. 2 shed light on an attempt to promote solar energy by once again using a rightfully popular concept to distort logic and perpetuate a tax and spend mentality which is so aptly demonstrated by our elected officials.

Was there not a wise American, who when discussing the political arena said …..

“Here they go again!” or something very similar?   Well here they go again……

The Weatherford Democrat on May 5, 2009 made legislation pertaining to Texas House Bill 469 the front page headline. This bill relates to coal fired generation facilities and a way to reduce the amount of free carbon dioxide they emit when operating.

Texas House Bill 469 appears to have all of the necessary ingredients to provide something useful and cost effective for the State, and it is surely as green as grass. The same color as your money which will go into supporting the activity this bill references. Perhaps we should look at it a bit closer. After all, we have already discussed the basic requirement for our politicians….. get elected!  Far too many of them are either unwilling or inept when it comes to providing the critical thinking required as a prerequisite for important decision making.  HB 469 is a good example.

The proposed legislation would seem to embrace all of the necessary components to be regarded as a useful contribution to the greening of Texas.  It has been carefully drafted to respect other existing legislation and in fact draws on that legislation for support and functionality.  What it does not tell us is that some of the existing legislation being cited as a contributing reference is bad legislation. Was this fact considered or did the HB 469 drafters merely check to ensure that supporting references were accurate and reasonably complete?  Never-the-less the purpose of this essay is to discuss HB 469, not previous legislation which is voluminous.

Upon reading the draft which is proposed to take effect on September 1, 2009, a few examples of legislation designed by legislators to please lobbyists, while appearing green, become apparent. Tax and spend is rampant. The actual taxing is applied to someone other than the facility owner. The facility operators get a tax credit, and even then if they cannot use it all (since they have significant other tax reduction incentives) they are free to sell it to someone else. Good job, we certainly would never want a tax credit to go unused!

“The generating facility must be capable of capturing and sequestering in a geologic formation at least 60 percent of the carbon dioxide resulting from the generation of electricity.” I believe capable is the operative word!  What about the carbon dioxide resulting from ancillary activity which is necessary but which does not directly generate electricity? The amount of additional carbon dioxide created by ancillary activity could be substantial.

Never mind. The important thing is 60 percent of the carbon dioxide created directly by generation could be sequestered. “After sequestering, the carbon dioxide must remain in the formation for at least 500 years.” Bravo! This shows some serious intent. But wait! It is only necessary to have 60 percent of the sequestered carbon dioxide remain in the formation. Let’s see….60 percent of 60 percent is only 36 percent. Oh well, we can hope this percentage is exceeded even though it is only necessary for the generating facility to meet the minimum required standard. This is good because we are not sure how much additional carbon dioxide will be produced by ancillary operations. We can be pretty sure it is less than 36 percent, therefore ensuring a net positive reduction in carbon dioxide produced by the electric generating facility.

But wait….the generating facility will not be the entity actually utilizing the sequestered carbon dioxide.  The carbon dioxide will be handed over to oil and gas producing companies that will utilize it to pressure hydrocarbon bearing formations which have neared the end of their producing ability as a result of formation pressure drop.

One might ask….. “If pressuring the formation is all that is necessary for more oil production, why haven’t the producing companies just used air which is free for the taking and readily available?”  There is a good reason why they have not done this. Air does not form a solution with petroleum liquids nearly so well as carbon dioxide does. The formation will produce more hydrocarbons as a result of the increased pressure of carbon dioxide in solution. This also guarantees the produced liquids, and gas for that matter, will contain very much more carbon dioxide than they otherwise would have done. Is this where the missing 40 percent of the total amount of carbon dioxide being sequestered has gone?

Now who is responsible for the carbon dioxide once it is removed from the oil and gas? Where might it go next? If it is re-injected into the formation after recovery from the produced hydrocarbons then why will there be a continuing need for more carbon dioxide from the generating plants as the legislation presumes?  Was there any analysis done that indicates a need for anywhere near 60 percent of the carbon dioxide produced by the electric generating plants? By the way, how much more carbon dioxide will this additional compression and injection create?  What happens if the hydrocarbon producers become sufficiently saturated with carbon dioxide and cannot effectively utilize the amounts being produced? Is this another opportunity for the word “could” to come into play?

Will government expand to provide the necessary oversight or will the government rely on the regulatory honor system, of the Texas Railroad Commission which is now much used and often abused?  Will government expand the already punitive eminent domain provisions to allow additional pipelines for the transport of this corrosive carbon dioxide from the electric generating plants to the injection points? Can ANY of these questions be answered before the September first activation date for the legislation? Very likely not!  This proposed legislation is a fine example of lawmakers run amok!

WHERE HAS COMMON SENSE GONE?

Once again the government has distorted the picture to create the impression that something important is happening. The increased production of oil and gas by a state and nation that is in a deficit position is absolutely a worthy concept. So is the reduction of free carbon dioxide; however, to use this concept as a supporting argument for passing bad legislation that will increase the tax burden of the citizens with little verifiable positive carbon dioxide reduction is bad government, and another example of the abuses fostered by a system of seemingly unlimited tax manipulation by special interests and their government facilitators. When is government going to demonstrate some ability to actually cut spending and reduce staffing? The citizens want that time to be now!!

T.P. (2009)