S-A-F-E Letters
Letters 2012
SAFE members have written numerous letters and columns over the years, of which the following is a representative sampling (most recent first):
Editor, The News Journal
US can’t keep sweeping debt crisis under the rug
A recent letter calls the path of fiscal austerity “insane” in the European context and little better here. But who can say deficit spending of over $1 trillion per year is boosting economic output or creating jobs?
The 2009 stimulus package has not put the economy back on track. Where is the evidence for claims that things would be even worse without the stimulus? Experience suggests tax and spending cuts are more effective to stimulate the economy than spending increases, which makes sense because job creation takes place in the private sector.
With rising debt, lenders will start demanding higher interest rates. Consider what Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in February: “As we have seen in a number of [European] countries recently, interest rates can soar quickly if investors lose confidence in the ability of a government to manage its fiscal policy.”
[Should lenders feel confident in our government’s fiscal policy?] The president’s latest budget projects a $10 trillion increase in the national debt over the next decade (rising to $25.9 trillion by the end of 2022). And while the House of Representatives passed a budget framework deemed so radical that Senate Democrats plan to stonewall it, even the House budget indicates a continuing rise in spending and debt.
[In sum,] the fiscal problem is serious business, [and this country must stop brushing it under the rug.]
William Whipple III, Middletown
Words in brackets were deleted by the editors, making the letter hard to follow.
On the plus side, there is a clever political cartoon on the same page showing side-by-side panels of (A) Edward Munch’s painting “The Scream,” which was just sold at auction for a record amount (http://bit.ly/Ix2eiX) - caption “$120 million”; and (B) a jaws agape man staring at a piece of paper entitled US Debt – caption $15.7 trillion.
Editor, The News Journal
Acidification theory has been proven inaccurate
A recent letter tries to perpetuate climate alarmist theories about “ocean acidification” which have been disproved by real-world observations. Claims are made that ocean pH has changed from 8.2 to 8.1 because of CO2 emissions and global warming. This small change supposedly is causing dissolution of shells of shellfish, dying coral reefs, more jellyfish, and threats to the food chain base. All [these claims] have been found to be untrue.
Investigations show that ocean pH has not been constant in the past but has varied from at least 7.9 to 8.3, with changes up and down that do not correlate with CO2.
Shellfish have evolved to endure these changes and their shells do not dissolve. Corals have been growing faster, not dying. Investigations found no increase in jellyfish with more acidic conditions anywhere.
The base of the ocean food chain grows faster with warmer temperatures and more CO2 and is indifferent to the pH changes. Researchers introduced corals and other species to more acidic waters near a volcano expecting them to die but instead most grew faster.
The benefits of CO2 to plants and therefore to animals including people are universal and indisputable. Catastrophic predictions are speculations unsupported by scientific evidence. [All this information and much more is extensively documented at www.co2science.org.]
John E. Greer Jr., Wilmington
John Greer belongs to Climate Common Sense, a SAFE ally.
Editor, The News Journal
Carbon dioxide wrongly portrayed as harmful
Carbon dioxide (CO2), along with oxygen and water, is essential for life on earth. Yet, CO2 has been demonized, using skillful propaganda, backed up by output from arbitrary computer modes. It is falsely claimed that global warming will cause us harm, due to a rise in sea level. Not true.
A one-foot rise in a hundred years is not a problem. It is falsely claimed that emission of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels is a major cause of global warming. Evidence indicates that warming and cooling periods result from changing output from the sun.
So, what is the harm of the unjustified attack on CO2? The harm is the requirements forcing us to pay for energy from undependable sources. The harm is all the government subsidies of inferior energy sources.
Actually, this is more than wasteful. It is also harmful to the extent that it succeeds in limiting CO2 emissions. Plant life is more luxuriant with more CO2. It helps grow food fro the increasing population of the Earth. With more CO2, plants grow in drier soil – it is making the deserts bloom.
We all need to stop demonizing CO2 and embrace it for the good it does. We all need to admit – the more CO2 the better.
William E. Morris, Wilmington
Editor, The News Journal
Obama could help cut gas prices in long term
Rising gas prices threaten to slow or derail our fragile economic recovery. Most citizens can decide to drive less or postpone a vacation.
However, businesses that depend on trucks for shipping or deliveries or airlines will all be adversely affected by higher fuel prices. The president has done little if anything to reduce the price of oil.
Admittedly, few steps are available that could have an immediate effect. However, there are steps that would affect prices, longer term. He could expedite approval of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, allow the Keystone XL pipeline to proceed, open up more federal land for drilling, including ANWR, and stop the effort to restrict “fracking.”
The verbal assault on “subsidies” to the oil industry is inappropriate. First, equipment depreciation or oil depletion allowances are not “subsidies. Moreover, to stop these allowances would result in even higher prices at the pump.
Second, we provided “subsidies” to Brazil to expand their offshore drilling program. And we may or may not even buy crude oil from Brazil!
Third, we have poured money down the drain in an effort to create “green jobs.”
No net new jobs can be expected from this effort as Spain (over 20 percent unemployment) has learned the hard way. Let the free market work to pick winners and losers.
R. Jerry Martin, Wilmington
Editor, The News Journal
Obama, in particular, has ruined America
In September 2008, this paper printed a letter of mine spelling out 13 things we could expect if Barrack Obama were elected, such things as further erosion of our education system, more ignorance of economics, a federal government run like Chicago, the destruction of our healthcare system, huge spending increases, more “Hate America” rants, etc. Twelve predictions were on the money, big time.
The only thing that didn’t happen was “mandatory tire inflation inspections.” In 2008 Obama said if we all inflated our tires properly then our energy problem would be solved.
Now he is suggesting that “algae” would do the job of gassing our cars. So those in the suburbs should immediately begin digging backyard ponds to cultivate algae and then buy an “algae converter” to process it into fuel. Those in the city with no yards better just buy hiking boots. I’m certain Obama and his dupes in Congress and the bureaucracy will come up with tax credits for shovels.
Brain-dead Americans should remember that Richard Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment because he (get ready) – lied. Now we have a president who lies every days, hates and evades the Constitution, breaks the law with impunity, loves our enemies, hates our friends and constantly tells us, along with his mini-dictator czars, what we can and cannot do.
President Ronald Reagan once famously said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”
James A. Venema, Hockessin
SAFE’s goal of “smaller, more focused, less costly government” has take a heavy hit over the past four years, as this letter indicates. We take no position, however, on the political sentiments expressed.
Editor, Delaware State News
House budget deserves serious consideration
The House of Representatives rejected the president’s budget proposal 414-0, but that did not stop him from lashing out at the alternative budget crafted by Representative Paul Ryan et al. as “an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country.” Really?
Versus the president’s budget, the House budget would cut spending over the next decade by $5.3 trillion. A major tax increase would be avoided, and the 2022 debt level vs. Gross Domestic Product would be shaved by 14 percentage points. So far, so good!
Some say these results would be achieved through ruthless cuts to the social safety net, or as the president put it “social Darwinism,” but a review of the package suggests otherwise. Take the proposal to block grant Medicaid, index the state grants for inflation & population growth, and eliminate the overlay of federal requirements that make it well nigh impossible for states to run their low income healthcare plans effectively.
Ever more money is spent on Medicaid, straining both federal and state budgets, yet the quality of healthcare services provided is typically mediocre. And if the voters don’t like the cost and/or results, there is no elected official they can turn to – with the possible exception of the nation’s president – who has the authority to change things. This is not a sound management model, nor is it how democracy is supposed to work.
So while this and other aspects of the House budget should be scrutinized rather than accepted on faith, opponents should not be allowed to dismiss the plan simply because it does not suit their political agenda.
William Whipple III, Middletown
Editor, The News Journal
Alternative energy not necessarily efficient
Supporter of alternative energy, like wind and solar, believe it replaces an equal amount of reliable energy in the form of coal, nuclear or natural gas. They generally understand solar energy is not available at night and that wind turbines don’t provide energy when the wind doesn’t blow.
But, most don’t understand the consequences of intermittent energy and the difficulty it creates for PJM, the system operator in this region. System operators schedule arrivals and departures of electricity, which must be kept in precise balance or risk system failure. Based on experience, they know how much electricity is required to meet anticipated demand and plan supply accordingly. With reliable sources of energy this is relatively easy.
However, because there is currently no cost-effective utility scale storage solution to enable the dispatch of wind or solar energy, each unit of alternative energy must be backed-up by an equal unit of reliable energy.
This limitation means alternative energy does not add to overall system capacity value. Rather, it reduces the capacity value of the grid and lessens the ability to meet peak demand. Texas has the most installed wind capacity of any state, and during peak demand days power outages have occurred. As the percentage of alternative energy penetration increases, these outages will increase in frequency and severity.
Proponents of alternatives argue society must consume less, instead of building new reliable capacity. Thus, if demand is not voluntarily reduced, the consequence will be prioritized electricity delivery to protect the integrity of the grid. The result will be less electricity availability, more expensive electricity, and less prosperity for America.
John A. Nichols, Middletown
Editor. Delaware State News
Come to the rescue
When someone has spent the maximum possible on each of several credit cards, they have two choices. One is to change their way of living drastically, save money and pay what they owe. The other choice leads to bankruptcy, maybe losing a house, or even becoming homeless.
We have similar choices with our ridiculously high national debt. We must cut federal government spending drastically, and start paying down the debt. We must make significant sacrifices now, to avert much worse consequences later.
History tells us that the present policy of printing money and risking hyperinfla-tion can destroy the value of the US Dollar. What then? How do you feed your family? How do you cope with the breakdown of law and order?
One serious part of the problem is the behavior of state governments. They pander to desires of businesses and various organizations for government grants. Every dollar from the federal government is a dollar increase in the national debt.
We must stop rewarding our members of Congress for helping to get money from the federal government, and start rewarding them for their efforts to cut federal spending.
As for the individual states, their proper role now is clear. Rather than taking money from the federal government, they should be taking some of the load off the federal government. An important move in this direction is to take over responsibility for Medicaid.
This, of course, requires shrinking or elimination of state government programs. This may seem drastic, but we are in a dire situation. There should be no more bribery of businesses to move to your state. Instead, entice them by making it easier to do business in your state.
Taking control will allow individual states to do a better job without concern for rules dreamed up by federal bureaucrats.
Up to now, the individual states have been part of the problem. Please - come to the rescue. Become part of the solution.
William E. Morris, Wilmington, Del.
Editor, Oil & Gas Journal
Unaffordable waste
In the article, “US production of refined products entering new era,”Ben Montalbano points out that changes in the tax code and the adoption of biofuel mandates are costly. (GJ, Mar. 5, 2012, p.86) This is a waste we cannot afford when we need to cut spending to avoid a financial catastrophe.
Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" was an important factor in starting us down this road. It is full of misleading propaganda. One example is a set of graphs of temperature and CO2 concentration for the last 600,000 years. The graphs are very similar, and Gore states: "When there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature increases because more heat from the sun is trapped inside." However, close studies of the data show that the CO2 changes follow the temperature changes by about 700 years. Therefore, CO2 changes cannot have caused the temperature changes. Instead, temperature changes caused the CO2 changes.
Most of the CO2 on Earth is dissolved in the ocean. As temperature increases, the solubility of CO2 in the ocean decreases, and CO2 is emitted. As temperature decreases, the solubility of CO2 in the ocean increases and CO2 is dissolved, going from the atmosphere into the ocean. Changes in temperature on Earth are probably caused primarily by changes in the output of the sun.
The cost of using expensive, undependable energy sources is entirely wasted. Even worse, if these measures were to succeed in limiting the amount of CO2 emitted, there would be an additional cost because of the beneficial effect of CO2. The rise in CO2 concentration has increased plant growth, which is beneficial in feeding the Earth's growing population.
Meanwhile, until more people catch up with the facts, the petroleum industry will have to cope with counterproductive regulations.
William E. Morris, Wilmington, Del.
Editor, The News Journal
Rising CO2 levels have benefitted plants
The recent warm weather was given front page coverage. Widespread concern was expressed that a frost may follow this unusually early warm period. The author uses the term “human-caused pollution emissions,” which undoubtedly refers to carbon dioxide, which is a benign gas, necessary for life on Earth as we know it, along with oxygen and water. The EPA, which long ago put political motives ahead of real environmental protection, has called CO2 a pollutant. How ridiculous.
The increase in CO2 atmospheric concentration from about 300 to 400 parts per million has been very beneficial to plant life on the planet, and has without question helped millions of us to avoid starvation.
Jose R. Alvarez, Wilmington
Editor, The News Journal
Federal redlining rule led to housing crisis
Former Sen. Ted Kaufman’s column several weeks ago again demonstrated an interesting phenomenon. The ability of intelligent, well-educated (in Sen. Kaufman’s case, an MBA from Wharton) person to fall victim to their ideological beliefs rather than their rational thoughts.
He puts blame for the housing fiasco on the banking industry. He knows better; he had a front row seat at the beginning of the bubble. He knows it began when Congress began punitive action against prudent bankers for “redlining” portions of their market area, indicating that loans in those areas were not sound investments.
As a consequence of government coercion, banks began making loans – now called sub-prime – within the red lines, but because they were bad loans, the banks did not want to continue to own the mortgage. They packaged these loans – securitized them – into securities and sold them to investors.
The banks got those bad loans out of their portfolios. Why did investors and other parts of the banking industry buy those bad loans?
Through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the loans were implicitly guaranteed by the US government, i.e., the American taxpayer. The housing crisis is a government-induced crisis.
The banking industry may be guilty of knowingly facilitating bad government policy, but in the beginning, it was government coercion that began the process. Sen. Kaufman seems to have overlooked this history in his efforts to pin the blame on Wall Street.
James R. Thomen, Wilmington
Editor, The News Journal
Charter boasts high achievement standards
The state’s own statistics explain why Newark Charter School families want a high school.
In 2010, over 95 percent of NCS eighth graders met or exceeded the state’s reading standard, and 29 percent scored at the highest level.. Over 95 percent of eighth graders met or exceeded the math standard, and 61 percent scored at the highest level. In science, 68 percent scored at the highest level. Student demographics played a role in these numbers, but a rigorous curriculum and excellent teachers played a much bigger one.
By contrast, only 68 percent of Christina School District eighth graders met or exceeded the reading standard, 32 percent were below it. Less than 5 percent reached the highest level.
In math, 58 percent of the CSD’s eighth graders met or exceeded the state standards, and 42 percent did not. The district’s troubling patterns continue in its high schools. In reading, 51 percent of ninth graders met or exceeded the standard, 49 percent did not. In math, 41 percent met or exceeded the standard, and 60 percent were below it.
Given Newark Charter’s impressive record, how could anyone argue against replicating that success in high school?
Phil Mink, Newark
Editor, The News Journal
Congressman deluded by “feel-good” politics
The March 2 op-ed by Delaware’s three congressmen, about supporting the poultry industry, is proof they are still deluded by party line “wishful thinking” as they continue to tell us that “[c]ellulosic biofuels will replace corn-based ethanol.
The reality is that, after decades of expensive taxpayer-funded subsidies, no researcher has succeeded in developing a cellulose-derived fuel that is even close in cost and usefulness to petroleum-based gasoline.
Our federal representatives should not imitate their compatriots in Dover who, following the “feel-good” party line, voted to allow a California company to build in Newark, after deciding to declare “Bloom Boxes” as “green power” generators, despite their required use of a “fossil fuel” (natural gas). Both examples are proof that our representatives are more motivated by politics than [by] science or economics-based facts.
William Day, Newark
See also: http://www.s-a-f-e.org/delaware_chatter.htm (3/2/12, A15)
Editor, Delaware State News
CO2 is a good gas
In writing about climate change, some people mix two questions when they are separate: “Is it getting warmer?” and “Is carbon dioxide (CO2) a major cause of global warming?”
As a skeptic, I say: “Yes, it is getting warmer as we recover from the Little Ice Age.” Within the warming trend, there are periods with no warming and periods with significant warming. These shorter-term trends are correlated with the activity of the Sun. Thus, the warming itself indicates that the Sun is a major factor in climate change.
There is a lot of evidence that CO2 is not a significant factor in global warming, including the fact that its greenhouse effect becomes less and less at greater concentrations. The first 10 percent of the present CO2 level exerts most of the greenhouse effect that CO2 can exert. At the present level, additional CO2 has very little greenhouse effect. Almost all the greenhouse effect is exerted by water vapor, which is affected by the activity of the Sun.
So, CO2 is not a bad gas. Actually, it is a very good gas. The increase in CO2 concentration has increased growth of plants. It helps plants survive unfavorable conditions, causing the greening of deserts. It helps feed our growing population.
Current regulations requiring the use of expensive, undependable forms of energy production to decrease the emission of CO2 are actually counterproductive. I hope that eventually, regulators will recognize that fact. The sooner the better.
William E. Morris, Wilmington
Editor, The News Journal
Some sacrifices needed to avoid hyperinflation
There is an elephant in your living room. Arithmetic tells us that the stated US debt of $15 trillion is equal to $130,000 per taxpayer. If you can pay that, here is something that the government left out - the unfunded liabilities. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and prescription drugs.
What will be done now? There are two possibilities. Entitlements must be scaled back and/or we must have severe inflation so that the debt can be repaid in cheap dollars. As if that’s not enough, we are in danger of hyperinflation.
At some unknowable point, as inflation gets worse, people decide to dump their money in favor of anything tangible. This happened in several countries, including Germany after World War I, and Germans said that it was worse than the war.
Is it possible to avoid hyperinflation? I believe it is possible if enough Americans become willing to accept some voluntary sacrifices now, in order to avoid much greater involuntary sacrifices later. If we get over that hurdle, there are plenty of ideas on how to attack the problem.
William E. Morris, Wilmington
Editor The News Journal
Leaders could reduce deficit with two steps
The Congressional Budget Office projects a $1.1 trillion deficit for the current fiscal year. Similar-size deficits are projected in coming years. A Wednesday article said “it’s commonly assumed” that little will be done on the deficit issue this year.
Will all of this deficit spending “jump start” the economy? The CBO report projects continuing economic weakness. Thus, the unemployment rate is projected as above 8% in 2012 and 2013 and not declining to 7% until the end of 2015.
Granted this is an election year, as is every even-numbered year in our calendar, but the nation’s political leaders didn’t get anything much done in 2011 so maybe they should make up for lost time by taking two steps:
First, approve a budget for fiscal year 2013 well before Oct. 1. Not only is such a budget called for by Congress’s own rules, but the discipline involved might prod some constructive thinking about wasteful programs and activities that can be eliminated.
Second, instead of arguing about whether millionaires are paying “their fair share” (a meaningless question in the abstract), it is time to overhaul the tax system from stem to stern. The goal would be to slash tax rates, eliminate most tax preferences, and collect at least as much revenue as is being collected now with a lot less economic damage.
Some may say this represents wishful thinking. I would ask what’s holding us back?
William Whipple III, Middletown
NOTE: This letter is adapted from a 4-point plan SAFE sent to the members of Congress on 2/1/12. http://bit.ly/wcMHT8
Editor, The News Journal
Union, feds’ involvement stunting schools’ growth
First, let me commend Marvin Schoenhals of Vision 2015 for taking on the massive and largely thankless task of trying to makes something of our public schools.
When I spoke with him briefly about it several years ago I simply said, “Good luck.” We have had numerous and costly “reforms” over the past several decades, and with the exception of some charter schools, with little or no return on investment. Costs (taxes) keep going up while achievement remains static or declines. We are one of the highest cost-per-student states, yet we rank close to the bottom in achievement.
Schoenhals faces three major obstacles before getting down to the parent-child level. First is the Department of Education, a vast and useless bureaucracy that loads our schools with useless bureaucracy, mandates and, yes, indoctrination – all for, you guessed it, more taxpayer money, now disguised as “federal funds.”
Next is the teachers’ union, designed and run for the benefit of teachers by definition. Where are the student and taxpayer unions? Schoenhals was correct in comparing this union to others that deal with the “factory floor.” Where is the incentive for members to excel, to stand out, to overachieve? How do we differentiate between lousy and good, or excellent, teachers?
Third, Schoenhals says the legislature must create a “more flexible” system of funding schools. Like others, is he suggesting getting rid of taxpayer referenda and allowing Dover to determine everything? Bad idea, since most of those in Dover have been at least partly bought and paid for by – you guessed it – the teachers’ union. So, once Schoenhals gets the feds out of our schools, is able to reform or remove teachers’ unions, and can get union money out of election campaigns – well, “Good luck.”
James A. Venema, Hockessin
See Delaware Chatter, 1/10/12, for further discussion of Mr. Schoenhals’s column.
Editor, The News Journal
Climate has changed over thousands of years
A letter writer is certain that “Climate Change” is caused by the tiny amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, because he has been convinced by politicians (Ted Kaufman), politically correct professional societies (many of whose members are dependent on large government grants), and biased media articles.
Meanwhile, he has obviously failed to consider abundant historical evidence that “climate” has fluctuated many times over the eons, and has been warming slowly since 1800, long before power plants and motor vehicles, and the thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles that disagree (http://www.climatechangereconsidered.org/) with the hypothesis that humans and fossil fuels are responsible.
William Day, Newark