Constant Conservative

I don’t much like to borrow things. The whole “giving back” piece of borrowing usually causes me to pause. If I need to give something back with substantial interest, I find that I am increasingly likely to forgo the transaction altogether. Of course, in our culture today, we see borrowing to be as much of a right as, well, health care. It is with this in mind that I read in the WSJ about some people who are bemoaning their inability to get loans for unusual homes:

To pay for [their home made of bales of tires], the Hagars in 2007 took out a $240,000 line of credit from Red Rocks Credit Union in suburban Denver. In the old days of easier credit, appraiser Lori Slota couldn’t find another tire-bale home that had recently sold but said the house would be valued at $500,000 when complete, citing the listing of a straw-bale home as well as other houses in the area.

Last year, with the home finally finished and interest rates at record lows, the Hagars started trying to refinance into a long-term, fixed-rate mortgage. But in February 2009, they got the bad news from loan officer Bill Schimel, who wrote in an email, “I think we have really hit a brick wall here.”

So far as anyone can tell, no home made from tire bales has sold recently in the state of Colorado. Lenders have been telling the Hagars they can’t value the property and won’t give them a regular mortgage.

Elsewhere in the article another person expresses the frustration of being “at the mercy of the mortgage companies.”

Did you know there was a time when a home mortgage in this country was not the rule? In fact, if one goes back roughly 100 years, one finds that a mortgage often required as much as 50% up front for as little as a 5-year term. Imagine doing a loan like that today for a $175,000 mortgage.

Then, after a lot of mortgages were called in during the early days of the Great Depression, FDR started up the Federal Housing Administration to back the loans–so the banks themselves didn’t really carry the risk. Oh, and the FHA (if I remember correctly) established the 30-year loan to make the payments affordable. Generational indebtedness is now the norm. As a complete aside, I wonder how the stress and pressure of such large levels of debt which many carry affects overall health?

Now, we  have people like those mentioned in the article who believe they have the right to a mortgage–even though the market is unable to easily determine just what the risks would be on those loans. I am personally familiar with some of these issues, having laid out plans for a silo home with a beautiful winding staircase going up four floors. Alas, my wife exercised her veto on the plans.

That aside, do people really believe that it is possible to be protected from engaging in all types of risky behavior? And not only possible, but that it is the responsibility of a banking institution to protect them upon request? It is all well and good to create homes from non-standard materials, but the principle of personal responsibility says that if you wish to build a home from tires, or beer cans, or silo staves–or anything else which comes to mind–then it is up to you to pay for it. After all, it’s your home, isn’t it?

Leaving aside the legal question (“Does the federal government have the constitutional basis for absorbing the health care system?”) and the moral question (“Whose responsibility to care for one’s neighbor is it anyway?”) we come to the question of cost. The question we must ask is “Are the direct costs of health care reform legislation being accurately portrayed by its supporters?”

We have been told by the President, et al that the bill(s) currently being discussed will cost only $940 billion over ten years. That is not an inconsiderable amount of money. But it would seem that the figure is wrong:

The CBO projects that over the next four years, less than two percent of the bill’s alleged “ten year” costs would hit:  just $17 billion of the $940 billion in costs that the Democrats are claiming.  In fact, the costs through President Obama’s entire presidency, should he be reelected, would be $336 billion.  What would the president leave behind for his successor?  According to the CBO, he would leave behind costs of $837 billion during his successor’s first term alone.  If his successor were to serve a second term, he or she would inherit a cool $2.0 trillion in Obamacare costs — about six times its costs during Obama’s own tenure.  This legislation is a ticking time-bomb.

To see the bill’s true first-decade costs, we need to start the clock when the costs would actually start in any meaningful way: in 2014.  The CBO says that Obamacare would cost $2.0 trillion in the bill’s real first decade (from 2014 to 2023) — and much more in the decades to come.

But $2.0 trillion wouldn’t be the total ten-year costs.  Instead, that would merely be the “gross cost of coverage provisions.”  Based on earlier incarnations of the proposed overhaul, the total costs would be about a third higher (the exact number can’t be gleaned from the CBO’s analysis, which is only preliminary and is not a full scoring) — making the total price-tag between $2.5 and $3 trillion over the bill’s real first decade.

Do you know what $3 trillion dollars is? That is $10,000 per every person in the US over the first 10 years (assuming a population of 300 million). In other words, $1,000 per person per year. Of course, a good number of those people will not actually contribute any tax revenues, so they will need to be covered by those who do. That would be those of us who have jobs, making the per person cost for us a multiple of that 1K per year. “But,” you say “a thousand bucks a year for health care coverage is a bargain.” Right. Except this law will not provide “free” health care for everyone–the cost estimate is a measure of what it will cost the government (that is the taxpayers) directly. Most of us will still have all the costs we incur today, plus the additional taxes to make it work for everyone else.

Then, of course, one has to consider that no large (and most small) government programs has ever cost less than projected and that Medicare and Social Security have historically cost many times what was originally projected. Government programs have no incentive to come in on budget and every incentive to keep expanding to fill the open space of the known universe.

Bottom line? If the Senate and House (and the President) were honest about the bottom line, they would not be able to get this passed into law. Unfortunately, honesty on this issue seems to have gone the way of the dodo.

Yet another person who is touting wind power as South Dakota’s future while failing to get the basics:

[]Doug Sombke says South Dakota is known as the “Saudi Arabia” of wind for its wind energy potential.[]

I wouldn’t say it is known as that. Rather, it has been called that–as has every other Great Plains state as well as the whole region and other states here and there. Does the wind blow here? Yes, just like it does in a number of other places.

[]But investing in wind power is difficult right now because it’s expensive to transmit and hold it.[]

Transmission and storage of power is always expensive. It has been for a long time. It will continue to be. This is not an issue which is unique to wind-generated power but rather one which is inextricably tied to electricity, however it may be generated.

[]It’s a struggle Sombke compares to projects like the interstate highway and hydro–electric dams. Opponents had said the country couldn’t afford them but they happened anyway.[]

To say that something was considered too expensive but that it was purchased anyway is hardly a positive statement. Looking at the examples given, however, we find that the interstate highway system has paid for itself many times over. One could say that the highway system has been the single largest expediter of the increase in commerce among the several states.

Hydro-electric dams, on the other hand, have been a bit of a mixed bag. Unlike highways, one cannot replace a bit of one at a time and their replacement costs are insanely large.

That aside, wind power (unlike hydro power) is incredibly inconsistent. Therefore, it is unreliable. This in itself creates enormous issues with the grid–as noted by our English cousins.

If supporters of wind power wish to convince the general population that this is indeed the next big thing for South Dakota, there are a few things which could be done:

1. Be honest about the weaknesses of wind power. Any power source has weaknesses, whether that source be nuclear, hydro, coal, wind, sun, etc. Don’t treat us as fools and tell us wind power has no substantive downsides.
2. Show us, don’t tell us, that it is financially feasible. Point out particular windfarm installations which have paid back more than their installation + maintenance costs over a reasonable investment period (10, 20 years).
3. Do not talk about upcoming breakthroughs in the technology and how that is going to make everything work if we can just wait a bit longer.

And finally, and this is enormously important, do not say things like:

[]“Agriculture can actually be a financial benefactor of the right kind of climate legislation if it comes with renewable energy incentives,” Johnson said.[]

How many of you think that agriculture needs to finance “the right kind of climate legislation” to get more subsidies? That’s what Mr. Johnson is saying here. Here’s hoping he doesn’t know what “benefactor” means and what he was really trying to say was that agriculture is happy to get more subsidies if that’s part of a climate change bill.

Either way, it’s not the sort of statement which appeals to anyone outside of the wind power industry. It is most assuredly not a reason to support a commerce-crippling cap and trade bill based on crumbling climate science.

Dr. Melissa Clouthier nails it:

[]Every shred of energy needs to be expended to prevent this disaster from starting. Those who suggest it can be repealed need to think of a drug user. Heroin is extraordinarily addictive. Stopping a person after the first hit, is nigh to impossible. After the third? Forget it.

Those who suggest repealing this bill, will be asking heroin addicts across the country to take themselves off the drug. That’s what government entitlements are: Societal Drugs. They hook a person, and he doesn’t even know he’s dying until it’s too late and his freedom is gone.

Better to hide the drugs and destroy them forever, than to allow a person one hit. This health care bill MUST be stopped now or there will be no stopping it later.[]

Amen.

When it comes to passing bills, Congress is to get permission first–not forgiveness (or apathy) later. Otherwise, our various representatives aren’t representing, are they?

If the original GW had wanted an aristocracy, he could have had one–forget that–he could have been king. That’s not how things turned out. We have a responsibility to ensure that we maintain as much of our republic as we are able. Defeating the health care takeover is one of the ways we can ensure that a legacy of freedom, personal responsibility and love for law continues into our still-young-century.

‘Tis the season where we take up, once again, the question of the South Dakota State Fair. Huronians and those in the nearby areas are certain that it should continue to be funded by the state. Others are not so certain. The Huron Plainsman has a fairly detailed article on the matter:

[]South Dakota legislators are heading into the last five days of the main run of the session preparing for yet another familiar fight – the state budget.

And once again, District 22 lawmakers are finding themselves seeking allies to defend funding for the State Fair. After about $380,000 was sliced from the appropriation two years ago, the Republican plan unveiled last week recommends cutting another $100,000.[]

I realize that to many, the following statement will sound unnecessarily simplistic; nonetheless, here it is. If the state fair is constitutionally required, then the state ought to fund it. If it is not, then the state has no business funding it–regardless of perceived or supposed benefit to any. Unfortunately, the principle of limited government won’t be discussed much (if at all) in the coming battle over funding.

No, instead the discussion will be over things like whether the money spent on the fair is an investment–considering how much money the fair brings to the surrounding part of the state–and whether other programs should be cut this year because the fair already had its funding reduced, and . . . well, you get the picture. The assumption underlying all of these pieces of the argument is that the state can fund the fair if it (the state) has the money–making the argument about cost rather than principle.

If all of the legislators would vow to cut those portions of state funding which are not required by the constitution (of either the state or the federal government), then I’ve a strong feeling that balancing the budget wouldn’t be much of a challenge at all.

Is it too much to hope that such a scenario is within the realm of reason?

It would appear that we have an answer to a question I posed a yesterday, after Representative Herseth Sandlin was invited to meet with the President and hear why she needed to get with the program:

[]The South Dakota Democrat confirmed during a telephone conference call with reporters that she won’t vote for the Senate version of health-care reform, just as she didn’t vote for an earlier version approved by the House of Representatives.

As for an additional piece of legislation being developed by President Barack Obama to answer some concerns about the existing Senate bill, Herseth Sandlin said she won’t vote for that if it comes to the House by way of the reconciliation process in the Senate.

“I will not vote for the Senate bill as is,” she said. “I will not vote for a package of changes that would go through the reconciliation process.”[]

Sounds good to me. Let’s give Representative Herseth Sandlin credit for sticking to her previous position in light of the fact that nothing has really changed in the interim–except certain people’s desires to make this happen no matter what it might do to hurt (as well as help) the general citizenry.

I’m sorry but I need to use the phrase “You must be kidding me.” There, I don’t feel any better, but it needed to be said:

U.S. regulators may urge automakers to install brake-override systems on new vehicles following an inquiry into reports of sudden unintended acceleration in Toyota Motor Corp. cars and trucks.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is “looking at the possibility of recommending the brake override system in all manufactured automobiles,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said at a Senate hearing today on Toyota’s recalls. The software can slow vehicles in the event of unintended acceleration.

No. No. No. Another mandated safety device will not do anything to help and will indeed tend to hinder. How in the world will the device “know” that the acceleration is unintended? I know, I know, we are going to use some flawless software to sort this out.

There is a way of stopping rapid acceleration for runaway vehicles already. Actually, there are a few ways:

1. Get your foot off the accelerator. (Many cases of stuck acceleration may be traced back to wrong-footing it.)

or

2. Put your foot on the brake pedal. (I’m pretty sure vehicles still have them, right?)

or

3. Put the vehicle in neutral. (Most automobiles still have neutral, don’t they?)

Allow me to say that Secretary LaHood has a solution in search of a problem here. A solution which will, like altogether too many government solutions, increase the cost of the products involved–without addressing the single largest unsafe component in the equation: the driver.

The car companies have sold hundreds of millions of vehicles and have had reports of thousands of “unintended acceleration” events. In Toyota’s case, about 2600 reports in the last 10 years. Oh, and Ford had 3,526 reports of the same type of problem in the same time period. Do you not know that people tend to say whatever they want to if it will absolve them of responsibility? I have firsthand knowledge of this with reference to an “accident” which was blamed on a malfunctioning transmission.

If there are problems with vehicles from Toyota, Ford, or even GM–then those problems should be detailed, confirmed, and addressed within the context of current law. More laws/regulations which are intended to remove the onus of personal responsibility and proper decision making from individuals are not helping anyone but those who believe that you and I are simply incapable of caring for ourselves.

A few days ago, I wrote about flood insurance and how it wasn’t really insurance. Now, it appears it is not even a government giveaway:

The federal flood insurance program has dried up just days after FEMA was in South Dakota urging homeowners to buy it because of the threat of flooding. Congress failed to extend the National Flood Insurance Program, so it expired Monday.

The National Flood Insurance Program is essentially the only place anyone can buy flood insurance. Almost every local insurance agent across the country use the program to cover homeowners during a flood.

As noted previously, the reason that the government is “essentially the only place anyone can buy flood insurance” is simple: only our government is going to underwrite a sure loss.

Here is the other problem with the flood insurance program–what the government gives, the government may take away. Right now, the government has taken it away. It may well give it again later–when Senator Bunning is satisfied that the Congress is not spending even more money it does not have, but I wouldn’t necessarily bet on it.

From SeaWorld we have this sad story:

An official says 40-year-old Dawn Brancheau is the trainer killed by a whale at SeaWorld in Orlando.

[...]

The whale is also believed to have been involved in two other deaths.

If the whale is believed to have been involved in two other deaths (of humans, I’m assuming) it should have been killed already. The thinking behind not doing so is wrong and entirely based in an incorrect understanding of nature.

One is reminded of the girl killed by coyotes who had apparently lost their fear of humans.

Update

Joseph Bottom has some parallel thoughts:

The ironies here are so manifest that only willfulness explains how they are ignored: The animals have the rights of humans, except when they, like, you know, kill humans. McArdle is right to talk ironically about liability lawsuits. As Wesley Smith would say, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy, as long as that constrains the boy—and not the rat or the pig or the dog.

I’ve been vaguely uncomfortable with the entire Tiger Woods apology affair. I think what triggered it (my discomfort) was an article in paper which listed a number of people who had never so much as met the man and yet were saying that they accepted his apology and that it was time to move on. I thought something along the lines of “Huh? What? On what basis do you accept something that cannot be yours?”

Now, I see that Thomas Sowell has also been thinking about the issue of public apologies and has some eminently repeatable things to say:

Public apologies to people who are not owed any apologies have become one of the many signs of the mushy thinking of our times. So are apologies for things that other people did.

Among the most absurd apologies have been apologies for slavery by politicians. For one thing, slavery is not something you can apologize for, any more than you can apologize for murder.

If someone says to you that he murdered someone near and dear to you, what are you supposed to say? “No problem, we all make mistakes”? Not bloody likely!

He gets better:

Aimless apologies are just one of the incidental symptoms of an increasing loss of a sense of personal responsibility — without which a whole society is in jeopardy.

The police cannot possibly maintain law and order by themselves. Millions of people can monitor their own behavior better than any third parties can. Cops can cope with that segment of society that has no sense of personal responsibility, but not if that segment becomes a large part of the whole population.

Go and read it all.

If anyone reading this was directly damaged by Mr. Woods actions, then he needs to personally apologize to you. If you are reading this and feel hurt by what he did–yet have no relationship with him whatsoever–barring that of fan, please consider that your hurt may stem from an unwise investiture on your part.

The title of a piece from KELO caught my eye: “Act Now If You Want Flood Insurance” I acted immediately to read the article, which says in part that we need to get flood insurance at least 30 days before we need it–otherwise the policy is not in force.

Here we sit on the high plains (or at least the medium plains) with substantial drifts everywhere and enough snow moved off the roads and heaped up on the shoulders of the same that we cannot see when entering intersections–and someone is willing to offer flood insurance? By rough calculation, 8 inches of snow is 1 inch of liquid water. That means that across this state of ours we have anywhere from 1 to 6, 8 even 10 inches of water which is currently held in suspended animation above the frozen ground, just waiting to visit many different someones–with and without flood insurance.

Insurance is about sharing the risk. I get that. But if a sword is suspended by a thread–that’s not so much risk as it is a promise. Of course, if the insurance we are talking about in the linked article is part of the NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program) then everything becomes clear. You see, all of the insurance sold as part of that program is backed by the federal government you and me.

Now, how excited are you about those policies?

Andrew Klavan interviews a gentleman who sees the world as very black and white:

Take [Jesse Lee] Peterson’s vision of restoring the lost black family, which is unflinchingly religious and traditional. “There is a spiritual order to life that was ordained by God,” he tells me. “And that order is God in Christ, Christ in man, man over woman, woman over children. And it’s not an ego trip, it’s just a spiritual order, that men are subject to Christ and women are subject to men.”

At this point on the interview tape, you can hear me start to stammer hilariously. I don’t agree with everything he says, but. . . . And yet, at the same time I’m stammering, several thoughts crowd in on me. First, Peterson’s traditionalism is only an echo of Paul’s advice to married couples in Ephesians, not to mention John Milton’s deathless description of Adam and Eve: “He for God only; she for God in him.” Second, his words are spoken in answer to a community where I’ve repeatedly heard black women describe black men as “weak” and black men describe black women as “mean.” Third (and I can’t wait to drop this comment at my wife’s next dinner party), the happiest middle-class white families I know are still fashioned on some version of Peterson’s principle—the husband as head of the household—as long as that leadership is understood, as Peterson understands it, to be subject to an overarching moral order of love, gentleness, and grace.

“What men don’t understand is that they represent God in the family, in the home, and . . . they’re supposed to love what’s right more than anything else,” Peterson tells me. “And when they love that, then God dwells in them and works through them to guide them in the right way so that they can guide their families.”

HT: Instapundit