To contact us Click HERE
This is interesting in that I believe most of us never give it a second thought to food safety on these trucks or who cares where they park. All we care about is getting something to eat, that it might kills us is of no importance.
But given the amount of regulation that cities place on restaurants and other fast food outlets, the following suggestions for control of food trucks and the like are good but not over bearing. They are just 'food' for thought. hmmmm
Food Truck Freedom
Source: Robert Frommer and Bert Gall, "Food Truck Freedom," Institute for Justice, November 2012.
December 13, 2012
Food trucks are a hot trend across the United States. They provide chefs a low cost avenue to enter the restaurant business. It is important that policymakers recognize the importance food trucks play in local economies and create conditions that allow food trucks to prosper, say Robert Frommer and Bert Gall of the Institute for Justice.
Food safety:
•Cities should follow their state and county health codes.
•If a county or state food code doesn't deal with a specific issue, follow the requirements of Chapter 10 of the California Retail Food Code, which specifically governs food trucks.
•Furthermore, trucks should be inspected when they are first permitted and periodically when they are in the field, holding them to the same standards as restaurants.
Parking:
•Create proximity restrictions and restricted zones.
•Have at least a 20 foot distance from intersections.
•Allow food trucks to operate from metered locations.
•Have no duration restrictions.
•Don't allow food trucks to operate in a way that would interfere with passage of pedestrians or vehicles that would cause congestion.
Licensing:
•Create an application process that models that of Los Angeles County.
•Cities should impose a flat annual fee anywhere between $200 and $300.
•The license should cover the overall vending business rather than the individual vendor.
•Finally, there should be no limit on the number of food truck permits.
Other recommendations for cities to consider:
•Don't require trucks to purchase liability insurance.
•Don't have laws regarding hours of operation.
•Require handwashing stations for trucks that prepare foods and do not require that trucks have bathroom-access agreements with businesses that have bathrooms.
•Exempt food trucks that carry all the equipment to satisfy health and safety concerns from associating with a commissary. But if commissaries are required, allow them to share commissary space. Furthermore, shared commercial kitchens should not be forbidden.
16 Aralık 2012 Pazar
Vfeterans Affairs (VA) Transferred to State Control : Easier Access for Oversight
To contact us Click HERE
The first step to cure the VA problem is transferring it to state control. Use the 'grant' system for funding as this will take away the waste that exists in all federal programs and make oversite much easier.
The Veterans Disability System: Problems and Solutions
Source: Pam Villarreal and Kyle Buckley, "The Veterans Disability System: Problems and Solutions," National Center for Policy Analysis, December 2012.
December 13, 2012
Since the turn of the century, the number and complexity of disability claims has far outpaced the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) capacity to process them. More importantly, the VA has misrepresented the causes of the current claims crisis, the reliability of internal accountability measures and the efficacy of attempted solutions, say Pamela Villarreal, a senior fellow, and Kyle Buckley, a research associate, at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
•As of 2011, 22.2 million veterans are currently living in the United States.
•Of these, 38.6 percent are enrolled in the health program.
•Another 16.6 percent receive cash disability compensation.
•It takes about 197 days to complete the average disability claim.
•To put this in perspective, it takes an average of one day for the Social Security Administration to process Disability Insurance claims.
More troubling is the fact that the VA has reported backlogs of about 1 million claims annually. The VA argues that the current backlog is the result of several factors such as exposure to new agents, 10 years of war, and the growth in the average number of claims filed per veteran.
To receive disability compensation, a veteran must have a service-related disability and have been discharged in any way other than dishonorably. Of all the initial claims, 31 percent get denied. Surprisingly, 60 percent of denials are the result of errors.
The VA is unable to quickly and accurately diagnose and compensate soldiers for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury. This is primarily because the deadlines and meetings that the VA imposes are difficult for people dealing with PTSD to meet. Missed deadlines, confusion and lack of focus are all symptoms of PTSD. According to the Office of the Inspector General, 100 percent of claims relating to PTSD or traumatic brain injuries were consistently mismanaged.
There are several avenues the VA can pursue to become more efficient and responsive to the needs of servicemen and women that receive benefits.
•Streamline the transition from active duty to veteran.
•Allow more flexibility for veterans in the VA health care system.
•Transfer administrative services from the federal to state level.
•Allow competitive bidding for administrative services by private contractors.
The Veterans Disability System: Problems and Solutions
Source: Pam Villarreal and Kyle Buckley, "The Veterans Disability System: Problems and Solutions," National Center for Policy Analysis, December 2012.
December 13, 2012
Since the turn of the century, the number and complexity of disability claims has far outpaced the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) capacity to process them. More importantly, the VA has misrepresented the causes of the current claims crisis, the reliability of internal accountability measures and the efficacy of attempted solutions, say Pamela Villarreal, a senior fellow, and Kyle Buckley, a research associate, at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
•As of 2011, 22.2 million veterans are currently living in the United States.
•Of these, 38.6 percent are enrolled in the health program.
•Another 16.6 percent receive cash disability compensation.
•It takes about 197 days to complete the average disability claim.
•To put this in perspective, it takes an average of one day for the Social Security Administration to process Disability Insurance claims.
More troubling is the fact that the VA has reported backlogs of about 1 million claims annually. The VA argues that the current backlog is the result of several factors such as exposure to new agents, 10 years of war, and the growth in the average number of claims filed per veteran.
To receive disability compensation, a veteran must have a service-related disability and have been discharged in any way other than dishonorably. Of all the initial claims, 31 percent get denied. Surprisingly, 60 percent of denials are the result of errors.
The VA is unable to quickly and accurately diagnose and compensate soldiers for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury. This is primarily because the deadlines and meetings that the VA imposes are difficult for people dealing with PTSD to meet. Missed deadlines, confusion and lack of focus are all symptoms of PTSD. According to the Office of the Inspector General, 100 percent of claims relating to PTSD or traumatic brain injuries were consistently mismanaged.
There are several avenues the VA can pursue to become more efficient and responsive to the needs of servicemen and women that receive benefits.
•Streamline the transition from active duty to veteran.
•Allow more flexibility for veterans in the VA health care system.
•Transfer administrative services from the federal to state level.
•Allow competitive bidding for administrative services by private contractors.
Medicaid A losing Program : Private Insurance Works
To contact us Click HERE
This is another good example of how we can fix a very bad situation with common sense and intelligence when it comes to our health care decisions.
The free market will always fix our financial and health care problems as long as we stay awake and believe, we as individuals, have the God given right, as stated in our Constitution, to be anything we want to be in a free society. Block grants given to states is a great start to solving some of health care problems.
This means we, again as free individuals, take responsibility for our own actions and the results will tell whether or not we will succeed in our life ambitions or be an also ran. It will be entirely up to us to make these life changing decisions.
Being able to choose which insurance company will best suit our individual needs and financial capabilities is being responsible for our own well being. To have a select few in a far away city make these decisions for us is repugnant and Un-American.
Exchanging Medicaid for Private Insurance
Source: Devon M. Herrick, "Exchanging Medicaid for Private Insurance," National Center for Policy Analysis, December 2012.
December 14, 2012
The Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but not without striking down a provision that would refuse federal Medicaid funds to states that didn't expand their Medicaid programs. Other provisions of the ACA will give sliding-scale subsidies to low-to-middle income individuals for the purchase of private health coverage in a health insurance exchange that will be set up in each state beginning in 2014, says Devon M. Herrick, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
The health insurance exchanges will be set up by either the state or the federal government. People that do not receive health plans through their employers or Medicaid are eligible for exchange subsidies.
•In states that don't expand Medicaid coverage to individuals with incomes of 100 percent to 133 percent of the federal poverty levels, those individuals will be eligible for subsidized coverage in the exchange.
•In every state, individuals earning 133 percent to 400 percent of poverty will be eligible for subsidized coverage through the exchange.
•However, not everyone will enroll in the exchanges.
Medicaid expansion will cost the state and federal governments a massive amount of money.
•The federal government will spend over $295 billion over the 10-year period to cover newly eligible individuals earning 100 percent to 133 percent of poverty.
•States would also bear an additional $19 billion in costs.
•However, letting private insurers pay market rates for medical care would increase medical spending by $233 billion, which is good for doctors and hospitals.
•Moreover, it would only cost the state about $9 billion over the next decade to pay its share of premiums to entice low-income population to sign up for coverage.
•This would leave the remaining $10 billion to be spent on the uninsured or on Medicaid enrollees earning below 100 percent of the poverty level.
Medicaid has several problems that make its expansion undesirable:
•Poor access to care.
•Overcrowded emergency rooms.
•Worse health outcomes.
•Low Medicaid provider payments.
•Crowd out of private insurance.
A better solution would be to convert Medicaid into block grants. This would allow the federal government to provide each state a fixed sum of money and allow states the flexibility in designing programs that fit their individual needs.
The free market will always fix our financial and health care problems as long as we stay awake and believe, we as individuals, have the God given right, as stated in our Constitution, to be anything we want to be in a free society. Block grants given to states is a great start to solving some of health care problems.
This means we, again as free individuals, take responsibility for our own actions and the results will tell whether or not we will succeed in our life ambitions or be an also ran. It will be entirely up to us to make these life changing decisions.
Being able to choose which insurance company will best suit our individual needs and financial capabilities is being responsible for our own well being. To have a select few in a far away city make these decisions for us is repugnant and Un-American.
Exchanging Medicaid for Private Insurance
Source: Devon M. Herrick, "Exchanging Medicaid for Private Insurance," National Center for Policy Analysis, December 2012.
December 14, 2012
The Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but not without striking down a provision that would refuse federal Medicaid funds to states that didn't expand their Medicaid programs. Other provisions of the ACA will give sliding-scale subsidies to low-to-middle income individuals for the purchase of private health coverage in a health insurance exchange that will be set up in each state beginning in 2014, says Devon M. Herrick, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
The health insurance exchanges will be set up by either the state or the federal government. People that do not receive health plans through their employers or Medicaid are eligible for exchange subsidies.
•In states that don't expand Medicaid coverage to individuals with incomes of 100 percent to 133 percent of the federal poverty levels, those individuals will be eligible for subsidized coverage in the exchange.
•In every state, individuals earning 133 percent to 400 percent of poverty will be eligible for subsidized coverage through the exchange.
•However, not everyone will enroll in the exchanges.
Medicaid expansion will cost the state and federal governments a massive amount of money.
•The federal government will spend over $295 billion over the 10-year period to cover newly eligible individuals earning 100 percent to 133 percent of poverty.
•States would also bear an additional $19 billion in costs.
•However, letting private insurers pay market rates for medical care would increase medical spending by $233 billion, which is good for doctors and hospitals.
•Moreover, it would only cost the state about $9 billion over the next decade to pay its share of premiums to entice low-income population to sign up for coverage.
•This would leave the remaining $10 billion to be spent on the uninsured or on Medicaid enrollees earning below 100 percent of the poverty level.
Medicaid has several problems that make its expansion undesirable:
•Poor access to care.
•Overcrowded emergency rooms.
•Worse health outcomes.
•Low Medicaid provider payments.
•Crowd out of private insurance.
A better solution would be to convert Medicaid into block grants. This would allow the federal government to provide each state a fixed sum of money and allow states the flexibility in designing programs that fit their individual needs.
ObamaCare Overhaul Necessary
To contact us Click HERE
Excellent suggestions to fix ObamaCare which is a nightmare for us all. The billions that are here already in new taxes, and the new regulations that are on the way, now that the election is over and the progressives socialist won, will have a huge impact on our daily lives.
Clear thinking will result in common sense solutions, something that an agenda driven government will not understand or consider.
Repairing ObamaCare
Source: John C. Goodman, "Repairing ObamaCare," McClatchy, December 13, 2012.
December 14, 2012
After the recent election, virtually all commentators quickly concluded that the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) is safe; Republicans are powerless to stop it. The trouble is: ObamaCare is a deeply flawed law. Here are five essential changes that could fix it, says John C. Goodman, president and CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis, and a research fellow with the Independent Institute.
•First, subsidize all insurance the same way. The way government currently subsidizes health insurance is arbitrary and unfair. Employees with employer-provided insurance get that benefit tax free. There is almost no subsidy, however, for people who must purchase insurance on their own. Under ObamaCare the subsidies become even more arbitrary. All insurance should get the same tax relief, regardless of where it is obtained.
•Second, make the subsidy a fixed sum "tax credit" -- that is, a dollar-for-dollar reduction in your tax bill. For example, offer a $2,500 credit against the first $2,500 of health insurance premiums. For a family of four, the credit would be about $8,000. These credits would be "refundable," a technical term meaning people would get the subsidy even if they owe no income taxes.
•Third, create and fund a safety net option. If people turn down the offer of a tax credit, make that credit available to safety net institutions that provide care to people without insurance. If people can't pay their medical bills, these funds would be there as a backstop. Under this arrangement, money follows people.
•Fourth, don't let people "game" the system. Instead of a mandate to purchase health insurance, give people a one-time opportunity to obtain insurance on a guaranteed issue basis, regardless of their health conditions. If they turn down the offer and apply later, insurers would be able to consider their medical condition and charge them a higher premium that reflects the full expected cost of their care.
•Fifth, get rid of the mandate. With the first four fixes in place, there's no need for a mandate. Instead, there will be a strong financial incentive to obtain health insurance. Government offers everyone a generous subsidy to buy health insurance in the form of lower taxes. If they turn down the subsidy, they pay higher taxes.
That's not different in principle from the current system, except that the reforms suggested here would make that arrangement fairer and more rational.
Clear thinking will result in common sense solutions, something that an agenda driven government will not understand or consider.
Repairing ObamaCare
Source: John C. Goodman, "Repairing ObamaCare," McClatchy, December 13, 2012.
December 14, 2012
After the recent election, virtually all commentators quickly concluded that the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) is safe; Republicans are powerless to stop it. The trouble is: ObamaCare is a deeply flawed law. Here are five essential changes that could fix it, says John C. Goodman, president and CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis, and a research fellow with the Independent Institute.
•First, subsidize all insurance the same way. The way government currently subsidizes health insurance is arbitrary and unfair. Employees with employer-provided insurance get that benefit tax free. There is almost no subsidy, however, for people who must purchase insurance on their own. Under ObamaCare the subsidies become even more arbitrary. All insurance should get the same tax relief, regardless of where it is obtained.
•Second, make the subsidy a fixed sum "tax credit" -- that is, a dollar-for-dollar reduction in your tax bill. For example, offer a $2,500 credit against the first $2,500 of health insurance premiums. For a family of four, the credit would be about $8,000. These credits would be "refundable," a technical term meaning people would get the subsidy even if they owe no income taxes.
•Third, create and fund a safety net option. If people turn down the offer of a tax credit, make that credit available to safety net institutions that provide care to people without insurance. If people can't pay their medical bills, these funds would be there as a backstop. Under this arrangement, money follows people.
•Fourth, don't let people "game" the system. Instead of a mandate to purchase health insurance, give people a one-time opportunity to obtain insurance on a guaranteed issue basis, regardless of their health conditions. If they turn down the offer and apply later, insurers would be able to consider their medical condition and charge them a higher premium that reflects the full expected cost of their care.
•Fifth, get rid of the mandate. With the first four fixes in place, there's no need for a mandate. Instead, there will be a strong financial incentive to obtain health insurance. Government offers everyone a generous subsidy to buy health insurance in the form of lower taxes. If they turn down the subsidy, they pay higher taxes.
That's not different in principle from the current system, except that the reforms suggested here would make that arrangement fairer and more rational.
Canadian Health Care Wait Time : Not Days, but Months
To contact us Click HERE
Exactly who are the people that continue to exalt the Canadian medical system of single payer? Wait time for service is beyond belief but understandable given the Canadian system is controlled by governement.
But hey, no need to guess who in our country wants single payer, it's obvious, it's the same people that shout and wave their collective arms about how great the Cuba medical system is, even though they know that in some cases the final solution to a problem is a 9mm. Cheap and effective, not to mention, relatively painless.
Who are these people that claim to be the smartest in the room, they are progressive socialists liberal Democrats. The same people that brought us ObamaCare even though 72% of the population didn't want it. Mr Obama said he wanted single payer and now we are about to feel the full force of that promise.
The next question that has to be asked is who voted in November to make ObamaCare a reality even thought so many stated they didn't want it? Who are these people? Why won't these people stand up for all to see and proclaim their allegiance to ObamaCare?
Waiting Your Turn
Source: Bacchus Barua and Nadeem Esmail, "Waiting Your Turn," Fraser Institute, December 2012.
December 14, 2012
The Fraser Institute has released the results of its survey of waiting times for elective medical treatments in Canada.
•Specialist physicians surveyed across 12 specialties and 10 Canadian provinces reported an average waiting time of 17.7 weeks between general practitioner referral and the elective treatment.
•Wait times for referral by general practitioner and consultation with a specialist fell to 8.5 weeks from 9.5 weeks one year ago.
•There was an estimated 870,462 people waiting for procedures across all 10 provinces.
•Assuming each person waits to have only one procedure done, that means 2.5 percent of Canadians were waiting for treatment.
•However, the report shows 10.3 percent of patients were on the waiting list because they chose to wait.
It should also be noted that there is substantial variation in wait times between provinces and the different specialties.
•Ontario, for example, report an average wait time of 14.9 weeks.
•However, New Brunswick reports an average of 35.1 weeks.
•As far as specialties, patients report the longest wait time between referral and orthopedic surgery, at 39.6 weeks.
•But those waiting for oncology treatment wait only about 4.1 weeks.
While the report does show that wait times are decreasing overall for Canadians, it still highlights that wait times are at a historic level. Many physicians agree that the wait times go far beyond what would be considered reasonable.
From an economic point of view, these wait times represent a large loss of economic output.
•The cost of waiting for treatments such as total joint replacement, cataract surgery, coronary artery bypass and MRI scans was an estimated $14.8 billion in 2007.
•In 2010, the cost of waiting per patient was an additional $1,144.
•As a result of dealing with long wait lines, 0.9 percent of patients opted to receive treatments in another country.
But hey, no need to guess who in our country wants single payer, it's obvious, it's the same people that shout and wave their collective arms about how great the Cuba medical system is, even though they know that in some cases the final solution to a problem is a 9mm. Cheap and effective, not to mention, relatively painless.
Who are these people that claim to be the smartest in the room, they are progressive socialists liberal Democrats. The same people that brought us ObamaCare even though 72% of the population didn't want it. Mr Obama said he wanted single payer and now we are about to feel the full force of that promise.
The next question that has to be asked is who voted in November to make ObamaCare a reality even thought so many stated they didn't want it? Who are these people? Why won't these people stand up for all to see and proclaim their allegiance to ObamaCare?
Waiting Your Turn
Source: Bacchus Barua and Nadeem Esmail, "Waiting Your Turn," Fraser Institute, December 2012.
December 14, 2012
The Fraser Institute has released the results of its survey of waiting times for elective medical treatments in Canada.
•Specialist physicians surveyed across 12 specialties and 10 Canadian provinces reported an average waiting time of 17.7 weeks between general practitioner referral and the elective treatment.
•Wait times for referral by general practitioner and consultation with a specialist fell to 8.5 weeks from 9.5 weeks one year ago.
•There was an estimated 870,462 people waiting for procedures across all 10 provinces.
•Assuming each person waits to have only one procedure done, that means 2.5 percent of Canadians were waiting for treatment.
•However, the report shows 10.3 percent of patients were on the waiting list because they chose to wait.
It should also be noted that there is substantial variation in wait times between provinces and the different specialties.
•Ontario, for example, report an average wait time of 14.9 weeks.
•However, New Brunswick reports an average of 35.1 weeks.
•As far as specialties, patients report the longest wait time between referral and orthopedic surgery, at 39.6 weeks.
•But those waiting for oncology treatment wait only about 4.1 weeks.
While the report does show that wait times are decreasing overall for Canadians, it still highlights that wait times are at a historic level. Many physicians agree that the wait times go far beyond what would be considered reasonable.
From an economic point of view, these wait times represent a large loss of economic output.
•The cost of waiting for treatments such as total joint replacement, cataract surgery, coronary artery bypass and MRI scans was an estimated $14.8 billion in 2007.
•In 2010, the cost of waiting per patient was an additional $1,144.
•As a result of dealing with long wait lines, 0.9 percent of patients opted to receive treatments in another country.
11 Aralık 2012 Salı
Retirement Age Going Up? Whatz the Best Age?
To contact us Click HERE
By raising the age for Social Security, most people would opt to work longer rather then just shooting for that one age where we are all told we are done for the rest of our life. The problem I have is who are these people that dictate how long we can work?
And, by the way, eliminate the early retirement age of 62, or if you want to retire early, and want benefits, you will get significantly less money then if you work all the way to 67 or 69. It will be a choice.
Benefits at What Age?
Source: Liqun Liu, Andrew J. Rettenmaier, and Thomas R. Saving, "Lifetime Income, Longevity and Social Security Progressivity," National Center for Policy Analysis, December 2012.
December 11, 2012
Should we raise the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare? Life expectancy has increased seven years since 1970. So, should the eligibility age be raised seven years as well? One problem. Over the past 20 years, life expectancy at age 65 has risen five years for men with above average income but only one year for men with below average income.
In a new study, NCPA Senior Fellow and former Social Security and Medicare Trustee Thomas Saving and NCPA Senior Fellow Andrew Rettenmaier explain how we can skirt this problem: raise the age of eligibility for Social Security and at the same time make the benefit formula more progressive. For Medicare, you could make the premium payments more progressive.
The authors find:
•Once longevity differences are accounted for, Social Security's progressivity is lessened, relative to estimates based on average longevity estimates by birth year.
•However, even for the most recent group of new retirees analyzed, the program remains progressive.
•Further, the study finds that within birth years, the program redistributes from high to low earning workers, even after accounting for income-related differences in longevity.
Combining an increase in the retirement age for all workers with an adjustment to the benefit formula would result in a program that could be financed in the long run at the current tax rate and would retain the program's relative lifetime progressivity.
Progressive price indexing is a reform by which low-income workers' past earnings continue to be indexed by average wages whereas high income workers earnings would be indexed by price level changes. Progressive price indexing would further address concerns about the growth in total benefit payments while retaining and perhaps enhancing the system's progressivity.
And, by the way, eliminate the early retirement age of 62, or if you want to retire early, and want benefits, you will get significantly less money then if you work all the way to 67 or 69. It will be a choice.
Benefits at What Age?
Source: Liqun Liu, Andrew J. Rettenmaier, and Thomas R. Saving, "Lifetime Income, Longevity and Social Security Progressivity," National Center for Policy Analysis, December 2012.
December 11, 2012
Should we raise the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare? Life expectancy has increased seven years since 1970. So, should the eligibility age be raised seven years as well? One problem. Over the past 20 years, life expectancy at age 65 has risen five years for men with above average income but only one year for men with below average income.
In a new study, NCPA Senior Fellow and former Social Security and Medicare Trustee Thomas Saving and NCPA Senior Fellow Andrew Rettenmaier explain how we can skirt this problem: raise the age of eligibility for Social Security and at the same time make the benefit formula more progressive. For Medicare, you could make the premium payments more progressive.
The authors find:
•Once longevity differences are accounted for, Social Security's progressivity is lessened, relative to estimates based on average longevity estimates by birth year.
•However, even for the most recent group of new retirees analyzed, the program remains progressive.
•Further, the study finds that within birth years, the program redistributes from high to low earning workers, even after accounting for income-related differences in longevity.
Combining an increase in the retirement age for all workers with an adjustment to the benefit formula would result in a program that could be financed in the long run at the current tax rate and would retain the program's relative lifetime progressivity.
Progressive price indexing is a reform by which low-income workers' past earnings continue to be indexed by average wages whereas high income workers earnings would be indexed by price level changes. Progressive price indexing would further address concerns about the growth in total benefit payments while retaining and perhaps enhancing the system's progressivity.
Green Energy Fails to Connect With Reality : Who Knew?
To contact us Click HERE
More bad news for green energy but then most of us, that are awake in the real world, knew this from the start. It's only those that are invested in population control that want unilateral energy changes. That the new energy sources are not viable means nothing, it's the ability to dictate outcomes by controlling how people live. It's as simple as that.
Ask the question as to who is driving the green energy program that has failed on all fronts and what are the rewards for doing so? The answer is always the same, progressive socialist Democrats, you know, the ones that were just sent back to Washington for 4 more years of high gas prices and food prices that are driving families into poverty.
Think of it as giving a certain group of elites one more chance to crush the American dream. Remember this line from the campaign in 2008, " I want to fundamentally change this country".
What rational did the voter use to want more financial disaster, less income and less personal freedom to choose one's own destiny? Who actually voted for this nightmare?
The Impossibility of Rapid Energy Transitions
Source: Kenneth P. Green, "The Impossibility of Rapid Energy Transitions," The American, December 6, 2012.
December 11, 2012
For decades, politicians have made promises of transitioning to cleaner, more sustainable sources of energy. National security is also a justification that politicians have employed in an effort to garner support for energy transitions. Even now, there is a transition from imported oil and coal to natural gas power plants, says Kenneth P. Green, a senior fellow with Canada's Fraser Institute.
However, despite promises and billions of dollars spent on trying to start an energy revolution, little has been achieved. This is largely because the technology can be very expensive. But more importantly, these technologies don't have the momentum behind them to create an energy transition.
There are three different types of momentum that are necessary when talking about making energy transitions:
•Technological momentum -- When the impact of a technology reaches far beyond itself. For example, the light bulb spawned thousands of variations of it, which led to entire buildings having light fixtures.
•Labor-pool momentum -- The necessary supply of trained talent to enable a transition to other energy sources. This is important because their needs to be specialized engineers, designers, regulators and operators that are needed in the new energy industry.
•Economic momentum -- The costs of development are extremely high and have lengthy lifespans which means that it takes a long time before the costs have been recovered, making it difficult to find investors.
Ask the question as to who is driving the green energy program that has failed on all fronts and what are the rewards for doing so? The answer is always the same, progressive socialist Democrats, you know, the ones that were just sent back to Washington for 4 more years of high gas prices and food prices that are driving families into poverty.
Think of it as giving a certain group of elites one more chance to crush the American dream. Remember this line from the campaign in 2008, " I want to fundamentally change this country".
What rational did the voter use to want more financial disaster, less income and less personal freedom to choose one's own destiny? Who actually voted for this nightmare?
The Impossibility of Rapid Energy Transitions
Source: Kenneth P. Green, "The Impossibility of Rapid Energy Transitions," The American, December 6, 2012.
December 11, 2012
For decades, politicians have made promises of transitioning to cleaner, more sustainable sources of energy. National security is also a justification that politicians have employed in an effort to garner support for energy transitions. Even now, there is a transition from imported oil and coal to natural gas power plants, says Kenneth P. Green, a senior fellow with Canada's Fraser Institute.
However, despite promises and billions of dollars spent on trying to start an energy revolution, little has been achieved. This is largely because the technology can be very expensive. But more importantly, these technologies don't have the momentum behind them to create an energy transition.
There are three different types of momentum that are necessary when talking about making energy transitions:
•Technological momentum -- When the impact of a technology reaches far beyond itself. For example, the light bulb spawned thousands of variations of it, which led to entire buildings having light fixtures.
•Labor-pool momentum -- The necessary supply of trained talent to enable a transition to other energy sources. This is important because their needs to be specialized engineers, designers, regulators and operators that are needed in the new energy industry.
•Economic momentum -- The costs of development are extremely high and have lengthy lifespans which means that it takes a long time before the costs have been recovered, making it difficult to find investors.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)