WHAT'S NEXT FOR THE EPA'S 'ALL PAIN, NO GAIN' CLEAN POWER PLAN?

The EPA's so-called Clean Power Plan is an illegal takeover of the electric power production sector and amounts to a national energy tax on all Americans. The administration's goal is to force states to replace their current mix of low cost, reliable energy fuels with a higher cost mix of renewables that are largely dependent on the weather. Without the approval of Congress, this new regulation is aimed at reducing "carbon pollution" by 32 percent by 2030. The president is using executive power to impose the rule in order to meet his promise to the United Nations. States will be under pressure to comply "or else," once again becoming victims of power-grabbing federal overlords bent on imposing their will on the states regardless of the effect on communities. The bottom-line is that the increased cost of electricity from this rule is estimated to be 12 percent to 17 percent, depending on the state. That means every home, business, church, daycare center, hospital, police and fire station, school and university building and union hall will pay more for electricity. Many members of Congress oppose the plan, as will the courts. What motivates this kind of environmental zealousness cannot be explained by the immeasurable benefits of this rule (0.018 degree C by 2100). As many industry experts have said, this expensive plan is "all pain for no gain."

http://www.texaspolicy.com/press_release/detail/whats-next-for-the-epas-all-pain-no-gain-clean-power-plan?mc_cid=39d660532b&mc_eid=3df71bf1fa

THE CLEAN POWER PLAN BURSTS THE BOUNDARIES OF REGULATORY AUTHORITY

Why the Federal Government Fails

Most Americans think that the federal government is incompetent and wasteful. Their negative view is not surprising given the steady stream of scandals emanating from Washington. Scholarly studies support the idea that many federal activities are misguided and harmful. A recent book on federal performance by Yale University law professor Peter Schuck concluded that failure is “endemic.” What causes all the failures?

First, federal policies rely on top-down planning and coercion. That tends to create winners and losers, which is unlike the mutually beneficial relationships of markets. It also means that federal policies are based on guesswork because there is no price system to guide decision making. A further problem is that failed policies are not weeded out because they are funded by taxes, which are compulsory and not contingent on performance. Second, the government lacks knowledge about our complex society. That ignorance is behind many unintended and harmful side effects of federal policies. While markets gather knowledge from the bottom up and are rooted in individual preferences, the government’s actions destroy knowledge and squelch diversity.

Third, legislators often act counter to the general public interest. They use debt, an opaque tax system, and other techniques to hide the full costs of programs. Furthermore, they use logrolling to pass harmful policies that do not have broad public support.

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/why-federal-government-fails

Next Time Government Gives You Dietary Advice, Consider Doing the Opposite

Pointing out the always-changing guidelines of salubrious living is a long-running joke in America. It's worth remembering, though, that any self-corrections we make,  and we make them all the time in real life using common sense, are far more difficult when government puts its imprimatur on pseudoscience, which it also does all the time.

In the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the federal government's advice manual for citizens, we are warned that "not eating breakfast has been associated with excess body weight." But when researchers from Columbia University decided to test this notion, they found nothing of the sort: "In overweight individuals, skipping breakfast daily for 4 weeks leads to a reduction in body weight," the study's authors note. Other researchers did the same and came to similar conclusions. How many parents and overweight Americans took this advice as gospel when they could have been losing weight by skipping buttermilk pancake breakfasts?

We already know that government recommendations regarding health are often driven by a bunch of Chicken Littles. The leading organ of American scaremongering, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has gotten so much wrong over the years. There was the outrageous contention that 400,000 Americans were dropping dead from obesity every year. (They weren't.) And then there were all the over-the-top warnings about the alleged risks of secondhand smoke. (They don't really exist.)

http://reason.com/archives/2015/08/14/government-health-tips

Does the U.S. Need a 'See Something, Say Something' Campaign for Cybersecurity?

The federal government must play team leader in upping the country's cybersecurity game, according to a new study.

Specifically, Alan Webber, International Data Corporation research director for global public safety and national security, recommends the government look to Israel's model of security.

The government instills in Israelis an awareness of digital threats, much like the way the United States has made citizens aware of physical threats with "See Something, Say Something" ads at airports, train stations, and other public gathering spaces. The federal government's "Stop. Think. Connect." cyberthreat warning, however, does not seem to be entering into the public consciousness.

"The United States lacks a cybersecurity-focused culture," Webber said in a report released Thursday. "The nation of Israel has a very high-level security culture, both physically and digitally."

Israel's real-world protections include fences, security patrols and other tangible items. Israel's digital defenses include "a cultural mindset that is suspicious of unsolicited emails and packages, looks for things out of the ordinary, and is consistently mindful of security," Webber said.In the United States, citizens lock their doors, install surveillance cameras and call the police to report suspicious activities, he said. But that caution has not transferred into cyberspace, where Americans, largely, do not look out for suspicious email headers, fraudulent websites and other online abnormalities. 
Israel's real-world protections include fences, security patrols, and other tangible items. Israel's digital defenses include "a cultural mind-set that is suspicious of unsolicited emails and packages, looks for things out of the ordinary, and is consistently mindful of security," Webber said.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/defense/does-the-u-s-need-a-see-something-say-something-campaign-for-cybersecurity-20150814

HOW THE SUPREME COURT ABOLISHED ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION

On July 31 at the American Bar Association’s International Human Rights Award Luncheon, former Justice John Paul Stevens declared that, while the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment establishes a right to “gay marriage,” it does not protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

Now when it comes to the issue of “gun rights” I have no personal dog in the hunt (so to speak). I’m not a gun owner. In most circumstances I wouldn’t recommend keeping a gun at home because I think statistically a gun kept at home is more likely to be used on someone in the home than on an intruder (though I wouldn’t want an intruder to know that I don’t have a gun at home).

Still, I marvel at Stevens’ ability to reject an application of the Fourteenth Amendment to a right clearly enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution (viz., “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” in the Second Amendment) while affirming its application to a supposed right not elsewhere even remotely alluded to in the Constitution (viz., the right of a person to marry a person of the same sex).

As Harvard-trained lawyer Brian Troyer commented, “You need look no farther to see that liberal jurisprudence has nothing to do with law or the Constitution except in the instrumental sense that when liberal judges pronounce their judgments on these issues they invoke the document as their excuse for imposing their personal policy preferences.”

http://spectator.org/articles/63774/how-supreme-court-abolished-article-v-constitution

California's SB3, the Minimum Wage Hike From Hell

California has embarked upon a dangerous experiment. The Democrats who secured total control of the statehouse have been the most productive group of legislators at passing bills in the last 50 years. Most of these bills were passed stealthily to avoid media scrutiny. The last minimum wage hike was rammed through without much media attention. The same with the Sick Leave Law that went into effect in July of 2015. These two new costs, when combined with the federal ACA have increased the cost of labor roughly 35% overnight. None of these assaults on California businesses were sensibly staggered, nor was the business community even consulted.  It’s as if the feeling that exists under the Capital building is a childlike free-for-all to greedily get as much vote-buying, pro-labor legislation in before the window closes.

And now comes SB3, which is to amend the last minimum wage and take it higher, much much higher, for the entire state. Instead of the minimum wage going to an already predetermined $10/hr in January, it will instead take it to $11/hr and then in 2017 to $13/hr, after which it will be attached to an ongoing CCPI increase, and eventually closer to their arbitrary and subjective, fairy dust idea of a $15/hr 'living wage'.

There are, of course, many enormously debilitating problems with this.



http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/californias_sb3_the_minimum_wage_hike_from_hell.html

The rise of Donald Trump is evidence that our political system isn’t working

The Republican Party is in total chaos. Democrats aren’t there yet but may be approaching the neighborhood. It’s time to acknowledge that our political system simply isn’t doing its job.

Once again, following Thursday’s debate and its messy aftermath, the GOP establishment confidently predicts that the Donald Trump phenomenon is over, done with, finished, kaput. Why, he picked a fight with popular Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly! He bluffed his way through the debate with rhetoric and showmanship rather than policy positions! His campaign organization is in turmoil! He wouldn’t even pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-presidential-nominating-process-behind-the-times/2015/08/10/194878d6-3f97-11e5-bfe3-ff1d8549bfd2_story.html