Don't Blame Bush for Everything
I’m worried about George Bush. Granted, his administration has prevented any further terrorist attacks since 9/11. That’s good, and may we never really know just how good.
Further, contrary to popular biases, he’s not to blame for today’s recession, slowdown or whatever you call it. These economic dips occur pretty regularly despite the best efforts of the high and mighty politicians. Or perhaps because of them?
No, sorry to say. These periodic declines used to be identified as part of business cycles that end a stretch of good times with a retrenchment and then renewed growth.
The current whatchamacallit will feel bad for a while, considering the added burden of outrageous gasoline and grocery prices and the home foreclosure crises. Even so, if the past is any guide, the nation will start reviving itself, as usual, before long--despite the politicians’ ministrations. I’d guess things will start looking better before the snow flies next winter.
If they don’t, then let’s just say my hopes got in the way of rational expectation, although I’m told that the stock market nearly always performs well in an election year. I sure hope so.
However, Washington Post writer Steven Pearlstein throws cold water, along with the pitcher:
“Don’t be fooled by the latest sucker rally on stock markets or predictions that the ‘worst may be behind us.’ ...these guys [Wall Street executives and strategists] still don’t have a handle on what they’re dealing with--nobody does.”
We’ll see. But speaking of next winter, I hope it will be a frigid humdinger (except in Stafford, of course, as was the case this past winter). If so, it will be a great example of the law of unintended consequences. President Bush offers a handy example.
I don’t know what must have possessed him the other day, but he suddenly caved in and joined the global warming fanatics by saying we should do something about the climate. Well. It’s a good thing he’s not running for anything nowadays, except cover. He’ll never again get my vote, by golly. Perhaps it’s just a joke he’s playing on Congress (which basks in even greater ill repute) to keep them from passing harsher and similarly futile measures (light bulbs come to mind) about the weather. Fat chance. Major blunder.
Yet, reflect a moment. For Bush’s past two terms, would an Al Gore or John Kerry have fared any better? Here, the Creature from the Black Lagoon leaps to mind.
In any event, the greens keep going berserk. Regarding a recent special issue on global warming, here’s Time’s managing editor Richard Stengel: “...we say there needs to be an effort along the lines of preparing for World War II...” You can’t get much sappier than that. Fortunately the public largely agrees, placing global warming well down its list of things that really need addressing.
-----______
(NOW, for my patrons beyond the newspaper column, permit me to digress here to quote a new blast from friend Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute, with another example not only of what’s caused global warming but also why the cooler spell could continue:
“Now it’s not just the sunspots that predict a 23-year global cooling. The new Jason oceanographic satellite shows that 2007 was a “cool” La Nina year—but Jason also says something more important is at work: The much larger and more persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its cool phase, telling us to expect moderately lower global temperatures until 2030 or so.
“For the past century at least, global temperatures have tended to mirror the 20-to 30-year warmings and coolings of the north-central Pacific Ocean....the earth warmed from about 1915 to1940, while the PDO was also warming (1925 to 1946). The earth cooled from 1940 to 1975, while the PDO was cooling (1946 to 1977). Then the strong global warming was accompanied by a strong and almost-constant warming of the north-central Pacific. Ancient tree rings in Baja California and Mexico show there have been 11 such PDO shifts since 1650, averaging 23 years in length.
“Researchers discovered the PDO only recently—in 1996—while searching for the reason salmon numbers had declined sharply in the Columbia River after 1977. The salmon catch record for the past 100 years gave the answer—shifting Pacific Ocean currents”
--Now, back to the good stuff)
-------
There is one proposed climate-change law I maybe could support, rather than the blather emanating from the sky-is-falling crowd. Adoption of a carbon tax has been promoted as a way to make the world colder.
Well, let’s do it, but only if it would apply if the globe gets hotter, as Canadian climate researcher Ross McKitrick has suggested. And if it doesn’t warm further (and it hasn’t for nearly a decade now), leave the carbon tax on the shelf, just in case.
Come to think of it, like our business cycles, the world’s climate also has a natural recurring pattern historically. And, like the business cycles, there’s not a whole lot anyone can do about altering it.
Not that it’s going to deter politicians from hitting us with a lot of new taxes in the name of making the climate behave. That’s the sad prospect unless someone with backbone stands up and faces them down. I thought Bush might. But he’s history, or will be shortly.
So we face the dire prospect of huge global-warming taxes, which the politicians truly want to get their hands on so they can keep earmarking the folks back home and win reelection.
Am I being overly critical of how state and federal officials manage to spend all our treasure and more? Naw, because I recall another huge feel-good crusade a while back, one that in retrospect is mighty instructive.
Cigarettes were claimed to be just awful, and the tobacco companies finally gave in and agreed to make huge payments to states, which would then use the money to persuade sinners to quit smoking. How naive. As USA Today has written on the subject, “States are spending their tobacco settlement money on everything from building schools to cutting taxes--everything, that is, but smoking prevention.”
It all brings to mind the good old days. Back when I was chain smoking, a pack of Pall Malls cost me a quarter, the same price I paid for a gallon of regular gas at the pump. Now I appreciate what inflation truly means.
Further, contrary to popular biases, he’s not to blame for today’s recession, slowdown or whatever you call it. These economic dips occur pretty regularly despite the best efforts of the high and mighty politicians. Or perhaps because of them?
No, sorry to say. These periodic declines used to be identified as part of business cycles that end a stretch of good times with a retrenchment and then renewed growth.
The current whatchamacallit will feel bad for a while, considering the added burden of outrageous gasoline and grocery prices and the home foreclosure crises. Even so, if the past is any guide, the nation will start reviving itself, as usual, before long--despite the politicians’ ministrations. I’d guess things will start looking better before the snow flies next winter.
If they don’t, then let’s just say my hopes got in the way of rational expectation, although I’m told that the stock market nearly always performs well in an election year. I sure hope so.
However, Washington Post writer Steven Pearlstein throws cold water, along with the pitcher:
“Don’t be fooled by the latest sucker rally on stock markets or predictions that the ‘worst may be behind us.’ ...these guys [Wall Street executives and strategists] still don’t have a handle on what they’re dealing with--nobody does.”
We’ll see. But speaking of next winter, I hope it will be a frigid humdinger (except in Stafford, of course, as was the case this past winter). If so, it will be a great example of the law of unintended consequences. President Bush offers a handy example.
I don’t know what must have possessed him the other day, but he suddenly caved in and joined the global warming fanatics by saying we should do something about the climate. Well. It’s a good thing he’s not running for anything nowadays, except cover. He’ll never again get my vote, by golly. Perhaps it’s just a joke he’s playing on Congress (which basks in even greater ill repute) to keep them from passing harsher and similarly futile measures (light bulbs come to mind) about the weather. Fat chance. Major blunder.
Yet, reflect a moment. For Bush’s past two terms, would an Al Gore or John Kerry have fared any better? Here, the Creature from the Black Lagoon leaps to mind.
In any event, the greens keep going berserk. Regarding a recent special issue on global warming, here’s Time’s managing editor Richard Stengel: “...we say there needs to be an effort along the lines of preparing for World War II...” You can’t get much sappier than that. Fortunately the public largely agrees, placing global warming well down its list of things that really need addressing.
-----______
(NOW, for my patrons beyond the newspaper column, permit me to digress here to quote a new blast from friend Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute, with another example not only of what’s caused global warming but also why the cooler spell could continue:
“Now it’s not just the sunspots that predict a 23-year global cooling. The new Jason oceanographic satellite shows that 2007 was a “cool” La Nina year—but Jason also says something more important is at work: The much larger and more persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its cool phase, telling us to expect moderately lower global temperatures until 2030 or so.
“For the past century at least, global temperatures have tended to mirror the 20-to 30-year warmings and coolings of the north-central Pacific Ocean....the earth warmed from about 1915 to1940, while the PDO was also warming (1925 to 1946). The earth cooled from 1940 to 1975, while the PDO was cooling (1946 to 1977). Then the strong global warming was accompanied by a strong and almost-constant warming of the north-central Pacific. Ancient tree rings in Baja California and Mexico show there have been 11 such PDO shifts since 1650, averaging 23 years in length.
“Researchers discovered the PDO only recently—in 1996—while searching for the reason salmon numbers had declined sharply in the Columbia River after 1977. The salmon catch record for the past 100 years gave the answer—shifting Pacific Ocean currents”
--Now, back to the good stuff)
-------
There is one proposed climate-change law I maybe could support, rather than the blather emanating from the sky-is-falling crowd. Adoption of a carbon tax has been promoted as a way to make the world colder.
Well, let’s do it, but only if it would apply if the globe gets hotter, as Canadian climate researcher Ross McKitrick has suggested. And if it doesn’t warm further (and it hasn’t for nearly a decade now), leave the carbon tax on the shelf, just in case.
Come to think of it, like our business cycles, the world’s climate also has a natural recurring pattern historically. And, like the business cycles, there’s not a whole lot anyone can do about altering it.
Not that it’s going to deter politicians from hitting us with a lot of new taxes in the name of making the climate behave. That’s the sad prospect unless someone with backbone stands up and faces them down. I thought Bush might. But he’s history, or will be shortly.
So we face the dire prospect of huge global-warming taxes, which the politicians truly want to get their hands on so they can keep earmarking the folks back home and win reelection.
Am I being overly critical of how state and federal officials manage to spend all our treasure and more? Naw, because I recall another huge feel-good crusade a while back, one that in retrospect is mighty instructive.
Cigarettes were claimed to be just awful, and the tobacco companies finally gave in and agreed to make huge payments to states, which would then use the money to persuade sinners to quit smoking. How naive. As USA Today has written on the subject, “States are spending their tobacco settlement money on everything from building schools to cutting taxes--everything, that is, but smoking prevention.”
It all brings to mind the good old days. Back when I was chain smoking, a pack of Pall Malls cost me a quarter, the same price I paid for a gallon of regular gas at the pump. Now I appreciate what inflation truly means.
posted by Ben Blankenship at
10:23 AM
