From Autoweek: Official claims Fisker Karma to blame in Texas house fire By: David Arnouts May 9, 2012 Last week, a fire badly damaged the home of a new Fisker Karma owner, and authorities are saying that the electric car was the source of the blaze. According to Fort Bend County, Texas, chief fire investigator Go here to read the rest: Official: Fisker Karma Caused TX House Fire
See the rest here:
Official: Fisker Karma Caused TX House Fire
I wanted to bring to your attention a short report released by The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions ( full disclosure: I am the president ) focused on state spending burdens and their connection, or lack thereof, to economic growth. Adam Schwiebert, The Diehl Family Fellow at the Buckeye Institute, put together a short policy brief that uses a measurement know as “state spending burden” – comparing combined state and local government spending as a percentage of private sector Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – to look at the connection between spending and growth. The resulting chart, shown below, highlights that Ohio has a higher level of spending than growth states like Texas, South Dakota and Colorado. For what Paul Harvey would have called the “rest of the story” keep reading. You can probably guess where this is headed: States that spend heavily, such as Ohio and Michigan, have not witnessed the strong economic growth that lower spending states have experienced. Allow me to quote rather extensively from the report : Spending burdens rise for two reasons: Either the private-sector economy decreases relative to government spending or government spending exceeds private sector growth. Both are true for Ohio. Over the past two decades, government spending in Ohio has grown far faster than private sector growth. From 1990 to 2009, Ohio state spending outpaced inflation by 41 percent. During that same time, per capita income growth in Ohio averaged only 3.4 percent, tying for 6th lowest in the nation. The end result was a spending burden that grew from 20.74 percent of Ohio’s private-sector economy in 1992 to 26.30 percent in 2009. Ohio is not alone. Michigan spent heavily over the past two decades and achieved underwhelming economic results. Like Ohio, its spending burden exceeded the national average and reached nearly 27 percent of its private-sector economy by 2009. When government spending grows faster than its tax base, it becomes more burdensome to job creation and only further stifles economic growth. Other states have followed a different, more prosperous course. Texas, South Dakota, and Colorado are three states that have done a far better job at limiting government spending to the growth rate of the private sector. As a result, the spending burdens for each of these states is at or below 20 percent of their private-sector economies. Despite these restrained spending levels, economic growth has flourished in these states over the past two decades. Per capita income growth averaged 4.0, 4.6, and 4.0 percent in Texas, South Dakota and Colorado, respectively, from 1992 to 2009—far outpacing the anemic growth of Ohio and Michigan. Chart? Chart: The takeaway? More spending does not equal more growth. Ohio and Michigan have spent more and yet seen less economic growth and prosperity. Growth states in contrast have been able to restrain spending and reap the rewards. This is particular worth highlighting because just as the economy is showing signs of life the calls for more spending are growing in the states. But states like Ohio and Michigan simply can’t afford to return to the status quo of run away government spending and economic stagnation. Instead, they must lead the way by relentlessly pursuing structural reforms and holding fast to fiscal discipline. Only by keeping government limited and focused on its core components can states give the private sector the space it needs to grow and for communities to thrive.
Indiana Republicans go to the polls tomorrow to decide whether to re-nominate 80-year-old 36-year Senate veteran Richard Lugar or to pick instead State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, running as the conservative alternative. In the usual course of events, my advice for activists and pundits alike in these races is to not forget that every race is unique, based on the individual candidates, the state or district, and the issue environment of the day . Not every state is Utah or Rhode Island; not every conservative is Marco Rubio or Christine O’Donnell; not every moderate is Chris Christie or Jim Jeffords. Often (but not always), the better candidate wins, whether or not that candidate is the most conservative, the most Establishment-backed, or considered the most ‘electable’ by pundits and political pros. That being said, the conditions of 2012 – specifically, the now-certain nomination of Mitt Romney as the Republican candidate for president – call for conservatives to take a harder line than ever in supporting Operation Counterweight ( William Jacobson’s term ), in particular to seek in Senate races what David Freddoso has called “an un-bossable Senate.” Party insiders expect conservatives, Tea Party-style outsiders and single-issue social conservatives to show up to vote anyway for a party whose leader is a man many of us distrust on nearly every issue. Politics, they remind us, is compromise. And that’s precisely my point: it is exactly because one side of the party got Romney that the other can less afford to swallow Romney-like figures in the Senate. That doesn’t mean backing the most conservative candidate in every single race without considering any other factor – but it does mean giving more than usual preference to the more conservative and/or less establishment option in Senate races. It’s not about demanding absolute party purity – it’s about recognizing that Romney has sopped up most of our tolerance for impurity already. If you want a Senate that will hold Romney’s feet to the fire, you have to start by replacing men like Dick Lugar and, in Utah, 78-year old Orrin Hatch. Republican voters have a tremendous opportunity to write on a clean slate in 2012′s Senate races. Out of 33 Senate races, only 7 feature a Republican incumbent, and only three of those have been in office for a full term: Bob Corker of Tennessee (running for his second term, having been first elected in 2006), Lugar, and Hatch, who like Lugar was first elected in 1976 on the coattails of Gerald Ford (who carried both their states that year against Jimmy Carter). Considered solely from the vantage point of partisan loyalty, you might regard Lugar as a good Republican, and Hatch an excellent one. And indeed, Lugar came to Washington in the 70s as very much a mainstream Republican, not significantly less conservative within the context of his times than Mourdock, and Hatch arrived as a movement conservative, much like his current opponent, State Senator Dan Liljenquist. But 36 years in the Senate will make all but the hardiest souls go native. Indeed, in Hatch’s case that was his campaign theme in 1976, running against three-term Democratic incumbent Frank Moss: “What do you call a Senator who’s served in office for 18 years?” “You call him home.” Even if you think these men have done more good than harm in the Senate, it is time to replace them with younger, better alternatives. As I’ve noted before , besides the various ideological and cultural divides within the GOP, a core dividing line is over a sense of urgency to contain the runaway growth of federal spending and the reach of the federal government. It is difficult to picture Lugar and Hatch, as a pair of courtly octogenarians, having the necessary energy not only to seek what is apt to be a difficult partisan confrontation over these issues, but to put pressure on a president from their own party. And while Utah voters will surely be excited to go to the polls for Romney, conservative voters in other states like Indiana will need more encouragement – not yet another message that the establishment has shut them out. That’s good news in Ohio, where a fresh face (State Treasurer Josh Mandel) is on the ballot facing accused wife-beater Sherrod Brown ; it may be more difficult to manage in some other races. And building a critical mass of such candidates (Mandel, Liljenquist, Mourdock, Ted Cruz in Texas, Jeff Flake in Arizona, Don Stenberg in Nebraska, Mark Neumann in Wisconsin, possibly a few others who haven’t proven themselves just yet) will make it easier to convince conservatives nationwide that even with Romney at the top, and even with some Senate races where we are resigned to moderates (Dean Heller, Scott Brown, Linda Lingle) or establishment-minded conservatives (George Allen), the party has not completely lost touch with the lessons of its victories in 2010. In the presidential race, we go to war with the nominee we have. And we should unite behind him, because he’s the only thing standing between us and another term of Obama. But this is not Mitt Romney’s party, it’s ours. We deserve a Senate that will stand up to both Romney and Obama. That’s why it’s time for voters to give Lugar and Hatch the gold watch after 36 years in the Senate, and try something new.
More:
Operation Counterweight Comes To Indiana
Corporate Welfare and Crony Capitalism are the two phrases that come to mine when a free market conservative hears talk of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. According to The Hill , it looks like the House will take up a Export-Import bank reauthorization, including a massive $40 billion increase in loan authority, as early as next week. A draft deal negotiated by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank extends the life of the bank by three years and raises its overall lending capacity to $140 billion from $100 billion, sources said. These major components are closer to the goals of the White House, the Senate Banking Committee and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce than to those of opponents of the Bank such as Heritage Action and the Club for Growth. There is nothing free market about the idea of the United States government providing loans to private companies for the purposes of competing against other private companies. Especially when these large corporations are gaming the system with teams of lobbyists pushing Members of Congress to reauthorize this taxpayer funded slush fund for big business. If the loans don’t pay off, taxpayers have to pick up the tab. The Export Import Bank was an FDR creation and reauthorizing the so called “bank” is unwise. Below are the top ten reasons why the Crony Capitalism/Corporate Welfare bank is bad for America: Export Import Bank is Corporate Welfare – Barack Obama stated publicly that the Export Import bank is ” little more than a fund for corporate welfare .” Senator Obama was giving a speech about ceasing government programs that “don’t work” and he specifically referenced the Export Import Bank in September of 2008. Senator Obama was correct. The Export-Import Bank Provides Politically Appointed Bureucrats the power to Subsidize Politically Popular, and Sometimes not Credit Worthy, Causes – According to Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) in a Washington Examiner Op Ed dated March 20, 2012, “Ex-Im, as it is known, is a federal program that gives politically appointed executives power to lend mainly to foreign companies that buy American products and services. Started decades ago with a lending cap of $5 million, like all federal programs its grown over time and now has a taxpayer subsidized $100 billion cap. Senate Democrats want to further expand it by 40% to $140 billion. Ex-Im also has specific mandates to subsidize politically-popular causes like green energy. What’s wrong with this? In principle, it’s wrong because all companies – foreign and domestic – should compete on a level playing field, so that success goes to those companies who offer the best products and services at the lowest prices. In free market finance, we all benefit as businesses compete for investment that follows those with the best innovations, highest quality, at a price buyers are willing to pay.” Conservatives Oppose Reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank – According to the Conservative Action Project , “with the Federal government saddled with trillion dollars in deficits and debt the Export-Import Bank should be neither expanded nor reauthorized. We urge all organizations and individuals concerned about the size of the federal government to issue op-eds, alerts, blog posts, releases, and other communications warning about the implications of reauthorizing of the Export-Import Bank. Time is short, therefore please do not delay.” The Export-Import Bank has Engaged in Politicized Credit – The Wall Street Journal argued on March 3, 2012 that “if you thought Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Solyndra would teach Congress a lesson about politicized credit, think again. The federal Export-Import Bank is up for reauthorization, and the only question seems to be how much more taxpayer money Washington wants to put at risk. If the GOP wants to have a principled battle about fiscal waste and market distortions, this is a good one. The ExIm Bank—founded in 1934 to support trade with the Soviet Union, but never mind—provides taxpayer-backed loan guarantees and other services to U.S. business, especially big exporters.” The Export-Import Bank Helps Foreign Companies to Compete Against US Companies – Former Congressman Chris Chocola of the Club for Growth writes in the Richmond Times-Dispatch that “the most egregious example of how dysfunctional and misguided the Ex-Im Bank’s actions really are is present in the airline industry. The bank provides financing to foreign airlines that in turn purchase American aircraft, allowing them to compete against U.S.-based carriers. These foreign companies use our subsidy to offer lower prices since American companies cannot qualify for this corporate welfare, and they, in turn, lose business.” Ex-Im Funded A Bankrupt Company – The Ex-Im bank tossed $10.3 million to the now bankrupt solar panel firm Solyndra in 2011. According to PV Tech “for the first time, Solyndra used the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) to facilitate the sale of its modules. Ex-Im Bank is guaranteeing an 18-year €7.7 million loan (U.S. $10.3 million) under its Renewable Express process that was provided by KBC Bank NV in Belgium, which meant the project financing approval was arranged in only 41 days from the receipt of the completed application to approval.” Export-Import Bank Sought $3 billion bailout in 1987 – According to an LA Times story from 1987, “the Export-Import Bank will seek a $3-billion bailout from Congress next month to counter the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in capital, the federal agency’s president said in a report published today. John A. Bohn Jr. told the New York Times that he will report to Congress next month that the bank’s capital has fallen below $1.4 billion, half its 1983 level, and will be wiped out within nine months.” Export-Import Bank Staffers Engaged in Conflicts of Interest – Bloomberg reported on March 25, 2010 that “in the past two years, the (Ex-Im) bank accepted $366,865 for employee trips, according to information provided under a Freedom of Information Act request. Workers visited projects sponsored by companies including Newmont Mining Corp., ConocoPhillips , Saudi Aramco and Barrick Gold Corp. Such travel should be banned because the money may influence the bank’s decisions on billions of dollars in financing, said Craig Holman , a legislative representative at Public Citizen , an advocacy group based in Washington.” The Export-Import Bank Loaned Money to Hollywood Secured by Foreign Contracts – The Club for Growth in a press release dated March 29, 2012 wrote” the Club for Growth today issued the following statement criticizing the Export-Import Bank for guaranteeing loans for the film industry. According to a 2002 press release from the Export-Import Bank , the bank agreed to back “up to 90%” of the loans secured by foreign contracts for four independent films including: · “The United States of Leland,” a drama about a troubled youth learning about good and evil · “Lost Treasure,” an action film about a reality-based TV game show · “Global Effect,” an action film about a lethal virus · “High Voltage,” an action film about a military solar energy project gone awry. Export Import Bank May Have Loaned Money to Mexican Drug Cartels – According to WFAA in Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas reported that an investigation “uncovered hundreds of millions of dollars of fraudulent loans that American taxpayers will have to pay for. The Export Import Bank of the United States backed the transactions, leading some to question whether the bank should exist.” WFAA further found that “the man who lives in this posh mansion in Juarez took U.S. taxpayers for $8 million years ago and he’s still living high inside. And despite $213 million of bad loans to Mexican borrowers on the Texas border, the Export Import Bank of the United States is opening a branch in McKinney.” The investigation found “found dozens of loans made to companies with nonexistent identities and addresses and to some people with connections to Mexican drug cartels which leads Congressman Jeb Hensarling to ask: why expand?” It will be interesting to see how this plays out on the House floor next week. Conservatives should keep a close eye on the progress of the reauthorization and expanded loan authority for the crony capitalist Export-Import Bank.
As a companion piece to my CFIF column earlier this week
