Rudy Takala's Columns

Al-Qaeda Establishes Complaint Department in Syria; Encourages Comments About Government Officials

06/06/2013 15:20:00

Authored for PolicyMic.

In the most recent development stemming from Al-Qaeda's efforts to manage its protocol-challenged employees, the organization has established a complaints department in the Syrian city of Raqqa, according to a Telegraph report published on Monday. The organization is presently the "leading militia" in the northeastern region of Syria and has subsumed parts of the municipal government.

It is notable that Al-Qaeda is better able to manage its employees around the globe than President Obama is able to manage the IRS a few blocks away. Where recent descriptions have painted the IRS as more of a loosely-connected network of independently-operated cells that terrorize taxpayers around the country, Al-Qaeda is beginning to look more like a genuine bureaucracy.

The Sharia court that will handle disputes may not turn out to be very popular, though. It constitutes a shift from Syria's more secular traditions. The Islamists, whose goal is to turn Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon into a single caliphate, also allegedly tried to install a smoking ban in the city. (Having been apparently ineffective, leaders deny that any ban ever existed.)

The news comes a week after the Associated Press reported on a letter written by Al-Qaeda leaders in North Africa scolding international terrorist Moktar Belmokhtar last October. Belmokhtar, who had been passed over for promotions for years — he had even been rejected by Osama bin Laden for a leadership position as an emir — apparently began to doubt the effectiveness of Al-Qaeda's leadership structure.

"Why do the successive emirs of the region only have difficulties with you? You in particular every time?" asked the letter. "Or are all of them wrong and brother Khaled [Belmokhtar] is right?"

They claimed Belmoktar's body count was disgracefully low, describing his "failure" to "carry out spectacular operations, despite [North Africa’s] vast possibilities." (To be fair to Belmokhtar, shortly after he masterminded the Algerian In Amenas incident in which 600 people were taken hostage and 37 killed.)

They also noticed that even though he did not take their phone calls in a timely manner, he did seem to be talking to other people: "Why do you only turn on your phone with the Emirate when you need it, while your communication with some media is almost never ending!"

The department established in Raqqa seems tailor-made for people like Belmokhtar to complain about poor leadership. "Anyone who might have a complaint against any element of the Islamic state, whether the Emir or an ordinary soldier, can come and submit their complaint in any headquarters building of the Islamic state," read the public notice.

How grievances submitted by Belmokhtar and his colleagues might be considered by the department remains to be seen. But if it runs anything like the IRS, citizens may want to think twice before criticizing their government officials.

Laura Ingraham 2018? Jeff Flake Has Reason to Be Worried

05/30/2013 22:37:00

Authored for PolicyMic.

Speaking on her radio show last week, Laura Ingraham threatened to move to Arizona to challenge Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) for the Republican nomination in 2018. “Living up to his last name,” Ingraham said, Flake violated a promise his spokeswoman made to Breitbart.com that he would consider voting to close a loophole in the Senate’s immigration legislation that would allow illegal immigrants to immediately receive state and local welfare. In apparent deference to the establishment wing of his party, Flake reneged on the promise.

When Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) offered an amendment in committee that would have closed the loophole, Flake joined fellow Republicans Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and all the committee’s Democrats in opposing Cruz. As Breitbart had previously reported, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) had been heard referring to the Democrats’ apparent successful wooing of Flake and Graham while speaking on another issue, saying, “Do our Republicans have a pass on this one if they want?”

Some suggest that Arizona is becoming more liberal, having witnessed a 46.3% increase in the Hispanic population between 2000 and 2010. Additionally, Arizona has been a prime destination for Californians fleeing their own ruinous economy, with nearly 50,000 moving from California to Arizona in 2011.

Yet those dynamics have yet to reflect themselves in electoral outcomes. In 2012, Arizona voted for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama 53% to 44%, with eleven counties going to Romney and four to Obama. The state went to McCain in 2008 by a margin of 54% to 45%, and George W. Bush in 2004 by 55% to 44% . The county breakdown was the same each time. The last Democrat to win a presidential election in Arizona was Bill Clinton in 1996.

Flake won his seat in 2012 comfortably, taking it by five percentage points. In the days to pass, Flake seems to have taken some pointers from McCain by rejecting his own party in trying to appease the opposition. The result is that few approve of his performance. As of last month, just 57% of Republicans, 25% of independents and 10% of Democrats in Arizona approved Flake’s job performance. That left him with overall approval of 32% and disapproval of 52%.

Coincidentally, Cruz has far outpaced Flake using the same metric. In Texas, 39% of voters recently approved of the job Cruz is doing to just 28% who disapprove.

Of course, Cruz has been a dynamic leader. In his first six weeks in the Senate, Cruz joined the filibuster against President Obama’s drone policy; earned boisterous criticism from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on guns; and led the investigation of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel during confirmation hearings.

Cruz’s demeanor has even garnered grumbles from the senior Republicans to whom Flake seemingly pledged obedience. Graham predicted in February that Cruz’s attitude would get him nowhere: “The one thing I will say to any new senator — you’re going to be respected if you can throw a punch but you also have to prove you can do a deal.”

Though Texas is a conservative state, Cruz pushes the envelope of the possible, stands on principle, and leads by example. He has enjoyed a correspondingly high approval rating.

Arizona has two lukewarm conservative senators who seem to stand for nothing. Flake, desperate to find someone else to lead him, appears to be losing the respect of his constituents. Changing demographics alone might not be enough to end Republican dominance in the state, but Flake’s lack of leadership will certainly help.

Apple Taxes: Apple's Democratic Leaders Wiggle Out Of the Taxes They Foist On Other Americans

05/26/2013 17:48:00

Authored for PolicyMic.

Based on Apple founder Steve Jobs’ political viewpoints, you might expect his company to be enthusiastic about paying taxes. Not only should they be happy to do that much, you might expect the company to contribute a little extra every so often due to its success and ability to pay more in than others.

Not so, according to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation. The committee on Tuesday listened to testimony from Apple CEO Tim Cook in response to allegations that Apple sheltered $44 billion from taxes by incorporating in Ireland, where it was taxed at a rate of 2% for the last 10 years. The average tax rate in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) participating countries was 24%. For the privilege of repatriating its money to the U.S., Apple would need to donate 35% to the federal government.

As a result, Ireland’s economy has been assisted by international investment. U.S. firms invested $30 billion in Ireland last year. Apple announced it would be adding hundreds more jobs in the country. Google, Microsoft, and Facebook also facilitate substantial amounts of business through Ireland.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) suggested senators should have apologized to Apple instead of harassing the company. “I’m offended by a government that convenes a hearing to bully one of America’s greatest success stories,” he said at the hearing. “What we really need to do is just apologize to Apple, compliment them for the job creation they’re doing.”

Apple is advocating for a “simplification of the corporate tax system that is revenue neutral, eliminates all tax expenditures, lowers [corporate] income tax rates and implements a reasonable tax on foreign earnings that allows free movement of capital back to the U.S.”

On its face, that seems like a worthy goal. But it is not what Apple founder Steve Jobs supported philosophically. From his home in California, Steve Jobs contributed thousands over the years to Chicago Representative (now Mayor) Rahm Emanuel, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and other Democratic politicians who sought confiscatory tax policies.

His political efforts led to the very tax rates that Apple is now declining to pay. The average American pays 29.4% of their income to local, state, and federal governments each year, just short of the 35% that Apple would remit if it brought its earnings back to the country.

Low tax rates for the politically connected amid high tax rates for the poor are hallmarks of crony socialism. Tim Cook notably has not contributed to any politicians to date. That’s cause for hope that his tenure just might mark a new era, one in which Apple will advocate for fairer, lower tax rates for all Americans — and not just its own executives.

Bitcoin Raid: Government Tells Bitcoin Users They're Not Welcome Here

05/22/2013 19:00:00

Authored for PolicyMic.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Tuesday May 14 shut down Dwolla, a mobile payment website that helped to facilitate bitcoin transactions. Bitcoin is the recently flourishing form of virtual currency that has to date largely escaped the reach of federal regulators. The action by the DHS means that investors may be more inclined to take their business to other countries in the future.

The DHS failed to provide immediate specifics on the reason for its action. In an interview published on Sunday, bitcoin core developer Jeff Garzik stated the Dwolla closure was an issue of simple non-compliance and explained the relevant money transmission regulations: "In order to legally service customers in the U.S., you have to register with the federal government, with FinCEN [the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network], and you have to obtain licensing with 48 out of 50 U.S. states … It wasn't an attack on bitcoin, it was a specific compliance issue."

Analysts nonetheless suggested the raid was an overreach. “It is a little bit of a hysterical reaction from the U.S. authorities," said Jon Rushman, a professor at the University of Warwick. “There are concerns of bitcoin being used in illegal ways,” but, he observed, “U.S. dollars, Russian rubles, and euros have all been used by criminals, but nobody is suggesting their central banks should be closed down and their governors imprisoned.”

Fears that bitcoin could be used for illicit activity include the possibilities that it could be used in online gambling or for the purchase of drugs.

While bureaucrats in the U.S. tread heavily over bitcoin users, other countries have expressed a more welcoming demeanor. A letter leaked from Canada’s financial investigations unit after last week’s DHS assault on Dwolla explained that bitcoin exchanges in the country would be exempt from governing money-laundering laws.

One Canadian bitcoin trader welcomedthe news and predicted investors would leave the U.S. to conduct their business north of the border, saying, “This is a big win for Canadian exchanges, because U.S. citizens can simply trade from across the border.”

In the absence of much evidence that bitcoin enables harmful behavior to a significantly greater degree than traditional currencies, the DHS and federal authorities have little to show for scaring financial investors out of doing business in the U.S. The federal government should look for ways to work with bitcoin traders in the future instead of against them.

9 Biggest Controversies Of Obama's Time in the National Spotlight

05/19/2013 19:07:00

Authored for PolicyMic.

With revelations this week of three scandals involving the Obama administration, it's a fitting time to reflect on the president's biggest controversies since he took the national stage.

9. Michelle Obama

Little must the president have known in February 2008 that when his wife was criticized for saying that she had never been proud of America before her husband won support for elective office, it would be one of the smallest problems of his elective career.

8. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers

As that first election went by, the controversies became more burdensome. In spite of Obama’s objection to those bitter people who clung to guns and religion, it was discovered that he had attended the church of Rev. Jeremiah Wright — who suggestedthat attendees should sing “God damn America.”

It was also discovered that Obama had a social relationship with ‘60s bomber Bill Ayers, who held a fundraiser for Obama when he first ran for office in 1995, and whose stated goals once included killing “the rich.”

7. Guns to Mexico

Earlier this month, the president blamed illegal guns and drugs from the United States for causing violence in Mexico. He omitted any reference to Fast and Furious, the operation whereby the ATF encouraged gun retailers to sell merchandise to suspected traffickers and cartel members in order to somehow “track” the members back to their leadership. The ATF lost track of the guns, which have been linked to more than 300 deaths. Not to let the operation go to waste, it was later discovered that the ATF had discussed the possibility of using the operation to argue in favor of putting tighter restrictions on law-abiding gun owners.

6. Bitter Clingers

Two months later, Obama himself suggestedthat Americans might not support him because they were “bitter” and “cling to guns and religion.” It was a strange argument considering Americans “cling” to those things less than people in other regions that the President has never mentioned. He has yet to condemn, say, Russia, Africa, or the Middle East for any similar faults.

5. Tax Cheats

The president believes that the rich should pay more in taxes — unless they work for his administration, in which case he leaves the amount they should pay to their own discretion. It was reported last year that 36 Obama aides owe $833,970 in back taxes. Though most mainstream media outlets ignored that story, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s failure to pay Social Security or Medicare taxes when he worked for the IMF was more well-reported in 2009.

4. Solyndra

In the midst of auditor warnings that Solyndra was on the brink of bankruptcy, Obama said in 2010 that Solyndra demonstrated the “promise of clean energy” was “not just an article of faith.” The Department of Energy forked over $535 million in loans to help Solyndra out, and shortly after the company did indeed declare bankruptcy.

3. Benghazi

Did President Obama acknowledge that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was terrorism, or did he attribute it — as United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice did — to videos on YouTube? Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post suggests that the administration did not attribute the attack to terrorism, and today assigned its fervent objections to the contrary a score of four Pinocchios — the maximum given to inaccurate or dishonest statements.

2. Seizing Records

It was revealed by the Associated Press on Monday that the Justice Department had seized the records of more than 20 separate phone lines belonging to the company or its employees, citing a national security leak as the reason.

Lucy Dalglish, dean of the University of Maryland's College of Journalism, suggested that the seizure was unprecedented in scope. “The only reason you would do that is to intimidate the media and federal employees. An administration that values a free press would very narrowly target such an action. This is a tactic of intimidation. I have seen nothing like this.”

Attorney General Eric Holder claims he had no knowledge of the operation. If Holder is telling the truth, someone in Justiceviolateddepartmental guidelines by failing to seek Holder’s authorization. Holder was scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

1. IRS Crucifixions

EPA official Al Armendariz famouslyexplained his philosophy for enforcement to a crowd in 2010:

“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean … they'd find the first five guys they saw, and they'd crucify them. And then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.

It looks like Armendariz wasn’t the only bureaucrat who held that vision. Developing reports reveal that the Internal Revenue delayed processing tax-exempt applications for conservative groups by up to three years; asked burdensome and inappropriate questions; sought to get lists of people who were involved with the groups; leakedthe information to liberal groups; and tried to alter the missions of conservative groups to make them more liberal, in one case telling a group that it would be required to promote abortion.

All three of the most recent controversies threaten to become full-blown scandals. The president’s view that his administration was above the law was apparent long before his re-election; his desire to use the government to transform America was evident as well. Should Americans therefore be surprised by recent revelations, or are they getting the change they voted for?

Minnesota Gay Marriage: Just the First Volley in the 2014 Election Battle

05/13/2013 17:54:00

Authored for PolicyMic.

Though he was elected in 2010 by a razor-thin margin of 8,770 votes, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton has aggressively pushed policies that have at times been to the left of Minnesota's voters. Since Democrats won control of both legislative chambers in 2012, he has pushed the envelope even more to the extreme. Still, if the state's Republicans nominate a candidate who is less politically competent than Governor Dayton, Democrats may increase their margin of victory in 2014.

The latest divisive issue to arise was gay marriage. Minnesota's House passed legislation to recognize gay marriage on Thursday. Just last year, the legislature put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to prevent the recognition of gay marriage from entering state statutes. The amendment failed 51-48%. This year, 15 House Democrats representing districts that voted in favor of the amendment voted in favor of Thursday’s gay marriage legislation. It is not an issue that looks destined to help Democrats win local elections in 2014.

There have been additional issues on which Governor Dayton has overreached. For instance, shortly after his term began, the state Supreme Court invalidated an illegal executive order of Dayton's that would have allowed the state's unions to take childcare assistance away from its beneficiaries. Earlier this year, the court additionally ruled that the state would need to pay their attorneys' fees.

Dayton has overreached and taken missteps that open him to criticism. So far, two Republicans have entered the race for the Republican nomination to replace Dayton: Jeff Johnson and Scott Honour.

Jeff Johnson is presently a Republican national committeeman with a reasonable record of involvement. He served for three terms in the Minnesota House before running for attorney general in 2006. He has also maintained some relationships with people trying to be involved at a local level and seemed to represent them. For instance, he sponsoredan amendment in the Republican National Committee that would have allowed voters to vote on the delegates that elect presidential candidates rather than simply allowing the party's leaders to hand-pick them.

Scott Honour is a more mysterious candidate, marketing himself simply as a "businessman." He has little record in the state, havingjust soldhis Los Angeles home and moved to Minnesota in 2010. Granted, he grew up in the state, but his political contributions suggest he spent some time deciding where to seek elective office. The contributions included$4,175 to the Vermont Republicans; $4,175 to the Massachusetts Republicans; $5,000 to the Republican Party of Minnesota; and so on.

For that matter, his contributions indicate he also spent some time figuring out which party's presidential candidates he liked. Hecontributedthousands of dollars both to George W. Bush and Al Gore during the 2000 presidential election; $2,000 to Democrat Bob Graham in 2003; $2,100 to Rudy Giuliani in 2007; and, of course, several others. (Traditional conservatives were the only candidates who didn’t make the list of those he supported.)

Democrats have attacked Honour solely for being rich. That is a hypocritical and inane attack, considering Governor Dayton became a millionaire by inheritance where Honour made it on his own. Much more worrisome is the fact that Honour seems to stand for himself more than for anything else.

Dayton is a weak candidate and he could be defeated by a Republican with strong personal character, consistent political principles, and a tone that represents Minnesota's voters. Johnson represents a strong match to those characteristics, and additional candidates may emerge. Yet if a weaker candidate makes it through the primary process by substituting money for character, Minnesota Republicans should expect to again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again in 2014.

Working Families Flexibility Act: Why Are Democrats Opposing More Comp Time?

05/12/2013 22:59:00

Authored for PolicyMic.

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed the Working Families Flexibility Act, which would give hourly private-sector workers the option to reject overtime pay in in favor of compensatory time off. The Senate is unlikely to take up the legislation, as Democrats vociferously oppose it. Their reasoning would make more sense if their arguments were more consistent.

Under the legislation, comp time would accumulate at the rate of 1.5 hours per hour of overtime worked, employees would be permitted to accumulate a maximum of 160 hours annually, and employers would be required to pay out unused time at termination.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a tweet about the legislation suggesting that it encouraged employers to “push working moms to give up wages and take time off instead,” and also that it allowed employers “to refuse a working mom’s request for time off.”

Specifically, the Democrats' complaints center on the possibilities that employers could pressure employees who would prefer overtime pay to take time off instead, and that employers might not work with employees to provide the specific time off that they request.

Yet this particular legislation applies only to private-sector workers. Public-sector employees already have the right to choose time off instead of overtime pay. It is true that at times, it has been difficult for employees to get time off on the dates that they request. Regulations have evolved over the years through judicial decisions in which different circuit courts reached different conclusions.

Generally, though, regulations on the matter have been developing in favor of employees. In April 2011, the Department of Labor’s Wage & Hour Division (WHD) ruled in favor of employees, writing, “The Department believes that the better reading” of the law “is that it requires employers to grant compensatory time on the specific date requested unless doing so would unduly disrupt” the employer’s business.

Rules on that matter will remain variable until Congress changes the law or the Supreme Court makes its own ruling. In the meantime, the fact remains that Democrats are willing to allow government employees a degree of flexibility that they refuse to grant workers in the private sector.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) echoed complaints about the legislation, saying that employees“will not be able to earn overtime, because the employer will invariably… go to the person that will in fact do it for free.”

Though Hoyer argues that private sector workers should not have the option of negotiating their own compensation, he makes the unique argument that they should have a right to work overtime, even in the event it is financially difficult for employers to facilitate. His troubled reasoning seems like a recipe for economic dysfunction.

What is most notable is that any of these Democrats complains that compensation is too low. That’s a proposition conservatives can agree with. The nation reached Tax Freedom Day — the day the country’s tax burden for the year was paid — on April 18, less than one month ago. The average American will pay 29.4% of their income in taxes this year. In fact, Hoyer’s Maryland boasts the eighth-highest tax burden in the nation, while Pelosi’s California has the sixth-highest. Those figures suggest they don’t care about anyone’s financial well-being at all.

Democrats genuinely interested in raising workers’ pay should look at decreasing the tax burden. Moreover, they should seek to provide private-sector employees with the same flexibility given to government employees. In the absence of those things, their arguments about overtime compensation ring hollow.

What Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio Have That Obama Does Not

05/11/2013 19:36:00

Authored for PolicyMic.

Though firebrand Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was just elected to the Senate in 2012,speculation has erupted in the last week that he may be a top presidential contender in the coming cycle. He joins potential contenders Senators Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), both just elected in 2010. Their emergence has inspired observers to wonder whether the prospect of presidential contenders coming out of the Senate has become a new norm. Though they do follow President Obama — elected out of the Senate after serving there a mere four years — it seems to be for very different reasons.

Traditionally, senators have not had an easy time building the sort of national coalitions needed to win the presidency. Of 44 presidents, only 16 served in the Senate; just three (Warren Harding, John Kennedy, and Barack Obama) were elected directly from the Senate to the White House.

Looking at recent history, it seems like senators are becoming increasingly presentable candidates for the White House. Yet Rubio, Rand and Cruz stand in contrast to the president in many ways.

Obama cruised to easy victories abetted by Democratic leaders. In seeking the party’s nomination for Senate in March 2004, he received 53% of the vote to 24% for his closest competitor. The same year, he delivered the speech at the Democratic National Convention that sparked his rise to enduring national prominence.

Where Obama spent his time almost passively schmoozing with Democratic stars, Rand Paulbrawledwith Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and 22 other Republican senators to win his party's nomination with acommanding59% of the vote.

Months earlier, McConnell and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), had scurried to snuff out Rubio's candidacy in favor of now-Democrat Charlie Crist. The day Crist announced, Cornyn quicklyassured voters that while Rubio had 'a very bright future within the Republican Party," Crist was "the best candidate … to ensure that we maintain the checks and balances that Floridians deserve in the United States Senate."

Less than a year later, Crist dropped out of the Republican primary, and Rubio crushed it with 85% of the vote.

By 2012, Cornyn, McConnell, and other professional politicians — "spineless jellyfish," as Cruz taunted them — were realizing that they couldn't relate to the shifting political dynamics being powered by leaders like Rand and Rubio. They opted to start being more quiet.

Of course, Cruz was still hit by more than one faction of Republican leadership. Mike HuckabeeendorsedCruz's opponent, and Rick Perry — who has endorsed more than one losing candidate — did thesame. Nonetheless, Cruz went on towinthe final primary vote by 57-43%.

All three Republicans (Cruz, Rand and Rubio) made a name for themselves through a very real personification of conservatism: a manifestation of the idea that excessive authority or conformity was anathema to a free society. The three have bucked history by blazing their own trail straight through an incredibly lost and weakened party.

In contrast, Obama is the personification of collectivist ideals. His victories were blessings from a process of consensus, occasionally buoyed with endorsements from traditional Democratic leaders like Sen. Ted Kennedy. He was ushered out of the Senate as easily as he was escorted in, the result of a communal production rather than through his natural abilities as a historic, enigmatic leader.

Where Obama represented only the occasional exception, Senator Cruz, Rubio and Paul seem to constitute a convergence of historic forces that were, in part, catalyzed and driven by the uniqueness of their own personal visions for their party and country.

Senators seeking the presidency do appear to be more common based on recent observations. But the forces propelling them there look to be quite different.

Solar Energy Embarrassingly Less Productive than Coal

05/09/2013 00:04:00

Authored for the Heritage Foundation.

A map recently released by the Solar Foundation highlights the industry’s claim that 119,000 Americans are now employed in the solar industry. Its authors exclaim, “The United States solar industry employs more workers than coal mining.” What the map doesn’t touch on is whether solar energy is the most economical energy source.

Solar advocates certainly think solar is economically beneficial. The average salary for a solar panel installer is “between $30,000 and $40,000 per year” according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The average salary for those in coal mining is $53,000 annually.

Yet when we look at the productivity of solar energy, it suggests that solar workers are going to have a hard time keeping pace with their counterparts in the coal industry.

In 2011, the United States produced 1,094,300,000 tons of coal. Coal’s energy content is measured by British thermal units (BTUs). At coal’s production rate of about 19,583,000 BTU per ton, it provided over 21 quadrillion BTUs of energy to the U.S. in 2011. In contrast, solar energy provided a mere 158 trillion BTUs.

In other words, solar power provided 0.07 percent of the energy that coal provided—not quite a full percentage point. That is in spite of the fact that the industry employs more people than the coal industry—which provided 87,500 jobs as of May 2012 according to the BLS.

Some simple math suggests that each worker in the solar industry produces about one half of one percent as much energy as the average coal miner. If workers were paid according to BTU output, solar workers would be making less than $300 annually proportionate to coal miners. Alternatively, it would require 21.4 million people in the solar industry to do the job that 87,500 coal miners are doing at present.

Considering the inefficiency of solar energy and the cost of creating jobs in the solar industry, it seems like a wasteful use of tax dollars to keep subsidizing solar to the tune of billions of dollars every year. It was recently estimated by Congressional Budget Office senior advisor Terry Dinan that $7.3 billion in energy tax subsidies would go towards renewable energy in 2013, with another $4.8 billion for energy efficiency.

President Obama has urged that subsidies for traditional fossil fuels be reduced or eliminated. That is a worthy goal, but to transfer that government support to the solar industry makes no sense at all. It is an inefficient boondoggle, and any jobs the industry “creates” are incredibly less productive than jobs in the fossil fuel industry.

Disinterested observers cannot share the Solar Foundation’s joy over an industry that has less than one percent the productivity of the industry it would replace. The solar industry offers more work for a lot less output.

Simpson-Bowles Budget 2013: Barely Making a Dent in the Debt

05/06/2013 23:56:00

Authored for PolicyMic.

Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson wrote an editorial for the Washington Post on Monday, reminding readers that they have a plan to reduce the nation’s $17 trillion debt. Released on April 19, the latest edition of their proposal would reduce the nation’s deficit $2.5 trillion by 2023.

That means debt would end up constituting 69% of gross domestic product. That figure nearly aligns with President Obama’s own plan, which projects debt at 73% of GDP, and stands substantially higher than the 55% target passed by the House of Representatives in the Paul Ryan Budget. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects debt will equal 77% of GDP in 2023 under current law. It's hard to see how Simpson-Bowles represents a serious attempt to cut the national debt.

It is noteworthy to keep in mind that none of the plans actually decrease the size of government. The most conservative budget, the Ryan plan, increases spending at a rate of 3.4% annually. Ryan’s plan has also become more liberal with each year: In 2011, it proposed spending increases of 2.8% annually, but in 2012 it proposed an increase of 3.1% each year.

In all, even Ryan’s budget would reduce the deficit by a mere 25 percent of the national debt, or $4.6 trillion, over 10 years. Obama’s budget would cut the deficit by an insignificant $1.8 trillion.

Considering how similar the Simpson-Bowles plan is to President Obama’s own plan, it is notable that the president refuses to offer it his endorsement. Congressional Republicans are not as hesitant, and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and a few other Republican senators have endorsed the Simpson-Bowles plan.

It goes to illustrate how much better Democrats are at marketing than Republican leaders in Congress. Instead of negotiating with Republicans, Democrats have a practice of setting multiple goalposts of their own, any of which they would accept. Instead of negotiating on their own terms, Republicans are usually happy to accept and start promoting at least one of the Democratic options.

That said, not all of the plan’s proposals are bad. It proposes some politically infeasible measures that would limit spending, such as capping it to half the projected inflation rate through 2020. President Obama wants to increase spending by double the rate of inflation through 2023 (By proposing something extreme he moves the ball to the left—a concept Republicans have yet to grasp).

The Simpson-Bowles plan would also eliminate business tax subsidies and reduce the corporate tax rate. Instead of taking money from companies that the governing political party dislikes and giving it to those that are more favored (like Solyndra), it would simply eliminate subsidies and reduce the tax burden.

Additionally, spending caps would be enforced by point of order and abatement—whereby the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would engage in across-the-board spending cuts, and any measure to suspend the cuts would require a separate non-amendable vote in the House and an additional vote in the Senate requiring 60 votes in favor.

The only problem with that proposal, unfortunately, is that 60 votes may not be enough to keep future sessions of Congress on track to reduce the debt.

The Simpson-Bowles plan offers a starting point for creating a more fiscally solvent government. Some of its suggestions and enforcement measures are worthwhile components. But it isn’t particularly serious about reducing the debt. Congress should look to do better.