Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Texas Turns Off Lights on Federal Lightbulb Ban

"State lawmakers have passed a bill that would allow Texans to skirt federal efforts to promote more efficient light bulbs, which ultimately pushes the swirled, compact fluorescent bulbs over the 100-watt incandescent bulbs many grew up with. The measure, sent to Gov. Rick Perry for consideration, lets any incandescent light bulb manufactured in Texas - and sold in that state - avoid the authority of the federal government or the repeal of the 2007 energy independence act that starts phasing out some incandescent light bulbs next year."

"Let there be light," state Rep. George Lavender, R-Texarkana, wrote on Facebook after the bill passed. "It will allow the continued manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs in Texas, even after the federal ban goes into effect. ... It's a good day for Texas."


61 Comments:

At 6/21/2011 2:35 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

The country needs Texanomics:

Texas Gov. Perry blasts Obama as presidential buzz grows
June 20, 2011

"The Texas governor...has kept taxes low and regulations to a minimum to make his state one of the best places for companies to do business.

More than one-third of the roughly 2 million new jobs added to the U.S. economy during the current recovery were created in Texas."

 
At 6/21/2011 2:37 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

And the American people deserve respect from Washington DC.

 
At 6/21/2011 2:59 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

The left-wing should have tried to ban the CFC bulbs for their mercury content, and rhapsodized about the warm, natural light of incandescent bulbs.

Then the right-wing would have embraced the CFC bulbs for delivering more light for less energy, and being the sort of technological breakthrough that the furry hippies dislike.

If you tell a right-winger that nuke plants are great as they reduce CO2, the right-winger will say he does not like nuke plants.

Even high mpg cars are suspect in rightie land.

Meanwhile, I really like the new LED lamps...bought one in Thailand that actually works for eight hours even after power failure...has a battery in the base. Unfortunately, it runs on 220v, and so I didn't bring it home to USA.

 
At 6/21/2011 3:03 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Now the federal government will have something else to whine about...

From the Wilson County News: Texas Challenges EPA's Greenhouse Gas Regulations

 
At 6/21/2011 3:15 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

And the American people deserve respect from Washington DC.

You want swamp dwellers to respect you? I'd settle for staying in their swamp and leaving the rest of us alone.

 
At 6/21/2011 3:18 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Texas has a $27 Billion Budget Deficit coming in 2012 - 2013. I'd be looking around for a new job, too.

 
At 6/21/2011 3:23 PM, Blogger DL said...

“It's a good day for Texas”


Good day for the 10th amendment

 
At 6/21/2011 3:39 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Among places to live in the Third World, Texas is near the top.

 
At 6/21/2011 3:43 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Rufus, I'm sure we've had this conversation, but the Texas budget shortage is estimated to be between 15 and 27 billion. They're sitting on almost 10b.
I'm not saying it's roses and rainbows, but continually using the high estimate without factoring surplus must be an attempt to intentionally mislead.

 
At 6/21/2011 3:45 PM, Blogger Mike said...

You have a point Benjamin. It would be like telling a massive lie to the left about global climate catastrophe and then watching them push each other over on their way to buy unnecessary and expensive crap that doesn't work, in order to feed their need for external validation and inexplicable desire for wrong-headed superiority.

Again, your ideology makes you miss the point. Right wingers couldn't care less about your idiotic light bulbs and dangerous, pokey cars. Knock yourselves out. Just don't MAKE others buy them without an absolutely irrefutable, GOOD reason.

By the way, maybe I've just had bad luck, but every CFB I've bought had to be turned on and warmed up for 5 minutes before I could see well enough to do anything (meaning a much longer on-time)...if that's your 'super-alien-technology breakthrough', you can keep it....Oh, and my recent LED purchase has been moved to the garage due to its disappointing performance. I'd throw my CFBs out, but then we'd have real environmental damage.

 
At 6/21/2011 3:59 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Uh, no, Mike; I don't believe WE have had this conversation. I don't recall it. I've seen the number $27 Billion. I haven't seen "between $15 and $27 Billion." If that is more accurate, I defer.

This isn't way up my excite-o-meter.

I just become bemused when everyone gets all excited over Tx, and leaves off all the negative stuff (8% unemployment - better than the country as a whole, but still 8%,) low median income, unGodly hot weather :), one of my ex-wives, you know, that sort of thing. :)

 
At 6/21/2011 4:00 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

i foresee light bulb stores just over the boarder the way some state have firework stands.

well done texas. i continue to enjoy perry's rollback of federal encroachment.

 
At 6/21/2011 4:01 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

I know they weren't so "Independent-oriented" as to turn down that $6.4 Billion from Uncle Sugar last year.

 
At 6/21/2011 4:02 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

After Unk borrowed it from China, and signed my kids' names to the note.

 
At 6/21/2011 4:10 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

I saw Perry whining to Greta Van Susteren about a hole they had to leave open in the fence (for the local landowner,) and about how there wasn't a "Border Patrol" Agent, there; but I didn't see a "Texas Ranger" there, either.

I, also, noticed his lack of support for Jan Brewer in her fight against illegal aliens.

 
At 6/21/2011 4:12 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

I, also, seem to remember him being State Chair for Al Gore.

 
At 6/21/2011 4:40 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Mike-

Actually, I am a free-marketeer. I just notice how polarized and politically correct everything has become, for both the left and the right.

For the lefties, nukes were bad until the global warming story, now nukes are good.

Some lefties, usually feminists (such as Secy of State Clinton), have become imperialists, claiming the right to reorganize Afghanistan, as they oppress women there.

So, from the lefty viewpoint, expensive wars to free people under Communism was not worth it, but freeing people from sexism is.

I could go on.

But my only ideology is free markets where possible, and that the GOP (Grifters on Parade) and the Dems (losers)are sadly out of step with the times.

I think people should be able to buy whatever lightbulbs they want--as long as bulbs are clearly marked to reveal costs.

I suspect in time LEDs will rule.

 
At 6/21/2011 4:41 PM, Blogger jeppen said...

In Germany, a smart businessman found a way to circumvent the laws banning incandescents: Selling "heat balls".

"Anyway… very ingenious things, heat balls: they work by converting electricity into heat energy, with an impressive 95% efficiency, which makes them perfect for warming specific spots in the house. They’re also absurdly simple to make: glass, tungsten, some argon to keep the device stable - it’s all very cheap to make, particularly since it’s all off-the-shelf technology. Best of all: heat balls fit in a standard lamp socket, which means that you won’t need any kind of special equipment to use them! They’re not perfect, though: the extremely small amount of energy wasted by a heat ball ends up generating photons, which means that you don’t want to look at a heat ball directly. But even that can be mitigated by using exterior shades."

 
At 6/21/2011 4:46 PM, Blogger DeeBee9 said...

Benjamin, Exactly what is it about freedom you just can't stand?

 
At 6/21/2011 4:49 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Rufus,
Sorry I didn't mean that you and I had the conversation, I remember it coming up in the comments a while ago....I meant "we" collectively.
The median income isn't all the high here, with the huge population and massive immigrant influence, but consider a comparable state like New York and tell me where you'd live better on 49,000. I don't think median income means much. Just add in what we don't pay in state income tax and real spending/saving power is already better.
I think you can see why people come here. Everything you mentioned is better than it looks on paper...except the ex-wife thing.

Oh! And it's downright chilly today! About 97.

 
At 6/21/2011 4:54 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

DeeBee-

Well, if freedom leads to parties like the Grifters on Parade (GOP) and the Dufus Dems, then that is what I don't like about freedom...but you are free to vote for those parties if you wish.

But I don't like it.

I like free markets so much I think we should sell naming rights to the White House.

Imagine the "Home Depot White House," on the news, and Home Depot would pay taxpayers for that right, and keep the White House properly maintained using Home Depot products.

The "Ford Pentagon" has a ring to it too. The "US Brinks Trucks Marines."

The Olive Garden Grand Canyon?

 
At 6/21/2011 5:09 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Benjamin,
I'd agree with you except, for example, I don't see too many lefties out there demanding nuclear power. Just the opposite, especially after Japan's recent trouble. I wouldn't call many people in gov't 'left' or 'right', those are constituents. Most politicians are in the 'power and profit at our expense' party and only care about issues as methods of election and agenda vehicles.

I think if you go back and read your posts, you may see that you don't come off as free market. Closer to a Stephen Colbert who sarcastically frames right wingers (and almost exclusively right wingers) as idiots...
Considering they're, by far, closer in-line with free market ideas, one wouldn't think you'd spend so much time ripping on people who share your voting habits.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm pretty confident that bulbs clearly marked to reveal costs would put CFBs out of business over night...starting with the clearly marked price tag.
Although, I do agree that improved LED technology will make them hard to beat.

 
At 6/21/2011 5:18 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Mike,

Benji likes to blather on about his ideological purity, but it really comes down to a prism of "what's in it for Benji?"


He supports socialist health care, protectionism, inflation, the minimum wage, and pulled the lever for a socialist community organizer. Then he routinely chastises the rest of us for not strictly adhering to Milton Friedman's every utterance.

Don't take anything Benji says seriously.

 
At 6/21/2011 5:31 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Paul,
I've noticed... everything you just said is true and I applaud you for brilliantly summarizing in slightly more than a paragraph.

I need to work on my word economy!

 
At 6/21/2011 5:42 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Mike-

Secy of Energy Chu, an Obama man, is a big proponent of nukes. I would say in the USA lefties are beginning to like nukes. Fukushima is very unfortunate, and bad timing to say the least.

The good news is that there are several new nuke designs that will decrease risks, and we may even be able to build small nuke plants. I am all for that.

You may assume I am a leftie as I lampoon our rampantly excessive military spending and overseas war follies. But I believe all our of federal agencies are zealots--when it comes to their own budgets and programs. You will never hear the Pentagon say, "Actually, the risk of anyone invading the USA has been falling for years. We have no serious military enemies, only a few terrorist punks."

As for commenter Paul, he takes out of context remarks I make, or when I show flashes of being open-minded.

For example, it is a fact that Far East nations have prospered following mercantile models. Does the government-and-business export model work? So far, it has for S Korea, Taiwan, and China. Japan is suffocating under tight money policies.

I have noted that Great Britain spends half what we do on health care, and get roughly the same results. If I had to choose between what we have today, and the Brit model, I would go with their model. I would like to see if free enterprise models can work--but no one seems to really want that. They would have pulled the plug on Terri Schiavo years earlier in a free enterprise model. No money to keep her in a permanent coma.

I support the minimum wage (which is lower now than in the 1960s, adjusted for inflation) as we prevent people from starting up their own small-capital businesses such jitneys, push-cart vendors, prostitution, recreational drug sales, speakeasies, front yard barbershops, pot growing etc. Give us real free markets (and I support that) and I drop the minimum wage.

Pollution is an unintended consequence of modern-day free markets, and must be controlled. The price mechanism fails in this case. There are also the property rights of the polluted to consider.

Paul thinks that makes me a leftie.

Not really. I just see folly where it is.

 
At 6/21/2011 5:45 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Mike and Paul-

Let me guess--you guys pull the lever for the Grifters on Parade (GOP) and then think you are in favor of free enterprise and small government.

You are deeply deluded.

 
At 6/21/2011 5:53 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

CAMPAIGN

Poll: Bachmann surges to primary lead

Fresh off her well-received performance in last week’s Republican presidential debate, Rep. Michele Bachmann now tops the field of candidates in a new Zogby poll of Republican primary voters.

The poll found Mrs. Bachmann of Minnesota garnering 24 percent of the vote, well ahead of businessman Herman Cain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who each got 15 percent support.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., who officially announced his candidacy on Tuesday, scored just 2 percent support.

I have been predicting a Palin-Bachmann ticket, but maybe I have it backwards. It will be Bachmann-Palin.

Can Palin stand being No. 2 again?

 
At 6/21/2011 6:14 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Benji's a pragmatist you see, he's all about what works! So he supports a US version of the superbly run and highly efficientNHS!

He's also simultaneously a free market purist who wants to slap advertising labels on the White House! That's why he helped put a socialist community organizer in that White House he wants to commericalize.

But you? You rabble! How dare you deviate from Milton Friedman's scripture!

 
At 6/21/2011 6:16 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Benji,

"Let me guess--you guys pull the lever for the Grifters on Parade (GOP) and then think you are in favor of free enterprise and small government."

Right, let us have it, Benji. You have massive credibility when it comes to your voting record.

 
At 6/21/2011 6:31 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Hey, if it cuts my (and yours) tax bill, what is wrong with the "Home Depot White House," and having the excellent chain store maintain the facility?

For that matter, they ought to rent out the Lincoln Bedroom to a brothel service.

I imagine Michelle would get her buns in a snit about that, but I think we should legalize what happens in the White House every day anyway.

 
At 6/21/2011 6:35 PM, Blogger Mike said...

I can't speak for Paul, but I wouldn't consider voting for the best of a bad pair to be deluded (not that it's relevant, but when I saw McCain and Obama on my voting terminal, I almost just walked out...I then realized we'd be in deep, directionless recession for years with Obama, so I voted).

1. Steve Chu also believes California will be wiped out by 2100 due to global warming. I guess this is Obama's "team of rivals" that Ms Kearns-Goodwin gets all sticky over.

2. "rampantly excessive military spending and overseas war follies"
shouldn't you be going after Obama for this? Interesting to see the "NATO" war in Libya and why we're paying for almost all of it. All of these socialized wonder lands in Europe haven't bothered to buy bullets for a few decades. I agree we should cut, but unless you want some nut to invade Europe, we'll have to continue to pay for their luxuries.
And, YES! Everybody is a zealot with their own budget. That's exactly why there shouldn't be so many.

3. Not sure what your Far East paragraph means. Yes, sometimes wrong things work in weird places for a little while? If I took steroids for a couple decades, I'd be bigger and stronger than you, but I don't think that would be a good long-term idea. In other words, ya, you can cheat nature...for a while.

4. I think you're way off on your UK health model for way too many reasons than I have time for.

5. I'm not sure that you're in any position to negotiate one bad policy for another. I think I understand your linkage of minimum wage and restricted business, but those are unrelated except that they are both horrible government policy. If you have a problem with one, some or all, your problem is with the same people, not the issue itself. You're saying two wrongs make right and you won't concede your wrong until the other is righted.

 
At 6/21/2011 6:41 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

...except the ex-wife thing.


The Main thing one must remember is the "Main" thing is the Main thing. :)

 
At 6/21/2011 6:48 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Rufus,
We have that covered too! It's a really, reeeaaallly BIG state. We can stick her in El Paso and you can come to Houston for a beer!

 
At 6/21/2011 6:59 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Mike-

Obama has nothing about incredibly stupid and expensive foreign wars ($3 trillion for Iraqistan) and made matters worse, as you point out. However, would McCain have been better?

My Far East paragraph means that I know I believe in free markets, but I see the success of, say, a South Korea. Their mercantile model seems to work, perhaps better than ours. They have better looking women too.

Some say the Far East models work as government supports business...you hint that it will lead to inefficient resource allocation, and cronyism. Time will tell--I keep an open mind.

I agree we had mediocre choices in 2008. We may again in 2012. I would vote for Ron Paul, although his conspiracy nut-case theories about the Fed are a bit worrying. Next he'll say he saw flying saucers deposit Bernanke there under a full moon.

 
At 6/21/2011 7:23 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Iraq was/is an absolute abortion. But I'd take issue that Afghanistan was/is an incredibly stupid war. Toss in a big chunk of Libya and season with Yemen and Obama is just as good a chef as Bush....not to mention that B.O. still has Iraq simmering on the back burner after he told us he'd end that immediately....
McCain better? Doubt it, but we'll never know. Couldn't be worse unless he died and left us Palin.

"you hint that it will lead to inefficient resource allocation, and cronyism."
I don't see how it couldn't. I also don't believe that the model is sustainable, if you want to move the true economy as a whole much past levels that we would consider basic.

 
At 6/21/2011 7:23 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

It's a Big state, Mike. That big? . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 
At 6/21/2011 7:43 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Rufus,
On second thought, let's play it safe and I'll meet you for that beer in Vegas....who knows, we may both end up with brand new ex-wives after that!

 
At 6/21/2011 7:45 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

That would have to work as well as any of my other schemes. :)

 
At 6/21/2011 8:28 PM, Blogger WCTaxpayers said...

Time for a road trip to Texas for light bulbs.

 
At 6/21/2011 8:56 PM, Blogger Scott Andrews said...

It seems there is no federal ban on incandescent light bulbs. And it seems the requirement for more efficient light bulbs is a product of the Bush administration. http://www.jamestownpress.com/news/2011-06-16/Sam_Bari/Let_there_be_light.html

 
At 6/21/2011 10:02 PM, Blogger AIG said...

"It seems there is no federal ban on incandescent light bulbs."

Going by the article you posted, this sounds like a ban to me.

"The legislation requires light bulb manufacturers to improve the efficiency of incandescent bulbs by 25 percent. The details of the law dictate a phase-out of the manufacture of certain bulbs in their current incarnation, beginning with 100-watt bulbs in January of 2013.... The new law requires that companies make some of their incandescent bulbs work more effi ciently to meet a schedule of rolling deadlines between 2012 and 2014"

ie...its a ban on certain types of incandescence bulbs, because the government so feels it necessary.

And that's the point. By what logic does the government place technological requirements on companies? Its not about whether one is better than another; its about pure consumer choice. If you can't get consumers to buy your product, you force the government to pass laws to restrict or eliminate your competition.

Ridiculous. The positioning of "well they still make an incandescent that will meet these requirements! so its not a ban!", is a word game. Notice how they didn't mention the PRICE of the new bulb!

Purely it is a slap in the face on the consumer, and it is completely ignoring the choices and reasons people use when purchasing a light bulb. People do NOT purchase light bulbs based on their longevity, or energy consumption. They don't because in a typical house there may be 30 light bulbs, the vast majority of which are used only a fraction of the time. A 25,000 light bulb has absolutely no value to me, if I use it for 15 minutes a day on average. And yet I am forced to pay $40 for each of those 30 light bulbs, even if I may only want 3-4 of them to be long-lasting, while the others have sufficient longevity for their intended use.

But hey! Its long-lasting!! And we can't leave an important scientific decisions like...buying a light bulb...in your hands!

 
At 6/21/2011 10:07 PM, Blogger AIG said...

Making the argument that you should buy a $40 dollar bulb because it lasts for 25,000 hours...and only such a bulb...is like making the argument that everyone should wear jeans because they last longer. Then we all end up looking like Chairman Mao.

It is such a blatant violation of consumer choice, it is downright communist.

Benji, there's so many fallacies and half-truths to what you're saying, its hard to figure out where to begin. But lets begin at one place: did you not read the package on that light bulb from the Philippines, that said it works for 220 volts? And here you are, teaching others about the bulbs of the future!

 
At 6/21/2011 10:10 PM, Blogger AIG said...

And I agree with you that LED bulbs are nice and going to get nicer. But I may only need 2-3 of those in a house. I don't need or want one for a tool shed, or a basement storage room. Yet where can I buy a cheap 50 cent bulb to put down there?? Mexico?

 
At 6/21/2011 10:46 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

AIG-

I have farmland in Thailand. While there, for use in Thailand, I purchased a lamp (not just the bulb). In the base of the lamp (about the size of a softball) there is a battery. One night, when power was out, the light lasted for about eight hours. It never failed, and then morning came.

The lamp even has two levels of brightness, and gives off no heat (nice in Thailand).

However, they use 220v in Thailand, and different plugs. I have 220v in my USA factory, but I am not sure the same kind of 220v.

Anyway, the point of the story is that I expect LEDs top someday replace all bulbs, as they are better, and use less energy. The cost of manufacturing must be falling rapidly--and with larger production runs, those costs will fall more.

 
At 6/21/2011 11:00 PM, Blogger AIG said...

That's all beautiful Benji. None of that, however, addresses the issue of why it is government's job to tell me I cant buy a 50 cent bulb if I want to, instead of a $30 one.

 
At 6/22/2011 8:29 AM, Blogger Junkyard_hawg1985 said...

Great! Now we will have people in Texas buy the incandescent bulbs and sell then to people in other states at a higher price. The next thing you know we will have a law against scalping light bulbs.

 
At 6/22/2011 9:08 AM, Blogger The Patriot said...

We can only hope that more red states follow suit as Democrats and big government RINOs will never cease their ways to subjugate us to their will.

Long live Texas. Perry for President (well actually him or Bachmann)

 
At 6/22/2011 11:13 AM, Blogger Benjamin said...

AIG-
I already said I favor no ban on any type of bulb. Although in CA you can sometimes buy the CFCs at dollar stores. They last forever, from what I can tell.

Still, each to his own.

 
At 6/22/2011 12:18 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Red States?

Long live the Red States Socialist Empire--source of federal budget deficits.

As you can verify at Tax Foundartion, blue states pay more the DC than they get back, while Red States are subsidized.

This is due to a heavily subsidized and federalized rural economy.

Without federal subsidies, rural America would depopulate--as it should.

Free markets might mean a return of huge grasslands and buffalo ranges. It would be great--imagine the hunting!

 
At 6/22/2011 1:01 PM, Blogger DL said...

Benjamin @ 12:18

I have no doubt that Bush(43) sent more money (per capita) to the red states than the blue states.

But in his first two years, Obama has gone a long way towards reversing that (e.g., "aid to the blue states").

In addition, red states tend to send more representatives to the Congress who oppose tax increases than the blue states do.

So for those who prefer limited government, the red states are more in line with that objective.

 
At 6/22/2011 1:04 PM, Blogger DL said...

We've got enough crude oil and nat gas in this country to power incandescent light bulbs for the next million years, if only the light bulb-opponents would permit its acqisition.

 
At 6/22/2011 1:31 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Benjamin,
I think that's a very interesting topic. I never looked at those Tax Foundation charts until today and some of them don't make any sense to me. If I spent the time digging through all that stuff, would I find what the money is actually for? Or, is it all just 'gross' out and in?

 
At 6/22/2011 1:37 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"We can stick her in El Paso and you can come to Houston for a beer!"

Mike, did you forget? She's an EX-wife. Rufus can't 'stick' her anywhere anymore.

 
At 6/22/2011 1:42 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Great! Now we will have people in Texas buy the incandescent bulbs and sell then to people in other states at a higher price. The next thing you know we will have a law against scalping light bulbs."

Great. One more thing to check for at interstate inspection stations.

Inspector: "Where are you coming from?"

Driver: "Texas."

Inspector: "Do you have any fruits or vegetables you purchased in Texas? Any incandescent light bulbs?"

 
At 6/22/2011 1:45 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Mike-

There is some census bureau data out there I have been mulling through.

Also, the Tax Foundation data is getting old, and they no longer do this table as I suspect it is no longer a politically correct topic (from a right-wing point of view).

The expenditure patterns are remarkably stable though, suggesting the Red States still stand for red ink.

The long backstory is that this all started with FDR/LBJ. It was LBJ who pioneered (as a young TX congressman) the idea of the feds paying for rural infrastructure, farm subsidies, and then defense installations. Up through the 1960s, this was D-Party lard and subsidies.

Eventually, rural America joined the R-Party (the Nixon strategy), and this lard kept growing and become R-Party lard.

It has led to the oddity of rural America being utterly dependent on federal subsidies to survive.

In a state like Kentucky, net federal spending exceeds taxes by $4,000 per capita. Per capita! in 2005!

When a Kentucky family of four sits down there is $16k of federal lard on the table.

This is why we cannot rely on the two existing parties to balance the budget. We have met the enemy and he is us.

 
At 6/22/2011 2:16 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Benjamin,
If you find more detailed information, I'd like to see it.
Some of it makes sense as agriculture, Indian affairs and infrastructure, since these expenditures are too deemed necessary and too high for these small economies.
This may be a little conspiracy theorist, but my second thought was of control. The federal government has never liked the idea of rural communities becoming disengaged. A good example would be Maine. Not a red state.
Also, the worst 'offender', New Mexico went heavy blue in '08.

In other words, this strikes me as a good cause and effect argument. Could it actually be possible that these states are getting "redder" as a result of federal control following the money they send?
Look at Texas. Don't forget that Texas used to be pretty blue...if you look at the charts, you see a shift in both political leaning and money in and out, occurring at roughly the same time.

There's no doubt that big cities attract and produce more left leaning people, and that's where the money is made...could just be coincidence.

 
At 6/22/2011 2:21 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Ron,

Please don't get me started down that path. This is the one place I go each day where I attempt to be less than 80% crude!

 
At 6/22/2011 10:18 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Mike,

Benji always "forgets" to mention what the Tax Foundation says is the main reason for the disparity: the progressive income tax.

Now which party champions it? Which party went on an unprecedented spending spree when they took over the Congress in '06 and the Presidency in '08? Benji blames the GOP because they often have feet of clay. He's an idiot.

 
At 6/23/2011 2:36 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"Texas has a $27 Billion Budget Deficit coming in 2012 - 2013"...

Hmmm, got something credible to back up that statement rufus?

Are you getting those numbers from this CNN story?

You might find this Reuters story interesting: Analysis: Texas vs California: A tale of two budget deficits

The one overriding problem that California and Texas have in common is the cost of illegals streaming across their respective borders...

What is the costs to both states?

 
At 6/23/2011 7:35 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

We are getting richer and richer...

Start with one simple measurement. Appropriately fitted out with a CIS tie covered in small light bulbs, Ridley asks how long you have to work today to earn an hour of reading light. On an average wage today, half a second of work will pay for an hour of light. In 1950, the average wage earner worked eight seconds to run a conventional filament lamp; in 1880, 15 seconds of work was needed for a kerosene lamp; and more than six hours of work for an hour of light by tallow candle in the 1800s. In 1750BC, your average ancient Babylonian needed to work more than 50 hours to get an hour of light from a sesame oil lamp. That 43,200-fold improvement, says Ridley, signifies "the currency that counts, your time".

By any other measure, too, we are also better off. The world population has multiplied six times since 1800, yet on average we live twice as long and, in real terms, earn nine times more money.

Even in the space of 50 years, from 1955 to 2005, as Ridley writes in his book, "the average human being on Planet Earth earned nearly three times as much money (corrected for inflation), ate one-third more calories and could expect to live one-third longer. She was less likely to die as a result of war, murder, childbirth, accidents, tornadoes, flooding, famine, whooping cough, tuberculosis, malaria, diphtheria, typhus, typhoid, measles, smallpox, scurvy or polio. She was less likely, at any given age, to get cancer, heart disease or a stroke.

"She was more likely to be literate . . . to have finished school . . . own a telephone, a flush toilet, a refrigerator" and so on and so forth.

 
At 6/29/2011 11:51 AM, Blogger Peter T said...

Michigan also launches repeal light bulb ban bill
Following Texas state legislation when Gov Perry signed the bill June 17th,, Michigan
has now become the 6th US state to launch a repeal against federal
light bulb regulations
 http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/
Updates on all US State repeal ban bills and the Canada Government's
2 year delay proposal
http://ceolas.net/#li01inx
.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home