Home
 

Do taxes matter?

By Bill Wilson

$2.59 trillion. That’s how much the Obama Administration anticipates it will collect in taxes in 2012. Another $1.345 trillion will be collected by state and local governments, based on 2011 data by the U.S. Census Bureau.

All together, that’s a whopping $3.935 trillion Americans pay in taxes on an annual basis — or about 24.9 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

In fact the only thing governments do more than tax is spend and borrow. This year alone, the federal government will spend about $3.717 trillion. State and local governments, according to Census, spend about another $3 trillion top of that. $555 billion of that comes from the federal government.

All together, that adds up to about $6.1 trillion of total government expenditures (38 percent of GDP), but only $3.9 trillion of taxes. That means we’re running deficits close to $2.2 trillion — every single year. We’re borrowing even more than that, because of several off-balance sheet liabilities, including certain portions of interest payments.

Therefore, governments are borrowing 36 cents and rising for every dollar they spend.

Much of that money is provided by U.S. financial institutions that purchase U.S. treasuries ($15.6 trillion) and municipal bonds ($3.7 trillion) — a market of government debt that totals $19.3 trillion (122 percent of GDP). Banks in turn get much of their money from the Federal Reserve itself, borrowing at near-zero interest rates, and then purchasing higher yielding government bonds.

So, the government has two sources of revenue: taxes, which are derived from citizens’ painstaking hours of labor, and borrowing an ever increasing sum of money, which is generated in large part by a printing press.

That’s our nation’s finances in a nutshell.

The national debt has increased every single year since 1957 according to the U.S. Treasury. It is never paid back, only refinanced. A debt crisis, such as is being experienced in Europe, is said to be impossible in the U.S. because of our willingness to continue monetizing the debt.

So, with such a seemingly limitless capacity to borrow and print money, this raises a profound question: Do taxes matter?

Namely, if the government can just borrow all of this money, why does the government even bother itself with collecting taxes?

Indeed, why should taxpayer pay? Why not just borrow and print it all?

The answer, of course, is that banks do not in fact have an unlimited capacity to lend as is presupposed by politicians. Even with the loose standards for engaging in “lending” — what the bank cartel ironically calls the money it loans into existence — financial institutions are still required to hold certain amounts of capital.

And they can only lend so many multiples beyond that.

That is largely why the Federal Reserve has been dramatically increasing its share of the national debt. It is filling the gap that banks cannot fund. And it now holds more than $1.6 trillion of U.S. treasuries — more than 10 percent of federal debt.

It’s the neverending bailout. Because, quite frankly, there is never enough money for the government to spend through taxes. So, every year, the government and the cartel dutifully ensure that whatever cannot be taxed and borrowed privately is done with the printing press.

The scary reality is, in spite of our government acting as if taxes don’t matter, they do. Ultimately, someone will have to pay this enormous debt we are running up. It will fall on our children and grandchildren.

And as the people in Greece recently discovered, once the funding crisis hits, the bank cartel will literally move mountains to get paid. So, if you think the IRS has an attitude now, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government.

Happy Tax Day!

Earth Day 2012: A Cloaked Celebration of Statism

By Adam Bitely

Each year on April 22, Americans celebrate Earth Day. While the “holiday” is dressed up as a day to preserve the Earth, it serves little more as a day to attack the benefits of capitalism and modern society. Does anyone really know what Earth Day is all about?

Not only is April 22 Earth Day, it is also the Birthday of Vladimir Lenin and the National Day of Communism in the U.S.S.R. Obviously, the latter holidays are less celebrated, but consider that through Earth Day, the spirit of those days lives on.

If you need to be persuaded, consider what Alexander Marriott wrote in Capitalism Magazine about the similarities between a Communist holiday and Earth Day:
Think of the parallels between Lenin and environmentalists. Lenin once said that, “It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.”

Environmentalists second this wholeheartedly when they restrict the ownership and control of private property through the guise of saving the environment. The Endangered Species Act is used voluminously to take the property of anyone if an endangered species is living on it. President Clinton cordoned off thousands upon thousands of acres of land in the form of national parks with the alleged concern of saving the natural resources thereon from development. The federal government now controls nearly forty percent of all land in the continental United States. Lenin’s goal was to destroy private property and this goal is obviously shared by environmentalists.

Marriott is exactly right. The parallels between these holidays are undeniable. And remember, the people that created these holidays share the same worldview as the communists of Soviet Russia. The green zealots of today are nothing more than thieves of private property and promoters of irresponsible government and the regulations that come along with that.

The whole notion of Earth Day centers around spitting on the successes of capitalism, chiefly the goods and services that make life easier and even make life longer.
So I would ask those that celebrate Earth Day to think about these things that they condemn through their annual day of protest.

If you celebrate Earth Day this year, please remember that with the creation of the automobile, you are able to travel efficiently and in a cleaner and safer fashion than our ancestors who used horses. Also, remember that because of washing machines and driers, our clothes are clean and pleasant to those around us while keeping dangerous bacteria away. And, don’t forget, because of modern plumbing, we have cleaner living situations and disease is much less prominent.

It is because of modern innovation that we have much more efficient, and health preserving, products to use. It is not through government controls that we are better off, rather, it is through the entrepreneurial spirit that drives us towards more efficient products and machines that allows us to live in a cleaner society than that of our ancestors. Green zealots and other statists that promote Earth Day would rather remove these efficiencies and send us back to the days of cholera outbreaks and the bubonic plague, where such modern precautionary conveniences, which the greens and statists despise, did not exist.

Adam Bitely is the Editor-in-Chief of NetRightDaily.com. You can follow Adam on Twitter at @AdamBitely.

'Greenbacks' energy boondoggles versus real energy

By Paul Driessen

Having had it with $4-per-gallon gasoline and the Obama Administration’s squandering billions of taxpayer dollars on phony “green” energy schemes, angry voters have told their senators “Enough!”

Their calls provided sufficient spinal implants in enough senators to defeat three proposals to extend the wind energy “production tax credit” (PTC). The credit gives wind project developers taxpayer greenbacks whenever they generate high-priced electricity, even if there is no market for the power at the time it’s generated. Worse, the PTC is paid on top of other subsidies, fast-tracking of wind projects through environmental review processes, and exemptions from endangered species, migratory bird and other laws.

Confronted by the gale of public outrage, Senate Democrats tried a new tack.
They offered an amendment that would eliminate various tax deductions for five major oil companies, turn the supposed new revenue stream into more subsidies for wind turbine, solar panel and electric car makers – and use any leftover crumbs to “pay down” the skyrocketing budget deficit they helped engineer.

The ploy needed 60 votes — but got only 51, despite President Obama’s vocal support. “Members of Congress,” the president said, “can stand with big oil companies, or with the American people.”

Not exactly. The American people are no longer buying the partisan rhetoric. They increasingly understand that new taxes and restrictions on oil companies are not in their best interest. In fact, a recent Harris Interactive poll found that over 80 percent of U.S. voters support increased domestic oil and gas production to create and preserve jobs, lower pump prices and increase government revenues.

They realize that only 12 percent of what they pay for gasoline goes to oil companies for refining, marketing and distribution. Another 12 percent is state and federal taxes. Fully 76% is determined by world crude oil prices — and thus by global supply and demand, and confidence or fear about world events.

They know that eliminating tax deductions for expenses incurred in producing and refining oil is the same as imposing new taxes. Those taxes would result in curtailed drilling and production, reduced royalty revenues, worker layoffs, still higher gasoline prices, and increased costs for everything we grow, make, transport and do with petroleum. Blue collar, poor and minority families would be hurt worst.

Every U.S. business claims deductions for new equipment, facility depreciation, utilities, payroll, research and other expenses. This ensures that businesses, like individuals, recover their costs and get taxed only on their net incomes. Five oil companies should not be punished as the sole exception to this rule.

Legitimate expense deductions are very different from subsidies. Subsidies involve government taxing individuals and profitable companies, and transferring their money to politically favored companies and products that could not survive without perpetual support.

The system is even more insidious when subsidized entities return substantial portions of their taxpayer largesse as campaign contributions to President Obama and other politicians who arrange the wealth transfers. It’s still worse when hard-earned taxpayer money is used to reduce risks for wealthy investors who buy into boondoggles arranged by bureaucrats who are much better at choosing losers than winners.

As voters are learning, the Solyndra, Evergreen, Fisker, A123 and dozens of other “green energy future” scandals and insolvencies are only a small part of the subsidy cesspool.

Subsidies, punitive taxation schemes and “alternative,” non-hydrocarbon energy are often justified by claims that we face imminent manmade catastrophic global warming. In reality, virtually no empirical evidence supports hypotheses, assertions or computer model projections about melting polar icecaps, average global temperatures, storm frequency and intensity, sea levels and other natural phenomena.

Wind, solar and biofuel energy are also justified by claims that we are running out of oil and gas. In fact, America is blessed with vast proven petroleum reserves and even greater undeveloped prospects that government has made off limits. The natural gas and hydraulic fracturing revolution is merely a hint of the energy, jobs and revenues Americans could produce, if certain politicians would end their obstinacy.

“Renewable” energy is further justified by claims that petroleum “keeps us trapped in the past.” In truth, we need to worry about the present, especially our unemployment and debt crises. Oil and gas provide 60 percent of America’s energy. By contrast, despite untold billions in subsidies, wind and solar combined still provide barely 0.60 percent — and are unlikely to do much better for decades to come.

The $2-billion Shepherds Flat wind project in Oregon’s Columbia River Gorge area involved $500 million in outright subsidies, plus a subsidized loan guarantee of $1.1 billion for General Electric, plus production tax credits. At the whim of the winds, its 338 gigantic turbines will generate electricity for California, in wild swings between zero and their combined rated capacity of 845 MW — chopping up eagles, falcons, herons, bats and other protected species as they spin.

In 2010, GE generated over $5 billion in US profits — but paid no US income taxes, and no fines for the thousands of protected birds and bats that its Cuisinart wind turbines slaughtered.

By contrast, White House villain ExxonMobil (one of the companies targeted by the failed tax bill) earned $30.5 billion in profits that year, on revenues of $383 billion, paid $1.6 billion in US income taxes, and made combined lease bonus, rent, royalty, tax and other federal payments of almost $10 billion. When a few birds are killed on oil company property, companies pay substantial fines.

President Obama promised that he would “fundamentally transform” America and ensure that electricity prices “will necessarily skyrocket.” His Energy Secretary has said Americans should pay $8-10 per gallon for gasoline. His Environmental Protection Agency and Interior and Agriculture Departments have systematically foreclosed access to our nation’s oil, gas, coal and uranium resources.

Meanwhile, Mr. Chu’s Department of Energy recently awarded $10 million of taxpayer money to Philips Lighting for making an “affordable” light bulb — that costs $50 per bulb!
And it is working overtime to promote, subsidize and install thousands of onshore and offshore wind turbines that generate too much ultra expensive electricity when it’s not needed and too little when it’s most needed, require too much land and too many raw materials, kill too many birds, cost too much money, and require perpetual subsidies and exemptions from environmental laws that apply to all traditional forms of energy.
This “green” energy “future” is unsustainable.

Oil companies do make a lot of money, because they produce, refine and sell enormous quantities of fuel and other petroleum products. But they pay billions in taxes and royalties – and produce real energy.

Wind, solar, algae and switchgrass companies take billions in Other People’s Money. They pay virtually no taxes, and provide virtually no usable energy, except in the minds and press releases of their promoters.

Expecting that higher taxes on oil companies will produce more oil at lower prices is like saying we will get cheaper bread, and more of it, by eliminating tax deductions for bakeries’ electricity and equipment.

American voters and consumers understand this. It’s time our elected officials and unelected bureaucrats did likewise.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

IMF chief urges more U.S. "appropriate indebtedness"

By Bill Wilson

Is the International Monetary Fund (IMF) inserting itself into U.S. political affairs and potentially setting up a conflict over U.S. sovereignty?

After a speech last week at the Brookings Institution on the financial crisis, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde took questions from the audience, including one from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis economist Garth Trinkl. Trinkl wanted to know if a massive mortgage bailout — funded by taxpayers — was in the offing and what Lagarde and the IMF thought about it.

Asked Trinkl, “Is this a time where there could be some debt restructuring within the older [advanced] countries to add to aggregate demand in the U.S.? And could this expand beyond just foreclosures so that there could be — now that the financial sector has had a boost — the middle class in the OECD could have its own boost?”

“A matter of urgency”

Lagarde responded to Trinkl’s question, saying, “This is something the IMF has had a long-standing position on. The housing problem is something that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.”

But what business is it of the IMF’s? Is Lagarde joining the Obama reelection campaign to push for his policies? Taxpayers in part pay for her salary. Is this what they’re paying for?

The only thing Congress should be “urgently considering” is withdrawing the $165 billion of U.S. taxpayer funds from the IMF. Because of the IMF, we are on the hook for tens of billions of debt owed by bankrupt countries in Europe and elsewhere.

This is a very dangerous precedent. The IMF — along with the European Union — is already making demands on the sovereignty of countries like Greece, Ireland, and Portugal that have been forced to accept bailout refinance loans for their sovereign debt.

Now, Lagarde is inserting herself and the IMF directly into the economic decisions of the United States. She is proving the worse fears of many that the IMF intends to dictate economic terms to every nation in the world. By inserting herself into the already highly charged domestic political debate over mortgage bailouts, Legarde has lite a fuse that could explode at any time.

Mortgage bailout debate heats up

Trinkl was implicitly referring to recent pressure being placed on Federal Housing Finance Administration head Edward DeMarco to use taxpayer money to bail out borrowers who owe more on their mortgages than their houses are worth.

So far, DeMarco has refused on the grounds it would put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac further into the red when his statutory mission provided by Congress was to “ensure that… each regulated entity operates in a safe and sound manner”. For that, he has been blasted by congressional Democrats who want an election year handout for a favored constituency.

Now, the Obama Administration wants DeMarco to tap directly into what remains of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) so that the costs of the bailouts will be added directly to the national debt and not be booked as losses for Fannie and Freddie — which of course, would still have been added to the debt anyway.

But DeMarco is still resisting. At a recent Brookings Institution speech of his own, he noted even if Fannie and Freddie engaged in mortgage principal forgiveness, eligibility for such a program would be limited to at most about 691,000.

Said DeMarco, “Whether Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac forgive principal or not, the universe of Enterprise borrowers potentially eligible for a HAMP PRA is well less than one million households, a fraction of the estimated 11 million underwater borrowers in the country today.”

“Appropriate indebtedness”

But by Lagarde’s analysis, a far more widespread principal forgiveness strategy of as much if not all of the nation’s $717 billion negative equity would be needed to unclog the arteries of the global financial system.

She explained, “The boys and girls, Fannie and Freddie, have to be part of the equation, because clearly, the American households have to be able to unload a bit. Just in the way we’ve encouraged banks to lend, well, the households have to be helped to borrow so that consumption and appropriate indebtedness can be reinitiated. That’s our position.”

“Appropriate indebtedness can be reinitiated”? That’s what she said, folks.

Lagarde is referring to the total amount of credit outstanding in the U.S., a figure that has typically doubled every decade since World War II. But since 2008, it has remained essentially frozen at about $53 trillion.

Lagarde is suggesting that in order to boost aggregate demand — the premise of Trinkl’s question — taxpayers must assume the costs of borrowers’ bad decisions to take on loans they either could not afford or did not understand the risks associated with them.

By extension, Lagarde takes the ironic position that the only way banks will be able to expand lending — which Keynesians believe is necessary to facilitate economic growth — is if households are “able to unload a bit” of their bad debt onto taxpayers so that those troubled borrowers are able to take on new “good” debt.

This is akin to sending new credit cards to people who have just defaulted on their old credits.

Therefore, in Lagarde’s opinion, upside down mortgages in Nevada, Florida, California, and Arizona are holding back growth around the world.

“Interconnectedness”

Earlier in her Brookings Institution talk, Lagarde emphasized the urgency involved in her analysis, saying “countries have to be totally convinced of the interconnectedness of our economies”.

Lagarde was very much concerned that policymakers did not understand the implications of globalization on the financial system, noting that the “most connecting [thing] in a way is that of the financial sector’s totally integrated and organizing links and binds between our economies.”

She explained her apprehension: “My personal fear is that we lose sight of that, and some countries rather retire and withdraw in the vast territory that they have under their control and do not pay attention sufficiently to what happens to the rest of the world. Because what happens in the rest of the world is going to either have a negative or positive effect on them.”

Toeing the company line

While Lagarde’s worldview eagerly embraces expanding U.S. indebtedness on both a governmental and individual level to prop up the global financial house of cards, this is not a vision that embraces the concept of individual sovereignty our nation was founded on. It is one that treats individuals more like drones in a bee hive, working toward collective ends.

In other words, in Lagarde’s mind, we’re all in this together, so the U.S. and its citizens had better get on board and toe the company line — by taking on massive amounts of new debt.

But let’s leave that aside for a moment, and even the fact that Lagarde is sticking her nose where it doesn’t belong. Let’s just consider everything she said.

If she is telling the truth, that global economic growth depends in fact on the American people going deeper into “appropriate indebtedness,” being nothing more than slaves to the world bank cartel, we’ve got a much bigger problem on our hands.

If what she says is true, then liberty cannot survive while the cartel is allowed to exist. That the only way to save the individual from totalitarianism on a global scale — is to let it burn. So, stripped of all the diplomatic-speak and the polite decorum, is this what Lagarde was saying, is this the choice she is laying out for the American people and other peoples of the world? If so, we are in for a very rocky time.

Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government.

Could Captain Romney Change The Course Of Captain Obama's Titanic?

Video by Frank McCaffrey

Understanding why some people pay lower tax rates

By Rick Manning

The so-called “Buffett Rule” would automatically subject anyone who has taxable income above one million dollars to a 30 percent tax rate regardless of how that money was earned. But, it is based upon the hope that Americans fundamentally misunderstand the way different types of income are taxed and the reasons behind these differences.

The first question to ask is: Do those who make over a million dollars a year pay a lower income tax than those who make under that amount?

The answer is some do, and some don’t. It depends upon how they make their money.

If a single wage earner makes has taxable income equaling more than a million dollars in straight wages in 2011, then that person will pay $327,313 in federal taxes, or 32.7 percent of their income in taxes.

Yet, if the same person earns all of their money in capital gains from investments that (s)he owned form more than a year, the money is taxed at the lower rate of 15 percent, and the investor would owe $150,000.

And that is where the entire confusion over the ill-named “Buffett Rule” comes about. Most workers get a vast majority or all of their income from wages so they are taxed at a sliding scale rate depending upon the taxable income.

Whereas, it is not uncommon for people who make in excess of one million dollars of year in income to have much of that money a result of selling property or assets that they have owned for more than a year and their income is derived from the profit they made from the asset. These transactions are called long-term capital gains.

What is the difference between the two scenarios?

The person earning money through wages has not put any of his or her personal wealth at risk in order to gain a return, the straight wage earner is trading his/her time in exchange for money.

The person earning wealth through investing is risking his or her wealth in pursuit of a return. Because there is risk involved and the investor could end up losing their initial investment, Congress has chosen to not tax gains resulting from this risk at as high of a rate as ordinary wage income.

And they have made this decision for good reason.

They have chosen to provide a lower tax rate for capital gains to encourage people to put their resources at risk in order to provide the financing to fund the launching and expansion of businesses.

It is this investment that allows those businesses to hire others who then make straight wages, which is why the term “job creators” is so often associated with people who make more than a million dollars.

And it is this investment that the “Buffett Rule” fundamentally attacks by significantly lowering the rate of return on those very economic activities that drive our national prosperity.

The ultimate irony in this debate is that the Obama Administration continually bemoans that there is not enough venture capital being risked on innovative alternative energy technologies and that is why the government is forced to put taxpayer dollars at risk. And at the same time, they are attempting to dry up the availability of private capital for the riskiest of ventures by lowering the potential return from success by significantly increasing taxes on that success.

At the end of the day, it is in every American’s economic interest to encourage private sector capital investment, and Obama’s politically motivated attempt to significantly increase taxes on this exact investment is foolish.

Perhaps President John F. Kennedy explained it best when he said, “The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.”

And that is why the so-called “Buffett Rule” should be rejected by Congress, because ultimately it will be far more taxing for our overall economy than it will be even on those who make more than a million dollars in taxable income a year.

If Congress is truly concerned about “fairness,” they should lower the marginal tax rates to make them more in line with the capital gains tax. However, I doubt that thought ever occurred to Mr. Obama.

Rick Manning (@rmanning957) is the Director of Communications for Americans for Limited Government.

Obama's disapproval rating threatens to swamp his campaign

By Rebecca DiFede

In a nation consumed by the upcoming election, leading GOP candidate Mitt Romney is coming ever-closer to overcoming the campaign king, our illustrious incumbent President Obama.

And according to a Fox News poll, he may be closer than expected.

The poll was pretty extensive, and gives a specific look at how the country is feeling about the president versus the projected GOP nominee. But the general consensus is that despite his previous lead, Obama might have some competition from the Governor from Massachusetts.

The poll has reported that Romney is leading Obama 46-44 percent nationally, which is only the beginning.

Obama’s loudest cheering section, the mainstream Democrats, only report an 80 percent support of his presidency, down from 86 percent last month. This is a fascinating development because despite his faults, Democrats had always been completely infected with Obamarama.

However, perhaps when they look at their dwindling bank accounts, and borderline useless stock projections, they have begun to come out of their daze.

Another group that is important to focus on in this upcoming election are the Independents. Because of the polarization of this election, it’s pretty much going to come down to a popularity contest, and the Independent vote is going to be crucial in deciding a winner.

The Fox News poll reported that 43 percent of independents back Romney as compared to 37 percent who back Obama. With the economy drowning and gas prices soaring to terrifying heights, this collapsing of support is becoming all too common.

In the craziness of this process, Mitt Romney has become a serious contender for the presidency in spite of himself. With Rick Santorum dropping out of the race, and Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul not gaining too much steam, Romney has found himself in the driver’s seat for the GOP nomination.

As a whole, the nation has not been totally sold on Mitt Romney, given his reputation as a flip-flopper, and his seeming tendency to shape his opinions to fit the audience he’s speaking to. But as Democrats slowly pull away from Obama and Republicans begin to realize that there is blood in the water, the anybody-but-Obama enthusiasm grows.

After all, there is no other way to oust him, so in contrast Romney becomes a relatively attractive option.

Ultimately, the November 2012 election is a referendum on Obama. And if those 67 percent of Americans who are unhappy with the direction that the country is going vote to fire him, perhaps they can finally get them some of the change for which they were hoping.

Rebecca DiFede is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government.

Obama's quixotic wind program

By Rebekah Rast

An integral part of President Obama’s renewable energy plan is wind power.

It paints a nice picture; towering fields of gigantic turbines on an open hillside or small residential windmills atop a house or barn all collecting power from the wind solving all your electricity needs.

Too bad it doesn’t really work all that well on a mass scale.

Wind power only accounts for about 1 percent of all the energy used in the U.S. today. In 2010, it accounted for 2.3 percent of all electricity generated in the U.S. These numbers aren’t low due to a lack of turbine farms in America, they are low because turbines only generate a percentage of their theoretical maximum output—the wind does not always blow.

What’s more ironic from an environmentalist perspective is the fact that these giant turbines (some can reach 400 feet tall and turn at speeds of 200 mph in peak times) kill a half-million birds and bats without penalty every year. Knowing the typical response of true environmentalists, if any other industry other than a “green” one caused that much damage they would be there with a lawsuit threatening to shut it down.

In mass, if wind power seems to kill more birds than it produces energy, why does it remain such an integral component in Obama’s energy plan? Why does America continue to spend millions of dollars on an unstable energy source when there is no shortage of other much cheaper, reliable industries?

The city of Reno, Nev., is probably asking itself the same question.

Windmills were installed in Reno between April and October of 2010 and cost about $1 million out of a $2.1 million federal energy grant given to the city that was part of President Obama’s stimulus package, which passed in 2009.

Unfortunately, to date the turbines haven’t performed well in the city.

In one example, the city of Reno paid $21,000 for a particular wind turbine only to have it save them $4 in energy costs. Furthermore, a total cost of $416,000 worth of turbines has netted the city $2,800 in energy savings—in two years.

John Hargrove, who manages NV Energy’s Renewable Generations program in Nevada, hits the nail on the head when it comes to the main problem with wind power. He said, “There is a lot of difference in some of the generators relative to what the (manufacturers) claim. A generator can claim to put out 100 kilowatt hours, but that’s based on an assumption that there’s a certain amount of wind. If you don’t have the wind, you won’t have the output.”

Wind power is not a sustainable source of energy. It’s a good idea in theory; a way to get something for doing nothing. But it’s simply not reliable.

This problem extends beyond just Reno. Since the city’s risky “green” investment was part of a larger renewable energy grant from Obama’s stimulus, all these wasted dollars once belonged to taxpayers.

Windmills served a great purpose when they were used to mill grain for food production, but a growing demand for electricity led to other more reliable and viable industries.

This isn’t to say wind power won’t play a role in the future, but when an industry with such poor output is eating up money from hard-working Americans, is it worth the investment? If wind power technology someday becomes a sustainable and affordable source of energy, then such an investment will make sense.

But for now, as Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government (ALG), says, “Using energy independence as an excuse to fund unsustainable green energy programs is nothing more than tilting at windmills at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.”

Rebekah Rast is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government (ALG) and NetRightDaily.com. You can follow her on twitter at @RebekahRast.

Obama's Blunders: The G.S.A. And The Vegas Vacation

Video by Frank McCaffrey
 
© 2008 GETLIBERTY.ORG, AMERICANS FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT