Today is

Monday, November 19, 2007

Socialism At Core Of Progress

The past couple of Sunday Janesville Messengers contained several articles written by right-ring think tankers that truly demonstrated the quality and depth of their wayward logic. In the same spirit, the November 18th edition continued with a rather confusing rant by Richard W. Rahn, an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute. He begins……
Oily OPEC Excerpt:
Socialism always plants the seeds of its own destruction, and state-owned oil is no exception. Most people do not realize that about 90 percent of the world's liquid oil reserves are controlled by governments or state-owned companies.
In his mind, any natural oil resources owned by anything other than private entities are possessed under the banner of socialism. His reasoning is ……
Oily OPEC Excerpt:
The high price of oil is a direct consequence of artificial supply constraints imposed by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other countries, including the United States, and the incompetence and mismanagement found in most state-owned oil companies.
OPEC does manipulate supply, but that doesn’t make them socialistic, in fact, the freedom to manipulate supply to increase prices and profits is one of the sacred tenets of not socialism…..but capitalism. But he continues…….
Oily OPEC Excerpt:
A decade or two from now, the socialist states will have severe regrets for their current misbehavior, and this is why. When prices rise, people seek alternative sources and substitutes for the high-priced commodity. When oil prices are above $30 or $40 a barrel, suddenly the Canadian oil sands and Colorado oil-bearing shale become economic, and those reserves are larger than known liquid oil reserves.
Of course I’m under the impression that Rahn hates socialism and would like nothing less than to see it disappear from the planet, but throughout his rant, he completely ignores the fact that the price of oil is dictated none other than by free market future's speculators. There is no physical shortage of oil.....yet.

And forget $40 oil, we’re nearly at $100 already and because of the falling dollar, oil may now have to hold around $80 a barrel for any alternative fuel source to be cost effective/profitable. Not only that but since the price for a barrel of oil is set unrealistically high by socialists in his view, I have yet to see our government install pricing control restraints (socialism) to keep the cost of our natural oil resources for domestic use below the global price. In fact, U.S. oil usually sells for a few bucks more. But Rahn says there’s a silver lining…..
Oily OPEC Excerpt:
Now, for the really good news. The new car you purchase a decade from now is almost certainly to be totally electrically powered.
There you go. OPEC is keeping the price of oil artificially high to usher in energy independence and technological progress, those darn socialists will regret all this. To top it off they're willingness to rake in short-term profits will only lead to their own demise. At this point, I don't know what Rahn is hoping for.
Oily OPEC Excerpt:
As people move to electric cars, the need for gasoline and imported oil will quickly disappear. Nuclear and clean coal plants must expand to produce the additional electricity, but they produce energy at a fraction of the cost of petroleum.
Is Rahn bragging or complaining? Remember all of this progress resulted from actions caused by none other than greedy profit taking socialists.
This entire article makes no sense. But I will give it this consolation; it's either an abstract piece of propaganda encouraging people to embrace expen$ive oil (remember the goal - the end of socialism by suicide) OR it's just the mindless chatter of a thinker who's been in the tank too long.

Either way, twenty years from now when America is completely energy independent with abundant cheap fuel - according to Rahn's reasoning - we can thank a socialist.

Read related: OPEC To Abandon Dollar

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Have you studied the situation a little further? Do you still feel the school finance system is not broken?

Robert

http://rocknetroots.blogspot.com/2007/04/democratic-solution-to-republican.html

Lou Kaye said...

I think the school finance system as a processing entity is holding up it's end of the bargain. If it's not corrupted it's run as honest as possible, like everything else.

Perhaps we have different views of the school finance system, but I can't blame the system itself for being defunded.

Politicians can legislate taxes and spending, unfortunately their heavily controlled budgets must mesh with inflation, health care, energy costs, the economy, etc...whether taxpayers like it or not.

I can't blame the automobile for not running when it's gas tank is empty.

But I still believe the deliberate defunding of domestic social and education Federal programs promoted falsely as pro-growth, more local control and school choice as promoted by the GOP eventually effects state aid. Less state aid causes local taxes to rise. The word is nobody but democrats raise taxes. Yet, Democrats are called Socialists the second they talk about reversing these awful trends at the Federal levels.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, you simply have not studied this issue. The system of financing our schools is broken, that's why a joint resolution introduced in the state legislature with 60 members of the Senate and Assembly signing on as co-sponsors. A hearing was held on November 15th that I attended. It lasted for more than 6 hours and featured testimony of people from around the state, urban, suburban, and rural districts. Their horror stories were heartbreaking. You can read more about it here: http://www.excellentschools.org/events/ReformResolution/SJR27Hearing.htm.

You can read some coverage of it at a blog I contribute to as well: madisonamps.org

As a fellow progressive, I am flummoxed as to why this message is not getting through. Help me to understand what the key sticking points are that make you believe that "the school finance system as a processing entity is holding up it's end of the bargain." I'm trying to understand how one can believe a policy is "holding up it's end of the bargain" and in the next breath blame it "for being defunded." If one were to blame the way the way schools are funded, would that help the understanding of this issue?

Robert

Lou Kaye said...

I look at the school system as being comprised of at least four different bodies. One, the taxpayers (all levels, Fed, state and local), two, the school boards and administration, three, the legislature and four, the demand side - teachers, students, the school structures themselves, and the curriculum.

Now, because there is a breakdown in one and possibly a difference of opinion or direction in another, I don't blame the entire system.

It just seems that "the school system" which is not self-supporting, is being blamed for the mismanagement of too little money. Everything fails with too little money, and because WE(taxpayers) defunded it, lets offer false choices and privatize for profits - this is the GOP.

I don't see a big difference between us. You mention school financing and Excellentschools.org zeroes in on school FUNDING. The schools are the first to fall as part of the huge anti-tax climate being pushed across the country mainly by the GOP.

I think coporations have shirked their duty to educate their own workforce and cheated the state out of millions, but I'm not going to blame the public school system. The legislature is to blame, they are the only ones who can fix it.

Robert Godfrey said...

I think perhaps it all boils down to simple nomenclature. When you say ""the school system" which is not self-supporting, is being blamed for the mismanagement of too little money" I realize where the misunderstanding has gone astray. Please do read the links I've provided in the past, I think everything will become clearer once you read through these issues. Your right, there is very little difference between us. I'm trying to point out the dysfunctional aspects of Republican policies put in place during the Thompson administration, but you focus on a notion of me attacking "the entire system." I think your understanding of the semantics of this situation are overriding the main issue and unfortunately it seems like I'm left to shadow box a non-issue. Your last sentence, combined with the corporate shirking (a part, but not by any means the only part of any reform) lead the heat of your understanding; but it also includes an important truth, "the legislature is to blame, they are the only ones who can fix it." Our supreme court has reconfirmed this; in our state's constitutional language, education is a state function -- always has been (this does not ignore the feds promise to pay for special ed, ELL and NCLB, real significant money that would be quite useful right about now, but not the deal breaker in the larger funding issues). Let's find a plan (and there are a several to be presented) that attempt to reduce our over-reliance on the mechanism of property taxes to fund schools and at the same time provide for "adequate school funding." Will you join us in pushing for school finance reform with the many Democrats in our state legislature and support Senate Joint Resolution 27 that throws out the present funding system and requires the legislature to come up with a policy solution that replaces the current one by July 1, 2009?

Robert Godfrey

Lou Kaye said...

To become "active" to push for education finance reform beyond this web page will require more than just reading and deconstructing the superficial information provided by newspapers - which is what my blog is about.

For instance, component 4 of Res. 27 states that state funds and a reduced level of property taxes will be distributed in a manner that treats all TAXPAYERS equitably, when perhaps they meant SCHOOL DISTRICTS instead. But I'm not sure here, the language seems vague at first glance.

I do need to study the details of Resolution 27 and the principles behind the statements before I can stand with it.

Anonymous said...

No, TAXPAYERS is the correct word there.

And again, keep in mind, this is a resolution that compels legislators to "get er done" by July, 2009, that's all it says. You're not going to find much more to "study" in this resolution.

If you and your readers want to study the "going out of business" plan for our schools state wide, again, a good place to start is madisonamps.org. We have a number of good YouTube posts of testimony in support of this resolution along with good search tags related to school finance.

Robert Godfrey

Lou Kaye said...

But Robert, if the correct word is "taxpayers," it is followed by "regardless of local property wealth and income." To me disregarding the income of property taxpayers is a warning sign. I don't know how taxes can be just when levied onto individual taxpayers "regardless of local property wealth and income." In addition, why should taxpayers even be concerned about local wealth at all, it's being redistributed.

If I back up at look at the bigger picture, lines 10 through 12 seem to at least identify half of the problem but this resolution banks too much on the locals. That's why I felt if "taxpayers" were changed to "school districts," it would then be all school districts that would be treated equitably regardless or local wealth and income. This takes care of the other half of the problem.

Robert Godfrey said...

Louis,

It's a resolution to get the talking to start, it's not prescribing direct solutions. Wait for the plan(s) to come out in the next couple of months and then fire away. What I've tried to do from the get go is to get you to acknowledge the school funding problem, seemingly unsuccessfully. This is most discouraging, giving what you apparently seem to care about in your other postings. A little discouraged.

Robert

Lou Kaye said...

I'm not discouraged. I think any good dialogue taking place between concerned citizens is very important. Others can read this and draw their own conclusions on this issue. It's understood this IS ONLY a resolution, but because it provides a framework for legislators to work from, it becomes important to get everybody on the same page for reform right at the beginning. I know this all sounds fundamental, but "reform" to some people becomes "cuts" to others.

Anonymous said...

An excellent op ed on the subject:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=691838

Robert

Post a Comment