BCT Editorial – 1/22/09

This page was last updated on January 25, 2009.

Solid investments; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 22, 2009.

The editorial subtitle is “Short-term sacrifices would have long-term benefits for nation.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Americans need to start investing in the future, not squandering it.”

[RWC] I urge readers to research the Times record when it comes to identifying “Solid investments.” In short, a review of editorials shows just about every government spending program that comes down the pike is a “solid investment” in the eyes of the Times.

In an editorial entitled “Missing the point,” the Times claimed spending $255 million on the white elephant James E. Ross (D) Highway (Toll Route 60) was a good “investment.” In “Worth the cost”, the Times claimed spending $91 million to put interstate signs on local intrastate roads “will be worth every penny.”

Let’s also remember that while the Times constantly lobbies for “solid investments,” in previous editorials it cried crocodile tears about government – primarily federal – profligacy. After President Obama’s election, however, the Times began to change its tune regarding profligacy (“Last resort” and “Limited options”).

“At the start of a new presidency and, let’s hope, a new problem-solving attitude to governance by politicians and the public, the United States is that moment in time.

“Two examples that could come before Congress in the coming year illustrate the benefits that short-term sacrifices could have long term on seemingly intractable problems.

“One way to reduce health-care costs and improve care is to digitalize Americans’ medical records. Five years ago, President Bush announced plans to do that. However, as was so often the case with the Bush White House, the follow-up was weak. The result is that only one in five doctors has converted from paper to electronic record keeping.

“President Barack Obama wants to speed up the process. The Associated Press reported his economic stimulus package is expected to contain two year’s worth of funding, or about $20 billion.”

[RWC] Why on Earth should taxpayers pay for healthcare providers “to digitalize Americans’ medical records?” Can’t healthcare businesses decide for themselves what makes economic sense and when? Using the “logic” in this editorial, shouldn’t taxpayers fund digitizing the records of all businesses?

“Another area that would require spending money to save money is energy efficiency.

“The AP reported a study released by the utility-supported Electric Power Research Institute concluded that improvements in energy efficiency could slow the growth of electricity demand over the next two decades by up to 22 percent.

“That would translate into the United States using 5 to 8 percent less electricity by 2030.

“The impact of energy efficiency cannot be underestimated. By significantly easing growing demand for electricity, it would reduce the need to build more power plants, especially coal-fired ones. That would help combat global warming.”

[RWC] “[E]specially coal-fired ones?” The last I checked, my electric appliances can’t tell from what kind of power plant the electricity comes from. In any case, a review of Times editorials shows it doesn’t like nuclear power plants either.

Regarding the manmade “global warming” comment, please read my paper entitled “Manmade Global Warming.” Of course, the Times concern with “global warming” means it also doesn’t like natural gas power plants. On a side note, I can’t wait for the day when the Times starts warning us about global cooling.

“The solution won’t come cheap, at least in the short term. The news service reported investments in efficiency to get the power savings are expected to cost between $19 billion and $47 billion between now and 2030.

“Most of the savings would be achieved by new building codes, tougher appliance and lighting standards and a phase-out of less efficient equipment to heat and cool buildings, all of which would require government action.”

[RWC] Instead of government mandate, why not let consumers handle this on their own via their economic choices? That’s called freedom.

Did you note what’s missing? The editorial didn’t tell us how much this investment would save us. That’s because the “between $19 billion and $47 billion between now and 2030” is a cost, not an investment. In other words, we’d spend more to get less.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m all for efficiency. As an engineer, pushing for efficiency is in my DNA. That said, maximizing efficiency at any cost doesn’t usually make economic sense.

“The same approach needs to be taken for the development of green, renewable sources of energy. The billions that are spent in the next few years could pay enormous monetary and environmental dividends decades from now.”

[RWC] Hmm, what are those “green, renewable sources of energy” that can or will be able to provide the same power output at as conventional power plants at a competitive price?

Instead of “green, renewable sources of energy,” shouldn’t we be pushing for clean and “cheap” sources of energy? “Green” and “renewable” doesn’t do us any good unless the energy is also economical. With the exception of hydro – which the enviros increasingly don’t like, all so-called “green, renewable sources of energy” cost more than conventional sources. In any case, I’m all for investment as long as it’s private investment. Taxpayers should be forced to become venture capitalists.

“As these three examples show, sometimes you have to spend money to save money. Know this, though. The minor sacrifices we make today will benefit future generations of Americans. It would be worth the investment.”

[RWC] As I noted at the beginning of this critique, check the Times record when it comes to “investments.”