Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!

A wonderful column by Jerry Bowyer on Townhall on the ethanol crisis. The guy definitely knows his economics.

Foods seem to be rising in price in direct proportion to their proximity to ethanol subsidies. Feed grain is up an amazing 41% in the past year. Fruit and nuts are down 3% over the same period. Why? Because we turn corn into ethanol, but we don’t do the same with walnuts or bananas.

Here in the center of the world economy, this means high food prices. Out at the edges, it means famine. When food gets expensive here, we tap into a little more credit, or perhaps skip restaurants for awhile. When food gets expensive in Malaysia, they riot in the streets. When food gets too expensive in Cape Town, some men take to the streets in violent roving bands, maiming and murdering refugees who’ve come from other countries in search of something to eat.

So much for liberals as the caretakers of the world’s poor.

And then on the familiar “it’s the dollar” argument:

It’s not the dollar either. Yes, the dollar is a problem; the Treasury Secretary and the Fed have neglected it. But the falling dollar isn’t causing these price spikes. First of all, the world’s hungry don’t trade in dollars. They trade in Ringits, Bahts, Yuan, Rubles and Rands. Foreigners are not starving because the dollar lost value. In fact, the drop in the dollar helps them. And it’s not even the dollar that’s the problem here in America either. We generally export food, especially grains. But Americans are getting hit with the worst price spikes in precisely those agricultural sectors where we supply our own food. We’re the bread basket of the world! I’m sorry, but when I buy high fructose corn syrup from Iowa, it doesn’t involve the foreign exchange markets.

Okay, that may be a strong statement … the Associated Press probably wrote most of this story anyway:

In a new study, University of Wisconsin-Madison agricultural economist Randy Fortenberry says it’s clear that the increasing use of corn to produce fuel has played a role in rising corn prices - but he cautions that the magnitude of the increase has been overstated.

Over the past 18 months, as ethanol production has doubled, corn prices have increased 85% to 100%, but increasing ethanol production is responsible for 25% to 40% of the higher price. That higher cost is all in the corn used to feed livestock - and could be reflected in some of the increases in the price of beef, pork or poultry, according to Fortenberry.

Oh, it’s only 40%! Not a problem, then.

From Jeffrey Sachs:

Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, said Monday that the United States and the European Union should reconsider banking on biofuels.

“In the United States, as much as one-third of the maize crop this year will go to the gas tank, and this is a huge blow to the world food supply, so these programs should be cut back significantly,” Sachs said in Brussels, Belgium.

Top international food scientists recommended last month that the use of food-based biofuels, such as ethanol, be halted, saying that would cut corn prices 20% during a world food crisis.

Sachs is not really a conservative and he has worked for the United Nations, so he should be among the most reputable and trustworthy people on Earth on this issue. (I’ve used his work in my own research, he’s pretty solid.) Sachs reveals that this issue isn’t really that complicated. Less availability of corn for food due to mammoth reallocation of corn (etc) to ethanol simply leaves less corn available. The price will rise to that which can be afforded by consumers who will be willing to pay more for the limited supply. Naturally (economically), this will mean a smaller quanitity supplied.

It’s amazing to see someone like Sachs admit these facts when even he has a financial incentive to state otherwise as someone who wines and dines with international organization bureaucrats.

So many of my liberal colleagues like to point to our states “image” or green ranking when they are talking about big businesses leaving Wisconsin. They seem to think if we just spend tons of state money on light rail, green energy, emissions control and socialized un-”Healthy Wisconsin” healthcare we will somehow attract more talent and more businesses.

As it turns out, it’s a question of simple economics that becomes more and more evident as time passes:

“The Lone Star State passed New York as home to the most big companies in the latest list compiled by Fortune magazine.

Texas now boasts 58 headquarters, three more than New York, the previous No. 1, and California, with 52.

Business experts say it’s a matter of simple economics – Texas attracts companies with its low taxes, affordable land and large labor force.

“Cost is overwhelmingly the No. 1 driver,” said Albert W. Niemi Jr., dean of the business school at Southern Methodist University, who wrote his doctoral thesis about companies leaving the Northeast for the Sun Belt 30 years ago.”

And to preempt those who will say “oh, it’s just oil companies”:

“Other Texas companies on the magazine’s list include technology, such as Dell Inc., three of the nation’s biggest airlines, two of the biggest homebuilders, an insurer, a hospital company and the largest garbage hauler around.”

Hmm, I seem to remember some CEOs in Milwaukee blatantly stating this point:

“They said Milwaukee’s taxes are too high, and the region doesn’t know how to market itself, suffers from a lack of leadership, has wasteful government spending and doesn’t provide enough tax incentives to attract and keep businesses and create jobs.

And when they were done criticizing the region as a terrible place to do business, they piled on and did it again. And again.”

The JS has a great article today on sick leave abuses by the Department of Corrections.

The Journal Sentinel reviewed the weekly time sheets of the state’s 20 highest-paid correctional officers for 2006 and other state records. The review found:

• Eight of the officers called in sick for a shift and then picked up the immediate next shift at least once. They received eight hours of regular pay for the shift they were sick, and time and a half for the eight or more hours of overtime work.

• One Redgranite Correctional Institution officer used nearly 23 days of sick leave. She was paid $97,280 that year, including $51,042 in overtime.

• Officers on average use about 100 hours - or 12.5 days - of sick leave a year. That’s more than 50% above the average for all state employees of 66 hours of sick leave.

• Officers can use three weeks of sick leave a year before their bosses put them on a watch list for potential abuse. Officers can come off the watch list without any discipline if they use less than 40 hours of sick leave in four months.

Naturally, the most of the bureaucrats refused to be interviewed for the story and the Union bosses are refusing to give out any names of the officers who abuse sick leave for financial gain at taxpayer expense.

I really enjoy when the JS gets off its collective duff and does some serious investigative journalism. Why doesn’t this happen more often? And why is it so rare that it has to fall under some special “watchdog” category? Shouldn’t the JS be doing investigative stories every other day?

Picked this tidbit up off the Hotline Blog:

“Since January, 218,923 new voters have registered. Of those, 152,775 registered Democratic and 40,195 registered Republican.

Also since January, 164,026 registered voters changed their affiliation to Democratic and 14,887 changed to Republican. (Pennsylvania’s voter registration form does not require the registrant to specify from which party they are changing.)

Geographically, the highest numbers of voter registration statistics came from Allegheny and Philadelphia counties; the lowest came from Forest and Cameron counties. By age group, the highest numbers of registered voters are between the ages of 45 and 54; the lowest are between 18 and 24 years old.”

This definitely doesn’t bode well for the youth-fueled Obama campaign. Take a look at the Texas exit polls:

Clinton Obama
18-29
16% 40% 59%
30-44
28% 44% 55%
45-59
34% 54% 44%

Student apathy is disappointing but, not surprising. I just don’t think the youth vote has been the game changer that the media has tried to sell it as.

Obama’s Jedi Mind Tricks (HT: Justin)

A comment from a friend on my last post about Barack Obama’s “bitter” elitism deserved a more complete answer in the form of a post. Here is his original comment:

Which part of Obama’s statement to you take offense to? It seems pretty reasonable to me. In context, what he’s saying is that the lower class has been promised much and delivered little over the past 25 years. Of course they’re bitter.

I don’t see why calling out the inequalities of our current economic system is perceived as “elitism”.

I take offense to the idea that rural residents of Pennsylvania (or anywhere else for that matter) “cling” to “guns or religion”. It belittles faith and the right of citizens to own firearms by implying that believing in God or owning a firearm is some sort of mental pacifier. I think it’s just as bad to stereotype/judge gun owners or believers as it is to stereotype African-Americans or any other race.

A Barack Obama presidency (or any DNC Presidency for the matter) would make any of the “inequalities” you refer to much worse. Take Obama’s opposition to NAFTA for example:

“Senator Obama blames “politicians in Washington” for signing trade agreements that he says are bad for the economy because they provide perks for businesses but don’t protect workers. (Source: IHT, Clinton and Obama address economic fears, February 18, 2008)”

Yet NAFTA, promoted by Republicans in congress, along with the general free trade approach that Obama and Clinton both oppose, has overwhelmingly helped out the poor.

Let’s look at unemployment and inflation for example:
7.1 avg. unemployment - 1980-1994 - pre-NAFTA - Democrats controlled gov’t purse strings
5.0 avg. unemployment - 1994-2008 - post-NAFTA - GOP mostly controlled gov’t purse strings

99% total inflation - pre-NAFTA - 1980-1994 - Democrats controlled gov’t purse strings
45% total inflation - post-NAFTA - 1994-2008 - GOP mostly controlled gov’t purse strings

The bottom line: Obama is being hypocritical on two fronts:
1. He is judging rural Americans, gun owners and believers as a group in the same way he would not want to be judged as a member of an African-American group.
2. He is ridiculing this same group for it’s “anti-trade sentiment” when he is anti-trade (anti-NAFTA) himself!

Here is the quote again in case you missed it:

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”

After a considering many different models, renting at the range and a couple months of consideration (thanks to the folks over at the Boots and Sabers forum for your advice), I finalized my first handgun purchase this past weekend. The date I picked it up also happened to be the day former NRA President Charleston Heston died (check out Brian’s post with videos). I can’t think of a better way to commemorate his commitment to the 2nd Amendment then picking it up and heading out to the range.

Here it is, the CZ P-01.

Does this put me in the huge group of Americans that Barack Obama’s elitism offended with this statement?

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”.

No, I was offended by the God part already, the rest of the quote is just icing on his elitist cake. Good to see that the American people are getting to know him better though. This is not the man we need running the country and every bit of him is politics as usual.

Via NewsWatch:

Anti-war messages were scrawled across the front of an Army recruiting center on the city’s east side as the war an Iraq marks its fifth year today.

Milwaukee police said today that the building, 3133 N. Oakland Ave., was vandalized between 8 p.m. Monday and 8 p.m. on Tuesday with graffiti across the front three windows and brick trim. The front door glass was also shattered.

Vandals wrote, “Expect resistance,” “War is offensive” and “Five years too many” across the building, which was also vandalized about a year ago as well as at least once in 2003.

Police are still seeking those responsible for the most recent damage.

Good luck with that. The JS links to an Indymedia Milwaukee website where a member or something has posted pictures of the vandalism.

This is, of course, the same location where a group called “Milwaukee Coalition for a Just Peace” held an anti-war rally just a few days ago at which Marquette’s own Saddam apologist, Simon Harak, and Milwaukee Congresswoman Gwen Moore attended.

The rally was previewed in the recent Shepherd Express story, filled to the brim with mindless cliches, about Harak.

Harak goes after former U.S. State Department Secretary Albright again in this piece. It would astonish me that Harak places so much vitriol on Madeline Albright were I not to appreciate the depth of bipartisanship in Harak’s hatred for the United States and U.S. military forces.

It might be worth going through the piece, but honestly, how many different ways exist for Harak and his ilk to say substantively nothing?

Regarding the vandalism, I have to wonder if ultimately the same Simon Harak who would argue that Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait was justified and who cooed about Saddam that, “People actually sing songs to him on television. His picture hangs everywhere.” wouldn’t also justify a little intimidation of local Army recruiters to make a point.

This is some pretty shocking coverage. I have talked to liberals before who echo this extreme dislike for the military but, I have never seen such “damning stuff” as one friend called it.