Well, Blow Me Down!

A couple of follow-ups to my post on alternative energy from Monday. Leading off is an informative e-mail sent by Tim from Colorado:

Many states have now passed legislation requiring power companies to provide a certain "Renewable Portfolio Standard" or RPS as wind or solar energy, usually 10-20% by 2010 or 2020 (California's is 20% by the end of 2010, and 33% by the end of 2020). Now, that's just an average and every state has slightly different requirements.

I quibble a little with Mr. Bryce's numbers; I think he's one decimal place too high, so I'm going to adjust my discussion, and then we'll figure in Mr. Bryce's error at the end. According to the US Energy Information Administration, the peak electricity production last year was mid-July at 400 terawatt hours (400 x 10^12).


For the sake of argument, let's say the average RPS number for wind or solar is 3% of the US' total generation, so we'll split that 3% evenly 50-50 between wind and solar, and assume that every state in the Union has passed an RPS bill. Nationally, three percent of 400 terawatts is 12 terawatts that will have to come from wind or solar; sticking with our assumption that's 6 terawatts from wind, and 6 terawatts from solar.

The average output of a land-based wind turbine is 3-4 megawatts (10^6 watts); I'll be generous and use 4 megawatts. 6 terawatts divided by 4 megawatts per wind turbine equals 1.5 million wind turbines needed to meet a national average of 6 terawatts of wind generation. Do you know how many wind generators were installed last year? 8,300 megawatts of wind generation; dividing by my average of 4 megawatts per turbine means about 2,000 turbines were installed last year; 2,700 if we use 3 megawatts per turbine. At that rate it will take 500-750 years to install all of the 1.5 million wind turbines we'll need. Multiply those numbers by ten if we use Mr. Bryce's numbers.

If you factor in this information we're going to need more than 1.5 million turbines. The overall availability of wind turbines currently in service is somewhere around 30%; this includes maintenance downtime, and periods where the wind speed is too high or too low to operate.

What they don't tell you is that for every megawatt of wind or solar generation a power company has, that megawatt has to be backed up by conventional generation, usually in the form of a gas turbine, because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.

As we all saw happen over the last couple of years, natural gas futures tend to rise unpredictably at times. Another fact that is not shared is that wind generation is subsidized, which means we pay for it up front, and the subsidized cost is still higher per kilowatt than coal-fired power and nuclear power, so we pay again on the back end.

On the subject of Renewable Portfolio Standards, Paul Chesser notes some trouble in the Tar Heel state:

Today's News & Observer of Raleigh (one of McClatchy's tanking newspapers) reports that one of North Carolina's two investor-owned utilities, Progress Energy (Duke Energy is the other major one), has announced that it will not be able to meet renewable portfolio standard mandates enacted by the state a couple of years ago.

The story includes a good quote from the Progress Energy CEO:

"If renewables were easy, effective and plentiful, we'd be doing them," he said.

Exactly. And pouring billions even trillions of dollars into them is not going to change that simple fact any time soon.

Living The Artful Life

There was a wonderful interview in yesterday's WSJ with Art Linkletter (sub req). What a life this guy has had. Successful radio and TV star. Friends with Ronald Reagan, Walt Disney, and Cary Grant. Been married to his wife for seventy-three years. And at age ninety-six, he's still going strong. A few favorite bits:

One of Mr. Linkletter's closest friends was Walt Disney, "my greatest mentor." He did the opening show for Disneyland. Another close friend was Cary Grant. Mr. Linkletter has been married to his wife, Lois, for 73 years, but he says the one woman he always pined for was Sophia Loren. Grant did have an affair with the actress, and Mr. Linkletter says he jealously asked: "'Cary, was she worth it?' And he said, 'Art, you'd better believe it!'"

And:

Mr. Linkletter has also written and lectured on how to live a long life and make your dreams come true. "As early as possible in your life, find what you love to do and then do it. You will find you will do that better than almost anyone else." Also, have a positive attitude about life and "always try to find something to smile and laugh about every day." Is that possible even at age 96? I ask. "I always say if you can't find something to laugh about when you get old, just look at yourself in the mirror."

He has an interesting perspective on Social Security:

Mr. Linkletter does turn serious when talking about the mismanaged policies out of Washington. About Barack Obama, he says: "He's intelligent, a born performer and ambitious, like I was, but that spending bill [the stimulus] is the most terrible mistake in our history. I never thought I would see so much debt."

His passion is Social Security reform. "I'm a conservative, and I actually voted for FDR. At first Social Security was a terrific idea. Give people some financial security in their old age," he says. But the taxes grew and grew over his lifetime -- to 15% from 2% of each paycheck. "And as the time went on, this huge fund became an ATM machine for Congress. And now all they have left are IOUs. Nobody owns anything." He says: "I was one of the first people to ever pay Social Security, at age 22 starting in 1935. But now the program has become a rip-off, just like the guy [Bernard Madoff] who did the Ponzi scheme. We need to stop the congressional raid on the trust fund and turn this tax money back over to individuals so they can own it and control it."

Fixing Social Security would seem like a hopeless crusade for a 96-year-old, but he pledges "I'm not going to die until it happens." He's heading up a new group, called Team Grandparent, that is trying to organize senior citizens to challenge the AARP orthodoxy.

How can you not love that approach?

And that's a path Art Linkletter wants the nation to avoid at all costs. "We've become a rich country because of freedom. Freedom. The ability to speak and worship and do business and run your own affairs and have a limited government which promoted enterprise, in the early days, instead of trying to run everything -- like now."

Yet he retains the optimistic outlook that I suspect has been the secret of his success. "So much progress in my lifetime. TVs, radios, computers, heart transplants, and so on. And this is just the beginning. . . . I think that my life has been lived during the greatest time in the history of mankind. But the next fifty years are going top even be better."

If Americans can emulate just a portion of the spunk, hard work, and positive attitude that Art Linkletter has demonstrated throughout his life, I have no doubt that his prediction will come to fruition.

The Great Right North?

Check out this gem from a City Pages story on U.S. military deserters who are flocking to Canada to avoid war:

The deserters have become a tight-knit community, enjoying weekly dinners at a Chinese restaurant near the office, keeping tabs on one another's court cases, and celebrating the babies born to resisters and their spouses. To Zaslofsky, the young men and women have become his surrogate children, and he doesn't want any of them put in jail. "We have a Rush Limbaugh government here. This isn't how Canada is supposed to be," he says defiantly.

A Rush Limbaugh government? In Canada? Really? Hmmm...I may have to reconsider my views of our neighbors to the north.

I love how the writer describes him as making this quote "defiantly." It's such a brave stand he's taking in defying the jack-booted thugs who run the Canadian government. Any moment now, speech police might descend and dragoon him off for a show trial in a kangaroo court.

Oh wait. They only do that in Canada to people who speak out and say anything unflattering about Islam or homosexuality.

Coleman's Campaign Hacked

Strange story from The Hill on how Norm Coleman supporters' private info was likely breached:

Norm Coleman's Senate campaign said Wednesday that the private information of its supporters has probably been breached and is encouraging them to cancel their credit cards.

Coleman backers began receiving e-mails Tuesday night from an e-mail address at wikileaks.org stating that it possessed personal information about them and was preparing to post it online.

The same address stated in an e-mail early Wednesday morning that "we have discovered that all on-line Coleman contributors had their full credit card details released onto the Internet on 28 of [January], 2009, by Coleman's staff."

Coleman's campaign followed with an e-mail Wednesday morning that said the campaign became worried that its firewalls had been breached in January.

"We contacted federal authorities at that time, and they reviewed logs from the server in question as well as additional firewall logs," campaign manager Cullen Sheehan said. "They indicated that, after reviewing those logs, they did not find evidence that our database was downloaded by any unauthorized party.

"Let me be very clear: At this point, we don't know if last evening's e-mail is a political dirty trick or what the objective is of the person who sent the e-mail.

"What we do know, however, is that there is a strong likelihood that these individuals have found a way to breach private and confidential information."

Coleman's campaign is encouraging supporters who think they might have contributed to the campaign to cancel their credit cards.

Since I received said Tuesday e-mail, this story has a personal interest for me. I honestly could not recall if I had donated money on-line to Coleman or not. When the second e-mail arrived with a link to an Excel file with a list of donors and some of their credit card information (which I am not posting a link to for obvious reasons), I was relieved to not find my name.

Not sure of what the point of all this is or who is behind it. I am sure that's going to cause a lot of headaches for people who did nothing more than exercise their political freedom.

Making The Box Bigger

Yesterday, President Obama unveiled his plans for education. To his credit, he talked about the need to reward good teachers and remove bad ones. And to expand charter schools. Neither proposal is all that bold or ground breaking, but at least he's willing to talk about subjects that Democrats--in deference to teachers unions--have usually refused to even bring to the table. However, I am still skeptical about his ability to turn this talk into concrete actions. Leaders with a far better record of reforming institutions--Rudy Giuliani for example--have found their best laid plans for school reform scuttled on the shoals of the entrenched educational bureaucracies and interest groups.

I also wonder if some of his other education plans are another case of misdiagnosing the real cause of the problem. To solve our economic problems, he claims the most important action is to control rising health care costs. But there's a lot of question whether that is actually the root of our current problem or the most pressing factor in our future economic growth.

There's no dispute that our current education system is not delivering the results that we expect or need. Two of the proposals that President Obama revealed to improve the system are getting children into school sooner and having more people go to college. Again, I question whether these are really the right solutions to the problem.

In regard to early childhood education, Mr. Obama seems to believe that weighing the benefits against the costs make it an open and shut case.

Studies show that children in these programs are more likely to score higher in reading and math, more likely to graduate from high school and attend college, more likely to hold a job, and more likely to earn more in that job. For every dollar we invest in these programs, we get nearly ten dollars back in reduced welfare rolls, fewer health costs, and less crime. That is why the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act I signed into law invests $5 billion in growing Early Head Start and Head Start, expanding access to quality child care for 150,000 more children from working families, and doing more for children with special needs. And it is why we are going to offer 55,000 first-time parents regular visits from trained nurses to help make sure their children are healthy and prepare them for school and life.

While it's true that there are many studies that demonstrate the benefits of ECE, there are also many studies that question the real impact. And some of the studies that are cited by ECE supporters don't hold up to rigorous analysis. The study cited by President Obama showing a 10 to 1 return on investment is one example:

The research design simply "matched" children whose parents chose to participate in the CPC program with those who did not. It's not a random-assignment study, which means that subtle differences between the two groups--which can easily go undetected by survey responses, income data, and other rough measures --might explain all differences between the two populations. There is absolutely no way to determine if the program had an impact or the families who participated were different from those who did not participate.

ECE might benefit some children in some circumstances. But it hasn't been proven to be the educational panacea that many of its supporters claim it to be. It's also worth asking again if one of the biggest reasons that our current system is failing is that children aren't going to school early enough. While it's not always reasonable (given demographic differences) to compare practices and results across countries, it is interesting to note that in Finland--a country that regularly kicks our butt as badly on educational testing as they do Nordic combined skiing--children typically don't start school until they are seven.

Another widely held assumption repeated by Mr. Obama yesterday is that the more people we have graduate from college the better.

The fifth part of America's education strategy is providing every American with a quality higher education--whether it's college or technical training. Never has a college degree been more important. And never has it been more expensive. At a time when so many of our families are bearing enormous economic burdens, the rising cost of tuition threatens to shatter dreams. That is why will simplify federal college assistance forms so it doesn't take a PhD to apply for financial aid. And that is why we are already taking steps to make college or technical training affordable.

Now, he did mention college and technical training, but the emphasis in his plan--and, as near as I can tell, in the spending--is focused on college. I would argue that a greater problem facing the country is not that enough people don't go to college, but that there aren't enough viable alternatives available for those for whom college is not the best path.

No one will argue that we need a better educated workforce in order to compete. But is the real problem that we don't have enough people going to college or that many of those who currently do graduate lack the skills, mindset, and capacity for critical thinking and problem solving that businesses require?

Like putting more money in the system, simply putting more students into the top of college funnel doesn't do anything to change the product that comes out the bottom. Yes, his plan includes proposals to help more people stay in college to graduate, but there's not much about making sure they do so prepared for the challenging and competitive environment of the real world.

Overall, the education plan unveiled yesterday is a mixed bag. Some rays of hope with merit pay, charter schools, and the need for parental responsibility:

So, yes, we need more money. Yes, we need more reform. Yes, we need to hold ourselves more accountable for every dollar we spend. But there is one more ingredient I want to talk about. The bottom line is that no government policies will make any difference unless we also hold ourselves more accountable as parents. Because government, no matter how wise or efficient, cannot turn off the TV or put away the video games. Teachers, no matter how dedicated or effective, cannot make sure your children leave for school on time and do their homework when they get back at night. These are things only a parent can do. These are things that our parents must do.

But continuing to focus on more of the same and sooner (both in terms of money and student participation) as the ultimate solutions to our education problems is not enough of a change from the past to convince me that he's interested in implementing real reform.

Down To Business

Sometimes no matter how many times you repeat something, it seems like the message never gets through. This happens to parents with young children on a regular basis, but also occurs in the political sphere. Even though you think the message should be glaringly obvious to everyone by now, you really can't repeat it enough.

So even though I've done my level best to beat down the tireless trope that "big business is conservative," it's clearly one of those situations where there's no such thing as over communication.

Back in high school French class we would strap on enormous headphones to listen to audio tapes of Gallic phrases preceded by the instruction "ecoutez et repetez." So please indulge me and ecoutez et repetez the following:

Big business has no interest in advancing policies based on free market principles.

Big business' only interest in politics is supporting the party that can better advance their interests at the time.

Got it? Good. The latest evidence of this truth comes in an article by Kevin D. Williamson in the March 9th edition of National Review called Losing Gordon Gekko (sub req):

In 2006 and 2008, Wall Street poured money on Democrats. Big Wall Street firms that made major political contributions--including Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, UBS, and Lehman--gave the majority of their contributions to Democrats. The hedge funds followed suit, as they are inclined to do--they depend on the big Wall Street institutions to clear their trades. And it wasn't just Wall Street: Democrats led in six of the ten big-business sectors tracked by the Center for Responsive Politics: law, health care, defense contractors, communications/electronics, finance/insurance/real estate, and the catch-all category that includes chemical firms, retailers, manufacturers, food processors, and other industrial operators. Republicans held on to agriculture--which is, not coincidentally, the industry in which they are the least interested in practicing capitalism: It's not the philosophical commitment to free markets that opens up corporate checkbooks, but the promise of favorable exceptions to those principles.

So why is the bulls-and-bears set going donkey? Partly it's self-interest: Wall Street loves a tax break, but Big Money has over the years found a lot to love about Big Government. Those carbon-offset exchanges may be clearinghouses for products that are, in essence, imaginary, but they are going to make a real bundle for the bankers who set them up--and, since they'll inevitably have the support of government, there will be relatively little risk involved. And Democrats' anti-war talk hasn't spooked the defense contractors. For all the conspiracy-mongering about Halliburton Republicans, now that Democrats control defense appropriations it's no surprise to find the likes of Rep. Ike Skelton, the Democrat who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, enjoying the support of military providers such as Armor Holdings Inc. What is surprising is that Democrats now lead Republicans overall in financial support from defense firms.

Remember, big business isn't about politics or principles. It's about business. Red? Blue? Whichever brings more green.

When The Cup Comes To Town

The most venerable trophy in sports is coming to town:

The The Shjon Podein Children's Foundation (AKA: Team 25) is bringing the Stanley Cup to MN on March 23rd and 24th for a "Charity Cup Tour." We are excited to bring this opportunity to the great hockey fans of MN and at the same time help out a great cause, our local food shelves. In these challenging times, it is important that we come together to support the basic needs of our own communities.

Shjon will have the Stanley Cup at the St. Louis Park Rec Center on Monday March 23 from 2:00pm-6:30pm and then at O'Gara's Garage in St. Paul (adults only) on Monday from 9pm-12am. Shjon and the Stanley Cup will then travel to Rochester, MN on Tuesday March 24th and will be at Graham Arenas from 2:00pm-7:00pm and at McMurphy's Sports Bar in Rochester from 9pm-12am.

We ask that you make a cash donation to have a photo taken with the Cup. Donations taken will benefit the Second Harvest Heartland Food Bank in the Twin Cities area, Channel One Food Bank in Rochester, and Families Serving the Troops through O'Gara's. (Brian Leighton of G.B. Leighton will play an acoustic set at O'Gara's on Monday night at 9pm, further entertainment tbd.)

Interestingly enough, after Podein won the Stanley Cup (which JB used to irreverently refer to as the "Stanley Strap") with the Avs in '01, my wife had a chance to see the prize up close and personal when the bachelorette party she was with happened to cross paths with Podein, who--in the great tradition of NHL champions--was escorting Lord Stanley's trophy about town. Needless to say, she wasn't nearly as impressed by the chance encounter as I was.

This is a great opportunity for local hockey fans to catch a glimpse of hockey history and help a very worthy cause.

No Alternative

One of the main pillars of President's Obama's plan to "transform the American economy" (shudder) is "investing" in "green technology" and "alternative" energy sources. In fact, Mr. Obama has audaciously promised to double (yes, double!) the amount of energy that the US generates from "renewable" sources in the next three years.

Sounds hopeful until you consider a couple of things:

1. Under the reins of that oil-loving cowboy President Bush, the US already managed to double its output of energy from renewable sources.

2. Even if President Obama were to realize his renewable energy goal, it would barely make a dent in meeting America's overall energy requirements. You could double it, double it again, and double it another time and still not even be supplying 10% of what we need.

Robert Bryce is the author of an excellent book on energy called Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence. We were fortunate enough to interview him on the NARN First Team last August and he brings much needed sanity and common sense (along with a gusher of facts) to the often ill-informed debate over energy.

Last Thursday, he had a piece in the WSJ that laid out some of these facts to argue that Renewable Energy Is Insufficient to Replace Hydrocarbons:

Let's start by deciphering exactly what Mr. Obama includes in his definition of "renewable" energy. If he's including hydropower, which now provides about 2.4% of America's total primary energy needs, then the president clearly has no concept of what he is promising. Hydro now provides more than 16 times as much energy as wind and solar power combined. Yet more dams are being dismantled than built. Since 1999, more than 200 dams in the U.S. have been removed.

If Mr. Obama is only counting wind power and solar power as renewables, then his promise is clearly doable. But the unfortunate truth is that even if he matches Mr. Bush's effort by doubling wind and solar output by 2012, the contribution of those two sources to America's overall energy needs will still be almost inconsequential.

Here's why. The latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that total solar and wind output for 2008 will likely be about 45,493,000 megawatt-hours. That sounds significant until you consider this number: 4,118,198,000 megawatt-hours. That's the total amount of electricity generated during the rolling 12-month period that ended last November. Solar and wind, in other words, produce about 1.1% of America's total electricity consumption.

Bryce is not against solar or wind power per se (in fact he has taxpayer subsidized solar panels on his own home). He's just arguing that given the scale of the US energy needs and the amount that wind and solar can viably supply, it's unrealistic to expect them to replace a significant amount of the energy that we currently get from carbon sources anytime in the foreseeable future.

One of the other ways that President Obama plans to transition the US to renewable energy is by building "smart" energy grids. The intermittent nature of solar and wind power necessitates the need for such an upgrade. However, as William Tucker points out in the March 9th edition of National Review (sub req), there's more to it than just making the grid smarter:

This will not solve the supply-and-demand problem, however: If the wind dies down, power disappears, and even the smartest grid can't transmit electricity that doesn't exist. To increase the proportion of electricity coming from wind and solar to anything like Friedman levels, a vast network of electrical storage will also be required.

At present there is only one established technology for storing commercial quantities of electricity, "pumped storage." At night, such a system uses extra electricity to pump water uphill. During the day, when demand is high, the water is released, and the power is re-collected via turbines. There are about 30 pumped-storage plants around the country, with a total capacity of approximately 20,000 MW--3 percent of our total consumption. All the good sites are gone, and there will be no more.

A second method is to use excess electricity to fill underground caverns with pressurized air, but this is not yet in wide use. There is also talk of employing a national fleet of electric cars as a network of storage batteries, but that is far in the future.

I find it fascinating that with all the technological advances that have been made in the almost one-hundred-thirty some years since Edison patented a system for electric distribution, the best way that we've been able to figure out to store electricity is to use it to pump water water up a hill and then recapture it on the way down. Storage isn't the only problem that wind and solar present for the grid either:

The second problem, that of transporting wind- and solar-generated electricity to population centers, requires a completely different solution. Our 345 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines cannot transport electricity more than 300 miles without excessive losses to heat and friction. The only way to reduce line loss is to upgrade to 765 kV. That means building an entirely new national grid--at a time when our current grid has fallen into disrepair because no one wants transmission lines built near his neighborhood. The cost will easily surpass $1 trillion.

That cost probably isn't even taking into account all the court battles that will ensue as people seek to prevent the lines from being built in their back yards. How many years would it take to even get local approval for such a far-reaching project?

Finally, Tucker gets back to the ultimate problem with wind and solar that Bryce has oft noted, the scale:

That won't be the end of the matter, however--these updates will address the distribution of electricity, but not its generation. To supply more wind and solar energy, we'll need windmills and sunlight collectors on an almost unimaginable scale. In his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Gore downplayed the cost this would impose, claiming that all of America's electricity needs could be provided by a southwestern solar facility "100 miles on each side" (10,000 square miles). To support this assertion, he referenced a January 2008 Scientific American article.

But the article, "A Solar Grand Plan," actually says "46,000 square miles of land would be needed for photovoltaic and concentrated solar power installations."

What's 36,000 square miles between friends?

That's one-third of New Mexico, the fifth-largest state. The article also calls for a national network of pressurized-air electricity storage. The solar collectors would easily cost $1 trillion, the storage system a second trillion, and the rebuilt transmission grid a third. A trillion here, a trillion there...

...and you're starting to talk real money. Unfortunately, using such money to invest in wind and solar doesn't mean that you're talking about addressing America's real energy needs.

A New American Standard

Jazz singer Kathleen Stewart gives voice to the frustration of fiscally prudent Americans with a little ditty called It Ain't Your Money to Spend. My favorite verse is:

It ain't your money to spend.
You're acting like a bunch of jerks.
I'm the one who earned it.
I'm the one who works.
Your income redistribution
Doesn't jibe with the Constitution.
So I got a little message to send:
It ain't your money to spend.

Which Way To Your America?

Yesterday, at his "health care summit" (is anyone else already tired of these dog & pony show White House meetings where hundreds gather to supposedly come up with solutions to intractable problems in ONE DAY?) President Obama said that rising health care costs were the biggest issue facing the American economy. Some verbatim quotes:

And today, there are those who say we should defer health care reform once again, that at a time of economic crisis, we simply can't afford to fix our health care system as well.

Well, let me be clear. The same soaring costs that are straining families' budgets are sinking our businesses and eating up our government's budget, too. Too many small businesses can't insure their employees. Major American corporations are struggling to compete with their foreign counterparts, and companies of all sizes are shipping their jobs overseas or shutting their doors for good.

Medicare costs are consuming our federal budget. I don't have to tell members of Congress this. Medicaid is overwhelming our state budgets. I don't need to tell governors and state legislatures that.

Medicare and Medicaid--two government programs--are busting state and federal budgets. The fix? More government health care programs.

That's why we cannot delay this discussion any longer. That's why today's forum is so important, because health care reform is no longer just a moral imperative, it's a fiscal imperative. If we want to create jobs and rebuild our economy and get our federal budget under control, then we have to address the crushing costs of health care this year in this administration.

Are rising health care costs really the most pressing economic issue facing most Americans? What about the plummeting stock market? Soaring umemployment rates? The crash in real estate values? Ballooning budget deficits? Or our nearly insolvent financial system?

Now Mr. Obama and other big government health care proponents would argue that health care costs are driving much of the economic pain that we're feeling today. But as Sally Pipes argues in today's WSJ, the facts (as reported by the Congressional Budget Office) simply don't support this claim:

Health care certainly plays a major role in the U.S. economy, and by almost any objective account a highly positive role. It employs 13 million Americans and accounts for one out of 10 jobs. But the assertion that the costs of providing health insurance cripples American corporations in the global economy is simply wrong.

CBO director Douglas W. Elmendorf explained this last week to the Senate Committee on Finance, which is chaired by Max Baucus, a leading proponent of government health care. The point is that for employers, health care is merely a part of total compensation: It reduces cash compensation for employees but it does not increase costs of employment. To argue otherwise is to argue for lower total U.S. compensation -- that is, lower wages for U.S. workers. Said Mr. Elmendorf, "the costs of providing health insurance to their workers are not a competitive disadvantage to U.S.-based firms."

Another common argument for more government insurance is that the uninsured shift costs to private payers when they avail themselves of the health-care safety net -- thus jacking up health-care premiums in the private sector. Many reform advocates make this claim, including Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D., Mass.) and Sen. Baucus in an op-ed in this newspaper.

This is not the case. In the first place, a recent CBO report ("Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals, " December 2008) is clear on one issue: Working to achieve universal coverage through expanding government's role in health care will increase total costs and therefore either increase premiums or taxes, not reduce them. As for the argument that the uninsured shift costs, Mr. Elmendorf was quite direct dispelling this myth in his testimony before Mr. Baucus's committee. "Overall," he said, "the effect of uncompensated care on private-sector payment rates appears to be limited."

In fact, insofar as there is a cost shift, it derives from the government programs Medicare and Medicaid, which reimburse providers at rates roughly 20% to 40% lower than the private providers. This has been detailed by the widely used and quoted health consultant firm, the Lewin Group. But this is conveniently ignored by those who want to expand government health care.

Pipes goes on to note that according to the CBO, most of the growth in health care costs is due to advances in technology and treatments:

"Studies attribute the bulk of the cost of growth to the development of new treatments and other medical technologies," the CBO notes in a report issued last December, later adding, "Given the central role of medical technology in cost growth, reducing or slowing spending over the long term would probably require decreasing the pace of adopting new treatments and procedures or limiting the breadth of their application."

Which boils down to rationing care. Funny, Mr. Obama didn't happen to mention anything about that in his health care chat. Instead he talked about how his reforms will "lower costs for everyone, improve quality for everyone and expand coverage to all Americans." And create jobs, reduce the deficit, and cure cancer.

But there are a lot of people who are desperate. There's a lot of desperation out there. Today, I want them and the people like them across this country to know that I have not forgotten them -- we have not forgotten them. They are why we're here today -- to start delivering the change they demanded at the polls in November, that they have continued to demand since the election. And if we're successful, if we can pass comprehensive reform, these folks will see their costs come down. They'll get the car they need. And we'll help our businesses create jobs again so our economy can grow.

And a car? Who says we can't have it all?

I know that there is broad dissatisfaction with our current health care system. And that a lot of Americans have struggled because of it. Lord knows how many heart tugging personal stories we heard during the campaign about health care related problems.

But again, I question whether rising health care costs are really the primary economic concern facing most American families right now. It isn't for mine or for anyone I know. Like the whole "everyone knows someone who's losing their house" claim, I wonder if I'm the outlier.

In Pipes' piece she cites a December Gallop poll showing that by a 49%-41% margin, Americans favor maintaining the current model. The problem is that no one is going to turn out at a "health care community discussion" to say that they're okay with the way things work now. And no politician is going to call out a citizen from the crowd and say "Joining here today is Jane Smith. While she's got some complaints, she's generally happy with the way her health care plan works today."

I expect that a lot of Americans are going to be in for a rude surprise when they finally realize just what President Obama's ambitious health care reforms really will mean for them and their families. I also fear that by the time they do, it will be too late.

UPDATE: Charles Kratuhammer has an astute analysis of how President Obama has misdiagnosed what truly ails the economy.

Utter Madness

Matt e-mails to hep us to the WaPo's March Beer Madness.

File under: great idea, poor execution. The problems include:

- Why start with just thirty-two beers instead of sixty-four?

- The four "regions" (ales, lagers, specialty/fruit, and dark beers) are pretty lame ways to categorize beer. No true beer buff uses the term "dark beer."

- There's a definite East Coast bias, which I guess is understandable since it's put on by WaPo.

- The selection of beers leaves a lot to be desired. There are some fine breweries included, but their best beers usually aren't featured. With all the great ales out there, they should have come up with a much better selection in that region especially.

- Most egregious of all, there are two Bud products. I suspect this has a lot more to do with advertising than choosing the best beer. Even worse, both Bud beers "won" their opening round matchups. I think that Leinie's Honey Weiss is overrated, but c'mon you can't tell me that Bud Light Lime is truly a superior beer. Same with Budweiser's American Ale beating out Peak Organic Amber Ale. The '72 Olympic basketball gold medal game was fairly refereed compared with this rigged judging.

You can vote for your picks in the sweet sixteen matchups. If there is any justice, Bell's Kalamazoo Stout will end up on top.

Real Prophetability

Keith Pavlischek questions how courageous it really was for Ronald Sider, Jim Wallis, and David Gushee to endorse President Obama's nomination of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services in a post At First Things called The Self-Proclaimed Prophethood of Evangelical Believers:

But if you are going to get into the rough and tumble of everyday politics and if you are going to take the side of President Obama, the most powerful man in the world, against evangelicals and Catholics leaders in the pro-life movement on a cabinet appointment, could we at least be spared all the self-righteous drivel about being "prophetic," and "speaking the truth to power." You can be a flak for the Obama administration on things like cabinet appointments. Or, you can claim to be a "prophet" and "speak the truth to power." But you can't be both. It seems obvious what the Wallis, Sider and Gushee crowd have chosen.

If my fellow evangelicals want an example of how to be prophetic with regard to Gov. Sebelius' stance on abortion, they might take a clue from Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City , Kansas. Last May, Archbishop Naumann reacting to Sebelius' veto of state Senate Bill 389 and the subsequent House version, titled the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act, declared that Sebelius' stance on abortion had "grave spiritual and moral consequences." He asked that Sebelius no longer receive Communion until she repudiated her stance and made a "worthy sacramental confession."

To this evangelical, that sounds a tad more "prophetic," than the hack politics of Wallis, Sider, Gushee. In any case, it will be something to keep in mind next time this crowd gets on its high horse and denounces the religious right for compromising its prophetic voice in pursuit of political power.