Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I want to start by thanking all of you for your patience and understanding in allowing us the opportunity to present a new financial plan. We have been working very hard with all departments to make revisions that will reflect both our administration’s focus on fiscal discipline as well as the need to stimulate the economy. One of our basic tasks was to balance the budget without using the Hurricane Relief Fund. We believe the Hurricane Relief Fund should be maintained in order to ensure that the people of Hawaii will be protected following the next hurricane, which everyone agrees is a certainty. We have to be sure that the state of Hawaii will not be hampered during recovery efforts and that insurance will be readily available to homeowners and businesses. Also, we believe that to restore trust in government, this obligation must be fulfilled and the intent of the fund must remain intact. To achieve our goals while fulfilling this obligation we implemented a freeze on filling non essential vacancies and requested a 5 percent reduction of discretionary expenditures for the remainder of fiscal year 2003. Exemptions were allowed for debt service, fringe benefit costs, costs associated with the Felix consent decree, University of Hawaii and Department of Education instruction and school level support, public welfare, and funding for child and adult mental health costs. Following is the revised Multi Year General Fund Financial Plan, which is based on January 2003 Council on Revenue projections. Please view this as our preliminary proposal as many details are still being worked out with individual departments and this plan may change during the session. However, I feel this is a good starting point for both the Legislature and the general public to begin to understand how we will achieve our goals of restoring fiscal discipline while at the same time delivering a wide range of quality public services. These are highlights of the financial plan for the current fiscal year 2003: *A net increase (from the December 2002 financial plan) of $22.0 million in non-tax revenues from the Council on Revenue September 2002 estimates. *Projected revenues include FY 02 carry over balances of $134 million; $2.0 million to be transferred from the Bureau of Conveyance special fund; and $18.1 million from bond premium proceeds. *Projected expenditures include: $179.4 million for approved collective bargaining raises; a total of $23.5 million for legislative claims and other specific legislative appropriations made in prior sessions for FY 03; proposed emergency appropriations totaling $40.8 million; and expenditures of $2.9 million for special election and vacation payout costs. *Expenditures are reduced by $39.7 million from 5 percent restrictions on the discretionary operating budget ($35 million) and restrictions on specific appropriations ($4.7 million). *Other reductions to expenditures come from debt service savings (series CZ) of $8.3 million, and from annual statewide lapses of $55.0 million. *For the upcoming 2003-2005 biennium and years to follow, our budgetary focus is on maintaining fiscal discipline and strengthening the economy in order to generate recurring revenue sources to meet recurring expenses. *These are our revenue and expenditure assumptions for FB 2003 05 (FY 04 and FY 05): A net increase (from the December 2002 financial plan) of $15.1 million and $15.0 million in non tax revenues from the Council’s September 2002 estimates for FY 04 and FY 05, respectively. *Projected revenues include $200,000 in FY 04 and $6.8 million in FY 05 for additional reimbursements to the Retirement System; $33.7 million in special fund transfers to the general fund in FY 04; and $5.5 million in each fiscal year from the assessment of special funds for central service expenses. *To ensure financial accountability, we are initiating repeals of selected special funds that have outlived their purpose, or have no justifiable purpose. Any balances, if available, are to be transferred to the general fund. *To ensure equitable fiscal responsibility, we will propose subjecting most special and non general funds to central service assessments, unless prohibited by federal laws. *Other revenue adjustments will include several tax initiatives to be introduced by Gov. Lingle in her State of the State Address. Specific details of those initiatives will be released next week. Estimated revenue impact will amount to approximately $30.0 million in FY 05. *Projected expenditures over the biennium assume departmental budget requests that are limited to “no growth” ceilings (excluding fixed costs, and non discretionary costs such as welfare, education, health, mental health, fringe benefits, etc.), and the continuation of spending restrictions which will result in savings of $35 million per year. *Projected increases to FY 04 and FY 05 ceilings are reduced by $17.5 million and $17.2 million, respectively. *Other reductions to expenditures come from reduced debt service requirements based on revised issuance plans ($0.8 million in FY 04 and $3.8 million in FY 05), and from projected annual statewide general fund lapses of $55.0 million in each fiscal year. *Over the planning period FY 06 through FY 09, our revenue assumptions include continuation of the impact of tax credits and central service assessments; and projected general fund non tax revenue increases through FY 09 (net increases from the December 2002 financial plan of $15.9 million, $16.5 million, $17.4 million, and $18.8 million in FY 06, FY 07, FY 08, and FY 09, respectively). *On the expense side, we will continue strict spending policies and review our debt issuance plan to reduce debt service costs. I would like to reiterate that these proposals are preliminary, and subject to adjustment or change, as circumstances warrant. Operationally, we have already administratively implemented efforts toward structural reform of state government programs. FY 03 restrictions of 5 percent were imposed, and departments were directed to base their upcoming biennium and out year budgets on this adjusted funding level. In addition, by instituting a freeze on the filling of position vacancies in selected areas, we expect to minimize and control growth, in all but essential areas of government service. At the same time, we are also reducing current and future capital improvement project authorizations to reduce the cost of debt that must be accommodated within current and future budgets, and to ensure that such costly, long term obligations will be expended only for high priority program areas. At this time, I would also like to discuss the following matters: Revenue estimates of the Council on Revenues as of September 2002, and January 2003. The status of the constitutionally mandated state aggregate general fund expenditure ceiling; and the status of the statutorily mandated general fund appropriation ceiling for the Executive Branch (as of December 2002). The status of the General Obligation Bond Fund Debt Limit (as of December 2002). The status of Constitutional Rebate/Credit requirements (as of December 2002). Summary information on the Executive Biennium Budget for FY 04 and FY 05 and General Fund Financial Plan as of December 2002 is attached for your information. Revenue Estimates of the Council on Revenues as of September 2002, and January 2003 The previous administration’s general fund financial plan for fiscal year 2003 and for the ensuing fiscal biennium 2003 05, were based on the constitutionally mandated Council on Revenue’s (Council) September 2002 revenue projections. On January 8, 2003, the Council retained its September 2002 general fund tax revenue growth rate forecast, which assumes that there will be no long term major strikes, losses due to decreases in federal allocations, ill effects from a war in Iraq, unforeseen adjustments to tax laws, or other unanticipated occurrences. These latest revenue estimates must be considered when appropriating funds and enacting revenue measures. That forecast calls for continued growth in current fiscal year 2003 revenues with an anticipated increase in general fund tax revenues of 6.1 percent from the negative 3.5 percent base recorded for fiscal year 2002. As of the Council’s September 2002 forecast, and as reiterated by January 8, 2003 Council estimates, tax revenues were projected to increase from FY 03 to FY 04 by 5.7 percent, by 6.0 percent in FY 05, and by 5.1 percent, 5.2 percent, 5.0 percent, and 5.0 percent in fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively. While general fund tax revenue projections remained unchanged, non tax revenues which were not accounted for in the December 2002 Program and Financial Plan, General Fund Financial Plan are projected to increase from September 2002 estimates by $20.7 million in FY 03, $15.1 million in FY 04, $15.0 million in FY 05, and $15.9 million, $16.5 million, $17.4 million, and $18.8 million in FY 06, FY 07, FY 08, and FY 09, respectively. As required by statute, the following declarations on the general fund expenditure ceiling, the general obligation debt limit, and tax rebate requirements, are based on budget recommendations of the previous administration. New calculations will be submitted with recommendations of this administration, as warranted. The status of the constitutionally mandated state aggregate general fund expenditure ceiling; and the status of the statutorily mandated general fund appropriation ceiling for the Executive Branch. State aggregate general fund appropriations proposed as of December 2002, which included executive appropriations, requirements of the Judicial and Legislative branches, and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, amount to $3,931.2 million for FY 03, $3,936.6 million for FY 04, and $4,069.4 million for FY 05, which are within the constitutionally mandated expenditure ceilings for FY 03, FY 04, and FY 05, respectively. Total recommendations included in the executive budget request of December 2002, have also been made in accordance with the appropriation ceiling for the Executive Branch pursuant to provisions of section 37 92 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. Funding proposed as of December 2002, for emergency program requirements in health and human services, and other state programs, will result in the appropriation ceiling for the Executive Branch to be exceeded in FY 03 by $52.9 million or 1.4 percent. Executive Branch appropriation ceilings for both FY 04 and FY 05 will not be exceeded … . The status of the constitutional general obligation debt limit. Pursuant to Section 13, Article VII of the Hawaii State Constitution, and based on the assumption that interest rates on proposed bond issuances will be issued at 6.0 percent, it has been determined that the principal and interest calculated on all bonds issued and outstanding, estimated for all bonds previously authorized and unissued, and on the bonds proposed as of December 2002, in the previous administration’s executive budget for the FB 2003 05, will not cause the debt limit to be exceeded at the time of each bond issuance … . The Status of the constitutional Rebate or Tax credit requirement. Section 6, Article VII of the State Constitution provides for a mandatory tax refund or credit if the general fund balances at the close of two successive fiscal years exceed 5 percent of general fund revenues for each of those two fiscal years. Although the general fund balance at the end of FY 01 exceeded 5 percent of general fund revenues, FY 02 fund balances as of December 2002, did not. Accordingly, the 2003 Legislature will not need to provide for a tax refund or tax credit for the 2003 tax year. The Executive Biennium Budget for FY 04 and FY 05 (as of December 2002) … . Total operating budget requests proposed as of December 2002 (including all means of funding), for the Executive Branch amounted to $7,463.3 million in FY 04 and $7,717.0 million in FY 05, for a total of $15,180.3 million over FB 2003 05. Proposed general fund operating appropriations for the biennium are $3,770.7 million for FY 04 and $3,904.5 million for FY 05. The proposed capital improvements budget for the Executive Branch as of December 2002, amounts to $964.5 million in FY 04 and $621.6 million in FY 05, for a total of $1,586.1 million over the biennium. Of this amount, $1,120.1 million was proposed to be funded over the two years of the biennium by general obligation bond funds, and $7.3 million to be funded by reimbursable general obligation bond funds. That concludes my presentation. During the course of the 2003 Session, departments will be providing specific information with regards to their individual programs and budgets. Should our planned financial outlook change, we will be sure to keep you informed. Likewise, should the Council on Revenues’ estimates for March change markedly from current estimates, we hope you will work with us to make appropriate adjustments. Again, I want to thank you for this opportunity to provide information on our revised financial plan and for your patience and understanding regarding the timing challenge that our new administration faced in preparing this plan.
Racial Hypocrisy Editorial Confusing in Honolulu Advertiser
Dick Rowland Image “GOP continues to gain from racial hypocrisy,” one of the editorials in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday 1/12/03 was confusing. First it claimed that Republicans are genuinely not racist and act and speak such but refuse to decry Deep South efforts to restore the Confederate flag. Bill Clinton is quoted as saying that such is a “strategy.” And, it is claimed that such “put Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes in the White House.” Does this mean the newspaper thinks the American voting public is gullible and stupid? If so, let’s take away their voting rights. Then only Mandarins like editorial writers would have the franchise. Is that what was meant? Finally, speaking of racism, here are some facts straight from syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock, who happens to be Black and is a Senior Research Analyst with the Atlas Foundation: Governor Bill Clinton was sued successfully by the NAACP (1989) for voting rights violations that minimized Black voting strength. During his 12-year tenure, Gov. Clinton never approved a state-civil rights law. Arkansas observed Confederate Flag Day every year of the 12. He issued birthday proclamations honoring Confederate leaders Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. He signed Act 116 in 1987, which reconfirmed that the star above the word “Arkansas” on the state flag is to commemorate the “Confederate States of America.” Bill Clinton has lauded segregationists J. William Fulbright and Orval Faubus. Then there is former Ku Klux Klan member Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) who along with Al Gore Sr and 19 other Democrats voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Byrd also recently used the term “white nigger” on Fox News. That’s just some of Murdock’s litany of Democrat abuses that somehow seldom get mentioned in the media. The Advertiser editorial writer, when evaluating hypocrisy, should look in the mirror or do a bit more research. ”Richard O. Rowland is president of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He can be reached via email at mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com or by phone at (808) 487-4959. More information about the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii can be found at its Web site at” https://www.grassrootinstitute.org
Postmodern Government Budgets
If President Bush’s bureaucracy were as capable as the bureaucracy in George Orwell’s great novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Lawrence Lindsey, the president’s former economic advisor, would have been airbrushed out of every photograph he appeared in while holding that post, and every reference to his estimate of the cost of the coming Iraq war would be wiped from every archive in the country. Today no one would know who Lawrence Lindsey is or that he once said that the war would cost $100 billion to $200 billion. Alas, government is not quite as powerful as Orwell envisioned. So the Bush administration has to settle for simply firing Lindsey (or insisting he resign) and having the budget director dismiss and discredit Lindsey’s estimate and issue his own lower one. Maybe that more transparent method will work just as well. After all, while $100 billion to $200 billion may strike some as a mite expensive for a war against a weak and toothless dictator, $50 billion to $60 billion is an absolute steal. It’s the Kmart blue-light special on wars. We can’t afford not to go to war. Still, one has to chuckle at the way the administration has pulled this off. It’s not as far from Orwell as it looks at first sight. Through Orwellian “doublethink” people knew the past had been changed — they just didn’t acknowledge to themselves that they knew. Through Bushian “doublethink,” we all know that the economist whom Bush respected enough to make his chief economic advisor estimated an exorbitant cost for the war — but now we tell ourselves that he was wrong and had to go. Did Budget Director Mitch Daniels, who presented the new, lower estimate, explain why his number is better than nonperson Lindsey’s? According to the New York Times, “Mr. Daniels declined to explain how budget officials had reached the $50 billion to $60 billion range for war costs, or why it was less in current dollars than the 43-day gulf war in 1991.” In other words, trust us. Daniels’s estimate must be better than the nonperson Lindsey’s because ? well, because Lindsey is a nonperson. Here’s how Daniels put it: “That wasn’t a budget estimate. It was more of a historical benchmark than any analysis of what a conflict today might entail.” My best translation of that is: Lindsey was delirious when he talked about the cost of war. There were other comforting aspects of post-Lindsey cost estimating. The money for the war won’t upset the 2004 budget, and it won’t be part of the 2003 $355 billion military budget (a record figure). Rather, it will be appropriated by Congress as an emergency expenditure. I sometimes wonder why the whole budget isn’t just labeled “emergency expenditure” so we can be done with all our fiscal problems. Only a curmudgeonly taxpaying tightwad would point out that the long-suffering productive classes will cough up the money no matter what the government calls it. The intellectual world a few years ago moved into what is called the postmodernist phase. That’s more or less the view that reality has no firm identity and that it is available for molding according to personal, class, or cultural interests. Thus we are told that even “male” and “female” are merely social constructs or conventions. But the intellectuals have nothing on the politicians and bureaucrats. Government has been in a postmodernist phase for many decades. This is most clear when it writes its budgets. Revenue and spending figures have one objective: to sell the program. When the medical socializers wanted to get Medicare passed, they issued cost estimates that we now know were ludicrous. According to Medicare historian Sue Blevins, in 1965 the government said the hospital part of the program would cost $9 billion in 1990. What it really cost was $66 billion. Adjusted for inflation, the estimate was off by 165 percent. Not bad for government work. The point is, the government budget is not an honest estimate of uncertain future costs. It’s a political document designed to advance an agenda. It is inherently dishonest. Anyone want to bet on whether Lindsey or Daniels has the better estimate on the cost of the war? ”Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., editor of Ideas on Liberty magazine and author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State. See the Foundation’s Web site at:” https://www.fff.org
Congress Battles Itself Over Affordable Energy-A Tale of Two Bills
Two congressional events held last week — a news conference supporting more federal funding to help the poor pay their winter energy bills and a Senate hearing on a bill to fight global warming — may at first blush appear completely unrelated. But in reality, the two are at cross-purposes, as one seeks to help make energy more affordable while the other would send energy costs through the roof.
The Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition held a press conference drawing attention to the need to replenish the federal Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Several legislators want to increase the available funds from $1.4 to $1.7 billion dollars.
Though the stated purpose of LIHEAP is laudable — assisting those unable to pay their energy bills so they don’t get their juice shut off in the dead of winter – the reality is less clear. For one thing, utilities in most northern states are forbidden by law from shutting off anyone’s electricity or gas during the cold weather months, so the fears about people freezing are greatly overblown. In truth, LIHEAP’s real beneficiaries are the utilities, who receive these taxpayer dollars for energy bills that would have otherwise gone unpaid, as well as the middlemen who administer the program.
Nonetheless, the message that the poor should not have to suffer because of prohibitively expensive energy is a politically powerful one. Too bad this message seems to get lost when the subject turns to the environment. Indeed, thirty years of environmental regulations have greatly increased the cost of energy – often unnecessarily so.
The latest and by far the largest green attack on affordable energy involves global warming. The hearing by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee discussed a new bill from Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (D., Conn.) to restrict the use of fossil fuels believed to contribute to warming the planet. Putting aside the growing scientific doubts about global warming, the costs of this bill would be catastrophic. Roughly similar proposals have been estimated by the Department of Energy to increase energy costs by $77 to $338 billion dollars annually, far more than LIHEAP’s budget. Electric bills could rise by as much as one third.
If the McCain-Lieberman bill is enacted, many more poor — and not so poor — households will be in need of LIHEAP funds. Of course, absent a budget-busting increase in LIHEAP, there won’t be enough money to go around.
LIHEAP remains a popular program, and the $300 million increase will likely be approved. After all, it is good politics to ensure that there is energy for everyone, including the neediest. But if Congress feels obligated to take steps to make energy more affordable and available, it should refrain from other steps that force us far in the opposite direction.
”’This article was published on National Review Online on January 13, 2003.”’
”’Ben Lieberman is a director of clean air policy with the Competitive Enterprise Institute and can be reached by email at:”’ mailto:blieberman@cei.org ”’See the Institute’s Web site at:”’ https://www.cei.org
Grassroot Perspective – Jan. 21, 2003-Out of Sight is Safer; Hard Evidence of Global Warming – in Caddyshack?
“Dick Rowland Image”
”Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)”
Out of Sight is Safer
From: Perry de Havilland (London)
The real message https://www.samizdata.net/~pdeh/out_of_sight_01_sml.jpg
This poster can be seen all over London. In it a young man standing at a bus stop chats on his mobile phone, a sight one sees all the time on London’s busy streets.
What the Metropolitan Police are saying is that doing this, talking on a mobile phone in London, in public, is unwise behaviour. Okay, fair enough, London is a big city and all big cities have their fair share of street crime, so what is the problem with this message from the boys in blue?
The problem I have is that this poster is not warning criminals who
might attack us and steal our phones of the sure vengeance of the law. Not it is calling on us all to refuse to tolerate thieves in our midst and to resist to the best of our ability. Hell, how about suggesting “if you have a mobile phone in your hand and you either witness a mugging in progress or think you are in danger, dial 999 and the Police, whose paychecks and cars with flashing lights come from your taxes, will come rushing to the rescue.”
No, it does not say that at all. The real message here from our
appointed protectors is not “we will protect you from crime” and
certainly not “protect yourself from street crime,” but rather ”’hide”’ from street crime.
The state cannot protect you, it will not permit you to protect yourself effectively, so all it can do is offer advice … and the advice is hide. Do not show anyone you have something worth stealing. I expect we will soon see posters across London saying “it is safer not to wear Armani suits, you might get mugged” and then “don’t wear short skirts, you might get raped” and finally “don’t go out at all, the streets are not safe.”
Perhaps when the state has taxed everything and we no longer have
anything left to hide, we will indeed have “safer streets.”
The state is not your friend.
And, in response to a comment on the above: Yes, I have all sorts of
ideas about crime. I do not want the police on every street corner but as I cannot carry a weapon to defend myself in Britain, I expect the people who have disarmed me to bloody well do it … which of course they cannot.
Above articles is from https://www.samizdatat.net.blog.archives/002560.html
”Roots (Food for Thought)”
Hard Evidence of Global Warming – in Caddyshack?
Author: James M. Taylor, Managing Editor
Published: The Heartland Institute 01/01/2002
If you believe the latest round of pop-science reports in the mainstream media, you can only conclude that the comedy movie classic Caddyshack provides the answer to two of the most important scientific questions of the day: Is the Earth warming, and is mankind responsible?
The much-sought-after answers to those questions can be discovered in Caddyshack by applying the same highly scientific reasoning the
mainstream media recently used to analyze one of Alaska’s kill-the-winter-boredom comedic classics.
Guessing Game
In 1917, engineers were building a railroad bridge over the Tanana River near Fairbanks, Alaska. Because the presence of ice on the river halted bridge construction, the engineers were forced to amuse themselves in whatever way possible while they fought boredom and awaited the spring thaw.
One of many such methods of amusement (we’re talking he-man Alaskans at the turn of the last century here, so you can use your imagination as to what else occurred, all in the name of boredom-fighting) was to place bets on when the ice would break up on the river, allowing construction to continue.
From such humble beginnings emerged the “Nenana Ice Classic,” an annual guessing game in which thousands of people now participate. For a $2 bet, participants earn a chance to win the grand jackpot by guessing the exact time and date the ice will break up on the river.
Because early contests were prone to subjective, financially
self-serving pronouncements of just what constituted the official ice
breakup on the river, a large, immaculately crafted wooden tripod is now placed on the ice, and the official breakup time occurs when the tripod falls through the ice into the river, much like Al Gore’s political aspirations.
This passes for science?
Raphael Sagarin, a “marine biologist” at Stanford University (Managing Editor’s note: The somewhat goofy, pimply faced kid who comes to my house once a month to clean my saltwater aquarium also calls himself a “marine biologist,” for what that’s worth), apparently learned of the contest while visiting Alaska last year. He was struck by what USA Today, MSNBC, and Science magazine apparently believe is the scientific insight of the century. “I immediately thought this might be a great record of climate change.”
Sagarin surmised that he could study the record as to the date each
year’s Nenana Ice King received his frozen and technically illegal
annual payoff to reconstruct a record of when the ice thawed on the
Tanana River. “It turns out to be really good, accurate data,” Sagarin scientifically explained.
Sagarin studied the records and reported (surprise!) the ice is breaking up 5.5 days earlier in recent years than it did in 1917. Sagarin then declared global warming is clearly upon us. Science magazine published his findings, and the mainstream media has been gushing about them ever since.
Duty to science requires a few observations here.
Remember that big, immaculately constructed wooden tripod erected to provide a definitive ice-out date? That didn’t exist in 1917. And even when it first did come into existence, was anybody checking to make sure the tripod carried the same specifications in terms of size and weight from year to year? What about the tripod’s placement? Anybody who was ever a child in New England can tell you that every year, some places on a pond thaw out much earlier than others, and the early thaw doesn’t hit the same place year after year.
John Daly, author of The Greenhouse Trap and master of the fantastic Web site “Still Waiting for the Greenhouse” at https://www.john-daly.com notes the city of Fairbanks is directly upstream from the Nenana Ice Classic. Fairbanks, he points out, almost certainly discharges much more warm-water sewage (including water changes performed on salt-water aquariums by “marine biologists”) into the river than it did in 1917.
Daly also points out the Fairbanks area has recently been receiving more seasonal snowfall than it did in 1917. More snowfall means more spring runoff, increasing the springtime flow of the river, resulting in an earlier breakup in the ice. Daly presents several other local factors, wholly unrelated to marine biology, that further skew the reported findings.
It should also be noted that, irrespective of the above-described flaws in the “Nenana Ice Classic as oracle of global warming” theory, any alleged warming near Fairbanks, Alaska would hardly prove warming on a global scale.
Numerous recent studies (some of which are reported in the October and December issues of Environment & Climate News) have found that both the Arctic and Antarctic polar ice caps are growing, not shrinking. Twice a month for the past three years, CO2 Science Magazine https://www.co2science.org has identified and documented a cooling trend in several cities and towns across North America, including many in Alaska.
Don’t Confuse Them With Facts
This, of course, has not stopped the pop-media/pop-science culture from anointing the Nenana Ice Classic betting slips as irrefutable evidence of global warming. USA Today, MSNBC, and Science could hardly restrain themselves in praise of the newly discovered “proof.”
On Oct. 25, USA Today reported that “Hard evidence of global warming is showing up not in climate scientists’ charts and figures but in nature …” And we all know how unreliable scientific charts and figures are, as compared to gambling records.
Gushed MSNBC on the same date, “For centuries, hobbyists have collected data on the world around them–from the arrival of the first bird in spring to the first frost in autumn. The branch of science that looks at the annual timing of natural events is known as phenology. Until recent years, scientists have dismissed such nontraditional data gathered by amateurs. (Managing Editor’s note: Gee, I wonder why?) ‘Now scientists are taking a second look at phenology and giving it some respect,’ Sagarin said.”
A Logical Conclusion
One cannot help but be tempted to apply such “scientific” methods to
other scenarios. In fact, replication is quite necessary to prove the
theory. That’s essential to sound science: The results of an experiment must be independently verifiable.
Accordingly, I popped a Caddyshack videotape into my VCR and
fast-forwarded to the second-most-famous (next to the Nenana Ice
Classic) betting contest in history. And there I found my proof that
global warming, just as predicted by the Nenana Ice Classic, is indeed occurring.
“Ten bucks says the Smails kid picks his nose!” calls out the
locker-room attendant. The tension mounts … and the Smails kid picks his nose. A loud cheer erupts as the winners get paid.
I look at the calendar hanging on the wall in my kitchen. It is Jan. 1, several months earlier in the year than the mid-summer date 20-odd years ago when I first watched Caddyshack and betting on the Smails kid first paid off at two-to-one odds. Global warming is indeed here, I realized. The Nenana Ice Classic is scientifically validated.
John Daly’s The Greenhouse Trap–Why the Greenhouse Effect will not end Life on Earth, was published in 1989 by Bantam Books. It is out of print, but used copies are available through Amazon.com at
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0947189777/theheartlandinst.
”Evergreen (Today’s Quote)”
Mental Laws: There are few laws that govern all thinking, just as there are a few fundamental laws in chemistry. In order to learn control of our thoughts, we have to know and understand these laws.
Law of Thought: Every thought is made up ot two factors, knowledge and feeling. A thought consists of a piece of knowledge with a charge of feeling, and it is the feeling alone that give power to the thought.
It makes no difference whether the knowledge content is correct or not as long as you believe it to be correct. Remember that it is what we really believe that matters. A report about something may be quite untrue, but if you believe it, it has the same effect on you as if it were true; and that effect again will depend upon the quantity of
feeling attached to it.
No matter how important or magnificent the knowledge content may be, if there is no feeling attached to it nothing will happen. On the other hand, no matter how unimportant or insignificant the knowledge content may be, if there is a large charge of feeling something will happen.
GRIH comment: We don’t know who penned that but it sure might explain why “feel good” actions by politicians are so popular despite sometimes all too obvious long range harm. But why are such actions supported by so much of the news media who are, supposedly, the “elite” thinkers? Go figga. Then send a letter to the editor. Yes, that includes you. And “left rudder” Bud too!
”’See Web site”’ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org ”’for further information. Join its efforts at “Nurturing the rights and responsibilities of the individual in a civil society. …” or email or call Grassroot of Hawaii Institute President Richard O. Rowland at mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com or (808) 487-4959.”’
Congress Battles Itself Over Affordable Energy-A Tale of Two Bills
Two congressional events held last week — a news conference supporting more federal funding to help the poor pay their winter energy bills and a Senate hearing on a bill to fight global warming — may at first blush appear completely unrelated. But in reality, the two are at cross-purposes, as one seeks to help make energy more affordable while the other would send energy costs through the roof. The Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition held a press conference drawing attention to the need to replenish the federal Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Several legislators want to increase the available funds from $1.4 to $1.7 billion dollars. Though the stated purpose of LIHEAP is laudable — assisting those unable to pay their energy bills so they don’t get their juice shut off in the dead of winter – the reality is less clear. For one thing, utilities in most northern states are forbidden by law from shutting off anyone’s electricity or gas during the cold weather months, so the fears about people freezing are greatly overblown. In truth, LIHEAP’s real beneficiaries are the utilities, who receive these taxpayer dollars for energy bills that would have otherwise gone unpaid, as well as the middlemen who administer the program. Nonetheless, the message that the poor should not have to suffer because of prohibitively expensive energy is a politically powerful one. Too bad this message seems to get lost when the subject turns to the environment. Indeed, thirty years of environmental regulations have greatly increased the cost of energy – often unnecessarily so. The latest and by far the largest green attack on affordable energy involves global warming. The hearing by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee discussed a new bill from Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (D., Conn.) to restrict the use of fossil fuels believed to contribute to warming the planet. Putting aside the growing scientific doubts about global warming, the costs of this bill would be catastrophic. Roughly similar proposals have been estimated by the Department of Energy to increase energy costs by $77 to $338 billion dollars annually, far more than LIHEAP’s budget. Electric bills could rise by as much as one third. If the McCain-Lieberman bill is enacted, many more poor — and not so poor — households will be in need of LIHEAP funds. Of course, absent a budget-busting increase in LIHEAP, there won’t be enough money to go around. LIHEAP remains a popular program, and the $300 million increase will likely be approved. After all, it is good politics to ensure that there is energy for everyone, including the neediest. But if Congress feels obligated to take steps to make energy more affordable and available, it should refrain from other steps that force us far in the opposite direction. ”This article was published on National Review Online on January 13, 2003.” ”Ben Lieberman is a director of clean air policy with the Competitive Enterprise Institute and can be reached by email at:” mailto:blieberman@cei.org ”See the Institute’s Web site at:” https://www.cei.org
Grassroot Perspective – Jan. 21, 2003-Out of Sight is Safer; Hard Evidence of Global Warming – in Caddyshack?
Dick Rowland Image ‘Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)’ Out of Sight is Safer From: Perry de Havilland (London) The real message https://www.samizdata.net/~pdeh/out_of_sight_01_sml.jpg This poster can be seen all over London. In it a young man standing at a bus stop chats on his mobile phone, a sight one sees all the time on London’s busy streets. What the Metropolitan Police are saying is that doing this, talking on a mobile phone in London, in public, is unwise behaviour. Okay, fair enough, London is a big city and all big cities have their fair share of street crime, so what is the problem with this message from the boys in blue? The problem I have is that this poster is not warning criminals who might attack us and steal our phones of the sure vengeance of the law. Not it is calling on us all to refuse to tolerate thieves in our midst and to resist to the best of our ability. Hell, how about suggesting “if you have a mobile phone in your hand and you either witness a mugging in progress or think you are in danger, dial 999 and the Police, whose paychecks and cars with flashing lights come from your taxes, will come rushing to the rescue.” No, it does not say that at all. The real message here from our appointed protectors is not “we will protect you from crime” and certainly not “protect yourself from street crime,” but rather ”hide” from street crime. The state cannot protect you, it will not permit you to protect yourself effectively, so all it can do is offer advice … and the advice is hide. Do not show anyone you have something worth stealing. I expect we will soon see posters across London saying “it is safer not to wear Armani suits, you might get mugged” and then “don’t wear short skirts, you might get raped” and finally “don’t go out at all, the streets are not safe.” Perhaps when the state has taxed everything and we no longer have anything left to hide, we will indeed have “safer streets.” The state is not your friend. And, in response to a comment on the above: Yes, I have all sorts of ideas about crime. I do not want the police on every street corner but as I cannot carry a weapon to defend myself in Britain, I expect the people who have disarmed me to bloody well do it … which of course they cannot. Above articles is from https://www.samizdatat.net.blog.archives/002560.html ‘Roots (Food for Thought)’ Hard Evidence of Global Warming – in Caddyshack? Author: James M. Taylor, Managing Editor Published: The Heartland Institute 01/01/2002 If you believe the latest round of pop-science reports in the mainstream media, you can only conclude that the comedy movie classic Caddyshack provides the answer to two of the most important scientific questions of the day: Is the Earth warming, and is mankind responsible? The much-sought-after answers to those questions can be discovered in Caddyshack by applying the same highly scientific reasoning the mainstream media recently used to analyze one of Alaska’s kill-the-winter-boredom comedic classics. Guessing Game In 1917, engineers were building a railroad bridge over the Tanana River near Fairbanks, Alaska. Because the presence of ice on the river halted bridge construction, the engineers were forced to amuse themselves in whatever way possible while they fought boredom and awaited the spring thaw. One of many such methods of amusement (we’re talking he-man Alaskans at the turn of the last century here, so you can use your imagination as to what else occurred, all in the name of boredom-fighting) was to place bets on when the ice would break up on the river, allowing construction to continue. From such humble beginnings emerged the “Nenana Ice Classic,” an annual guessing game in which thousands of people now participate. For a $2 bet, participants earn a chance to win the grand jackpot by guessing the exact time and date the ice will break up on the river. Because early contests were prone to subjective, financially self-serving pronouncements of just what constituted the official ice breakup on the river, a large, immaculately crafted wooden tripod is now placed on the ice, and the official breakup time occurs when the tripod falls through the ice into the river, much like Al Gore’s political aspirations. This passes for science? Raphael Sagarin, a “marine biologist” at Stanford University (Managing Editor’s note: The somewhat goofy, pimply faced kid who comes to my house once a month to clean my saltwater aquarium also calls himself a “marine biologist,” for what that’s worth), apparently learned of the contest while visiting Alaska last year. He was struck by what USA Today, MSNBC, and Science magazine apparently believe is the scientific insight of the century. “I immediately thought this might be a great record of climate change.” Sagarin surmised that he could study the record as to the date each year’s Nenana Ice King received his frozen and technically illegal annual payoff to reconstruct a record of when the ice thawed on the Tanana River. “It turns out to be really good, accurate data,” Sagarin scientifically explained. Sagarin studied the records and reported (surprise!) the ice is breaking up 5.5 days earlier in recent years than it did in 1917. Sagarin then declared global warming is clearly upon us. Science magazine published his findings, and the mainstream media has been gushing about them ever since. Duty to science requires a few observations here. Remember that big, immaculately constructed wooden tripod erected to provide a definitive ice-out date? That didn’t exist in 1917. And even when it first did come into existence, was anybody checking to make sure the tripod carried the same specifications in terms of size and weight from year to year? What about the tripod’s placement? Anybody who was ever a child in New England can tell you that every year, some places on a pond thaw out much earlier than others, and the early thaw doesn’t hit the same place year after year. John Daly, author of The Greenhouse Trap and master of the fantastic Web site “Still Waiting for the Greenhouse” at https://www.john-daly.com notes the city of Fairbanks is directly upstream from the Nenana Ice Classic. Fairbanks, he points out, almost certainly discharges much more warm-water sewage (including water changes performed on salt-water aquariums by “marine biologists”) into the river than it did in 1917. Daly also points out the Fairbanks area has recently been receiving more seasonal snowfall than it did in 1917. More snowfall means more spring runoff, increasing the springtime flow of the river, resulting in an earlier breakup in the ice. Daly presents several other local factors, wholly unrelated to marine biology, that further skew the reported findings. It should also be noted that, irrespective of the above-described flaws in the “Nenana Ice Classic as oracle of global warming” theory, any alleged warming near Fairbanks, Alaska would hardly prove warming on a global scale. Numerous recent studies (some of which are reported in the October and December issues of Environment & Climate News) have found that both the Arctic and Antarctic polar ice caps are growing, not shrinking. Twice a month for the past three years, CO2 Science Magazine https://www.co2science.org has identified and documented a cooling trend in several cities and towns across North America, including many in Alaska. Don’t Confuse Them With Facts This, of course, has not stopped the pop-media/pop-science culture from anointing the Nenana Ice Classic betting slips as irrefutable evidence of global warming. USA Today, MSNBC, and Science could hardly restrain themselves in praise of the newly discovered “proof.” On Oct. 25, USA Today reported that “Hard evidence of global warming is showing up not in climate scientists’ charts and figures but in nature …” And we all know how unreliable scientific charts and figures are, as compared to gambling records. Gushed MSNBC on the same date, “For centuries, hobbyists have collected data on the world around them–from the arrival of the first bird in spring to the first frost in autumn. The branch of science that looks at the annual timing of natural events is known as phenology. Until recent years, scientists have dismissed such nontraditional data gathered by amateurs. (Managing Editor’s note: Gee, I wonder why?) ‘Now scientists are taking a second look at phenology and giving it some respect,’ Sagarin said.” A Logical Conclusion One cannot help but be tempted to apply such “scientific” methods to other scenarios. In fact, replication is quite necessary to prove the theory. That’s essential to sound science: The results of an experiment must be independently verifiable. Accordingly, I popped a Caddyshack videotape into my VCR and fast-forwarded to the second-most-famous (next to the Nenana Ice Classic) betting contest in history. And there I found my proof that global warming, just as predicted by the Nenana Ice Classic, is indeed occurring. “Ten bucks says the Smails kid picks his nose!” calls out the locker-room attendant. The tension mounts … and the Smails kid picks his nose. A loud cheer erupts as the winners get paid. I look at the calendar hanging on the wall in my kitchen. It is Jan. 1, several months earlier in the year than the mid-summer date 20-odd years ago when I first watched Caddyshack and betting on the Smails kid first paid off at two-to-one odds. Global warming is indeed here, I realized. The Nenana Ice Classic is scientifically validated. John Daly’s The Greenhouse Trap–Why the Greenhouse Effect will not end Life on Earth, was published in 1989 by Bantam Books. It is out of print, but used copies are available through Amazon.com at https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0947189777/theheartlandinst. ‘Evergreen (Today’s Quote)’ Mental Laws: There are few laws that govern all thinking, just as there are a few fundamental laws in chemistry. In order to learn control of our thoughts, we have to know and understand these laws. Law of Thought: Every thought is made up ot two factors, knowledge and feeling. A thought consists of a piece of knowledge with a charge of feeling, and it is the feeling alone that give power to the thought. It makes no difference whether the knowledge content is correct or not as long as you believe it to be correct. Remember that it is what we really believe that matters. A report about something may be quite untrue, but if you believe it, it has the same effect on you as if it were true; and that effect again will depend upon the quantity of feeling attached to it. No matter how important or magnificent the knowledge content may be, if there is no feeling attached to it nothing will happen. On the other hand, no matter how unimportant or insignificant the knowledge content may be, if there is a large charge of feeling something will happen. GRIH comment: We don’t know who penned that but it sure might explain why “feel good” actions by politicians are so popular despite sometimes all too obvious long range harm. But why are such actions supported by so much of the news media who are, supposedly, the “elite” thinkers? Go figga. Then send a letter to the editor. Yes, that includes you. And “left rudder” Bud too! ”See Web site” https://www.grassrootinstitute.org ”for further information. Join its efforts at “Nurturing the rights and responsibilities of the individual in a civil society. …” or email or call Grassroot of Hawaii Institute President Richard O. Rowland at mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com or (808) 487-4959.”
From Bottled Water to Nutrition Choices
“Suzanne Gelb Image”
”Healthy Water — How Necessary is it?”
Dear Dr. Gelb:
I see so many people walking around with spring water or some kind of bottled water. Is there really something unsafe about our city water that is pumped into our homes?
Thirsty And Curious
A: Dr. Gelb says . . .
Dear Thirsty And Curious:
Good resources for your question would probably be a scientist or a chemist or a professional with expertise in this area. I can only say that I rely on the appropriate regulatory body to keep my water safe. I do drink water from my faucet and from public fountains, and I imagine that most, if not all of it, comes from the same source.
Keep in mind that while it is important to live healthily and do what is necessary to support that goal, sometimes excessive fear can cause us to take precautions that are unnecessary, as well as inconvenient and expensive. Some people have made this argument when comparing the price of a glass of water from a faucet to that of bottled water in the grocery store. Yet others swear by bottled water, and with good reason, they believe. To each his own. Good luck.
”Meat — Good Or Bad?”
Dear Dr. Gelb:
If red meat is bad for us, why do so many of us continue to eat it? Do we really want to die younger?
Carnivore
A: Dr. Gelb says . . .
Dear Carnivore:
Without meaning to sound too cynical, I believe that if we chose to follow though with everything that scientists and researchers tell us about what’s good for us and what isn’t, I’m not sure we would end up with much that is good for us, or that in some way is not harmful.
Personally, I tried the vegetarian way of life for some time, and I am now back to eating a variety of foods. I am pleased to say that my doctor and my taste buds indicate to me that my body is very healthy. I believe in eating varied diet, unless of course one has been informed of medical reasons to do otherwise. However, each person needs to find what works for themselves and commit to that pursuit. In that regard, always consult with the appropriate practitioner/s when considering issues about health, diet, and related matters.
”’Suzanne J. Gelb, Ph.D., J.D. authors this daily column, Dr. Gelb Says, which answers questions about daily living and behavior issues. Dr. Gelb is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Honolulu. She holds a Ph.D. in Psychology and a Ph.D. in Human Services. Dr. Gelb is also a published author of a book on Overcoming Addictions and a book on Relationships.”’
”’This column is intended for entertainment use only and is not intended for the purpose of psychological diagnosis, treatment or personalized advice. For more about the column’s purpose, see”’ “An Online Intro to Dr. Gelb Says”
”’Email your questions to mailto:DrGelbSays@hawaiireporter.com More information on Dr. Gelb’s services and related resources available at”’ https://www.DrGelbSays.com
From Bottled Water to Nutrition Choices
Suzanne Gelb Image ‘Healthy Water — How Necessary is it?’ Dear Dr. Gelb: I see so many people walking around with spring water or some kind of bottled water. Is there really something unsafe about our city water that is pumped into our homes? Thirsty And Curious A: Dr. Gelb says . . . Dear Thirsty And Curious: Good resources for your question would probably be a scientist or a chemist or a professional with expertise in this area. I can only say that I rely on the appropriate regulatory body to keep my water safe. I do drink water from my faucet and from public fountains, and I imagine that most, if not all of it, comes from the same source. Keep in mind that while it is important to live healthily and do what is necessary to support that goal, sometimes excessive fear can cause us to take precautions that are unnecessary, as well as inconvenient and expensive. Some people have made this argument when comparing the price of a glass of water from a faucet to that of bottled water in the grocery store. Yet others swear by bottled water, and with good reason, they believe. To each his own. Good luck. ‘Meat — Good Or Bad?’ Dear Dr. Gelb: If red meat is bad for us, why do so many of us continue to eat it? Do we really want to die younger? Carnivore A: Dr. Gelb says . . . Dear Carnivore: Without meaning to sound too cynical, I believe that if we chose to follow though with everything that scientists and researchers tell us about what’s good for us and what isn’t, I’m not sure we would end up with much that is good for us, or that in some way is not harmful. Personally, I tried the vegetarian way of life for some time, and I am now back to eating a variety of foods. I am pleased to say that my doctor and my taste buds indicate to me that my body is very healthy. I believe in eating varied diet, unless of course one has been informed of medical reasons to do otherwise. However, each person needs to find what works for themselves and commit to that pursuit. In that regard, always consult with the appropriate practitioner/s when considering issues about health, diet, and related matters. ”Suzanne J. Gelb, Ph.D., J.D. authors this daily column, Dr. Gelb Says, which answers questions about daily living and behavior issues. Dr. Gelb is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Honolulu. She holds a Ph.D. in Psychology and a Ph.D. in Human Services. Dr. Gelb is also a published author of a book on Overcoming Addictions and a book on Relationships.” ”This column is intended for entertainment use only and is not intended for the purpose of psychological diagnosis, treatment or personalized advice. For more about the column’s purpose, see” “An Online Intro to Dr. Gelb Says” ”Email your questions to mailto:DrGelbSays@hawaiireporter.com More information on Dr. Gelb’s services and related resources available at” https://www.DrGelbSays.com
Legislative Hearing Notices – Jan. 21, 2003
The following hearing notices, which are subject to change, were sorted and taken from the Hawaii State Capitol Web site. Please check that site for updates and/or changes to the schedule at https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/docs/hearing/hearing2.asp?press1=docs&button1=current Go there and click on the Hearing Date to view the Hearing Notice.
Hearings notices for both House and Senate measures in all committees:
Hearing
”Date Time Bill Number Measure Title Committee”
1/21/03 1:15 PM None Informational Briefing TSM
1/21/03 1:30 PM None Informational Briefing FIN
1/21/03 1:30 PM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN
1/21/03 3:00 PM None Informational Briefing WAM
1/21/03 3:00 PM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM
1/22/03 1:30 PM None Informational Briefing FIN
1/22/03 1:30 PM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN
1/22/03 1:30 PM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM
1/22/03 1:30 PM None Informational Briefing WAM/TMG
1/23/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM
1/23/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM
1/23/03 9:00 AM None Informational Briefing AGR
1/23/03 9:00 AM None Informational Briefing JHW PSM
1/23/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing FIN
1/23/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN
1/23/03 1:15 PM None Informational Briefing TSM
1/23/03 2:00 PM None Informational Briefing JHW
1/23/03 2:00 PM None Informational Briefing JUD
1/24/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM
1/24/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM
1/24/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM
1/24/03 10:30 AM None Informational Briefing WLH
1/24/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing FIN
1/24/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing FIN
1/24/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing FIN
1/24/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN
1/27/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM
1/27/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM/EDU
1/27/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing FIN
1/27/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN
1/28/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM
1/28/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM
1/28/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing FIN
1/28/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN
1/28/03 1:15 PM None Informational Briefing TSM
1/29/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM
1/29/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM
1/30/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM
1/30/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM
1/30/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM