Climate Disasters are a Result of Global Warming?

Almost everyday, we are told that some natural disaster is a result of global warming and its associated climate change.  Last year, 2014 was declared to be the hottest year ever.  California's drought is supposed to be a direct result of hotter and drier conditions.  When Katrina hit New Orleans, it was all because of global warming.

Logically, if all of the above were true, a place like Los Angeles (almost ground zero for the drought) would be seeing temperature records falling like rocks as the earth continued to warm.  To that point, I present this chart of historical averages and record lows and highs for Los Angeles from Intellicast, who maintains a massive database of historical weather data for many cities in the country:

click on image to enlarge

Contrary to supposed belief, there hasn't been a single-day's temperature record broken for any given month since 1990 when the city's all time high of 112 was established for June.  So, for 25 years, no records have been broken.  Also, the month of December's record high of 92 has stood for 77 years and the hottest 4th of July occurred way back in 1907.

Then, there's New Orleans;  ground zero for hurricane Katrina in 2005:

For this city, there hasn't been a record temperature broken since 1993; and the record for any day in February has stood since 1899.

Neither of these two cities has seen a high temperature record broken since the early 1990's. Either they have been exempt from global warming or, maybe it isn't as worrisome as we have been led to believe.   If 2014 was truly the hottest year on record, then, why were no records broken in any month for these two cities in that year?

It's a little hard to believe that rest of the world was hot while we remained cool in 2014.


References:

Climate Change Has Arrived in California (Op-Ed): http://www.livescience.com/38913-climate-change-has-arrived-in-california.html

Hurricane Katrina and global warming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina_and_global_warming

Intellicast: Los Angeles: http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?month=7

One for the Record Books: 2014 Officially Hottest Year: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/record-2014-hottest-year-18502

pb

A 2016 Challenge For Both Political Parties. Especially Republicans!

There are a lot of right leaning media types who believe, like Senator Ted Cruz, that the next Republican nominee for president should be solidly conservative and not center right;  otherwise they will lose in 2016.  In support of that argument, they point to the past losses by moderates such as John McCain and Mitt Romney.  But, this chart from Gallup says that the country is becoming more and more moderate:

Since the late 80's,  Republican party affiliation has fallen from 34% to just 25% in 2013.  The Democrats, too, have lost members; falling from 36% to 31%, but that is only a fraction of the Republican losses.  The big class winner in all of this has been the people who now call themselves Independents; rising from 34% to today's 42%.   Obviously, moderate Democrats and Republicans are leaving their respective parties and, in doing so, they are saying that they reject some of their party's ideals and platforms.

The chart above represents the averages for each given year.  What Gallup found by taking 2013 in isolation follows in this remarkable chart:

In just one year, nearly half of all American voters have identified themselves as moderates.  At the same time, this means that the remaining membership of both parties have become more extreme in their ideologies; having lost the moderates.

Because of this, each party will have to appeal to the middle in 2016.  While, at the same time, not offend its remaining base which may not come out to vote if the party platform is too moderate. That's quite the challenge for any politician.

The worst thing that Republicans could do is to try to appeal to their ever marginalized and more extreme base while ignoring the growing number of Independents.  For that reason, I think the conservative media types are wrong with their assessment that the next nominee for the Republican party should be staunchly conservative. 

References: 

Gallup: Record-High 42% of Americans Identify as Independents: http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx

Ted Cruz in South Carolina: Nominate a conservative in 2016, or Democrats will win: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/19/ted-cruz-south-carolina-nominate-conservative-2016/?
 
pb

Bernie Sanders' 90% Tax on the Wealthy

In a recent interview with the cable business network, CNBC, presidential candidate and avowed socialist Bernie Sanders said he had no problem with taxing the wealthy at 90%.  What he's really saying is that he wants to wipe out rich people in this country.  For example, if you live in California where the top tax rate is 13.3% and you make more than a million dollars, your combined state and federal rate would be 103%.  In other words, you would owe more money than you earn.  This doesn't even include other taxes you pay on your gross income, such as payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare or real estate tax on perhaps one or more multimillion dollar homes.

So, what happens then?

We will see the biggest relocation we've ever seen of talented people, businesses, and corporations to countries with lower tax rates.  With taxes  that high, well-paid actors, who make millions per movie are going to leave; and the studios will follow in order to protect their own CEO's from having their incomes literally eradicated.  The result will be lost jobs and less tax revenues; primarily in the middle class.  In fact, we will probably hear that infamous giant sucking sound once more, as jobs and wealth start flooding into Canada with its low tax rate and commonality of language. 

What this idiot, Sanders, doesn't seem to understand is that high income taxes create high rates of poverty, unemployment, reduced revenues, and slow economic growth.  A fact that was clearly proven when President Kennedy proposed a substantial lowering of taxes  for the top 91%.  When implemented in 1964, the rate on the rich was lowered to 70%.  In less than 4 years, tax revenues grew 68%.  Poverty was reduced by 34%.  Unemployment was lower and, economic growth was higher than anytime prior to that date, past or present, since World War II.

References:

Bernie Sanders Would Tax The Income Of The Wealthiest Americans At 90 Percent: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/05/26/3662773/sanders-90-percent-tax/

California Income Tax Rates: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/state-taxes-california.aspx

Top State Income Tax Rates For All 50 States: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/top-state-income-tax-rates-2014

What J.F.K. Knew About Economics And What Most Democrats Today Don't: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2015/05/what-jfk-knew-about-economics-and-what.html

Obama and the Left's Misuse of the Term 'Tax Loopholes'

Starting with his presidential run in 2008, and for the last 7 years, President Obama has been talking about closing tax loopholes for businesses.  However, his use of the word "loopholes" is incorrect.  What he should be referring to is "tax incentives" that corporations get for certain business activities. Using the word loopholes makes tax breaks and incentives sound nefarious or even criminal.  The reality is that most of the "loopholes" that the President is talking about are legal tax breaks that the IRS or Congress ruled on as incentives for jobs, or to provide our corporations with international competitiveness.

The biggest tax incentives (or, in his vernacular, loopholes) that the President wants to eliminate are those for buying and operating corporate jets. Along with high CEO salaries, they gall him more than anything else because they are a symbol of wealth. I'm sure he feels that corporate jets shouldn't exist because it's unfair that the average person can't have one too.

Today, if a corporation buys a jet, the cost enjoys accelerated depreciation for tax purposes, of just 5 years under the law.  That's 2 years shorter than the depreciation on commercial jet liners.  Thus, in just 5 years a company can offset nearly all of the cost of buying a jet -- less inflation -- by lowering its taxes.  There is nothing abnormal about this. Corporations have always been allowed to depreciate "high ticket" capital expense items such as replacement roofs, buildings, phone systems, cars, trucks, manufacturing equipment, etc.  At the same time, the operation of a jet and all associated costs are deductible as business expenses in the same way office supplies are deductible under the law, again to lower the tax burden.  Now, to be fair, the use of a corporate jet did have a "tax loophole" in that the corporation could also deduct the cost of using the jet for non-business entertainment uses, but that was identified in 2007 and was finally closed in 2012 by the IRS.

The primary reason that the corporate jet tax breaks exist is to keep over 1.2 million jobs intact.  That's how many workers are directly or indirectly employed in making them and their parts; flying them as pilots and co-pilots; maintaining and servicing them; and, working in the airports they use throughout the country.

Similar tax incentives that Obama believes are loopholes are those that allow oil drillers to depreciate drilling equipment, trucks, and cars.  The expense of drilling the well is also deductible. However, in this case, it is not about fairness but global warming.  Anything he can do to slow down oil exploration and raise the price of oil is his main objective but, like corporate jets, slowing down oil exploration and production will only cost Americans their jobs.  Something we can ill afford in an already slow economy.

Make no mistake about it. Obama has created his own "loopholes".  He has created tax deductions for buying electric cars and solar and wind power systems that only benefit the rich who can afford to buy them.

I think that  -- instead of attacking loopholes that create jobs -- President Obama should think about all the policies that he has implemented that retard job growth.

References:

2015 State of the Union Address:  Obama attacks 'loopholes' for wealthy, business: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-attacks-loopholes-for-wealthy-business/article/2559008

New Dogfight Between Obama and Private Jet Industry: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100439712

Obama budget would slash oil tax breaks while boosting renewables: http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/02/02/obama-budget-would-slash-oil-tax-breaks-while-boosting-renewables/

 IRS Lays Out New Rules on Corporate Jet Use: https://www.google.com/search?q=IRS+Lays+Out+New+Rules+on+Corporate+Jet+Use+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Under Obama:  Recovery Has Created Far More Low-Wage Jobs Than Better-Paid Ones: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/business/economy/recovery-has-created-far-more-low-wage-jobs-than-better-paid-ones.html

Price Deflation: Why We Should Be Worried

There hasn't been much talk about the fact that, in three of the first four months of 2015, inflation was a negative.  In the latest report, annualized inflation was pegged at a negative 2-tenths of a percent. Deflation, even as small as this, is quite rare.  The only other time we have seen it in the last 35 years (see USInflation.org below) was from March to October 2009 in the wake of the Great Recession.  This can only happen when businesses sense a widespread slowdown in the buying of goods and services and, as a result, they either hold prices or lower them. Retailers, especially, will tend to reduce prices by running sales to attract more customers. Some will even use loss leaders -- products marked down below cost -- to attract more foot traffic to their stores. 

If this is truly indicative of a national slowdown in sales, then it could be an indicator that we are in some form of recession. We already know that, in the first quarter, the economy  only grew by two tenths of a percent.  Quite frankly, I am surprised that we haven't had another recession since 2009.  Wages today, when adjusted for inflation, are the lowest they've been since 1995.

The average American has seen 20 years of improvements in their buying power completely erased; and, there is no indication that wages will increase to previous highs until after  many years of slow growth.  Thus, without wage growth there will be reduced buying to the extent that inflation will turn negative and a recession could ensue.


References:

US Inflation by Year: http://usinflation.org/us-inflation-rate/

St. Louis Federal Reserve: Real Median Household Income: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N

US economy stalled in Q1; Fed expected to pause on rate: http://news.yahoo.com/us-economy-barely-grew-0-2-pace-first-005149797.html

March job gains 126,000; miss 248,000 forecast - USA Today: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fstory%2Fmoney%2Fbusiness%2F2015%2F04%2F03%2Femployment-report-march%2F70859842%2F&ei=UvBIVenUIouZoQTX54H4Aw&usg=AFQjCNGcoNCz4mLioIFQe-veWE-kmUOtdw&sig2=Ddekzo3oVqsU3SFK3rThzA&bvm=bv.92291466,d.cGU

Is Fox News Trying To Cannabilize Its Own Audience to Save Fox Business?

When Fox News launched its sister network, the Fox Business Network (FBN) in 2007, many thought this new foray would destroy NBC's business network, CNBC, in the same way the FNC rose to dominate cable news.  Now, 8 years later, FBN, on a good day,  gets about a third of the audience CNBC does, and only about 11-12% of CNBC's nighttime audience of nearly a half million viewers.

Recently, FBN announced that 'Imus in the Morning' would finally be replaced. It reminded me why -- as an investor -- I never took FBN seriously as a business network.  Don Imus -- an entertainment radio talk show host -- is not my go to source for business information prior to the opening bell.  This was a joke, and one reason I could never take FBN seriously. Maria Bartiromo is taking the spot. The fact that, now, after 8 years, they just figured this out is amazing.

For months now, Fox News has been trying to save FBN.  Wherever possible, they will raise a topic where one of the FBN hosts is invited in to comment.  Then, at the end of the segment, they make sure you know that if you want hear more from whoever the analyst  was, you can tune into FBN at such and such a time and, if you don't know where FBN is on your system, you can always go to "foxbusiness.com/channelfinder".  Really? People aren't watching FBN because they can't find it?

Basically, I don't think Fox Business is long for this world.  The Imus move is a dollar short and more than 2500 days late.  Also, they're lucky to have as much traffic as they already have.  On most cable and satellite systems, they are an upper tier channel.  Thus, they have less potential viewers than CNBC which is part of the basic package for most cable and satellite systems.  For FBN, 'Taps' is long overdue and Fox has to be losing money everyday this network remains broadcasting.

Lastly, Fox Business should never have tried to go head-to-head with CNBC.   What they should have done is focus on being a market investing education channel with hourly tips and teaching segments.  That, in itself, would have naturally attracted more viewers.  Just my opinion.

References:

Cable News Ratings: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/05/08/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-may-7-2015/400943/

Fox Business Network New Lineup: Don Imus Replaced by Maria Bartiromo: http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/fox-business-network-lineup-don-imus-maria-bartiromo-1201492538/

Fox Business Network: http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/fox-business-network-lineup-don-imus-maria-bartiromo-1201492538/

Channel Finder - See Where You Can Watch Fox Business: http://www.foxbusiness.com/about/channel-finder/index.html

CNBC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNBC

Taps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taps

Obama Calls Cliimate Change An Immediate National Security Risk

Recently, President Obama told the graduating class of Coast Guard cadets that climate change and global warming are immediate risks to our national security.  Well, if that is true, and they truly endanger the security of the U.S., why aren't we at war with India and China over their massive increases in carbon output?

The fact is that, no matter how much we do to control our CO2 output, China and India will easily offset our lowered  levels.

And, I only made that "war" comment to show how ridiculous the President's "national security" argument is. Of course, if he truly believes what he is saying, then maybe we should be at war against the polluters.

References:

Obama: Climate Change an 'Immediate Risk' to National Security: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/05/20/obama-climate-change-an-immediate-risk-to-national-security

Global CO2 Emissions: Increases Dwarf Recent U.S. Reductions: http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2013/07/global-co2-emissions-increases-dwarf-recent-u-s-reductions/

U.S. Carbon Dioxide Reductions Outpace Rest of World: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/u-s-carbon-dioxide-reductions-outpace-rest-world/