Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?

by Steve Whisler

Scientists at the University of Chicago moved the Doomsday Clock two minutes ahead to five minutes to midnight on January 16, 2007. This particular clock has been managed by America’s so-called brightest minds since 1947 and their goal is to gauge how close humans are to destroying the Earth with nuclear weapons.

When asked why the world now sits just five minutes away from total destruction, scientists cited the perils of 27,000 nuclear weapons, 2000 of them ready to launch within minutes, and the effects of global warming. “The dangers posed by climate change are nearly as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons,” the report claimed.

Really ... climate change is just as dire as nuclear weapons? Global warming warrants adjusting the Doomsday Clock for just the 17th time in 60 years?

I wonder if scientists at the University of Chicago are scrambling to justify their existence now that the threat of nuclear war among those who possess these weapons is at an all-time low. There is truly a threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, but this was one of the reasons why scientists moved the clock closer to midnight in 2002.

Perhaps the Chicago scientists should rely on research to justify moving the clock ahead. These scientists obviously have no insight into historic climactic data and glaciation cycles.

Scientific data and computer models suggest that the Earth’s average temperature was 6°F cooler than today when it came out of the last Ice Age around 8500 BC. Just 1000 years later (7500 BC), the average temperature on the planet was just 1°F warmer than it is today. However, the temperature fell again by nearly 2° F over the next 1,000 years, settling at an average of 1° F cooler than the current climate.

Computer models also predict a 0.5° F increase in temperature over the next 1000 years. There is no doubt that global warming is real; however, this phenomenon reflects a normal cycle in nature and it is very unlikely that humans had anything to do with the change. The Earth’s temperature has risen 1° F in 1,000 years – long before onset of the Industrial Age and the multitude of environmental-friendly restrictions that have cost consumers trillions of dollars.

Politicians should think twice before increasing auto emission standards. Current legislation before the Maryland General Assembly will simply increase gasoline and automobile prices, and place even greater burdens on businesses that fuel economic growth in our state.

Feel-good legislation will merely cost consumers more and do very little, if anything, to offset the anticipated 0.5° F increase in temperatures. One only hopes that legislators rely on facts, scientific data, and common sense instead of the propaganda of a former vice president who hopes to revive his political career.

Both the former vice president and scientists in Chicago fail to consider all the evidence – they all appear out of touch with time.

Steve Whisler, a Catonsville resident, is a director of the non-profit Coalition for the Preservation of SW Baltimore County. He can be reached at aswhisler@comcast.net.

The Dangers of Prescription Drug Subsidies & Price Controls

by Steve Whisler

The stage is set for the 2007 Maryland General Assembly. The Democrats are back in total control and there is nothing in their way this time — no vetoes, no obstacles with the Board of Public Works or Public Service Commission, and no Republican in the Governor’s mansion who could easily call press conferences and share his perspective with the public why extreme, liberal legislation was bad for Maryland. Yes, sir, the Democrats are back in town and the agenda is once again theirs.

There is little doubt that the 2007 Legislature will attempt to subsidize or restrict the cost prescription drugs within our state. Government action to subsidize or cap the price of medicines would have disastrous consequences. Increased government subsidy of prescription drugs in our state would almost certainly require raising Maryland income and sales tax rates. Price caps would decimate profits to pharmaceutical companies that fund research for new cures. Moreover, price caps would impact pharmaceutical industry stock prices and lower the value of many Marylander retirements accounts.

We can’t have that … profits for a pharmaceutical company!

Why is earning a profit really such a bad thing in American society?

Profits are linked with innovation and prosperity; something that many countries in the world lack. Walter E. Williams (2006), a professor of economics at George Mason University and syndicated columnist of A Minority View, offered some insight about profits … something everyone can identify with:

Here’s a little test. Which entities produce greater consumer satisfaction: for-profit enterprises such as supermarkets, computer makers and clothing stores, or nonprofit entities such as public schools, post offices and motor vehicle departments? I’m guessing you’ll answer the former. Their survival depends on pleasing ordinary people, as opposed to the latter, whose survival is not so strictly tied to pleasing people. (¶9)

Liberals and social activists alike suggest that price controls are the answer to solving the costs of prescription drugs. History is replete with examples where price controls have failed miserably. Price controls of meat products in the 1970s were useless because cattlemen and store owners simply changed the name of the meat in the packaging. Again, Williams (2005) illustrates that the public’s outcry for price controls does little to solve a problem created by supply and demand:

In the wake of the spike in fuel prices, many Americans demand that politicians do something. You can bet the rent money that whatever politicians do will end up harming consumers. Despite a long history of their economic calamity, some Americans and politicians are calling for price controls or, what amounts to the same thing, anti price-gouging legislation. As Professor Thomas DiLorenzo points out in “4000 Years of Price Control” (www.mises.org/story/1962), price controls have produced calamities wherever and whenever they’ve been tried. (¶6)

Price controls and government subsidy might be terrific news in the short-term; but such actions will have very damaging effects far into the future.

References

Williams, W. E. (2005, December 7). Caring vs. uncaring. A Minority View. Retrieved from http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/05/economics.html

Williams, W. E. (2006, May 10). Caring vs. uncaring. A Minority View. Retrieved from http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/caring.html

A more bipartisan legislature...huh?

Today, the 423rd General Assembly convened. While many bloggers have delved deeply into what this means for Maryland taxpayers, we'll stay away from trying to draw anything meaningful from it.

However, I don't understand why Miller and Busch are talking about being bipartisan in this next session or any other. It's incredibly patronizing. They control both houses with super majorities and the government house. They don't have to be bipartisan, weren't bipartisan prior to 2002, weren't bipartisan while Ehrlich was governor, and won't be bipartisan in the future.

Maryland Democrats have become emboldened as a result of 2006, think that their agenda received a mandate from the voters, and will shove that agenda down all of our throats. Maryland Republicans must pay attention, not be lulled into the democratic deceit, and begin making plans to hold the Democrats accountable for what they do to our state.

We will do that with a strong grassroots and pinpointing Republican resources to the areas we have the greatest chance of winning in 2010.