The Seattle Times editorial board has made a straight-ticket Democrat endorsement for Congress, including Jay Inslee.  The further irony was that the Times has a “Reset 2010″ theme for this election cycle and pledging a return to fiscal sanity.

Their endorsement was eye-opening on how low the Time’s bar is for incumbent democrats. Fortunately, the readers were actually awake enough to call them out on it. I counted 63 pro-Watkins comments versus 10 pro-Inslee comments. Hence I joke that while the Seattle Times’ editorial board is obligated to endorse the incumbent democrat, the Seattle Times’ readers endorse James Watkins.

It’s one thing to have bias, but the times couldn’t even give an accurate description.

The Times claimed Inslee was an “independent”. Inslee has voted a 99% party line and votes with Pelosi 95% of the time. By-definition, that’s extreme-partisan and not independent.

The Times claimed “Inslee is also worried about the deficit and is ready and positioned to do something about it.” Inslee’s voting record has driven up the deficit by trillions of dollars. The stimulus, Cap and Trade, and Obamacare alone are each trillion dollar policies that Inslee has strongly voted for.

The bottom line is that Inslee is a hyper-partisan guy who’s voted for trillions of dollars of debt. Calling him an independent and fiscal conservative is an insult to the readers.

It’s a nice overview of James’s positions with an emphasis on what makes him a strong challenger.

Here’s an encouraging excerpt: 

While the 1st CD went strongly for Obama (62%) on election day 2008, on that same day Attorney General Rob McKenna carried the district with 61% of the vote. That shows the potential for a strong candidate such as Watkins to replace Jay Inslee this year.

McKenna, by the way, is one of the endorsers of the Watkins campaign, and the campaign website features a YouTube video by McKenna regarding his endorsement. http://bit.ly/buSg0T

In theory, if such stats were true, government investment wouldn’t even be necessary here since the free market would heavily pursue such good investments on its own. 

In practice, Congress just had a $860 billion stimulus (which Inslee voted for) to invest in job creation as they saw fit  which didn’t create jobs, and hasn’t grown our GDP.  If nearly a trillion dollars isn’t enough, how much more does he need?

The stimulus actually allocated billions to wind energy and still didn’t produce the results Inslee predicted. The LA Times reported that “few jobs were created overall and wind power manufacturing employment, in particular, fell.”

Other countries were able to figure this out without having to go on a borrowed trillion dollar spending spree. In Spain, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, studied Spain’s green jobs investments from 2001-2009 and found that every “green job” cost 2.2 other jobs.  Germany has been subsidizing green jobs to the tune of 240,000 per job.

Here are some of examples of Inslee’s claims from his book, Apollo’s Fire: 

(* = computed with investment of 2.7*2 = 5.4 billion since it’s a matching program)

This poor prediction on job creation is not surprising from a guy that doesn’t seem to understand the “broken window fallacy“.

My point here is not that clean energy is bad. I’m a huge fan of clean energy. I just want us to be honest about the economics of it. We can’t tackle a problem this hard by sugarcoating it. And the middle of a recession may not be the best time to try out job-killing legislation.

Jay Inslee is not being honest about the economics of green jobs. He’s just saying what we want to hear and hoping we don’t double check the math. We need to hold Inslee accountable so that we can have honest discussions about hard issues.  

The good news is that Inslee finally has a strong challenger, James Watkins, and James Watkins understands job creation takes more than just spending hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money. James Watkins has had a record of working with small businesses and creating jobs. Support James Watkins: Less government, more jobs.

Raising taxes simply to fund make-work employment programs is not the same thing as sustainable job creation.  Good jobs last when they’re economically viable and can stand on their own–without the crutch of government subsidies.

Somebody please explain this to Jay Inslee (D, WA-1). And please do it before he votes for even more job-killing legislation.

As I read through Jay Inslee’s book, Apollo’s Fire, he cites several examples that show he doesn’t understand sustainable job creation.

1. Inslee confuses temporary make-work jobs with sustained growth.

He cites rebuilding cities as a source of job creation.  Sure, you can raise taxes and spend it on temporary construction jobs.  But what happens after all the potholes are filled?  The construction crews are out of work again, and you’ve only succeeded in pulling future demand forward.  (Remember what happened with Cash for Clunkers and the Homebuyer Tax Credit–auto and home sales spiked temporarily, only to plummet once government support was removed.)  Inslee focuses on the creation of temporary construction jobs–admittedly, a short-term employment boost–but he fails to consider the economic viability of the work for the long haul.  That’s a recipe for a few crumbs now and bare cupboards in the future.

2. Inslee confuses expenditures with income.

On pg 282, he says rebuilding the nation’s electric grid will create jobs because it “would drive new investment into construction and maintenance jobs as well” and create software jobs because it requires complex software.

Not quite. The construction, maintenance, software engineer jobs he cites as job creation are actually the cost of rebuilding the nation’s grid. The new jobs would come only if the new grid makes consumers more economically productive such as by being more efficient, reliable, or cheaper. And to achieve net growth, that productivity wins would need to outweigh the cost of rebuilding.

3. Inslee claims making jobs less efficient will create more jobs.

He cites another example on pg 296 saying “[increased building codes] create jobs and demand for highly skilled construction labor.”  

Not quite. This is just using inefficiency to create jobs … like trying to create farm jobs by banning the tractor.  More complicated codes raise costs, which hurt jobs.  Now you may fairly argue the codes have some other redeeming value, but don’t claim they lowers costs and create jobs.  (This was one of the examples from a Wall Street Journal article that liberals do badly on basic economics compared to conservatives.)   This theme also comes up when Inslee cites switching to less efficient energy as a way to create jobs.

After listening to Inslee, I realized that he hasn’t figured out the Parable of the Broken Window. Simply spending money is not the same as job creation.

The good news is that Inslee finally has a strong challenger, James Watkins, and James Watkins has a demonstrated history of job creation from his work with small businesses. Support James and get somebody in Congress who actually knows how to shrink government and grow jobs!

James is a small business guy who knows how to create jobs and he’s a true fiscal conservative. He’s a serious candidate with an impressive resume in the private sector. He’s not a career politician, understands what government’s limited role should be, and has actually shrunk the government when he briefly worked at the FDIC. He has exactly the skills we need right now in Congress.

While we haven’t had our primary yet, it’s clear James is the obvious frontrunner. He wins straw polls 80%-20%, he’s had endorsements from the tea party movement, from the grassroots (like the PCOs), and top Republican leaders in the state like attorney general Rob McKenna. Inslee’s been entrenched for over a decade. We can’t wait until after the primary (2 months before the general election) to come together to replace Inslee.

James is the first serious challenger Inslee has had in about a decade and James can win this with our help.

Inslee and a record of bad votes

Jay Inslee votes with Nancy Pelosi 99% of the time, and has a “Pelosi Index” of 100% (number of votes with Pelosi on key bills). Voters are realizing that it doesn’t matter what Inslee tells them because he’s just going to vote with Pelosi anyway.

Inslee has taken horrible positions voting for Cap-and-Trade, Obamacare, and the trillion dollar Stimulus. While voters want Inslee to focus on jobs, he’s been pushing legislation that drives up debt and hurts our economy.

Sometimes I wonder if Inslee realizes that his votes are actually public.

He’s not nice to constituents when they ask hard questions. Voters are noticing.

Polling shows Inslee is vulnerable

An earlier poll showed Inslee’s re-elect at 37%. A more recent poll shows further bad news for Inslee:

• Almost half of district Democrats no longer support Inslee.
• One out of three Democrats are undecided about their vote.
• Among independents, James beats Inslee by over 35 points.
• Less than half of all voters support Inslee.

We can tell Inslee is getting scared. Inslee is normally disengaged from the voters. As the polls have come in, Inslee started writing editorials for the local paper, hosted a wave of sudden townhalls, and started sending out newsletters. Inslee knows he’s in trouble.

Help us win!

Yeah, WA state is a tough place if you don’t have a D next to your name. But this is the year. Inslee lost in ’94 and he’s going to lose again in 2010. The bottom line is that James has the right background and message, Inslee has been horrible, and the polls are showing it.

There are lots of ways you can support James. Even if you’re not in the district, you can send him a donation, follow him on facebook here and send a word of encouragement, or blog about the race.

Some pertinent trivia on nuclear power:

- Nuclear energy can scale to large demands: France is 80% nuclear power.  In comparison, wind and solar in the US is under 5%, and rare to get to 20% in other countries.

- Nuclear energy has lower end-to-end carbon emissions than wind, biomass, hydro, solar, natural gas, oil or coal [1].

For further reading on nuclear, check out the Seattle Times’ column from Mike Lawrence.

From an Inslee townhall (?) on May 10, 2009, when asked about increasing Nuclear power, Inslee showed several signs of hypocrisy

1. Inslee says government regulation is not the primary inhibitor for nuclear power. Yet other countries with friendly nuclear regulations are having great success with nuclear power. US regulations have prevented a new nuclear plant from being constructed in over 30 years. And meanwhile, France is 80% nuclear. India is building 15 new nuclear plants [1].

2. Inslee says nuclear is too expensive, and proposes we use wind and solar instead. Yet nuclear is over 10x cheaper than wind or solar.   

One Nuclear plant is certainly more expensive than one windmill, but nuclear plants generate a tremendous amount of power.  Nuclear power plants generate roughly 20% of the US electricity, yet only 1% of the plants are nuclear.  Nuclear power is also a very well understood technology, whereas efficient large-scale wind and solar power is still under active research.

3. Inslee has said global warming is a large-scale imminent threat, yet refuses to embrace the available technologies to address it for fear of what will happen 10,000 years later.

Inslee has said “Global warming is not something we can wait 10 years to deal with.” And while nuclear power could provide an immediate relief to carbon emissions, Inslee resists nuclear because of concerns of storing the waste 10,000 years from now.  If Inslee really believed global warming was imminent, he would have embraced the available technologies to reduce carbon emissions.

My point here is not necessarily to champion nuclear power. Rather, Jay Inslee is showing  hypocrisy here.

One more reason to support James Watkins (http://watkinsforcongress.com/ ) and send Jay Inslee home.

The original audio of Inslee is at http://principlesinliberty.blogspot.com/2009/05/principles-in-liberty-38-visit-with-jay.html. Here’s that blogger’s summary of the audio:

02:20:20 Audience: What about Nuclear Power?

02:21:16 Jay: Nuclear power has not blossomed in the last 25 years. But it is not because of Jane Fonda or Congress – it just costs too much money. Other methods are just easier with efficiency measures.

02:22:27 Jay: Congress in the last 20 years has tried to enhance nuclear power – we provided $ for research and free insurance to promote it. It is a potential part of our future – if the price comes down dramatically. Smaller plants that are more customized. We need standardized plants to bring down costs. We need a permanent disposal system.

02:24:29 Audience: If France is doing it why can’t we?

02:24:43 Jay: France doesn’t have a 10000 year solution for disposal.

[1] National Geographic, Vol 2009, No 4, pg 62)

To be sure, there are lots of ineffective policies floating around. Washington Policy Center did an excellent analysis of 5 years of Environment policy in WA state and found most of the policies to be ineffective. These policies drive up costs too.  

This is one of my frustrations with Jay Inslee (D, Wa-1) on environment policy. Inslee can’t prioritize and so wastes money on ineffective policies. (His opponent, James Watkins, can prioritize, and so I believe Watkins will have a more effective and economically-friendly energy policy than Inslee. )

Navigating the numbers can be essential for keeping radical environmentalists accountable. We all care about the environment. I don’t want a radical environmentalist in congress. I want effective environmentalists who can do it without destroying the economy.

So here’s an exercise in numbers. Which is greener: solar panels on your house or getting a hybrid car?

I hear both cost in the ballpark of $30,000. Which is a more cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions?

In Washington state, electricity is 75% hydro and 10% nuclear, which is extremely clean. The state average is .25 lbs of CO₂ / kWh. For comparison, West Virginia, which is presumably high coal usage, is 1.98 lbs of CO2 / kWh.  (kWh = kilowatt hour; lbs= pounds;  2000 lbs = 1 ton)

Emissions from household electricity: The average electricity consumption in WA state is 1086 kWh / month. That’s 13,032 kWh per year. At .25 lbs of CO2/kWh, that’s 3258 lbs (or 1.69 tons) of CO₂ emissions due to your house electricity usage.   WA State average cost is $.0754 / kWh, so that’s $983 a year in electric bills.  A good solar system could erase all of that, saving 1.69 tons of CO2 and $983 in utility bills a year.

Emissions from your car: A gallon of gas emits 20 lbs of CO₂. So if you have a 25 mpg car and travel 10,000 miles a year, that’s 4 tons of CO₂ a year. Say gas is $3 a gallon, which would be $1200 a year.

Switching to a hybrid that gets 50 mpg would emit half that and save 2 tons of CO₂ and $600 in gas bills a year.

So with WA State numbers, the hybrid car saves more CO₂.  Different states may get different results based on CO2 / kWh, energy usage per state. These numbers are actually very conservative for a hybrid, and so I’d expect the hybrid’s margin to be larger because:

1) there are cheaper ways to save energy costs than switching to full solar panels. So if you’re already trying to reduce carbon emissions, you’re probably below your state average already. Thus solar would save you less.

2) If you’re already buying a new car, a hybrid is an incremental cost over a conventional car. So the incremental cost of a hybrid may only be $5000, not $30,000.  So that would put the cost effectiveness of the hybrid well ahead.

3) Solar gets massive subsidies which drive the upfront costs down. However, subsidies are still money from the government, and that comes from taxes, and that ultimately comes from you.

In conclusion… The goal here isn’t so much to compare solar vs. hybrid. It’s to help people recognize how to evaluate carbon reduction policies so that we can hold our elected officials more accountable. If their plan to reduce carbon emissions costs $100 million and only saves a few tons of CO₂ a year, you can show that there are much cheaper ways to accomplish that.

Any other comparisons anybody is interested in seeing?

What’s even worse than the bill were the amendments that Democrats voted against in committee.

Republicans proposed some “safety guard” amendments to limit the economic damage from Cap and Trade. And Democrats, while claiming that Cap and Trade would actually help the economy, defeated all of them:

·         one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon;   (defeated 31 nay – 24 yea)

·         one to suspend the program if electricity prices doubled over 2009;   (defeated 30 nay – 19 year, ballot here)

·         and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%.  (defeated 34 nay – 21 yea)

Voting for these amendments would have been an excellent show of confidence that Cap and Trade is really the economic growth engine that proponents assure us. Likewise, voting against such reasonable economic safety guards sends a clear message that they know Cap and Trade will come at a high price.

I saw this originally reported in the Wall Street Journal, but it didn’t cite the source or the specific congressmen.  

Votes that are made on the house floor are pretty public and easy to hold your congressmen accountable for. But these votes in committee are more difficult to track down. Thankfully, this stuff actually gets tracked, but it’s really buried. I finally found a list of the Cap and Trade (HR 2454) amendments in Energy and Commerce Committee courtesy of some GOP live blogging: http://www.gop.gov/live/09/05/19/live-blogging-the-700. You can skim through the transcript to see how bad it really was and who voted for what.

My Representative, Jay Inslee (D, WA-1), claims that Cap and Trade will actually create new jobs. Yet the ballot sheets show he voted against all of these safety guards. So Inslee explicitly voted to keep Cap and Trade even if it drives unemployment past 15%, yet has the audacity to claim Cap and Trade will create jobs.

Thankfully, Inslee finally has a serious challenger, James Watkins.