JayB

That's what I understood from the article. I think that they have the power to do so, but may or may not use it at their discretion. If housing values drop, I'd be amazed if they didn't goose the rates to keep revenue constant.

One word. Levees. I'm confident that with enough public funding they'll be able to design and build a system at least as sound as the system that's protected New Orleans for decades. With Florida's well earned reputation for efficiency, honesty, and competence behind such a project, what could go wrong.

Plenty to go around. You'll also have the opportunity to pay for rebuilding many thousands of homes in coastal Florida with values well in excess of a million dollars since they couldn't afford *both* the Beemer and pay the premiums necessary to adequately underwrite the risk. Thankfully, the state stepped in agreed to provide coverage at rates well below those necessary to cover the risk - and has set aside reserves that vastly inadequate - so instead of private insurers footing the bill, Florida will go bankrupt and you'll get the chance to chip in. In normal circumstances, you factor the cost of insurance into the cost of owning a home, and as one goes up, the other goes down. Instead of the owners of a private asset having the price of the risk associated with that asset incorporated into the value, it's transferred to others via this mechanism. Ditto for this attempt to prop up the value of expensive homes by the public assuming the risk associated with financing them. It's just a shame that the Federal Government didn't take more aggressive action to do the same for stock investors, and agree to underwrite the difference between any given stocks actual value and the value it had at the peak of the market.

You are in fantasy-land here dude. The only time that cyclists can realistically occupy a lane of traffic without enraging motorists and prompting them to make dangerous passes in congested conditions is when they can move at the same speed as traffic, which only happens in cases where you're descending a significant grade. No amount of cyclo-activism is ever going to change this. As a cyclist, you're significantly more exposed to death or severe trauma than you are in a car, so if you're smart you do what you need to do to prevent getting hit without endangering other users of the roadway. Sometimes that means obeying the law to the letter, other times that means ignoring it - depends on the situation.

Should help boost housing prices, though... "Q: Could governments go back now and collect the property taxes that I-747 prevented them from collecting before the ruling? A: No. But the ruling could be retroactive in a sense. Under state law, cities, counties or other local governments can "bank" unused property-taxing authority. Under I-747, for instance, if a government used only 0.5 percent of the 1 percent increase authorized by the law, it could reserve the remainder and use it the next year. Noble has said it appears local governments could contend they had banked much more — the difference between their actual increases and the rate of inflation — for each of the past five years. In addition to seeking an increase of up to 6 percent next year, they could attempt to raise property-tax collections by that total "banked" amount as well, he has said."

The worst part is, the farm bill on the table now is mandating ethanol consumption that's several fold higher than present levels. The funny thing is that the present regime of tariffs and subsidies for corn ethanol still isn't at a threshold necessary to render the vastly more ecologically sound and efficient cane-ethanol uncompetitive. Instead of taking the hint, look for subsidies and tarriffs to spiral upwards. It would make more sense all around to just forgo the formality of actually growing the corn or making the ethanol, and just send direct payments to all of the parties concerned to do nothing - then remove the subsidies and tariffs. Also - if we're going to convert food crops to energy, I'm willing to bet that it would be far more efficient to burn them and distribute the resulting energy via the electrical grid. Don't even bother to separate anything - just mow down the fields, toss them in the hopper and incinerate away. Woo-hoo, "Energy Independence!"

Ever seen the heartwrenching scene unfold when the tax-attorney wants to finance a million dollar home, but no one is willing to lend him the money? It's awful, and thankfully, the Federal Government may soon be poised to do something about it, by raising the limit on loans that GNMA and FNMA can buy to one million dollars, thus fulfilling their mission to promote affordable housing for *all* Americans, not just those with household incomes of ~$140,000 per year or lower. If legislation raising the conforming limit passes, you can not only help him obtain access to credit at below market rates, you can assume fractional ownership of the distressed debt that he leaves behind if he defaults. Beautiful. "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - If Congress decides to temporarily lift the $417,000 cap on mortgage loans eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then a reasonable level might be $1 million, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said on Thursday. Charles Schumer, the New York Democrat who chairs the congressional Joint Economic Committee, asked Bernanke what his thoughts would be on a new upper limit for those loans, and Bernanke replied, "A million."

mHh0NdR5Jh0

Helped my Dad do that job when I was about 12. Horrible job. If I had to do that again I'd have respirator instead of one of those paper masks, and use a 15' x 4' strip of old carpet to lay down on top of the dirt/glass/etc.

I have zero sympathy for this chick's point of view, but responding to these perspectives by declaring them illegal is the wrong way to respond, for a number of reasons. "British Muslim woman convicted of penning poems about beheadings By ARTHUR MARTIN An airport worker who wrote poems about beheadings is the first woman to be found guilty under new terror laws. Samina Malik, who liked to call herself a "lyrical terrorist", called for attacks on the West and described "poisoned bullets" capable of killing an entire street in her poetry. The 23-year-old Muslim wrote of her desire to become a martyr and listed her favourite videos as the "beheading ones". Lyrical terrorist Samina Malik claims she was just a 'fan' of the terrorist music Described as a "committed Islamic extremist", Malik, a shop assistant at Heathrow, hoarded an extensive collection of terrorism manuals, the Old Bailey heard. She was a member of an extremist group linked to Omar Bakri Mohammed, a hate preacher who fled to Lebanon from Britain two years ago. Yesterday a jury found her guilty of possessing documents likely to be used for terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, by a majority of ten to one, after deliberating for 19 hours." Can't tell if she's wearing lipstick or not, which would be quite the kuffar move for a "lyrical jihadist."

Will that get me an invitation to meet you at Tiger Mountain, sugar?

Haven't seen many dipshits pasting "I'm changing the climate" stickers to airplanes, buses, trains, semis, delivery vehicles, container-ships or any other mode of transport that burns fossil fuels. The emphasis placed on a subset of passenger vehicles is totally out of proportion to their actual importance in terms of transportation related emissions, especially when you consider that the average mini-van, station-wagon, luxury-sedan, and sport-car hardly differs from most trucks or SUV in terms of their fuel economy. Thus we have the celebrity with a 15,000 square foot house and a lear jet that's a paragon of eco-virtue because he owns a prius, and a working-class guy with a small house that keeps a close eye on the thermostat who's consigned to the other end of the spectrum because he drives a truck.

Yup.

I think that you could pretty much just index the rebate/tax reduction by income, and commercial users generally keep track of such expenses anyway, so it wouldn't be that big of a deal. My main purpose in participating in this thread was just to demonstrate that using CAFE standards is an irrational and ineffective way to reduce either oil consumption/CO2 emissions. I'm actually not terribly fond of the idea of a fuel tax either, but I think it'd be preferable to raising CAFE standards if I had to choose one or the other. I also think that the nearly exclusive and obsessive focus on passenger vehicles that has characterized this discussion on the national level is extremely irrational - and has less to do with reducing C02 emissions than it does with a desire to limit the scope for choices and lifestyles that a particular sector of the electorate takes exception to. If they were actually serious about this, they'd be dedicating the most energy into reforming the sectors that generate the most emissions.

Note bold text. Cough. Make a law that revenues gained by the fuel tax will be offset by reductions in income taxes and I think that the political resistance to the idea would diminish, especially if the taxes were phased in over the course of several years. I'm not sure what your coughing is all about. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that, when gas hits $10 a gallon or whatever the magic number is, people will do anything to avoid driving. Brilliant. Your idea sounds good in theory...pure theory, given our deficit. Thanks to the administration you and yours voted in, I wouldn't expect a reduction in any form of federal taxation, even if it involves a straight trade, that has a remote chance of reducing revenues (and there would be that risk due to undcertainty with your plan) for the rest of your life. You seemed to have dedicated quite a number of keystrokes to attacking this notion earlier. The point is that while raising the price fuel directly via taxes will discourage fuel consumption, and will impose costs that are in direct proportion to the quantity of CO2 emitted, and the same can't be said for manipulating the sales price of vehicles via CAFE standards.

Good observations on the effect of higher fuel prices - whether brought about by taxes or the market. If commercial users were exempted, and the poorer you were the more of the gas-tax you got back, I think that you could avoid most of the problems associated with the tax that you brought up - at least in theory.

wouldn't that be more grammatically correct as: is it true that all jews are niggardly? Anyone remember the DC politician that had to resign on account of the phonetic similarity between that word and a particular racial slur? "No really, it's spelled differently. It has an entirely different meaning. Look, it's right here in the dictionary..."

Just wait until they find out about their per-capita C02 emissions...

One of the reasons no one asks the mpg of a used vehicle is because they already know the answer; that information is readily available and most folks, including myself, take it into account in choosing what type of vehicle to buy before they ever talk to a seller. If fuel taxes were high enough, CAFE standards would not be necessary. They would have to be very high, however. Politically, that's not going to happen any time soon. CAFE standards, from a political standpoint, are an already relatively popular and therefore much more feasible way to reduce consumption and emissions. A combination of CAFE standards without loopholes, carbon taxes, and elimination of subsidies for gas guzzlers are the most feasible near term solution, politically speaking, to the problem. Note bold text. Cough. Make a law that revenues gained by the fuel tax will be offset by reductions in income taxes and I think that the political resistance to the idea would diminish, especially if the taxes were phased in over the course of several years.

Did you see the deal? I buy $100 worth of beer if both the house you choose and the CSW index for Seattle both go up. You buy $100 worth of beer if both the house you choose and the CSW go down, and if it's house-up/Seattle-down or Seattle-down/house-up we each put in for $50 worth of beer. Only way either of us wins is if the other is totally wrong, anyone at the PC wins some free beer in any case. 11/1/07-11/1/08.

The people who pay the most for this will be your friends in the UAW. More dodge and weave, JayB style. Or would that be duck and cover? This is not a discussion about unions. It's not a discussion about home insulation, which is (no shit, Sherlock) a good idea. It's a discussion about CAFE standards, and why they are a very, very good idea. So far, you've got nothing on topic in the rebuttal department. Why? Because, basically, you're a one note song. The market is good, government is bad. Why, then, don't we have privatized armed forces (OK, I mean ALL our armed forces). Or fire/police? Or roads? Water supplies? Or any one of many VITAL services that are too important to hand over to the private sector? That's actually not an accurate presentation of what I believe, or what I've argued for. Enforcing the law, preserving individual liberty, and the provision of public goods in cases where there's either no effective demand for the said good, or in those cases where one can demonstrate that the provision of the said good is a technical monopoly are amongst the areas where the case for government control is clear. I think that Friedman largely had it right: "Friedman was supportive of the state provision of some public goods that the market is not seen as being able to provide. However, he saw the scope of such goods as being minimal. And, he argued that many of the services performed by government could be performed better by the private sector. Above all, if some public goods are provided by the state, he believed that they should not be a legal monopoly where private competition is prohibited. For, example, in response to the United States Post Office's legal monopoly on mail, he said, "there is no way to justify our present public monopoly of the post office. It may be argued that the carrying of mail is a technical monopoly and that a government monopoly is the least of evils. Along these lines, one could perhaps justify a government post office, but not the present law, which makes it illegal for anybody else to carry the mail. If the delivery of mail is a technical monopoly, no one else will be able to succeed in competition with the government. If it is not, there is no reason why the government should be engaged in it. The only way to find out is to leave other people free to enter." In cases like the provision of education services, or emergency services, or the like - I think that government has a legitimate function in insuring that such services are provided to all citizens, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the government would have to provide these services directly in all cases. I also think that there's a clear link between economic liberty and political liberty, and the more dependent the citizens are on the state for the basic necessities of life the less likely they are to be able to effectively resist or discourage encroachments on their personal freedoms. The critiques will be much more interesting if they're at least accurate.

Poor marks on artistic merit *and* technical difficulty today. The backhanded onano-auto-praise via insult instead of the typical declarative statement announcing himself the winner was a novel element in the overall presentation, however. "So far I'm still waiting for an anti-CAFE argument that might just convince a 4 year old...if he were a bit slow."

There was an NPR feature on cell-phone jammers today. Sounds like they can be had for less than $200, and the smallest units have an effective range of around ~10 feet.

Revenue-neutrality is a smart caveat to higher fuel taxes, for both political and economic reasons.

This gets better with every post. While you have a marketplace wet dream why not invoke the spaghetti monster iniative as well. You can always "what if" an individual case that has no application or evidence. Continue herr marketplace miester. I'm just trying to understand why you are so attached to the idea of reducing CO2 emissions with CAFE standards when a fuel tax would actually be fairer, more rational, and more effective, and was actually hoping that you'd make a sincere response.