Energy efficiency obsession

I see that Energy Minister Trevor Mallard and Government Spokesperson on Energy Efficiency Jeanette Fitzsimons (didn’t know that existed) have announced the ending of the current National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy (NEECS). Unfortunately a new one is going to be developed, which will be one of the most pointless exercises engaged by bureaucrats in the next year or so.
.
Why?
.
Because the last one did bugger all. This government is obsessed with strategies, which are meant to direct bureaucrats, and they are usually destined to not be successful or be so broadly defined to look like every year is a step “along the path”. The new NEECS is to feed into a new Energy Strategy (see what I mean?).
.
Let’s start from first premises. The objective of NEECS is to “set the agenda for government programmes to promote greater energy efficiency and renewable energy”.
.
Why?
.
Is energy efficiency good? Well, yes it is. Wasting energy is unproductive. Most businesses don’t like to waste any inputs into production, so they strive to be more efficient across the board. This includes everything from turning off lights, to buying more efficient machinery, to closing down inefficient operations. In respect of energy, as long as it is priced efficiently (i.e. not subsidised or not overpriced), then energy users will decide whether it is more efficient to use it or not. For example, an emphasis on energy efficiency alone may mean extra expense in labour to monitor lights or whatever. So the government doesn’t need to promote energy efficiency. If you are stupid enough to leave all your appliances on, then you pay more for electricity – nobody subsidises you. If there isn’t enough electricity to meet demand, the price should go up to encourage you to be more efficient.
.
In short, there is not the slightest need for the government to give a damn about energy efficiency if electricity, gas, coal and petrol are priced according to supply and demand.
.
Is renewable energy good? Well, it doesn’t really matter. If it is a non-renewable resource, when it is becoming scarce the price goes up and others are found. In itself, renewable energy sounds good – but it is rather irrelevant.
.
So, in short, NEECS has little value – the appropriate answer to energy efficiency is to get out of the way, and let users pay and energy producers have freedom to seek whatever sources of energy they wish. To help that, the government ought to privatise its remaining electricity SOEs.

Working for benefits

Now as a libertarian I don’t believe in compulsory state welfare. At best it doesn’t represent caring at all, because instead of consciously considering how to assist those in need, most people simply accept that taxes are taken from them and some bureaucrats hand money over to the needy. It means the chattering classes can clink their chardonnay glasses in Wadestown or Parnell, and feel they are doing their bit for those in Cannons Creek, Otara or Murupara – without having to actually be conscious of it. They can vote Labour feeling like, somehow, this system makes them better citizens – whilst many avoid the needy like the plague. It also means that bureaucrats, many with good intentions, always have a supply of money to dish out to the needy – and have power with this, and beneficiaries think that their money is an “entitlement”. “Entitlement” is a powerful word, hard to argue against being entitled to something, like holding a certificate proving you have a right to land or some money.
.
At worst state welfare breeds an attitude of dependence of not seeking the best in yourself – an attitude best represented in beneficiaries who would rather watch TV all day than get a job, or wont get a job that “robs them” of their benefit – robbed already from the productive. State welfare is money literally for nothing, taken from force by people who had to earn it in the first place.
.
However, there are plenty who believe that even if the state welfare system is wasteful and has gone too far, that there should still be a bottom line “safety net” for those destitute and unable to work through sickness or disability or to bridge a gap between jobs. This is the line that ACT takes, that welfare should be short lived and be incentivised to encourage or require people to take employment where possible. In other words, welfare for those with no means to provide for themselves or their families. This was, I believe, the vision of New Zealand’s most popular socialist – Michael Joseph Savage.
.
Today, Helen Clark and Michael Cullen have taken that vision and vastly increased the number of those receiving welfare, with the so-called “Working for Families” package. This means that most people with children will now receive social welfare benefits simply because they bred. So let’s just think very clearly about what this system means:
.
1. People work hard, earn money and have tax taken off them, around half paying 33% or more of their income in tax.
2. The state takes a proportion of that to pay bureaucrats to run a system whereby…
3. People with children, with certain income thresholds, can get welfare benefits if they apply for them – simply because they are families.

.
Now the Greens moan about how unemployed and sickness beneficiaries aren’t getting this – because the Greens think state welfare is truly wonderful and if you need money, then fleecing those who make it is fair.
.
However, how do YOU feel about paying a lot of tax and either having it churned through bureaucrats to make you a beneficiary, or it going to middle class families with children?

Take this statement from the Government's own press release:

Most families with children, earning under $70,000 a year are likely to be eligible for family tax relief, but many families earning up to $100,000 may also be able to claim some family assistance.

.

$100,000!! Forget being a responsible young couple in your 20s saving for a mortgage, have babies and get some money from the state. Apparently Dr Cullen's tax increase for the "rich" earning over $60,000 isn't about rich people anymore - so why does middle-upper income New Zealand have to pay 39% income tax?

.
One view is that everyone should share the financial burden of raising children. Why? Unless the children are collectively “owned” by everyone, why should anyone else bear responsibility for the breeding habits of others? People who have 5 children get more money than those with 1 or none. Having children is essentially a lifestyle choice, some people want none – some people can’t have them and must adopt – others want enormous families. However, having children is, by and large, a choice. Nobody makes you have unprotected coital sex, unless it is rape and that is a different matter. Making the choice to have children means taking enormous responsibility and trading off the time, energy and financial commitment of a child, vs. what else you might do with that time and money. If you are unwilling to take on that commitment, then you short change the child – and you’ve made a bad decision. It is YOUR fault – not MY fault that I haven’t given you money for your child.
.
The main criticism of cutting welfare for children is that the children suffer – yet of the two main things children need, material provision is one. The other is time and attention – which is also where the greatest rewards come from. If I am expected to give up money to help children be raised for the greater good, I want to share in their upbringing – after all, children need attention and time from adults to learn and grow fulfilled and to experience life. I’m sure parents receiving welfare from non-child bearing taxpayers would baulk at anyone expecting time with their “shared responsibility”.
.
Quite simply, there is nothing special about having children. Children cost time and money, both for parents and, with the state education system, for every net taxpayer (not everyone is a net taxpayer remember – all those on benefits and working for the non-productive state sector are not) – and the single biggest thing anyone does that increases consumption in the environment is to breed. However, the Greens want people to be subsidised to breed.
.
So why has Labour set up this bureaucratic system to hand out welfare to middle income families? In essence, it comes down to two motives. The first is income redistribution (known as theft if you engage it in) - Labour believes that those that earn and produce, particularly those without children, should have part of those earning taken from them and given to those with children. In short, people with the income of Heather Roy with five children deserve money from people with half her income and no kids, because Labour wants to subsidise them.

.
United Future and NZ First endorse this. It is pure envy – a straight out transfer from some people to others – because Labour likes them.
.
The second motive is far more insidious. Tax cuts reduce dependence on the state and reduce the size of the state. They are preferred by individualists because they mean you get back money the state isn’t using so you can spend it yourself or save it, or do as you wish – after all it was your money to begin with. If you hadn’t worked, or invested or spent, the state wouldn’t have had it. It keeps a cap on the size of the state, which is why Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Bill Birch all supported tax cuts – it keeps the state from wasting money on whatever activity was popular with politicians, but which you would never choose to fund yourself. Like rap study tours or middle class children.
.
Extending welfare to include middle class families ties them to the state – some see it as effectively a tax cut, because they get some of their money back, so it’s “ok”. Anyone promising to remove it better give them something as good or better. However, that is the thing – many of those on middle class welfare wouldn’t be better off with a tax cut, unless it was a large tax cut – the sort National would not introduce. Labour now has these people as more likely voters, because to reverse Working for Families and introduce tax cuts instead, there would be losers (low to middle income families) and winners (middle to high income single people). Labour knows very well that the losers outnumber the winners, and the winners are hated by the great Kiwi socialist clobbering machine working in TVNZ, TV3, Radio NZ, the NZ Herald etc etc. Labour has bought voters with this package – and knows that most will remain loyal. They are now dependent on bureaucrats and a Labour government for getting some of their income – something that a tax cut would never mean. That is why it is so insidiously evil.
.
No well functioning economy needs the state to take money off of people to redistribute to middle income working families. How inefficient is that? How ridiculous is it for welfare to have shifted from being the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff for those in dire need, to being a day to day source of income.
.
The appropriate response IS to replace it with tax cuts – scrap the whole Working for Families package, eliminate vast tracts of pointless bureaucracies and cut taxes, dramatically. National should stick to this, take its old tax cut plan and take it further. As much as it is hard for National to dismantle socialism Labour introduces, it is as hard for Labour to reverse tax cuts that apply to the vast majority.
.
While I thought the extent of the cuts were too low, Don Brash is right in his press statement about the Working for Families package:
.
As we have seen from Labour's TV ads, much of the extended Working for Families handout will go to higher income families who can afford to live in plush homes and own the latest electronic gadgets.

It's clear the extension was aimed at middle and higher income earners - proving it was a huge and desperate bribe to get Labour re-elected."But thousands of Kiwis miss out. People without children will subsidise those with children to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars."National's policy at the 2005 election was to offer tax cuts to working New Zealanders. These would have provided far better incentives for working people to get ahead in life from their own efforts.

Israel seeks peace

The Arab-Israeli dispute has origins that only the doggedly stubborn use to determine their perspective. The Palestinians who want Israel eradicated (such as Hamas) are dreaming - Israel was, unfortunately, a creation of the UN, supported by both the western powers (US, UK, France and then non-communist China) and the USSR. It had been promised by Britain, the colonial power.

The best option at the time would've been to give Palestine independence, and allow Jews, Arabs and others of Palestine to live together -in a liberal democratic state. However, the Balfour Declaration in 1917 did promise a Jewish national homeland, as long as it did not prejudice Arab communities. The events that followed meant the creation of Israel - which tragically saw some Arabs expelled or fleeing homes in Israel, while some Jews were expelled from Arab states. A unified Israel was not going to happen, as Arab states opposed the establishment of Israel - so the UN partition plan was meant to be a compromise. That plan was what Israel originally intended to be - but the Arabs were not interested in a separate Palestinian state. So then came war, and war, and war and war.

Throughout the last nearly 60 years, Israel has fought for its right to exist. Only the most blinkered socialist would say that it would have been preferable for the authoritarian bully Nasser or totalitarian Asad to replace Israel. Israel has maintained a liberal democratic state, that has allowed Israelis to develop, trade and be reasonably free (although Israeli Arabs tend to feel like second class citizens). Compared to Egypt, which has had three Presidents, none democratically elected - Syria, a one-party state and Lebanon (only recently recovered from Syrian imperialism), Israel was a shining light for individual freedom. Even Nasser would listen to Kol Israel (Radio) to get the truth of the defeat in the Six Day War, because Arab broadcasters were so beholden to state propaganda of success and victory.

The Six Day War was Israel's response to an imminent attack - a wonderful victory over bullies ready to destroy it - and take enough territory for borders that could be readily defended. It also provided the chance for some Zionist plans for greater Israel to be implemented - the West Bank was known by some as Judea and Samaria - sacred Hebrew territory, and settlement were established as part of a grand plan to keep Israeli borders to the river Jordan.

Israel has always been willing to seek peace with security. It surrendered the majority of the land it annexed in 1967 (the Sinai) when it made peace with Egypt - which cost President Anwar Sadat his life due to an Arab extremist assassin. Syria has refused to guarantee Israel peace, which is why Israel retains the Golan Heights. Jordan has made peace in 1994, recognising Israel and refusing any historic claim to the West Bank - so now it is the matter of the Palestinian Arabs.

Until 1988, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation - a terrorist group if ever there was one - refused to recognise Israel's right to exist. At that point, Israel still did not believe that land for peace could work. After the Cold War ended (and Soviet sponsorship of the PLO evaporated), the US pushed for Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians - and President Yitzhak Shamir did not even recognise the Palestinians could be a nation. It was only because the US intervened decisively against Saddam Hussein to roll back his invasion of Kuwait, that Israel commenced peace talks with Palestinians, but not the PLO.

The Oslo Accords in 1993 saw Israel agree to the creation of the Palestinian Authority - allowing Palestinian self-government - an enormous change from the greater Israel envisaged by the Likud party previously. It cost Yitzhak Rabin his life. However, the PLO's corruption and inability/unwillingness to stop terrorism was its downfall. Every time a bus was bombed by Hizbollah, Israel rightfully blamed the PLO for being unable to secure its borders or clamp down on terror.

The second intifada has seen Israel respond with enormous force - which is unsurprising. So Israelis have faced three options:

- Continue to intervene in the West Bank and Gaza, and defend the settlements - maintaining the occupation;

- Negotiate a settlement with the Palestinian Authority for peace;

- Withdraw from Palestinian territory and defend what is left.

Voting Kadima means the third option. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip because it gave nothing - the land was not important for defence, and it was costly. Better to leave it to the Palestinian Authority to have a go at running everything, and seal the border off if it couldn't stop terrorists slipping into Israel. The strategy for the West Bank wont be far different - abandon vast swatches of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority - maintain a military presence along the Jordan Valley (which is sparsely populated, but can also control arms into the West Bank), clear out settlements that are not close to Israeli borders and build a wall around what is left.

Given in the first instance, despite much Western Aid, the Fatah (PLO) run Palestinian Authority was a disaster - and now Palestinians have voted for the terrorist thugs Hamas - can you blame Israel? Well, it wont probably work - unless Palestinians start running a civilised operation, Hamas renounces terrorism, recognises Israel and respects all previous agreements - and then starts to negotiate. Only then will Israel consider relinquishing more of the West Bank, moving the concrete wall barrier and talk about the hardest issue of all - Jerusalem.

A Palestinian state will only emerge when it can not be a haven for those bent on terrorism in Israel - and when it can be reasonably uncorrupt and focused on protecting Palestinians, and a shared peace in the Middle East with Israel. Nothing else would contribute to peace in the Middle East and the world more generally than a settlement - but it wont come at the cost of Israeli security. Nor should it. Those supportive of the Palestinian's plight should take time to notice how far Israelis have come. They want to leave Palestinians to govern themselves, and withdraw settlements - the dream of greater Israel is only held by a small minority. However Palestinians have not helped their cause, by having political masters that have been inept and corrupt, and are now advocates for terrorism and Israel's annihilation. Hamas could - if it tried - prove it wants to be competent and uncorrupt - but it will be for nought if it refuses to recognise that Israel, nuclear armed and war wearied, will go away or be defeated or tolerate Palestinian territory being a base for attacks on civilians. Anything less is uncivilised, and Palestinians who cannot understand that deserve to live under occupation. A liberal democratic open tolerant Palestinian state would not threaten Israel, and be a model for its corrupt neighbours like Egypt or despotic regimes like Syria - and would remove one of the reasons Arabs have to remain united, despite their governments' continued pillage and abuse of their people.

Outdoor Recreation abandons United Future

Outdoor Recreation has abandoned its agreement with United Future, because of concerns of its religious overtones. Clearly in denial, Dunne denies this! Claiming it was not unexpected, but he must be gutted. Outdoor Recreation now includes former United Future MP, Marc Alexander, who was one of the more sensible ones who lost in 2005 as United Future voters went back to National. Outdoor Recreation got over 2% at the 2002 election and Dunne would have hoped some of that went to United Future, now as No Right Turn observes, United Future will remain small.

.

However, he panders to homophobia and his whole opposition to civil unions was never one of substance, but simply claiming they were a cover up for gay marriage - he never expressed a view on gay marriage himself - but the implication was that he didn't like it. Statements like this from this speech:

.

Now while New Zealand society has progressed to a stage whereby we are tolerant of alternative lifestyles, and will willingly respect them as a private affair, many will baulk at the idea that the nature of marriage, an institution that also exists outside narrow legal definitions, is being altered in this way without their consent.

.

Well Peter, it was a private member's bill - and if you believe in democracy you'll accept that the people elected by voters chose as they saw fit to represent the views of their voters. If you're upset about government doing things without people's consent, then there is a lot more you can get distressed about Peter - like the taxes of the Labour government you have kept going for two terms now. Many baulked at legalising homosexual acts but you voted FOR it Peter. Snake! Unlike DPF, I don't think Peter Dunne is a good guy at all, but a reasonably sensible man who has been swaying across the political spectrum to stroke his ego - centrist, pro-immigrant, religious right. hmmm.
.
United Future has kept Labour in government for two terms now, so why gun enthusiasts would want to support it is beyond me. The United Future website continues to refer to Outdoor Recreation. ACT is now inviting Outdoor Recreation on board, which means ACT will need to be clear on its gun policy. I'd say Libertarianz has a lot to offer them too, with its belief in the right of peaceful people to own firearms.

Dunne the sports socialist

Peter Dunne is bemoaning claims by Trevor Mallard that sports that didn't do as well as predicted in the Commonwealth Games would have funds cut from the state for the Beijing Olympics.

.

Well tough Peter - it is not the role of the state to fund athletes. They ought to fund themselves or seek it from sponsorship. This is not east germany or some other old fashioned Cold War battle - it is about people choosing to commit to being their best, and the public shouldn't be force to pay for a particular career in athletics.

.

The best way to encourage athletes would be a cut in tax - then there would be more of what they earn, and what their supporters earn to help them on their way.