London Meteorological Office caught upping the temperature data – again

“The Met” – as it is known – didn’t bother to warn anyone that is had “updated” their temperature data for their HADCRUT4 and CRUTEM4 data sets, choosing instead to simply unleash them on the public.

The folks at WUWT couldn’t help but notice that the data “updated”….

…are concentrated in the last 16 years, a period that the Met Office is under scrutiny for the lack of warming in their data.

Also, some of the regional changes appear quite contrived, e.g. it looks like they found five hundredths of a degree of extra warming in the Northern Hemisphere in the last couple years.

South America they found almost a tenth of a degree of warming over the last decade;

Africa, had five hundredths of a degree of extra warming in the last few years;

and Australia/New Zealand a tenth of a degree of additional warming over the last few years.

I left out the accompanying graphs, you can find them here. The WUWT fellows also note how this is part of a pattern of “adjusting” recent temperature data upward.

For those who are keeping track (admittedly not easy given the numbers), we have now reached forty-four examples of data manipulation, errors, and other shenanigans from global warming alarmists, and that’s just from what I’ve been able to blog on this subject since Climategate broke in November of 2009, just under three and a half years ago. More to the point, they don’t seem capable of stopping.

In this case, however, it is especially important to remember that the “adjustments” come right smack in the period of the data that has given alarmists their worst headaches: the post-1996 temperature stability. It could very well be that the “solution” is to simply jack up the numbers to make the stability go away…

Has the GOP become the Tax-The-Poor Party?

In the late 1850s, a Northern performer began playing what he thought was a humorous and biting tune about the South. In less than a decade, to his shock and horror, Dixie became the unofficial anthem (and label) of the South itself. I’m wondering if Rush Limbaugh feels the same way about his 1991 April Fool’s Day rant in favor of taxing the poor…because the Republican Party appears to have made Tax-The-Poor its one consistent economic policy – to its and the nation’s peril.

Contrary to what it might seem, this realization did not hit me with John Cosgrove’s victory last night (although perhaps the inspiration to post did). Cosgrove defeated Stearns (my preferred candidate) for many reasons, some of which Brian Kirwin describes in detail here. That said, the nature of that race – namely that Stearns himself needed to run to ensure an anti-tax-hike candidate was even an available choice – is yet another symptom of the larger disease that is damaging the party: to wit, a desire to avoid reducing the size and scope of government by making poor Americans and Virginians cover its cost.

Moreover, this should not be seen as an indictment of one wing of the party, or a salvo in intra-Republican arguments. The entire party – economic and social conservatives, moderates and “RINOs”, and anyone else I may have missed – are culpable in this, including yours truly.

Admittedly, those who have supported the various GOP-backed tax increases in Virginia seem to be the worst offenders – emphasis on “seem”, because even those of us who are not in that group have shown a refusal to acknowledge the problem, let alone address it.

Think back to last year, when all of the arguments regarding the expiring tax cuts focused on the income tax rates. Obama wanted higher ones; the Republicans didn’t. Everyone quickly assumed their usual positions (such as they were) on taxes.

Yet when Obama asked to extend the payroll tax reduction and Republicans demanded he drop it, hardly anyone in the GOP uttered a word in protest: not the economic conservatives, not the social conservatives, not the moderates, not the “RINOs”, not the squishes.

Why were we all so comfortable letting a tax cut for the poor expire?

Closing in on Virginia, just about every tax increase proposed by Republicans or enacted with Republican support involved taxing the poor, and not lightly (even the 2004 income tax hike in Virginia, whose highest rate begins at $17,000 a year, hit poor Virginians, and the higher sales tax that year certainly did). How have tax-hiking Republicans tried to fund their transportation “fixes” in the past? Higher gas taxes or higher sales taxes. How did they “fix” it this year? Higher and broader sales taxes. Who feels the effect of these regressive taxes the most? The poor.

As for those of us on the opposing side of these tax increases, how have we made our arguments? To be fair, I can’t speak for all, but I can speak for myself, and I have focused largely on the dynamic portions of the economy, and how they are slammed. I have focused on how the regional tax increases were tax-the-rich in disguised. I ripped the lack of budget discipline. I talked about misguided road priorities and dysfunctional systems.

And my posts railing about the effect of the tax hikes on the poor? Don’t bother looking, even I know they’re not there.

We are rapidly approaching a new and dangerous consensus on the size and growth of government: i.e., big is back. The only arguments we seem to be having is whether the rich should foot the bill (as the Democrats contend) or the poor should (as Republicans increasingly contend). However, turning the Republicans into the tax-the-poor party has horrific consequences.

Firstly, as I’ve hinted above, it politically institutionalizes big government. The distance between America and Europe can really be described in one policy: the Value Added Tax. Without it, the half-social-democracy-half-corporatist-democracy we have built is unsustainable within a decade. With it, the thing can wheeze forward for a generation or more – long enough for our children and grandchildren to assume that this era was the economic equivalent of the Wild West.

Moreover, it marginalizes poor Americans politically. Was there any discussion of the poor in the 2012 presidential campaign? Has there been any in the current races this year? Are we really that convinced, as Republicans, that we have nothing to offer the poor but higher tax bills? The poor have to deal with big government as much as we do – in many cases, more so. They know as well as anyone how inefficient, demoralizing, and draining of human capital it really is.

Finally, it puts us at immediate electoral disadvantage. If the Democrats talk about higher taxes for the richest 5%, while Republicans talk about taxes for the poorest 25%, we’re 20 points behind from the get-go. Not smart.

The Republican Party has much to digest from the last year, and we need to ask, as a party, what we wish to be. There can be several answers, good and bad. I humbly submit a tax-the-poor platform is just about the worst of the lot.

Cross-posted to Bearing Drift

Sanford wins special election to Congress

I am surprised at how the blogosphere seems to have missed the pertinent lesson of Mark Sanford’s return to Congress last night.

Yes, it’s a highly Republican district (SC-1). Yes, Sanford has had some personal issues. Yes, he ran about 8 points behind Tim Scott (although, this being a special election, weird things can happen).

What seems to have slipped past…well, everyone…is that Sanford also had a political record, one of the strongest in the country on spending and taxation. With his election, he is now the first member of Congress to to sign the Reject the Debt pledge from the Coalition to Reduce Spending, a great leap forward for accountability on the spending side of the budget.

Last night was a great day for limited government, and a sign that economic matters are once again firmly at the forefront of the political discussion today.

Take note, folks.

Cross-posted to Virginia Virtucon

Corey Stewart flies his campaign into a mountain

Five years ago, when Bill Bolling announced he was running for re-election instead of taking a shot at the Governor’s chair, every candidate for LG backed out with 24 hours, except one: Corey Stewart. For a brief moment, Corey could have taken the anti-tax-hike, anti-3202 mantle and spoke for the angry Republican activists who were even then bringing Bob Marshall to within a whisker of the Senate nomination and about to sweep Jeff Frederick into the RPV Chair. Instead, Corey decided to wait, and became the last LG candidate for 2009 to back out.

Now, five years later, just as Barkley plummeted from a sure-fire first round pick in 2012 to a fourth-rounder in 2013, Corey Stewart is finding that his decision to wait to run for LG set off a chain of decisions that could ruin his career.

Last night, Jim Riley presented the case that Stewart was behind a slew of semi-anonymous criticisms of Scott Lingamfelter’s record, and completely anonymous smacks on Pete Snyder’s private life. As Greg L of BVBL notes, the latter is not just bizarre, but also illegal. To top it all off, yet another anonymous source magically appeared to try dumping it all on Susan Stimpson (Shaun Kenney, who saw through that like it was Saran Wrap). It’s getting so bad that Mike over at Write Side has decided to skip Richmond’s convention entirely.

Still, even as one tries to avert the eyes from a campaign flying itself into a mountain, there is a black box to recover, and things to analyze in the wreckage. What I find interesting is the different nature of the missives. The stuff used against Lingamfelter was fairly accurate – based on actual votes and donation records – and had an “organization” behind it. In other words, the i’s were dotted and t’s crossed.

The hits on Snyder, by contrast, were sloppy and amateurish (Jim has the details), besides being illegal. This reeks of desperation (as does the bizarre hit on Susan), and a sign that a campaign knows it is in deep, deep trouble.

So what can we take away from all of this? A few things, I think.

1. Stewart: the new mountain man
2. Snyder: Clearly on the up, or this wouldn’t have happened to him
3. Stimpson: Also on the up, or this wouldn’t have happened to her
4. Lingamfelter: although what hit him was accurate, victimhood by association will likely give him a boost
5. JMDD: may be a surprise benefactor of the Stewart crash. Locally, Stewart had some establishment cred, some of those who backed him because of it may go to her
6. Jackson: No impact, although he can likely use it as part of his fresh-face, outsider campaign
7. Martin: Um……

That’s how I see it, FWIW. Convention day is two weeks from Saturday.

Couldn’t agree more

Jim Geraghty ended today’s Morning Jolt thusly….

ADDENDUM: I saw on Twitter someone declare that Tim Tebow is an example of how “God loves us, but that doesn’t mean he won’t test us.” Indeed, and I find that the instrument of his testing is quite often the New York Jets.

That pretty much summarizes things for a Jet fan these days.

Just Etherize The Season

Chris Stearns for State Senate

The May 7 “firehouse primary” for the 14th State Senate District is a tough one for me. I have friends who are backing Delegate John Cosgrove, friends I like and trust.

However, Cosgrove voted – every chance he got – for the massive tax hike known as Plan ’13 From Outer Space. Stearns, by contrast, opposed it steadfastly.

That makes Stearns the superior choice, and gives him the place in the hallowed right-hand column.

Why the Internet Sales Tax is a mistake

One of the fundamental rules of Washington legislation is that its effect will be the exact opposite of its title. Nowhere is that more true than with the “Marketplace Fairness Act” – the hilarious-if-it-weren’t-so-tragic name given the Internet Sales Tax.

The logic behind this, if one can call it that, is that online sellers are getting an unfair advantage because they can avoid paying sales taxes on their sales to consumers. This is due to the fact that said online retailers are under no responsibility to charge the sales tax in which the buyer lives.

There’s only one problem with that: brick-and-mortar stores don’t have that responsibility either. As the editors of National Review noted (emphasis added):

Historically, sales taxes have been imposed and collected at the point of sale by tax authorities with jurisdiction in that particular location. This arrangement has the important effect of making local tax authorities directly accountable for their decisions: If a township should impose an unreasonable sales-tax hike, then the local businesses to which that matters most have an opportunity to respond, either through the political process or by the expedient of packing up and moving to a new location with more reasonable taxes. Tax competition is a salubrious thing for cities, for states, and for the country at large.

But the tax collectors do not much care for it: Taxing authorities in such high-tax locales as Philadelphia and Maryland’s D.C. suburbs resent the fact that consumers make the drive to Delaware for high-priced purchases. In most places, consumers are supposed to pay an equivalent “use tax” on out-of-state purchases, but those laws are difficult or impossible to enforce in many cases.

In other words, Delaware retailers are under no responsibility to charge the sales tax in which the buyer lives. It is up to the buyer to make up the difference. As one can imagine (and the NR editors note), enforcing this on the ground is as difficult as enforcing it online.

Yet does the “Marketplace Fairness Act” address this? Of course not, because it’s not about the marketplace or fairness; it’s about sticking it to online retailers and letting states gobble up more revenue without any political consequences. Thus, a perceived disadvantage to brick-and-mortar stores would be replaced by an actual disadvantage to online retailers.

So, with the “fairness” argument having crashed and burned, let’s look at the actual effects of this tax turkey:

• Taxes will go up: Of course, that’s a supposed feature rather than a bug, but too many people are trying to get away with the claim that this is merely enforcing an existing tax. That may work for the lawyers, but economists know better: a tax unenforced is effectively a tax that doesn’t exist. As such, the economic consequences will be just as one would expect from a tax hike: sales will fall and tax avoidance will rise.
• Online retailers will face higher costs: Don’t tell me that the federal government will clear everything up with free software for retailers to calculate the myriad tax rates for myriad jurisdictions. What happens when the software errors occur? Or localities change their tax rates and “updates” need to go out? Will the federal government subsidize this software forever? Moreover, why is it that the solution to a burdensome regulation should be increasing retailers’ dependence upon Washington, DC? Haven’t we seen the damage done by corporatism often enough without having to see its damage online?
• Political accountability and transparency will suffer: Everyone in Washington who votes for this will swear up and down that they didn’t vote for a tax hike. Every legislator and local official who reaps the revenue windfall will swear up and down that this was Washington’s doing and they’re just along for the ride. Accountability and transparency in government? That’s so 20th century…

In short, the bill damages both the marketplace and fairness. No wonder Congress is calling it the “Marketplace Fairness Act.”