I can respect people with whom I have honest policy differences. But I have zero respect for anyone who tries to twist scientific facts to fit his own ideology and self-interest, and even worse, who accuses scientists of faking their data and lying and committing a vast global conspiracy — that’s just utterly despicable. If you’re against carbon taxes or whatever, fine, we can debate that. But don’t just make stuff up — you’re entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

If you’re not a conspiracy theorist, as you claim, then what is your explanation for all these supposed failures of climate science — do you think this whole field of scientists is just too dumb to think of things like adjusting for the heat island effect?

And BTW, countries like Germany and China, rather than “rethinking”, continue to make progress toward owning these industries of the future — China’s massive investment, seriously lowering the price of photovoltaics, was what changed the economics of the market, triggering the crises with Solyndra and other solar companies.

The schools no longer have stimulus funds and most localities have lower property values – which is going to reduce local tax revenues and if they equalize tax rates – struggling taxpayers are going to get it in the neck.

I dont know what the time horizion is for the pension funds and perhaps there is no good time to do this but one would think waiting another year or so.. to see if state and local revenues recover … might be fiscally friendlier to taxpayers.

but I digress.

How about we have random drug tests for drivers licenses?

We know that a bunch of folks are “on” drugs besides just those welfare moms.

how about we give them all a fair shot?

now how “liberal” is THAT!

alternative option:

when we set up DWI stops.. we also do random drug tests.

that oughta catch a bunch of scofflaws, eh?

but DJ fancying himself as a “conservative”? the guy who thinks it’s okay to tax the bejesus out of DTR users to pay for the Tysons boondoggle?

geesh….

Here is a good article on historical stock market returns.

http://larrycheng.com/2010/01/01/u-s-stock-performance-over-50-years/

I agree with the following from the linked article:

“People used to say that stocks generate about 8%+ annual returns over the long-run. It seems fairer now to say that stocks generate 6%+ annualized returns over the long-run.”.

Of course, VRS invests in more than just stocks. In fact, I am surprised that the state employees would tolerate investments in the evil “private equity” category, but … there it is – 10% of the fund.

I guess companies like Bain Capital are only bad until you want those out-sized returns in your own retirement portfolio.

Anyway, the big question is what happens if the assumed rate is too low or too high. Too low and the fund spirals into the hell of compounding interest decline. Benefits have to get lowered (below what was promised) or taxes have to be raised. Too high and the fund builds a surplus that becomes more and more evident. At some point it is perfectly reasonable to take some of the surplus out and use it for state priorities or even rebate it to taxpayers. After all, in a defined benefits plan the fund is owned by the state not the beneficiaries.

The political elite in Richmond love their “rainy day fund”. They perpetually say that the fund is just like the money a family might keep in a cookie jar for unforeseen expenses. How quaint. But it makes me wonder when those same people seem to regard the VRS as a “perfect weather fund”.

Why the dichotomy?

Because the politicians in Richmond believe they can lay off the problems of an under-funded VRS to “bad luck”. Some day in the future these politicians or their morally identical replacements will say, “We held down taxes and funded the retirement plan. It’s just bad luck that we didn’t get the return we expected.”.

I think your misconception is about the extent of drug testing that already occurs.

Fairfax County police cadet applicants will be drug tested and given a polygraph where previous drug use will be verified.

In addition, police cadets will sign a form where they commit to abstain from tobacco use both on and off duty.

Drug testing happens all over the country, LarryG. As an exercise, please find a major corporation which does not require drug testing of applicants.

The US Department of Transportation requires random drug testing ….

http://www.dot.gov/odapc/Docs/testingpubs/Random%20Testing%20Brochure.pdf

Once again, LarryG’s liberal worldview is inconsistent with reality.

In the liberal world of LarryG nobody insists on testing anyone for drugs. Therefore, a test of people asking for social benefits is characterized as:

” They don’t like the poor to start with.. and want to do whatever they can to stick their noses in it.”.

In the real world, many many employers require drug testing in order to be considered for a job. Many require ongoing, random drug testing.

But in the liberal world of LarryG, drug testing is an anomaly which is only required by “the right” for “poor people”.

Like most liberals, LarryG is lost in the ozone, imagining slights to the constituencies beloved by liberals.

================================================

They already have. also highrer prices for snw insurance and all kinds of other weather related risks.

================================================

OK, the clean aair and clean water act were certainly justified and have done much co clean up our rivers and streams, but then came the Toxic Substances Control Act. I remember the first time I read that I literally laughed until I was in tears. Talk about over the top, basically, if it is acidic, basic or flammable, it is a toxic substance.

Yes, the Big Brother is controlling everything narrative is over the top, but in a winner take all world, there is not much choice but to go for th e gold. We have plenty of regulations, good and bad. some we can do without, and some need to be recalibrated, but the idea that every government regulation is bad is just as crazy as the idea that only government can control our behavior.

===============================================

Some of those arguments point to changes over tens of thusands of years, to which my response is, who cares? Our problem is now and the next fifty years.

Bacon is right though, the question will soon be settled, and that is the argument I pose to skeptics: “How much evidence and how long would present trends ahve to continue before you change your mind?” If they cannot answer that question, then they are not skeptics, but fanatics.

================================================

That argument never made any sense to me. If you have a bunch of measuring stations that are now wowrmer than they once were, doesn;’t that mean the world as we know it is warmer? And if the “cause” is urban heat islands doesn’t that point to anthropogenic causes?

To argue that anthropogenically caused heat islands are distorting the global statistics and therefore there is no real warming and it is not anthropegenic if the re is, strikes me as a circuar argument.