from November 2011, Government
This will be a quick post, but an important one to help keep your cranium sharp. I'm going to use some logic here, so pay close attention.
Question: Will more water or less water be required if all four dams are removed along the Klamath River to meet EPA regulations for fish habitat?
We've all been preached the benefits of solar power: it's green, there's no pollution, it's safe, it's easy, it's affordable, it's.... wait a second. What were those last two? It's easy and it's affordable? Really? How can that be? One would think if solar power was both easy and affordable then we wouldn't need government programs to subsidize the cost of the equipment or the installation. Government gets involved when the cost is too high and the product too difficult. The government "gift" is to ease the pain and make the decision financially workable.
Two questions arise from this line of thinking. First, is this the role of government? By subsidizing solar, government is spending money on this that can't be used for something else. For example, instead of subsidizing solar panels, couldn't they be building fish ladders and improving dams along the Klamath to be more efficient? Government is picking winners and losers in the power industry. Again, is that government's role? Second, where does government get this money? They have three options: they can borrow it, they can take it from the citizens and for the Federal Government, they can print it. For the most part government extracts money from its citizens through taxation. Now let's put these facts together with solar power and how it amounts to citizen sanctioned theft.