Solar complaints are hotting up

From Australia's newspaper The Age comes an interesting item on the success of efforts to promote solar photovoltaic energy production and use in the residential sector.

It seems that in half a year the monthly number of complaints has risen from 17 to 141 - and they run the gamut from meter reading issues to substandard and potentially unsafe wiring.

But the most remarkable complaint is that some of the homeowners who took the AUD $8,000 government grant to install energy saving solar panels and sell excess power to the grid (at "66 cents per kilowatt" - I think they mean per kilowatt-hour) found their electric bills going up.

This seemingly paradoxical, but fully foreseeable, circumstance comes from the loss of certain other rate preferences for things like off-peak water heating and heat pumps which only applied to the conservation of conventional power used in homes. It seems that those selling and installing photovoltaics were a bit lax in explaining this to their customers.

Of course, none of this can defeat the enthusiasm of a trade association lobbyist thrilled at the prospect of doing well by doing good:

Matthew Warren, chief executive of the Clean Energy Council, said any problems with the solar program needed to be resolved or Australians would lose trust in green initiatives.

''I think the scheme has been an outstanding success in that it has transformed the solar industry … to make it affordable for ordinary Australian families,'' he said. ''But if there are problems … they need to be addressed quickly.''

Iran's "students" at it again

TEHRAN – “An attack has just been carried out against the Italian embassy in Tehran. Several dozen basiji [Iranian paramilitary militia – Ed.] wearing civilian clothes attempted to storm the Italian embassy throwing stones and shouting ‘Death to Italy, Death to Berlusconi’”. The announcement was made by the foreign minister, Franco Frattini, early yesterday afternoon during a Senate committee hearing. Similar incidents took place at the consulates of France, Holland and Germany. Mr Frattini said that intervention by the Iranian police had “prevented an actual assault and there was no serious damage”. Italian diplomatic sources did, however, point out that it was “a hostile demonstration”, not an attempt to storm the building.

Corriere della Serra reports on in its English language web edition that its mission in Tehran was among those of several European powers subjected to ugly incidents from young adults in civilian clothes. Iranian government TV said it was not true these mobs were basiji but merely students.

If Italy were singled out for particular scholarly attention it would seem to be because of what Iran's state TV called "services rendered to the Israeli masters" by Silvio Berlusconi; although, as the article goes on to say, Foreign Minister Franco Frattini pointed out: "Unfortunately, Iran has complicated, problematic relations with the entire international community. The issue is not relations with Italy."

One cannot help but be reminded of a time when another group of "students" took control of the US Embassy in Tehran. We hope and pray such an outrage is not contemplated against other legations, perhaps to coincide with next Thursday's official celebration of the 31st anniversary of the revolution that brought the current theocratic junta to power in that unhappy land.

Meanwhile, to add insult to injury, the Italian ambassador has been summoned to the Iranian Foreign Ministry on Sunday to receive that government's formal protest over recent remarks by the Italian Prime Minister. Were a European power to demand the attendance of an Iranian envoy on the Muslim sabbath there would be harsh cries against such insensitivity. But Iran summons the ambassador of a Christian nation to appear on his nation's sabbath with impunity.

For some interesting comments from a current Green Movement opposition leader who was, three decades ago, a close associate of Ayatollah Khomeini, see this interview with Mehdi Karroubi.

CNN Political Ticker: AlCNN Poll: Majority says government a threat to citizens’ rights

The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.

I point this out for the benefit my libertarian friends who keep telling me there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
It is true that there are a number of Republican Party officials whose behavior in office - either personally or professionally, and sometimes both - has been less than stellar. On the other hand, it is much more difficult to find a Democrat Party official worthy of praise. Add in the current prevalence of Democrats in high office and one sees a rather stark difference between officials of the two major parties.

But, my larger point is that any serious effort to address this problem at the polls has a much better chance by starting with the GOP rather than frittering away effort on the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party and other third parties, let alone the utter fool's errand known as Get Out Of Our House (GOOOH).

There are too many places where RINOs are in control of the Republican Party structure or winning GOP primaries. If even half of those independents and third party folks who agree with conservative Republicans on many of the major issues would quit complaining and join us, we could again have the sort of party that could nominate a Goldwater or Reagan, if we can find one.

I'm showing my age already, so I'll throw in a little anecdote. In the summer of 1969, after my second year at UVa, I was a chaperone at the Teen-Age Republican National Leadership Conference in DC. One of our more colorful speakers issued a challenge to the eager young folks there to take over the party so that a man like Gov. Nelson Rockefeller could not win a Republican primary.

We've still got a ways to go in meeting that challenge, but the ebbs and flows of conservative fortunes over the intervening years convince me that it is possible. And, the precarious position of our federal republic makes it more urgent now than it was four decades ago.

Exclusive: What happens next in health care - Mike Allen - POLITICO.com

Exclusive: What happens next in health care - Mike Allen - POLITICO.com

The other Politico agrees with the Old Politico.

I'm listening to the Schnitt Show on WFLA via the internet right now; and the 4 PM Fox News Radio report says the White House has just announced that the president will make a statement next week on "the way forward" with healthcare legislation.

At the end of the day ...

President Obama's bipartisan healthcare reform summit is now over and, at the end of the day, he made it clear that it's my way of the highway.

I admit that I only caught some snatches of the session during the day - I had other things to do, things that might actually improve my life. But, the president's concluding remarks made it clear that the whole affair was just window dressing for moving ahead with the "nuclear option" - reconciliation.

It's not clear that the reconciliation gambit can succeed. The left wing of the House Democrat caucus are upset that the Senate bill, extravagant though it may appear to sentient beings, is too parsimonious. On the other side of the caucus, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) says his pro-life colleagues will not settle for the Senate language on abortion. Perhaps this charade at Blair House today was merely intended to shame a few more "moderate" Republicans into proving their bipartisan bona fides by casting a grudging vote for this monstrosity.

I suspect it won't work, but if it does it will hand the Congress (or at least the House) over to the Republicans. The Democrats then only need to hold enough votes in the Senate to mount a filibuster to prevent repeal next year. At the end of the day, that is the Democrat strategy - put anything they can on the books now and it will become politically impossible to overturn it later, even if they are in the minority.

Is this healthcare?

Close Tax Loopholes. Adopts two House proposals to close tax loopholes: (1) Current law provides a tax credit for the production of cellulosic biofuels. The credit was designed to promote the production and use of renewable fuels. Certain liquid byproducts derived from processing paper or pulp (known as “black liquor” when derived from the kraft process) were not intended to be covered by this credit. The President’s Proposal adopts the House bill’s policy to clarify that they are not eligible for the tax credit. (2) The President’s Proposal helps prevent unjustified tax shelters by clarifying the circumstances under which transactions have “economic substance” (as opposed to being undertaken solely to obtain tax benefits) and raises the penalties for transactions that lack economic substance. In so doing, it adopts the House’s policy, with minor technical changes.

By the time anyone reads this, they will doubtless have already found out that the key reforms proposed by the Republicans have not, contrary to the rhetoric on WhiteHouse.gov, been included in President Obama's new plan; although this a bit hard to pin down given the disjointed way in which the material is presented.

But, I think the paragraph quoted above may be more instructive of the mindset of the administration. This paragraph deals with two rather obscure provisions of the tax code which have nothing to do with healthcare. Why are they here and taking up so much of the little space given to explaining this new version of the plan?

The second part - abusive tax shelters - is almost amusing. It says the government is going to crack down on tax shelter activities that are undertaken "solely to obtain tax benefits" rather than for their "economic substance." But all "preferences" in the tax code - and they are legion - are there to steer the behavior of taxpayers. Does anyone rmember the Cash for Clunkers program this same administration touted so highly last year?