konane's Blog

"The debate over illegal immigration has managed to conflate two separate issues -- American immigrant citizenship status (and related requirements) on the one hand, and the economic consequences of having limited access to unskilled workers in the domestic labor pool. The two issues are not one and the same. Thus, resolving the complex choices associated with each will be easier when they are treated differently.

On the one hand, US immigrant citizenship policy as modified in 1986 by the Immigration Reform and Control Act -- which attempted to address seasonal temporary workers -- has been an abysmal failure. The act made it unlawful to knowingly hire an undocumented worker and provided for a one-year amnesty for illegal aliens who had already worked and lived in the U.S. since January 1982. Although at the time there were less than 3 million illegal aliens in the U.S., the grant of amnesty sent a signal to the world that the U.S. would no longer be serious about its border. Combined with a phasing out of employer sanctions, predictably the number of illegals has swelled nearly 4 times to more than 11 million people (many of whom assume that a new amnesty is waiting just around the corner).

Today it is vital that we adopt a policy that separates those aliens seeking permanent status from those only interested in temporary employment opportunities. Unfortunately, much of the present debate treats the groups as if they are one and the same. By failing to make this distinction, we risk going forward with an updated-but-incoherent program.

Economic Refugees, Labor Flexibility

First and foremost, policymakers must recognize that there are significant economic consequences to allowing geographical barriers to determine wages -- particularly in the context of low-skilled workers. Every American household pays an arbitrarily (and therefore wasteful) higher price for the goods and services that are provided when they are denied the benefit of competition simply because of where they live. Although often mentioned in the context of goods, the principle is no less true of labor costs. A rational temporary worker plan recognizes that we exist in a global economy that requires labor flexibility and allows honest workers interested in coming to America to provide for their families while respecting our laws.

Let's look at it from the low- or unskilled-laborer's perspective: Typically these workers are economic refugees plagued by the corrupt and chaotic economic regimes and attendant policies of Mexico or other countries in Latin America. The problems in these countries are not America's fault. Arguably, many of these workers would likely challenge their own governments if they didn't have America as a viable outlet. Nevertheless, it is in our economic interest to allow them to enter our labor force if not but to help maintain our own economic vitality.

To be sure, the presence of these workers has the effect of deflating salaries among unskilled or low-skilled laborers, but this consequence is offset by the benefit of increasing the standard of living for Americans which occurs because the lower priced goods and services they provide are made more readily available than they would be otherwise. Unless this process is only good when Wal-Mart does it, it should be recognized as an integral part of international competition.

And such facts are borne out in the numbers. According to the President's Council of Economic Advisers 2002 Economic Report, immigrants effectively raise the income of Americans by upwards of $12 billion a year. A rational temporary worker program would allow us to match foreign workers with American employers for wages that no American is willing to take, but does not require that we throw in citizenship as part of the deal.

Unfortunately the 1986 act had the unintended effect of turning seasonal illegals into long-term permanent lawbreakers by increasing the risks of crossing back and forth. Alternatively, a temporary legal status would alleviate much of the pressure for illegals to seek permanent status since they would be free to come and go across the border at will. Under the rules today they have the opposite incentive. Why, because the barriers to frequent entry are so high that once they come in (legally or otherwise) they have every incentive to make a permanent residence of America including resorting to having "anchor babies" (children born by illegal aliens in the U.S. that automatically become citizens). And by reducing the flow of illegal aliens, we can apply border enforcement resources more efficiently against those who present a threat to the country.

Ultimately, since the primary motivation for these workers is not citizenship, there should be no easy footpath to citizenship built into the program. Working in America is an economic opportunity of a lifetime -- in other words, getting the work permit is its own reward. With a temporary worker program, economic migrants would be given a chance to obtain wealth and related economic sustenance they can't get in their home country. Therefore, there is no need to offer citizenship as an added inducement.

Putting the Heat on Illegals

Once operational, those individuals here in America illegally will face a choice. Go to their home country and apply for the program or watch as others do exactly that while they miss out on the benefits of legal status. Employers will quickly demonstrate that they far more prefer a steady and reliable supply of legal unskilled workers (who have all passed background checks) to the outlaw labor force they rely on today. Ironically, it will be the illegal aliens who will feel the heat of competition most, because when the program is up and running and operating on a first-come-first-served basis, those that join in first will see the benefits sooner. (And by charging a fee for this, a temporary worker program could likely be used as a revenue source to pay for itself as well as provide additional border enforcement resources.)

Ideally rather than a fixed limit, the program would have a fluctuating fee level which would rise and fall depending on demand. Starting at around $1500 (the going rate for smugglers) and rising to say $10000 per applicant, potential workers and their employers could decide for themselves what the ultimate level should be. On the other hand with a floor of $8 billion and a ceiling of nearly $55 billion in revenue even if only half of the undocumented workers joined the program, the American taxpayer would easily come out ahead.

Additionally the plan should have two features. First like worker's comp programs all across the nation, it would require potential employers to be responsible for the social services used by these workers. Employers could provide health insurance if they chose. If not, whenever the temporary workers are provided assistance, hospitals and other government service providers would be allowed to seek reimbursement from the employers instead of sending the bill to the American taxpayer. A second feature would be that participants in the program would agree that their participation in the program in no way may be used to advance or assist them in seeking citizenship status.

And the program would have other benefits as well such as being attractive to fathers and older sons and single women who generally prefer to work seasonally or annually and then return to their home country. In a return to the practice prior to the act of 1986, participants in the new program would have little incentive to uproot their entire family or to have "anchor babies" in order to protect their ability to maintain their presence in the U.S.

Border Security

On the other hand, for those individuals uninterested in employment opportunity, the U.S. should signal a reinvigorated commitment to controlling border security and American citizenship. The U.S. has every right to restrict who it will invite to become an American and to set the terms. Indeed, any policy that rewards those who enter the country illegally is a poor one.

In fact, knowing who is crossing our borders has taken on a greater urgency -- particularly after 9/11. The U.S. should commit itself to a policy of returning every illegal alien caught crossing the border without exception (and rules like this could help provide incentives to other countries to help). New approaches such as interior repatriation for Mexican nationals (which transports illegals to interior portions of Mexico instead of simply escorting them back across the border) should be employed, and greater use of electronic surveillance at border sites should be undertaken.

The completely unworkable policy of "catch and release" should be ended within the next 15 months. Under this practice, if non-Mexican illegal aliens are apprehended they are released and told to return later for an immigration status hearing. As you might imagine, 75 percent of these persons simply fail to ever show up for their day in court. Also, the US should commit the resources to allow expedited hearings and new detention facilities so that once illegal aliens are caught by border patrol, they aren't allowed a chance to escape deportation, and instead are forced to actually appear in court. As illegal border crossings of economic migrants are reduced, interdiction of other drug smugglers and related criminals will be much easier to accomplish.

Ultimately, by separating immigrant citizenship policy from a temporary unskilled labor program, America will be living up to its own ideals -- keeping our borders open to legal travel and honest trade while securing them from exploitation by criminals, terrorists and drug traffickers. And by ensuring that citizenship is granted solely to those who understand and value the benefits of being an American, we'll protect our culture and the American way of life.

Horace Cooper is an assistant professor of law at George Mason University. "

First I've seen about hard costs of illegal aliens to the US taxpayers. 

"A Day Without Illegal Aliens Is a Boon to Taxpayers"

by Rep. Tom Tancredo
Posted May 01, 2006

Source Human Events Online 

"Rep. Tom Tancredo (R.-Colo.), chairman of the 97-member House Immigration Reform Caucus, released the following statement about Monday’s planned boycott by illegal immigrants.

A day without illegal aliens would be a boon to U.S. taxpayers who wouldn’t pay for the tremendous social service costs of persons not legally in our country. On May 1, illegal alien activists are threatening to shut down major cities in what has been called “The Great American Boycott” and, alternatively, “A Day Without an Immigrant.”
 
The activist protestors are trying to confuse the American public by lumping legal immigrants with illegal aliens. A day without legal immigrants would be a day without almost all Americans. A day without illegal aliens, on the other hand, would be a boon to the American taxpayer.
 
The net cost to the federal government in 2002 for public services provided to illegal aliens was $10.4 billion or $2,736 per household according to a report by the Center for Immigration Studies. Estimates for 2005 put the amount at $11.7 billion or $3,080 per household.
 
Illegal Alien Costs By Social Service

• Lost Revenue: The U.S. may be foregoing up to $35 billion in lost tax revenue because of the growing size of the underground labor market using illegal workers in the cash economy, according to a January, 2005 report by the Wall Street firm Bear Sterns.
   
  
• Health Costs: Medicaid costs for illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children are $2.8 billion annually, according to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies. Approximately 70% of households headed by illegal aliens have at least one person without medical insurance, compared to 20% of all other households. The federal government spends $250 million each year reimbursing states for emergency medical services provided to illegal aliens, which is less than 10% of the true cost of those services.
   
  
• Education Costs: The Center for Immigration Studies has shown that federal aid to K-12 public schools for the education of the children of illegal aliens is $1.4 billion annually, not including the cost of free school lunches. The total cost to state and local taxpayers for educating 3.5 million children of illegal aliens is estimated at $28.6 billion, according to a Federation for American Immigration Reform study.
   
  
• Incarceration: Illegal aliens account for less than 5% of the U.S. adult population, but were 17% of the federal prison population in 2004, imposing a net cost of $1.8 billion in court and incarceration expenses.

Fortunately, Americans have seen through the protestors’ half-truths. A Rasmussen poll released last week showed widespread disfavor of recent immigration protests, with 26 percent holding a favorable opinion and 54 percent holding an unfavorable opinion.
 
Americans don’t respond well to illegal aliens who demand amnesty. As I’ve said before, that doesn’t play well in Peoria. Every time illegal aliens and their supporters take to the streets, it drives home the point to most Americans that illegal immigration is a problem in their home towns, and that we urgently need to get control of our borders.

Rep. Tancredo (R.-Colo.) is chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus. "

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14430

Discover the Networks (dot org) gives background and funding information about many organizations steering politics today.  Excellent reference.

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/viewGroups.asp?catId=60

'Green' Politicians Add to Gas Price Woes

By Steven Milloy

FoxNews.com

" Amid the race between politicians to capitalize on consumer anger at high gas prices, at least one member of Congress, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., expressed a much-needed perspective on the problem -- these same politicians own a share of the blame.

During an interview with Larry Kudlow earlier this week about rising gas prices, Rep. Blackburn observed, “If we're going to work toward [energy independence], we’re going to have to do some things differently. Now, I can tell you one of the things that I wish had been done differently is over the past 30 years, we have had environmental extremists driving energy policy in this country, saying no to everything.”

Certainly increased demand for oil from the growing Chinese and Indian economies and instability in the Middle East are major pressures on oil prices, but both Republicans and Democrats have added to these pressures by allowing the environmental movement to tie our energy policy in knots.

Bowing to environmentalist demands since the 1970s, Congress has blocked oil and gas drilling from areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (10.4 billion barrels of oil, according to the U.S. Geological Service) and the Outer Continental Shelf (86 billion barrels of oil, according to the Minerals Management Service).

As Cuba works out deals with Canadian, Spanish and Chinese companies to explore for oil as close as 50 miles to Key West, Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., – apparently trying to appease the League of Conservation Voters which has given him a 10 percent rating – dubbed a proposal by Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., to allow drilling 20 miles off the Florida coast as “crazy.”

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Rep. Connie Mack, R-Fla., also oppose OCS drilling thanks to oil spill hysteria whipped up by the Sierra Club.

Environmentalists helped pressure Congress in 1990 to require “reformulated” gasoline (RFG) supposedly to reduce the formation of ground-level ozone or smog. The RFG process requires use of additives such as ethanol or MTBE.

The RFG requirement raised the price of gasoline not only because of the cost of the additives but because different areas of the country require different blends of fuel to address different air quality circumstances. The 17 so-called “boutique” fuels used around the country make the national gasoline supply less fungible, which causes supply bottlenecks.

And for all this pain, there appears to be little gain from RFG. A 1999 report from the National Research Council reported that, “the net impact of RFG on ambient ozone concentrations...is a few percent. For this reason, it is difficult to quantify the specific contribution of the RFG program to the apparent downward trend in ozone.”

The final kick-in-the-teeth to consumers from the RFG program came last year when environmental groups like the Natural Resource Defense Council pressured Congress to not provide legal liability protection for MTBE makers, who will stop using the additive in gasoline on May 1. (MTBE from leaking underground storage tanks had been detected in groundwater around the country, raising the specter of lawsuits against MTBE manufacturers). Gas prices will soon jump again in many parts of the country as refiners try to avoid future MTBE-related legal liability by switching to the more expensive ethanol additive.

The policy missteps didn’t all occur in Congress.

In the 1990s, the environmentalist-friendly Clinton Administration made Environmental Protection Agency air quality standards much more stringent. Because states that fail to meet these standards stand to lose federal highway money, state governments now require gasoline refineries to install expensive air emissions equipment. The equipment is so expensive that it makes the expansion of existing refineries economically unattractive to investors – and you can forget about the construction and permitting of new refineries.

The problem here is that domestic refineries are operating at or near capacity -- limiting supply and putting more pressure on prices. A weather calamity like Hurricane Katrina can strike the weak link ­– Gulf Coast refineries – thereby limiting supply further and forcing the importation of more expensive gasoline to meet demand.

Not only are the alleged health and environmental benefits of these EPA regulations in doubt, but the EPA is getting ready to make the air quality standards even more stringent – virtually guaranteeing that expanding refinery capacity will proceed very slowly, if at all.

President Bush encouraged fuel conservation this week. That sounds reasonable and it may even be a temporary strategy for reducing gasoline demand and, therefore, prices. But conservation is not a viable long-term strategy for growing the economy. We’re going to need more energy in the future, not less.

Of all the proposals and ideas offered by politicians this week, only Rep. Blackburn’s questions Congress’ role in the problem. No other politician has even come close to hinting that Congress has allowed our national energy policy to be hijacked by environmentalists.

I’m all for environmental protection measures that do more good than harm. I’m also all for private research into alternative energy technologies that make economic sense and don’t require subsidies.

None of this, however, requires that politicians simply knuckle under to junk science-fueled environmental extremists. "

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193487,00.html

"It's hard out here for a pump

By Ann Coulter

Source World Net Daily

"I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.

But it's too much having to watch Democrats wail about the awful calamity to poor working families of having to pay high gas prices.

Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline to force people to ride bicycles has been one of the left's main policy goals for years.

For decades Democrats have been trying to raise the price of gasoline so that the working class will stop their infernal car-driving and start riding on buses where they belong, while liberals ride in Gulfstream jets.

The last time the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency was in 1993. Immediately after trying to put gays in the military and socialize all health care, Clinton's next order of business was to propose an energy tax on all fuels, including a 26-cent tax on gas. I think the bill was called "putting people first in line at the bus station." This is the Democratic Party. That's their program.

Al Gore defended the gas tax, vowing that it was "absolutely not coming out" of the energy bill regardless of "how much trouble it causes the entire package."

And mind you, this was before we knew Gore was clinically insane. Back then we thought he was just a double-talking stuffed shirt who seemed kind of gay. The important thing was to force Americans to stop their infernal car-driving, no matter how much it cost.

Democrats in Congress promptly introduced an "energy bill" that would put an additional 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline to stop "global warming," an atmospheric phenomenon supposedly aggravated by frivolous human activities such as commerce, travel and food production.

Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley endorsed the proposal on "Charlie Rose," saying: "I'd have a five-cent increase every year for five years ... But that's not going to happen ... because we've got people who fret and worry that one- or two-tenths of a cent of a gasoline tax is going to cause some revolution at home." So in Tom Foley's universe, two-tenths of a cent is the same as a quarter – another testimonial to the American public educational system.

The Democrats' proposed gas tax did cause a revolution at home, and consequently the Democrats were able to sneak through only an additional 4.3-cent federal tax on gasoline. After tut-tutting the idea that voters would object if the Democrats attempted a huge gas tax increase, Speaker Tom Foley soon became former speaker, and indeed former Congressman Tom Foley.

Gary Hart, another whimsical demonstration of what Democrats think a president should be like, said at the time, "I certainly favor consumption taxes, particularly on energy." Then there's John Kerry, who favored a 50-cent increase in the gas tax in 1994. If he were a rap artist, Kerry's stage name would be "Fifty Cent a Gallon."

Last year, a couple of green "climatologists" at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were back at it in the journal Science, wheeling out their proposal for a 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline as an "insurance policy" against global warming.

Just two months ago, we were being confidently told – on the basis of a New York Times-CBS News poll, so it must be true – that "Americans might OK a gasoline tax hike if it reduced global warming or lessened U.S. dependence on foreign oil." (This poll was wedged in among the 29 polls claiming Americans think we're losing the war in Iraq.) Other results from the Times' "meaningless polls" section: Americans might "OK" a Dennis Kucinich presidency if it meant free ice cream every Tuesday.

How many times do Democrats have to tell us they want to raise the price of gas for the average American before the average American believes them? Is it more or less than the number of times Democrats tell us they want to surrender in the war on terrorism?

It's as if a switch goes off in people's brains telling them: The Democrats can't be saying they want to destroy the lives of people who drive cars because my father was a Democrat, and the Democrats can't be this stupid!

The Democrats' only objection to current gas prices is that the federal government's cut is a mere 18.4 cents a gallon. States like New York get another 44 cents per gallon in taxes. The Democratic brain processes the fact that "big oil companies" get nearly 9 cents a gallon and thinks: WE SHOULD HAVE ALL THAT MONEY!

When the free market does the exact thing liberals have been itching to do through taxation, they pretend to be appalled by high gas prices, hoping the public will forget that high gas prices are part of their agenda.  "

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49929

"WE CAN MAKE THEM GO HOME ON THEIR OWN!

Source Boortz.com

"President Bush is now on record as saying that a massive deportation of illegal aliens in this country just wouldn't work.  OK, so he didn't call them "illegal aliens."  He used the "immigrant" word.  That doesn't work for me.  Immigration is a legal procedure.  Rushing across the border without permission is not immigration.  It's trespassing at best, an invasion at worse.  But .. we digress.  Bush has now told Republicans that "massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic.  It's just not going to work."

He may be right.  I've said it before right here.  If we started loading these criminals onto busses and airplanes and tried sending them back to Mexico, the Mexican government would simply deny  permission for those busses to cross the border and for those airplanes to fly into Mexican airspace.  The United Nations would then immediately start screaming about massive human rights abuses on the part of the U.S.  Forced repatriation with Mexico for the invaders is simply not going to work.

Before we get to a plan that would work, let's review the problem.

Since 1990 an estimated 25 million Latinos have crossed the Mexican - American border .... northbound.  The reason you keep hearing the 11 million figure is because the other 13 to 14 million were given amnesty during the mid-1990s.

Mexicans have come to view crossing the border into the United States in order to work and send money back home as a way of life.  According to an AP article by Mark Stevenson (4/23/06) "Mexico's economy, society and political system are built around the assumption that migration and amnesties for undocumented migrants will continue -- and that the $20 billion they send home every year will keep coming, and almost certainly grow."

Stevenson also reports that Mexicans -- the ones actually living in Mexico -- are giving their babies American names like Johnny and Leslie so that they will fit in better once they've moved to the United States. 

Vicente Fox, Mexico's president, considers the illegal aliens to be "heroes."  Why?  Because they send those tens of millions of dollars back to their families, thus, at least to some extent, relieving Fox of the necessity of tackling corruption in the Mexican government and reforming the Mexican economy so that these people can earn that money there instead of invading the United States to get work.

And please don't forget our friend, Professor Charles Truxillo of the University of New Mexico.  Professor Truxillo says that there will be a new, sovereign Hispanic nation formed within the United States and northern Mexico in the not-too-distant future.  The good professor says that this new nation, called "Republica del Norte" will take in all of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and southern Colorado, as well as several northern Mexican states.  How will this all happen?  Truxillo says it will come as a result of electoral pressure of the "future majority Hispanic population in the region."

You think it can't happen?  Well, could you please tell me, then, why Mexican magazines are publishing articles praising the exploits of the "reconquistadors"  while politely informing American citizens "with all due respect, Los Angeles is ours?"

Now, back to the president's remarks.  As it happens, I agree.  We aren't prepared to handle the reaction from Latin America and the howls of protest from the United Nations if we actually try to gather up these invaders and send them back from whence they came.  There is, however, another way.  Let me lay it out for you step-by-step.

1.  Close the borders.  Not next month.  Now.  Send the National Guard.  Send American troops.  What are they for if not to defend the borders of this country?  Start stringing the barbed wire.  Patrol with dogs.  Do whatever needs to be done, but shut the border down.  Let the rest of the world scream, but we have every right to defend our borders against invaders.

2.  Immediately pass legislation providing for harsh penalties for any and all businesses and individuals who hire illegal aliens.  No half-measures.  Make it hurt.  Last week immigration officials arrested over 1000 illegal aliens working for one company that makes pallets and shipping crates.  The officers of that company should be headed to jail, and the company should be seized by the government and sold at auction with the proceeds being used to pay for securing our border.  Put employers in jail --- take their stuff.  Let them know that this is serious and that hiring illegal aliens is tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  The hell with their campaign contributions.  Fine them and jail them.  Make 'em scream.  As for getting these jobs done?  Pay a wage that will attract Americans.  It won't hurt.  The majority of people working in agriculture and construction in this country are citizens.  They'll do the work.  Spreading pine straw may be a problem.

3.  Heavily tax all wire and other transfers of money from illegal aliens to their homelands. If Mexico is getting $20 billion a year from illegal aliens in the U.S., seize about 30% of it.  Call it a fine. That $7 billion could also be spent on border and immigration control.

4.  Change the law so that any child born to a person in this country illegally does not automatically become an American citizen.  That child will adopt the citizenship of its mother. 

5.  Put an end to providing all but emergency social services to illegal aliens.  No food stamps, no welfare benefits, no access to taxpayer-funded government schools ... no taxpayer-funded government services except for life saving medical care. 

Enact those proposals, and what would we have?  Those who have already illegally crossed the border will have one helluva time finding work in this country.  No trabajo, no dinero.  If they do find work they'll have another problem sending the money they earned back home.  So .. they're here with no job, no prospect of finding a job, and no way to send their money back to Mexico without a heavy fine if they do happen to find work.  Plus, they can't tap into the great American welfare state.  What is there left to do?  Go home!  That's about it!  And please notice that this is all accomplished without passing any laws making the illegals felons or threatening to deport them or put them in jail.

I heard of one other possible solution recently ... one that is apparently being given some consideration in Washington.  Simply pass a law about illegal immigration that matches, word-for-word, the law in Mexico.  Being in Mexico illegally is a crime, yet Mexico screams when we try to criminalize illegal aliens in this country.  If our law read exactly the same as does theirs, what are they going to say? "

http://boortz.com/nuze/200604/04252006.html#aliens

"Climate Change's Gravy Train

By Peter C. Glover

Source Tech Central Station Daily

"In an open letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, 60 leading scientists called upon him to "re-visit the science on global warming and review the policies inherited from his leftwing predecessor." Referring to Kyoto as "pointless," the letter not only questioned the science of climate change, it also cites as a greater threat the billions of dollars that are to be wasted on associated research and development -- an outgrowth of that self-same science.

Questioning the justification for this R&D will not only attract the ire of researchers on the gravy train, it threatens the sources of fodder for scare-mongers in the mainstream media. Indeed, had 60 scientists written urging almost anything else, it would have, no doubt, received widespread coverage. But this open letter was marked by an almost deafening media silence in the US, UK and elsewhere.

Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) asks a pertinent question: "How can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into claims about future catastrophes? The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism."

Lindzen goes on to identify how the doom-mongers in both the science research community and media have a "vested interest" in "hyping" the "political stakes for policymakers who provide more funds for more science research to feed more alarm. "After all", Lindzen wonders, "who puts money into science -- whether for AIDS, or space, or climate -- where there is nothing really alarming"?

Lindzen himself knows a thing or two about science research funding. The faculty at MIT has recently suffered cuts. The physics department was only able to accept 25 students this year -- down from 50 last year. And two MIT contracts with NASA -- which PhD candidates rely on to pay for their work -- have been trimmed by 91 percent. During 2005 two research workers turned down funding at MIT to work in Europe where funding is currently less of struggle. But he plainly does not allow this to cloud his opinion on the science.

Even though the US still spends more than any other country on scientific research, federal research funds more generally are currently flat or declining in many areas. But the National Institutes of Health saw its budget double between 1998 and 2003. Still, this year saw the Congress approve the first NIH budget cut since 1970. The National Science Foundation received only a modest increase to its massive $5.6 billion budget. (The usual response from science advocates squaring up to warn of the US 'losing its competitive edge' duly followed.)

The Bush-led government duly felt the full force of the "anti-science" accusation as a result. The notion that there are issues of more immediate financial need, like Homeland Security, cuts no arctic ice with funding ideologues, however.

Lindzen points to how the successes of climate alarmism are directly reflected "in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today." But he notes a "more sinister side to this feeding frenzy." It's that "scientists who dissent from alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and libelled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse." The result? "Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."

Dr. Roy Spencer recently warned that the current global warming hysteria could be assuaged if "more scientists who don't believe in predictions of climate catastrophe...rise above their fears of losing funding and speak out."

In the UK, the trade union Prospect -- which represents 68,000 scientists -- issued a report in March called 'Who's looking after British science?' The report complained bitterly that recent government cuts have "damaged the UK's core science capability." Once again, we are talking about public funding in the public sector. Prospect's real concern was that funding would be switched to "fund research that would only benefit private companies, which could switch the focus of research according to commercial demand."

In response to the publication of 2006 Climate Change Programme, Tomorrow's climate, today's challenge, the chair of the British Local Government Association's Board David Sparks has recently demanded that local government "needs £28 million to meet climate change challenges."

Perhaps never, in the annals of scientific research, has Mark Twain's observation about science been so apt: "One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." And the fact is, billions in special interests are now controlling the debate. "

Peter C Glover is the author of The Politics of Faith. He also edits the blog Wires From The Bunker. "

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=042506A