California has a bill to spend $3 billion to help millionaires get $30k-$40k discounts when they buy a Tesla.

The CA Leg has a bill to spend $3 billion to help millionaires get $30k-$40k discounts when they buy a Tesla. https://t.co/LhbLHzXHJ7

— Katy Grimes (@KATYSaccitizen) July 7, 2017

Senator Andy Vidak (R-Hanford) recently voted against Assembly Bill 1184 (authored by Phil Ting, Democrat from San Francisco). AB 1184 would spend $3 billion in state funds to help millionaires get discounts when they buy an all-electric car, primarily ones made by Tesla. The measure was approved 7-2 by the Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee.

“Now the state appears to be in the business of subsidizing a billionaire’s company (Tesla) and millionaires who want buy these boutique electric cars,” stated Vidak. “In my back yard, where I live, people are very, very poor, and they are already paying into Cap and Trade. If Cap and Trade continues to go forward… that could add another 40 cents, 45 cents, maybe more (to the cost of a gallon of gasoline), for those folks you are saying are not rate payers, but yet, they are still not going to be able to afford these ($70,000+) cars.”

The alleged goal of AB 1184 is to encourage people of less means to be able to buy an electric car instead of a normal combustion engine vehicle. However, critics of the scheme point out there is no “means test” in AB 1184, meaning that anyone, regardless of how wealthy they are, will get a rebate of up to $30,000 to $40,000 from the state for buying an all-electric car (i.e., a Tesla)....keep reading, at the link.

...MEANWHILE, THEY'RE RAISING GAS TAXES AND VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES FOR THE REST OF US.

Consumers are getting burned by a taxpayer-subsidized solar power plant in California’s Mojave Desert.

Consumers are getting burned by a taxpayer-subsidized solar power plant in California’s Mojave Desert. https://t.co/OpCuz2qTKd

— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) September 25, 2016

An immensely wealthy consortium owns the plant. Government regulators approved a contract forcing consumers to pay four to five times the going rate for electricity produced by the plant.

And the energy, because of an inordinate use of gas, turns out to be nowhere as “green” as folks thought they’d get....

The owners of the Ivanpah solar power facility received a federal loan guarantee of $1.6 billion, a tax credit in excess of $500 million, and contracts to sell power at four to five times the market rate of electricity. All predicated on the production of solar power.

But Ivanpah is not just a solar power plant. Many solar plants use solar cells to convert the sunlight directly into electricity.

Ivanpah is different. It uses mirrors to concentrate sunlight for generating steam that then drives turbines. These turbines produce energy in a similar fashion to that of traditional coal, natural gas, or nuclear power plants.

However, Ivanpah has a problem those technologies don’t: intermittency. Meaning the sun doesn’t always shine.

For Ivanpah, this is an even bigger problem than it is for plants that use solar cells, because at night the temperature in the desert falls dramatically and the water cools down....

Major Obamacare selling point could get wiped out

◼ In a final push to get Americans to sign up for Obamacare coverage, the Obama administration is dangling a carrot: government subsidies many people can use to help purchase plans. - PAIGE WINFIELD CUNNINGHAM/Washington Examiner

But those subsidies could be erased this summer.

In three weeks, the Supreme Court will hear the case King v. Burwell, challenging the legality of awarding the subsidies to those buying coverage via healthcare.gov. The justices’ decision — expected in June — could result in the subsidies being blocked from residents in the 37 states using the federal-run marketplace.

...King v. Burwell hinges on part of the law that refers to the subsidies flowing through “an exchange established by the state.” That means it’s illegal to award the subsidies through the federal-run exchanges, according to the challengers in the closely-watched case.

If the Supreme Court sides with them, it won’t just be the premium subsidies that are blocked. There are also low-income subsidies to lower the costs for doctor or hospital visits. They, too, would be blocked from the states using healthcare.gov.

So, besides having to pay a higher monthly premium, low-income Americans would also have to cover the full cost of their plan’s deductible and co-pays.

It's takers versus makers and these days the takers are winning

◼ “Fifty thousand for what you didn’t plant, for what didn’t grow. That’s modern farming -- reap what you don’t sow.” - Glenn Harlan Reynolds/Washington Examiner

That’s a line from a song about farm subsidies, “Farming The Government,” by the Nebraska Guitar Militia.

But these days it applies to more and more of the U.S. economy, as Charles Sykes points out in his new book, A Nation Of Moochers: America’s Addiction To Getting Something For Nothing.

The problem, Sykes points out, is that you can’t run an economy like that. If you tried to hold a series of potluck dinners where a majority brought nothing to the table, but felt entitled to eat their fill, it would probably work out badly. Yet that’s essentially what we’re doing.

In today’s America, government benefits flow to large numbers of people who are encouraged to vote for politicians who’ll keep them coming. The benefits are paid for by other people who, being less numerous, can’t muster enough votes to put this to a stop.