Grow local leadership, not the federal bureaucracy
Defend our freedom to choose
against the progressive growth of government.
Cap and Trade: A Solution for Political Party Climate Change
Restore the federal
bureaucracy and UN to lower emission targets - cut staff by 85%
or more. If UN or federal bureaucrats think such industry
targets for emission reductions are reasonable, let them start by
restoring their own bureaucracy and budget to pre-1900 levels to
dramatically reduce their own "carbon footprint" and hot air. That
should free up a lot of private capital to invest more efficiently in
the development of new technologies for real demand. (That's right
- the UN didn't even exist before 1900, so that's a big opportunity for
50+ year improvements.)
December 31, 2010 -
Florida agriculture loses $273M in December freeze- If all the
record snowfalls and cold weather are now to be blamed on global climate
change, as a recent NY Times story suggested, will the countries of the
UN now help to bail out all the affected farmers of Florida? If
hurricanes and tornados and flooding are now to be blamed on climate
change, does that mean that the US can expect an increased flow of
international aid from the UN for natural disasters here? Or is
that just a one-way street for the transfer of wealth from rich
countries to impoverished ones? Where's the "one world" crowd when
Americans need help in a crisis? We have to rely on ourselves.
December 31, 2010 -
Tea off: India's farmers say climate changing brew- The
competition begins for grant money through the UN climate program as
developed in Cancun recently. This is about political wealth
transfer to academics in developing countries through the UN.
December 30, 2010 -
Texas, EPA fight over regulations grows fierce - It's time to
roll back the budget and regulatory authority of the EPA. The fact that
air and water or animals can cross state borders is no excuse for
federal authority in this area. There may be some logic to a national
research and advisory role to assess environmental risks and recommend
common standards, but states and local authorities should take the lead
role in the protection of their own environment.
December 12, 2010 -
Analysis: On climate, the elephant that's ignored - Wake up,
Republicans - as well as other Americans who haven't yet figured out
that this is about the global transfer of wealth. The initial goal may
be $100 billion per year, but governments always find reasons to spend
far more than initially projected and thereby grow another bureaucracy
without limits. If you feel inclined to donate thousands of your own
dollars per year to other countries or environmental causes, you are
free to do so. American taxpayers should not be forced by our government
into funding this international socialism nightmare. Let the rest of the
world choose to redistribute their own wealth as they please. We need to
stand up for individuals and private sector investment, not endless
government spending and transfer of wealth.
December 11, 2010 -
UN climate talks nearing deal on small steps- Putting the
framework in place for the proposed global transfer of wealth, such as
$100 billion per year. They may not have a deal on all the details
or sources of funding, but they are pushing forward with this agenda.
December 1, 2010 -
Climate: UN report highlights ocean acidification- Wow, it
really makes you wonder how the Earth survived for millions of years,
and major climate change cycles, without the benefit of a UN research
bureaucracy to study everything in nature which might ever change.
December 1, 2010 -
Climate science chief sees 'huge gaps' in research- Global
grant-seekers. How many academics and bureaucrats owe their jobs to the
whole global climate change hysteria? First it was global cooling, then
global warming, and now just global transfer of wealth under the guise
of environmentalism. It is time to cause massive unemployment among
these academics and bureaucrats. Why should taxpayers support
them? Let private foundations fund their fantasies.
November 29, 2010 -
Frustrations show as climate talks resume - This should be
renamed the Cancun Global Wealth Transfer Summit. The climate is just
the latest excuse for the wealth transfer agenda which has been pushed
at the UN since before the North-South efforts of international
socialists like Willy Brandt on the premise that the developed world
owes reparations to everyone else as though we are evil, greedy
oppressors and they are helpless victims. This is just the latest in
many schemes to use the UN as a channel for promoting international
socialism. Regardless of any validity in the climate change science,
this is not the solution.
November 20, 2010 -
EPA sets new rules for carbon dioxide storage- What exactly is
the danger to drinking water? That it will become carbonated, like
soda water? How much carbon dioxide would have to be stored and
accidentally released all at once, rather than leak gradually, to be
remotely comparable to the cited example of a volcanic lake in Cameroon?
How often have there been incidents of this nature in the history of
mankind, relative to the usual risks of living anywhere close to a
volcano? This seems to be just another excuse for a growing
bureaucracy, rationalized by the need to limit the liability of industry
against the risk of catastrophic lawsuits.
Like the failed federal stimulus
program, the people behind this initiative are still claiming that their
models will
create regional jobs, but it is murky how the increased costs will
create jobs, while there is a clear redistribution of wealth assumption
in the "mitigation" of hardships imposed by this policy: "by
appropriately recycling the allowance revenues to affected state
residents as lump sum per capita rebates (similar to the Federal
stimulus program in 2007-2008)". Watch the other hand -
while the focus has been on federal initiatives in Congress, many states
have already been quietly pushing the cap and trade agenda forward.
Unification of church and state - using churches and faith-based
non-profits to push the Obama "green" agenda and other initiatives.
Where is the outrage from the left now? See page 55, for example,
about the EPA. Meanwhile, many real charities may soon
lose their tax-exempt status.
October 24, 2010 -
Govt proposing that many trucks improve efficiency- OK,
truckers, Obama and the EPA are out to get you. Tractor-trailers,
large pickups, delivery vans, garbage trucks, school buses, etc.
Out to destroy this industry, too.
October 1, 2010 -
Interior creates revenue office for drilling-
Here's an opportunity to eliminate 600 federal jobs and reduce $10.6
billion in oil taxes which could be better used to help produce more
energy here, rather than more federal government spending and
bureaucracy.
September 30. 2010 -
GE launches device to recycle fracking water - What a remarkable
coincidence. GE to the rescue, right after the government and media
start making an issue out of this. Nothing to see here, folks. No crony
capitalism with politicians. Just bringing more good ideas to life?
Remember when products weren't designed to meet government demands?
Move on. Progress. EcoImagination. It's a new way to generate
demand by creating new green markets.
August 20, 2010 -
UN board could rein in $2.7 billion carbon market- Another
stunning failure. How many years of waste, and how much money, did
it take to figure out that this whole UN scheme became an easy scam for
transfer of wealth without really solving environmental problems?
Just in time for any efforts to revive cap and trade this fall. Spread
the word. Al Gore recently complained to his global warming zealots that
the bill was dead for this term of Congress at least. Let's prove him
right for a change, and make sure they don't do an end run through EPA
regulations or executive orders to do it without new legislation.
July 16, 2010 -
Ethanol industry scrambles to keep incentives - As proven many
times in other countries, the trouble with state-sponsored "infant
industries" subsidized by "industrial policies" is that the infants
never grow up and become competitive. Instead, they just compete
for subsidies, and mainly produce political corruption to sustain what
is unsustainable in free market competition.
July 16, 2010 -
Carbon trading used as money-laundering front: experts - The
entire system of carbon trading is basically a shakedown process for
corporate blackmail and redistribution of wealth. Why shouldn't
organized crime want to take advantage of such a political ponzi scheme?
July 7, 2010 -
'Climategate' inquiry mostly vindicates scientists-
The burden of proof is not on the skeptics to prove that these
scientists did something wrong, as though failure to prove that meant
they were right. The burden of proof remains on the scientists to
substantiate their theories.
June 20, 2010 -
Senator says votes still short for climate bill
- Lieberman counts the votes as 50 for, 30 against, and 20 undecided.
We need to replace 10 of the 50 this year and make sure that many of the
rest know that their turn will come in 2012 and 2014 if they pass this
legislation.
June 10, 2010 -
Senate rejects move to block greenhouse gas regs - S.J. Res. 26
No big surprise. The Republicans still don't have the votes to
prevail against Obama's zealots. 53-47 On the other hand,
Harry Reid still doesn't have the votes he needs to pass Cap and Trade.
May 1, 2010 -
Climate bill could be harmed by Gulf spill- Isn't it
interesting that the focus is on pushing the "climate" agenda, rather
than energy, and that hearings have already been set for May 12 for
Congress to grandstand politically on this environmental disaster?
Where is the effort to figure out what went wrong on this platform when
so many others operate safely?
March 31, 2010 -
March 31, 2010 -
Obama clears way for oil drilling off US coasts- Surprising
move, somewhat like recent nuclear energy decisions. The intent behind
this is not yet clear. One has to wonder whether he is trying to clear
some potential reasons for election year criticism off the table because
these matters are not really central to his agenda. They can
deflect criticism while he pushes forward with other matters which
really interest him, even if he may get some criticism from the hard
left in the process. Now that he delivered on healthcare for them, they
may cut him some slack.
Note that the plan opens
up fewer areas than Bush had proposed, and excludes what are expected to
be the most productive areas. Any development can also be delayed
for many years by the bureaucracy and legal challenges, so don't hold
your breath for any new oil production. Instead, this should just
provide political cover as oil prices continue to rise again in this
election year.
February 27, 2010 -
Report: Key senators would nix 'cap and trade'
- Comment: They're trying to phase it in through a different
approach. It's still an abomination, inviting economic disaster
for nothing, as an outrageous expansion of federal government regulatory
powers and taxes. Kill the bill.
January 27, 2010 - Social forum activists talk of 'green' conspiracy
January 1, 2010 -
Bad year for biofuel ends on a dour note - Comment: A
preview of how well the government can manipulate the energy market to
waste billions, all with good intentions, of course. Follow the
money trail to see which politicians benefit from this. How much
did state and local governments also spend on incentives for biofuel
plants?
Let's see - how many "green" jobs did
they "save or create" which are now at risk? Why did they
subsidize new plants here and limit competition, such as biofuel from
Brazil? Let Europe subsidize their own biofuel industry.
Their tariffs offset unfair US subsidies.
December 19, 2009 -
Divided climate talks end in Copenhagen with deal - Like all UN
conferences, they all agreed on their main objective - to perpetuate
this nightmare by scheduling more harmful meetings in the future.
It is time for Republicans to show some backbone and take
a firm stand against the UN, which has grown beyond all reason as a
threat to liberty rather than as a tool to protect it. Start pushing
hard in Congress to cut UN funding
dramatically. Make that an issue for 2010 voters.
If they want to play populist politics with the
international socialists who have been pushing this global wealth
transfer agenda for decades before "climate change" became the latest
excuse to rationalize and sell it, let's see how many Americans actually
want to give billions away through the UN.
Flawed climate accord good for Obama at home - That may be what
they think now in Europe, where they are obviously clueless about
American politics, but wait until the primary elections begin.
December 17, 2009 -
AP Interview: SC senator stumps for climate change - Senator
Linday Graham is standing up for his convictions on this matter against
many other Republicans. SC voters should remember that. He
may not be facing an election this year, but his day will come too.
December 17, 2009 -
UN Climate talks: US, China edge toward each other - Comment:
Read this story carefully. Hillary Clinton is talking about giving
$100 billion per year to developing countries by 2020. Others just
refer to that as a "good first step" toward expectations of $300 to $600
billion per year. Let the socialists of the world fund their own
wealth transfer schemes and destroy their own economies. Keep us
out of it - completely. Start cutting the funding to
any such UN programs.
December 15, 2009 -
Poll: Action on climate will heat up economy, jobs - Comment:
Since when is 40% support positive, when 60% - 75% would oppose monthly
costs going up $10 - $25 / month? The only thing this will heat up
is the 2010 election, when incumbents will get burned if they vote for
this. -
later version of the story
December 11, 2009 -
UN talks: Rich nations must make big emission cuts - Comment:
Are we to cut 25 - 40% from 1990 emission levels by 2020, and perhaps
85% or more by 2050? Fine - let's start by cutting federal government emissions
of carbon dioxide by 25 - 40% by 2020 first. Let's reduce the
total employees of the federal government by 5% per year for the next
10 years, and challenge the UN to do the same thing by cutting
all US funding to the UN by 5% per year. That means real
annual cuts - not reduced increases in proposed annual staff or budget
increases.
Restore limited government first, and
then we can discuss proposals to impose mandatory changes
on US businesses and individuals as a domestic policy
decision, rather than as an international agreement or treaty
obligation. In the interim, we can independently check the
facts on this climate change theory as an objective research
matter for real science, rather than politicians seeking
more power and money.
Meanwhile, note that China is offended that we don't
intend to use this process to transfer even more wealth to them.
That's a diversion from the fact that they don't want all the developing
countries turning to China for such handouts. They just want to
buy up the resources of such countries at a bargain price to fuel their
own development, even if that trade supports some truly evil regimes.
They certainly don't want to be on the hook to transfer their own wealth
to others for nothing. That's Obama's job.
December 11, 2009 -
EU nations commit $3.6 billion to climate fund - Comment:
Hah! Obama just paid off nearly that much to settle a native
American lawsuit. He paid far more than that to buy off the
Congressional Black Caucus with recycled TARP money. Are they
serious? The EU should commit at least $100 billion in new money
(not smoke and mirrors for a headline) to this socialist nightmare if
they think that it is so worthy, and see what their voters think when
their economies implode. Meanwhile, the United States shouldn't
contribute a dime - which should help our competitiveness. It's
time to call their bluff. Let the European socialists fund their
own grandiose wealth transfer schemes.
December 10, 2009 -
Stolen e-mails embolden climate change skeptics - Comment:
At least now there is finally some recognition that the "science" is not
really settled enough to justify imposing economic suicide on the US
economy without serious debate about the proposed policies, which won't
necessarily even do anything material to solve the alleged problem, even
if it turns out to be real. This was never about saving the
planet. It's about paying off all the failed socialists.
December 10, 2009 -
Soros: Climate financing dispute could wreck talks - Comment: Is
he really worried that the destruction of the US economy may not be
achieved as planned? After all, how did he make his fortune?
It was by betting against the Bank of England in an economic crisis.
Is his role like "The
Trust" double-cross operation set up to infiltrate and thwart White Russian
émigrés in the US after the Bolshevik revolution? Where is
Sidney Reilly when we need him? Soros indeed seems to be very
much like a scheming James Bond villain - with evil conspiracies for
unchecked power and wealth masked by seemingly innocent front
organizations and philanthropic activities.
Is it all smoke and mirrors for some sinister plot, or just misguided?
The evidence makes it pretty hard to assume that he's as dumb as many
Obama supporters, so that gives credence to the idea that there is
malicious intent and we just haven't figured out the ending of this
story yet. In any case, we don't have to assume evil intent to
recognize that this Copenhagen wealth transfer idea is suicidal.
December 10, 2009 -
EU seeks to preserve united front on climate - Comment:
Perhaps those who have experienced the harm which statist regimes can do
are less eager to repeat the mistake.
December 9, 2009 -
EPA head: US must make up for lost time on climate - Comment:
Trying to pretend that the EPA will be reasonable (i.e., not
blackmailing Congress) while at the same time insisting on moving
forward quickly without legislative authority. It's time for
Republicans to push hard to kill off the EPA, and let voters give their
verdict in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Let
states and local governments deal with their own environmental concerns
without this growing federal bureaucracy. Do we really want to
keep supporting 18,000 employees
at the EPA, and grow that further? If the federal bureaucracy had
grown at the same pace as the US population over the last century, that
would be roughly the total number of federal employees today - rather
than well over 1 million. We pay for 40 times more
federal workers per capita than we did after the Civil War.
It's time to just say no - and cut many government jobs, rather than
just private sector jobs.
December 8, 2009 -
EPA to unveil new policies on water at schools - Comment: This
is where an unchecked federal bureaucracy leads. Now they want to
regulate the water fountains at schools, and to hold schools accountable
to the EPA for compliance with whatever standards they mandate.
December 7, 2009 -
UN climate conference opens with pressure on US - Comment:
Note that the AP is doing Copenhagen summit pool reporting on
Facebook and Twitter.
Once again, note the part at the end of the article about transferring
hundreds of billions of dollars from developed countries to developing
ones, particularly through UN organizations. Why not cut UN
budgets? We should reduce their carbon footprint in New York by
moving the entire UN Secretariat to a poor developing country. My
vote would be for Zimbabwe. They could clearly use some "fresh
money" these days.
Stop meeting in places like
New York, Geneva, Rome, Copenhagen, Brussels, etc. to discuss the
problems of the world. Go live and meet in the places where daily life
is most miserable or dangerous.
December 7, 2009 -
Head of UN panel blasts 'Climategate' affair - Comment:
The exposure of the e-mails is the problem? They really are this
clueless in the UN global bureaucratic fantasy world. We should
commit to restoring the United States to pre-1945 levels of UN funding
as our contribution to making the world safer, with reduced hot air
emissions.
December 7, 2009 -
EPA: Greenhouse gases endanger human health - Comment: Of
course, it is just a remarkable coincidence that this announcement took
place as the Copenhagen summit fails. If they can't get a treaty
and the cap and trade legislation they want, the environmental zealots
will just find a way to reinterpret existing regulations to impose their
power over us in other ways. It is time to put a stop to the
unchecked power of the EPA to interfere in our lives by bureaucratic
fiat. They have declared war on American business and the public.
When the revolution comes - and the radicals are removed from Congress
in the 2010 and 2012 elections - the first order of business should be
to reduce the carbon footprint of the EPA by making it extinct.
Pay no attention to the smoke and mirrors as this elaborate hoax moves
forward. It has little to do with science or the climate. It's about
government power and the transfer of wealth. This is just a new
variation on the old North-South concept of reparations by developed
countries to the poor ones for being developed.
Willy Brandt and all the old socialists must be smiling.
December 5, 2009 -
Study: Slowdown in warming last year not permanent - Comment: Pay
no attention to the snow in Houston this week. The real snow job
by academics is in Copenhagen, because huge research grants are at
stake. Entire academic careers and departments are at stake.
Note the many comments by readers.
December 3, 2009 -
Americans skeptical of science behind global warming - This
Rasmussen Reports survey shows not only great skepticism, but also
persistent skepticism and disagreement about both the science and the
policy implications, as well as great distrust of UN initiatives.
It only seems to be "settled" among those zealots who don't want to
listen or respond to any of the critics.
It's
time to put all cap and trade plans and other climate change regulatory
actions on hold. The science should not just be reviewed by this UK
panel if the whole world is going to be transformed by government
actions. There needs to be a truly independent US research effort which
challenges the science models before we vastly expand government taxes,
spending, and transfer of wealth initiatives.
December 1, 2009 -
PERSPECTIVE: Ohio light bulb fight offers lessons - Comment:
Perhaps consumers as free individuals are getting tired of being forced
to pay for expensive new mandates. It is one thing to be
encouraged to make a choice, and another matter to be give no choice at
all. The latter is an abuse of power, regardless of alleged good
intentions.
November 29, 2009 -
Upfront money needed to ease UN climate deal - Comment:
This proposed $10 billion per year "kick start" is just the start
of what is expected to be a $75 - $100 billion per year cost, or
even more. Obama is OK with this - he wants to help start the
largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world, and destroy our
economy in the process by not only dramatically expanding our own
government, but also by supporting an unaccountable international
bureaucracy which can perpetuate and expand the damage to our economic
climate and liberty.
November 26, 2009 -
Obama faces delicate balancing act on climate - Comment:
Some of the Democrats in Congress may be willing to walk the plank and
risk future election defeats to win their health care agenda against
public opposition, but will they do so again on cap and trade?
Both are really about trying to secure greater power in Washington for a
long time. Just say no.
November 26, 2009 -
Jobs, economics complicate Brazil's Amazon fight - Comment:
Expect more stories like this as the Copenhagen summit approaches.
Does anybody else wonder why the government inspectors show up soon
after the damage is done, in order to document but not stop it?
They are to be rewarded for more such "enforcement" efforts - even while
great damage goes on.
Of course, there is no
corruption in the Brazilian government in these provinces at the local,
state, or national level, as anyone familiar with Brazilian politics in
these states can readily attest. Why would isolated government
officials risk getting killed on a very low salary to stop influential
criminals?
There are some very honorable environmentalists out
there, but this is like trying to police the Wild West from a
comfortable office in Washington DC or Brussels, or trying to enforce
Prohibition in Chicago. Don't expect "The Untouchables" to show up
in the Amazon just because world leaders decide to pay off the Brazilian
government for more such enforcement activity. That would be like paying
Chicago politicians to track but not stop Al Capone, thus playing both
sides. It just raises the political corruption cost of
"protection" for the criminals. Any honest cops work at their own
peril.
November 26, 2009 - China vows to dramatically slow emissions growth -
Comment: Getting ready for the Copenhagen summit.
November 25, 2009 -
Obama to attend major climate summit - Comment: It's not over
yet. See also
Action on climate change 'also averts health crisis'- now
alleging that global warming will cause more malaria, cholera,
malnutrition, etc. Of course, the environmentalists still won't
admit that their elimination of DDT has condemned millions of people in
developing countries to die from malaria.
November 24, 2009 -
Icebergs head from Antarctica for New Zealand - Comment: Note
that it is not attributed to global climate change, although some
zealots will predictably seize on this news. It would make as much
scientific sense to attribute the 1931 ice floes to the changing
economic impact of mankind during the Great Depression, and the lack of
later ice floes to Roosevelt's New Deal.
November 22, 2009 -
Denmark: 65 world leaders for UN climate summit -
Comment: There is some ambiguity about whether Obama will go
to Copenhagen after all, since it might be seen as politically
embarrassing at this point to reach no deal and have to face sharp
public criticism. Don't assume that this fight is over, however.
These zealots are still determined to prevail at any cost to us.
November 21, 2009 -
Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate - Comment: AP
version which focuses on quoting those who now claim that, although
valid, the emails and other documents were mischievously and selectively
taken out of context in order to discredit the scientists involved.
There is no mention of instructions about how to circumvent Freedom of
Information Act disclosure requests.
November 17, 2009 -
Obama: Rally the world for climate deal next month - Comment:
This zealot is not going to be deterred by public opinion. He
is determined to ram through his agenda by any means. We must
change Congress dramatically before the December 2010 climate meeting in
Mexico City.
November 17, 2009 -
Obama, Hu vow cooperation but produce few deals - Comment:
Why is the reporting all about Obama, with very little insight into Hu's
objectives and what Chinese leaders wanted? Note the comments at
the end about their plans for Copenhagen summit.
Daniel Hannan with Sean Hannity on Fox
News - talking about the Copenhagen treaty negotiations - "the language
is green, but the motives are red" - and a reminder about the
environmental legacy of the statist regimes of eastern Europe relative
to the progress of environmental protection in the West.
November 6, 2009 -
Delegates discuss way forward in UN climate talks - Comment:
Note that the chief US delegate "said President Barack Obama has the
authority to make a commitment without congressional approval, "but a
decision on whether or not we will do it has not yet been made." ".
How's that for audacity? Let's figure out how to get around those
troublesome constraints in the Constitution.
November 6, 2009 -
G20 officials seek support for future growth - Comment:
Since when is it in our interest to participate in an international
"collectivist" peer review process among developed countries to
coordinate economic policies? They tried that in the USSR - and it
failed miserably. The solution to achieve growth isn't for
governments to try to manipulate global markets. It's robust
competition, rather than a rigged market in which unaccountable
international bureaucrats try to pick the winners and losers, thereby
making subservience and corruption the key to success rather than
performance.
Incidentally, note that the mere 20 protesters at St.
Andrews got media attention, but the thousands of protesters at the US
Capitol yesterday were largely ignored by AP reports and other news
media, while a few Code Pink nuts at Sen. Lieberman's office got full
news coverage because they had to be arrested.
November 5, 2009 -
Negotiators scale back UN climate pact ambitions - Comment:
It's not dead yet. They may just try to not push it as a legally
binding treaty right away. Instead, they'll reach an agreement and
then try to turn that into a creeping political mandate and eventual
treaty, as in the EU.
November 3, 2009 -
Merkel calls for strong deal on climate change - Comment:
No time to lose? Where have we heard that before? Never let
a good illusory crisis go to waste as an opportunity to grow government
spending, taxes, and regulatory power over our lives. We don't
want to follow Germany's lead.
November 3, 2009 -
Climate talks face difficult road ahead of meeting - Comment: Good.
If any agreement can be stalled until 2010, Obama will never have the
political support he needs to advance it. The real global
climate catastrophe that we are facing is the economic suicide of the
developed countries, destroying our successful economic climate in the
name of UN wealth transfers to the rest of the world.
October 29, 2009 - The Copenhagen Agreement and a Scary UN Power Grab -
Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement? - opinion piece in the
Wall Street Journal - scary UN plans for a new "government", referring
to what Lord Monckton has been trying to warn people about,
as below Note the various comments in
response to the above article - including the one about the terms of
prior Kyoto and Bali agreements being included by reference. This
is not something for Americans to accept in blind faith, or while
distracted by other issues such as the health care debate. This
is an economic suicide pact.
October 29, 2009 -
EU leaders debate climate aid to poor at summit - Comment:
"With the U.S. hamstrung by Congress ... " No bias in that
reporting, eh? Gordon Brown is still pushing for a deal, and poor
countries are still looking for the EU to set a dangerous precedent for
North-South wealth transfers.
Even if
true, will the Supreme Court ever back that conclusion, or even agree to
review a challenge someday - especially if the court is
packed in the years ahead? It may be an usurpation of power, but
will that stop the implementation and enforcement of it? A
presidential veto will defend it against repeal.
Despite any case for the future abandonment of such a treaty, we would
need the
political will and votes to stop compliance with it through Congress. Until then, the full
weight of federal government power can be used to enforce compliance,
unlawful or not. Even failure to ratify such a treaty may not stop
this administration from imposing compliance with the terms in other
ways. Laws which are later found to be unconstitutional
can still be enforced for a long time before they fail, and by that time
the damage will have been done. Our only
protection is to stop this initiative in the first place - not rely on a
treaty or law being
discarded someday as unconstitutional after great harm is already done.
October 27, 2009 -
Obama team: US needs bill to lead in clean energy - Comment:
This has little to do with climate change or clean energy. It won't give
us clean power. It will give us more corrupt power through government at
a very high price. Let other countries bankrupt themselves by going down
this path. We should not lead them over the precipice to economic ruin.
October 27, 2009 -
UN signals delay in climate change treaty - Comment: There may
be hope yet. Read this article to the end - such as the detail
about how much wealth to transfer from developed to developing
countries. Then watch Glenn Beck this Friday with Lord Moncton, as
below.
October 25, 2009 -
Nuclear energy becomes pivotal in climate debate - Comment: Note
how the climate models are distorted by projections of far more nuclear
plants than anyone is planning. When those rosy projections of
reduced emissions based on a technology which they refuse to approve
eventually fail, what will be rammed down our throats as an alternative
to try to hit emission targets? By that time the damage will
already be done to our economy, because the new political power
structure created by cap and trade legislation will already be firmly
entrenched.
October 24, 2009 -
EPA: Climate bill could add $100 year in costs - Comment: Don't
believe it. This is the camel's nose under the tent. Once
the system is in place, the cost will rise steadily. Do you really
trust the EPA and zealots like Boxer to worry about what it will really
cost you?
October 23, 2009 -
Obama: 'Cynical claims' attacking energy bill - Comment: Preparing
to revive the cap and trade legislation in the Senate next week.
The narrative is that this won't get pushed quickly this year while the
focus is on health care, but don't bet on it. The last line of the
article is hopefully the most accurate statement: "The closer we get,
the harder the opposition will fight."
October 14, 2009 - Lord Christopher Monckton spoke to an audience in
St. Paul, MN about the dangers of the proposed treaty at the Copenhagen
summit this December. Read the full text of the
UN document to which he refers, or other commentary and videos on
this topic at
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/ .
October 22, 2009 -
Poll: US belief in global warming is cooling - Just in time for
the Senate to try to revive and push the cap and trade legislation next
week while voter attention is distracted by other issues.
October 19, 2009 -
UK's Brown urges progress on climate pact - Comment: What
would really be catastrophic is for the United States to surrender
sovereignty to this global governance nightmare. Note that they
already estimate that this will cost hundreds of billions of dollars per
year - and that's positive thinking by the proponents of such a
regulatory bureaucracy.
The good news is that
leaders are starting to doubt that they can reach a deal in Copenhagen
this December, especially as Obama is weakened and there is little
evidence of economic recovery. It will be even harder to push this
forward in 2010 as voters in America wake up to the cost. Voters
in Europe may even wake up and notice that their Kyoto initiatives have
caused self-inflicted harm to their economies.
October 18, 2009 -
Biggest economies try again to strike climate deal - Comment:
Let me get this straight. A failing UK government which is facing
imminent electoral defeat is trying to exert pressure on a weak US
government which is also facing electoral defeat next year. They
want to agree on how to
save the world through more government regulations and new taxes from a
problem which is not yet certain to even exist sometime in the distant
future.
Am I missing something? Perhaps there should be higher priorities than
listening to people like Al Gore, who American voters properly rejected
many years ago. Somebody, please save the world from the most imminent
threat of harmful hot air - cut his mic.
Recent background and news about the cap and trade legislation debate islisted below. Some
refer to this as "cap and tax", because it is primarily a costly new
system of taxation on all Americans.
September 15, 2009 - Taking Liberties blog -
Obama Admin: Cap and Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year. Internal Treasury documents now confirm the high tax costs
which critics have been projecting. Consumers and businesses
will see many costs go up because of this energy tax, but it will be
hard to individually track all those cost increases back to their
source. This tax by stealth will also kill many jobs through an
estimated $100 to $200 billion per year in new taxes.
It is also a very regressive tax, so although
it may appear to be a tax on the energy industry, it will seriously
hurt families at all incomes. The dubious environmental and
alternative energy claims just rationalize it for political cover
This is a completely new system of taxation. It will grow, just
like other indirect taxes which are designed to fool individuals about
the costs they are paying.
The recent House legislation on cap and trade (which
stalled in the Senate after criticism while the focus shifted to pushing
the health care agenda) hid this cost by promising tax credits in the
early years while the new system is put into effect, but those credits
can be easily reduced or eliminated in the future.
Wake up, patriots! They're after your wallet
again! Expect this nightmare to return as the Obama administration
prepares for the December Copenhagen summit on climate change.
Stand up firmly against this initiative as you did for the health care
legislation in August.
The
"cap and trade" legislation could be a good thing - for political party
climate change.
It won't really do anything
beneficial for the global climate, energy independence, or the other
alleged reasons behind the legislation. The greatest benefit is that
it will help to defeat Democrats in 2010 because Americans will see
through this ruse to raise hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes. It may also help to
expose politicians who sell out their constituents to gain special interest
group support.
Fortunately, the cap and trade legislation may take a long time to
implement - which provides more of an opportunity to stop this suicidal
legislation before the harm is done. Some aspects may be created
quickly, but many others will take years to implement and do their full
damage because this involves creating a new and fairly large
bureaucracy, which will take time. That provides time to reverse
this legislation before it is too late, and thus avert the economic
catastrophe which it will predictably create.
By
contrast, some of the other legislation priorities such as health care
changes will quickly become very hard to reverse. Once in place,
they will be like a Pandora's Box, or the proverbial genie that is out
of the bottle. The damage will be done quickly. The cap and
trade legislation, like the stimulus bill, is more likely to rally
Americans to fight against this preposterous agenda once they fully
understand the harmful consequences of it. It was easy, when
talking in very general terms about climate change, green energy, or
other vague ideas to get people to express interest or support. It
probably sounded like a good idea at the time - for people who didn't
realize how much it was going to cost themselves.
That's like asking Americans whether they would oppose
serving hot dogs, soft drinks, and Cracker Jacks at baseball games for
public health reasons, or would want to impose a tax on these items to
pay for the adverse health consequences of consuming them. No
politician would be that stupid (although the crazy idea of a tax on
soft drinks has gained some surprising traction recently, just like higher
taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, as a way to achieve higher taxes by
stealth if there wasn't a strong political backlash). They want to
impose taxes in more subtle ways which most voters won't notice.
In other words, once the cap and trade debate gets
down to the details of visible adverse personal consequences, including
significant costs, rather than abstract debates about vague ideas like
helping to create "green" energy or "save" the planet from the dangers
of environmentalist computer models run amok, people will hate it.
The devil is in the details. Voters will recognize that evil.
In
that context, Republicans should fight this legislation tooth and nail,
and do everything they can to make people fully aware of the predictably
bad consequences and high personal costs - both direct and indirect.
That's not just direct costs such as higher utility bills or gas prices,
but also the adverse effect on the American economy through higher costs
and taxes on business which will get passed along to all consumers, and
destroy more jobs than any government spending on politically
favored environmental or energy projects will create. Follow
the money trail, and expose it.
Let
the Democrats hang this albatross around their necks as quickly as
possible, so that the damage becomes intuitively obvious to voters
before the 2010 elections. Let Democrats take full ownership of this
debacle. They have the votes to ram it through. Let them do
it if they wish. Be no part of it. Give them no political
cover. Let voters hold them accountable for it in the 2010
elections.
That
is somewhat like the stimulus bill. The Democrats made ridiculous
assertions about the critical urgency of this legislation, for which
there wasn't a day to be lost. They packed it full of outrageous
projects, and sold it on the basis of "creating and saving" over 3
million jobs. They allegedly had lots of "shovel ready" projects
which could be funded quickly, create jobs, and be good for the country.
Instead, many of these projects had deservedly not received funding
previously. They were really only "shovel ready" in the sense
that many of these projects should have been dead and buried.
The
point is that voters may have been fooled by the abstract political
rhetoric, but by 2010 they will be taking a critical look at results.
The cap and trade legislation is a predictable failure for the
Democrats, for which they can only hope to minimize the adverse
consequences long enough to avert defeat until people really recognize
the full negative impact of this new government program. It has
taken other countries several years to realize how much harm such
programs have done to their economies, so the Democrats may still hope
that voters won't wake up to the harm they have done until after 2010.
Republicans need to go on an information offensive against cap and
trade. That means that they should avoid any pretense of offering
minor amendments or alternative ideas on some of the details, even if
that may serve some of the special interest groups they favor (i.e.,
selling us out to get something for their lobbyist friends in
preparation for their own election races). There needs to be
principled unity among the Republicans, as on the stimulus bill, even if
a few RINOs may defect again. Voters will have their chance in
2010 to remind those RINOs that we don't favor specious, spineless
weasels to represent our interests because we believe in something more
important than keeping the incumbent in office forever.
Bottom line - cap and trade will be a pyrrhic victory for the
Democrats. It promises vague long-term benefits which will be very
hard to prove, while presenting very real and growing tax costs and
other economic damage as another new bureaucratic empire is created.
Let the Democrats become political zombies by forcing this economic
catastrophe on all Americans, and then bury them in 2010.
The cap and trade legislation may actually be less
harmful than potential international treaty obligations related to
climate change, such as the Copenhagen summit plans in December 2009.
If President Obama signs such a treaty, Americans will need to mobilize
to reject ratification of it. A lot of damage can be done through
legislation or regulatory changes, but much of that can potentially be
reversed. By contrast, harmful treaty obligations would be much
harder to terminate - which is why the zealots have been working so
feverishly behind the scenes to negotiate such agreements. If you
doubt this, watch the video of Lord Monckton's
speech above, and check other sources. The danger is real.
Background and news links / comments
on the cap and trade debate
September 22, 2009 -
UN climate summit puts China, India in spotlight - Comment:
Not really. The environmentalist and socialist focus is on
reversing the development of American capitalism and transferring wealth
to developing countries as a focus of their utopian global social
justice theories.
September 21, 2009 - AP:
UN climate chief says China poised to lead -
Comment: This will provide political cover for the Obama
administration to do more harm to the US economy by pushing the cap and
trade legislation forward this fall in connection with the Copenhagen
summit talks. China needs to clean up the environmental nightmare
which it has created in recent years, but that doesn't mean that the
United States should adopt the suicidal cap and trade proposals.
It's a domestic issue for China, just at the USA adopted various
environmental policies as a domestic policy decision in recent decades.
September 19, 2009 -
Birth control could help combat climate change - Comment:
Why isn't anybody in the media charging that it is racist to encourage
population control in developing countries? Why is capitalism
treated as evil, and yet
progressive Eugenics is treated as wise environmental policy?
September 15, 2009 -
Obama administration unveils fuel economy rules - Comment:
Does it bother anybody else that this "will have the effect of taking 42
million cars off the road"? Why should anybody believe that this
will help the US auto industry? "Cash for clunkers" mainly helped
the imports.
September 15, 2009 -
EPA to place limits on power plant water pollution - Comment:
To take effect after the 2010 and 2012 election cycles? Note
the unintended consequences of prior efforts to reduce air pollution.
The real agenda seems to be to kill off the coal industry as a major
source of American energy for the sake of the global warming alarmists
and those who are pushing higher-cost alternative energy ideas on which
they stand to make a lot of money.
September 5, 2009 -
G-20 pledge continued economic stimulus - Comment: Pay attention
to the preparations for the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh, as well as the
Copenhagen summit later this year. Do we really want the US
government to collaborate with foreign governments to impose salary
controls on bankers? That is a very slippery slope. Why
should Americans and Europeans or others face the same salary cap rules?
This expands government power and control over industry, and such
practices lead to greater corruption. Meanwhile, blind faith
commitment to the "stimulus" plan goes on. Take a look at what was
already happening back in January,
while Americans were still sleeping.
July 9, 2009 -
G-8 climate talks divide rich and poor countries - Comment:
Keep in mind that at this time last year the G-8 leaders were most
worried about rising oil prices and inflation, showing relatively little
concern about the economy, which they confidently expected to soon get
better thanks to the actions they had already taken. How is that
working out for you?
They are just as clueless
about the future this year - whether for the economy or political crises
in the next year or the global climate for the next few decades.
Note the plans to focus on the Obama environmental agenda at the G20
summit in Pittsburgh this September. It's easy for them to create
new bureaucratic empires and waste our money on their latest big idea
just to be seen as doing something. Meanwhile, there's no backbone
on dealing with real threats like Iran, N Korea, terrorism, etc.
Action Alert: House vote on cap and trade
scheduled by Pelosi for Friday, June 26. They are trying to slip
this bill through while public attention is elsewhere.
See
Mark Levin's list of key House members to contact urgently about
this vote. Make it clear that if they vote for this bill, you will
actively work to defeat them in 2010.
Pay attention to this "cap and trade" issue. This is a
massive tax increase by stealth. A recent blog entry from
Americans for Prosperity was elaborated on Fox New Blogs -
Fox Forum to explain how this may turn out to be a very regressive
$1.3 - $1.9 trillion tax (or more) - and that's just the first 8 year
estimate of a 40 year plan for which the costs will keep rising over
time. This will be a huge hidden tax burden on all Americans.
Use our Conservative Search tool to find what
other observers are saying on this topic, or use the
Republican Governors,
Senators, or
House search tools to see what these officials are saying about it.
June 26, 2009 -
Major energy-climate bill chugs toward House vote - Comment:
Still trying to ram through the largest tax increase in history by
stealth and lies. Let your member of Congress know that this vote
will be remembered when the time comes to work to replace them.
May 28, 2009 - Obama moves to curb road-building in forests -
Comment: Note that, buried at the end of this story, is the point
that the main impact of this change is to block a project in Alaska.
Of course, that's not politically motivated. Which part of the
Constitution provides this authority?
May 29, 2009 -
Climate change causes 300,000 deaths a year - Comment:
Absurd drivel being spread by Kofi Annan and another group seeking
publicity, blaming rich nations for harming the poor. See the
related story as context -
African officials ask for climate change funding It's just
another excuse for North-South redistribution of wealth, as has been
their social agenda for decades.
May 27, 2009 Gov't: Carbon pollution to grow by 40 percent -
Comment: Fresh climate change propaganda, just in time for the cap
and trade debate and alternative energy spending plans. See Al
Gore news archive from
February 19 and
February 14 and Obama from
February 24 for background, as well as
the May 12 and 24 news below. If there isn't a good crisis to
exploit, create one.
May 16, 2009 - Dems' climate bill shy on tax credit help - Comment:
Beware the American Clean Energy and Security Act -
HR 2454 (pdf
text). They changed some provisions to try to make it easier
to ram through this new "cap and trade" policy without people
recognizing the full harmful costs of it at first.
May 16, 2009 - Obama hails efforts on clean energy, health care -
Comment: People aren't coming to the table to support his
plans, but rather to try to avert the damage of being targeted.
This is beginning to resemble a protection racket, like "pay to play"
machine politics.
May 13, 2009 - Environmental alarms raised over home electronics -
Comment: The International Energy Agency is now targeting the
energy requirements of consumer electronics on the basis of the
hypothetical global warming impact of the energy required to power such
devices. Another excuse for greater multilateral bureaucratic
intervention in our lives to regulate everything which uses any energy.
April 29, 2009 - US House passes budget plan endorsing Obama goals -
Comment: "Acting with unusual speed" = acting with reckless
disregard of public objections to this budget plan, and against the
votes of all Republicans and even 17 Democrats who were afraid to
support it. In effect, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats just thumbed
their noses at everyone who has dared to question their plans.
April 28, 2009 - Lawmakers advancing much of Obama's budget agenda -
Comment: The Tea Party movement, as in
the Declaration of Independence,
presented our grievances against this growing tyranny in a respectful
and principled way. Members of Congress chose to scorn us and do
as they please. They are abusing the power which was entrusted to
them, disenfranchising tens of millions of Americans who did not vote
for the Obama agenda or sign a blank check for statist tyranny.
They have chosen to declare war on us. We now need to focus on
the local organizational task of voting each of them out of office.
We also need protests at every appearance they make in their home
districts. They will not listen until they fear that their
political careers are in real jeopardy. At this point, it is already too
late for that. It's time to
select them out of American politics.
April 27, 2009 - Democrats announce agreement on budget pact -
Comment: "Most importantly, the congressional budget plan would prevent Senate Republicans from delaying or blocking Obama's plan
to vastly expand government-subsidized health care when it advances this
fall." Where is the outrage at this blatant abuse of power?
It's time for all Republicans to stand up and become as disruptive as
possible before this harmful budget agenda is rammed through in
legislation this spring, summer and fall.
April 24, 2009 - Congressional Democrats near agreement on budget -
Comment: Near agreement on how to ram through health care,
education, and very costly environmental changes
and other priorities by blocking any chance of a Republican filibuster. This
is yet another example of the partisan intent by Pelosi and Reid to abuse their
new power as fast as
they can, before people wake up to it.
Stand up again on
Memorial Day and July 4, as in
the Tax Day Tea Parties, against
this liberal insurgency.
April 24, 2009 - Gore pleads for unity on climate change, despite divide
- Comment: Later version of the earlier stories below - now
carefully edited to be even more partisan. Did anybody challenge
Gore's bold assertion that "If the United States leads, China will
follow"? He has no more solid evidence for that than the rest of
his assertions, or Waxman's. Where's the urgency to create a new
form of taxation on air?
Here's what I wrote about
this from an
economic development perspective several years ago. But don't
take my word for it. Try looking at the writings of Dr. Patrick
Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, who is now reviled by the
anti-capitalism ecological extremists on the left. Here's his
testimony before Congress about
support for nuclear energy - which Al Gore, Obama and Congress won't
even seriously consider. That's because their focus is really on
their own political and economic power, rather than the environment.
Here's another
2007 article by him, and a
debate sponsored by The Economist in which he participated.
April 24, 2009 - Gore: Congress must not bicker, act now on global
warming - Comment: Aside from the crushing costs of this
plan, how about the conflicts of interest / financial benefits for Gore?
Look at who else is pushing this agenda too - such as GE, which stands
to profit greatly from it, among others. Remember all the leftist
outrage about Halliburton contracts? This is far worse.
Stand up to stop it cold. Keep bickering! Don't act now on
global warming. Focus on the American economy, not Gore's agenda.
April 19, 2009 - White House says GOP should be more constructive -
Comment: We agree. The GOP can do
so by stopping this Obama agenda now in Congress with any
Democrats who will join them to achieve a better outcome than such
proposals. We don't expect the GOP leaders to just wring their
hands and say no with no effect while all the new spending, taxes,
debt, and changes to government programs get rammed through as fast as
the Democrats can. They need to do everything possible to stop
this now - not simply wait to profit politically from all the damage in
2010. We are not looking for the perfunctory political theater
of token and ineffective objections.
We expect them to succeed
at stopping this nonsense, or to at least do everything possible to
delay it, stop it, or limit the damage of it! We need for the GOP
to actually lead by rallying millions of Americans to stand united
against this. Their poor leadership performance in recent years
certainly does not give us much confidence. That's why we
needed a truly independent grassroots "Tea Party" movement of people who
are still as mad at the GOP as at the aggressive new expansion of
government powers and spending by the Democrats.
We don't expect them to
just blame the Democrats and hope that their folly will lead to a GOP
election victory in 2010. We want them to do everything they can
to stop this agenda now so that changes are not made in haste which will
do lasting damage that we won't be able to readily reverse in the
future.
It's not enough to just
say no and quietly accept defeat in the hope of some future GOP
electoral victory. We expect the GOP leadership to do
everything they can to achieve a better outcome than these
Democratic proposals. If not, all their political careers (both
parties) will be on the line in 2010.
Members of Congress are not
the puppets of the White House or their party. Voters expect them
to use their individual good judgment for the benefit of all
Americans. That includes their solemn oath to respect and
defend the limits on federal government power as provided by our
Constitution. We will work very hard to defeat them in 2010 -
regardless of party - if their service fails to merit that trust.
April 18, 2009 - Congress weighs far-reaching global warming bill -
Comment: Note the Obama threat to use regulatory powers by
reinterpreting or changing the standards for old environmental laws if
Congress doesn't pass the desired new legislation. Tyranny through
bureaucracy?
April 1, 2009 - Lawmakers sent huge petition backing Obama budget -
Comment: How timely, on April Fool's Day, as Congress prepares
to ram through the budget with major new programs while using rules
which prevent a filibuster in the Senate. This petition of 642,000
supporters (as valid as ACORN voter registrations?) is the product of
the recent Organizing for America
push by Obama supporters, using his 12+ million campaign e-mail list and
volunteers to gather "pledges" of support (without any significant
details about the budget which they were supporting).
In fact, it's not really
642,000. It's 1/3 of that amount - because this number counts each
name three times - because the names are being copied to the 2 Senators
and Representative for each. Despite all the online networking and
personal efforts of DNC organizers in the streets, they got only
214,000.
Let's see. Obama got 66+
million votes in November. Far less than 1% of them signed his budget
petition. Why is the AP so impressed by this lobbying stunt, but
completely ignores the Tea Party
movement? Do we need to have 1 million protesters
nationwide on April 15 before they will take this seriously?
Indeed, will that even be enough to impress them?
Here's another way of looking
at it. Mark Levin launched his new book,
Liberty and Tyranny, at roughly the
same time as the Obama pledge drive. It already sold 700,000
copies- without being promoted through any of the liberal TV networks or
newspapers (just Fox News and talk radio). Which is more
impressive? Getting people to sign a vague petition, or to buy a
book about conservative values?
April 1, 2009 - Promises, Promises: Obama tax pledge up in smoke -
Comment: Not one dime, remember? This new tax on smokers
was rationalized by linking it to children's health insurance.
This is still small change relative to the huge potential tax burden of
the cap and trade legislation. There will always be some rationale
for taking away more money for some allegedly worthy liberal spending
idea.
March 28, 2009 - Democrats, GOP duel over small business taxes -
Comment: The link between higher tax rates and less job creation
remains an argument which won't be settled by presentations of facts by
politicians or interest groups on either side. It is fundamentally
an argument about whether government adds or destroys value beyond the
shared need for some very basic social infrastructure.
The looters who believe in
gaining benefits through larger government will favor more taxes at any
cost, because they don't expect to be among those who must pay the tax
costs. Those who use resources efficiently to produce greater
prosperity will want to reinvest in their own continued success, rather
than hand more of their profits over to a growing government bureaucracy
to spend on others as it pleases.
At some tipping point, it's
just not worth the risks to invest in growing a business.
Consumers won't pay more for goods and services just because the
businesses involved are facing higher tax burdens.
March 21, 2009 AP Analysis: Obama rhetoric, reality clash -
Comment: "gingerly shifting positions"? Are they kidding?
That's like saying that a ballerina who falls flat on her face in the
middle of a performance showed great poise by getting up again and
stumbling around in shock.
March 9, 2009 - AP Interview: Salazar pushes for wind energy -
Comment: How about wind turbines between Congress and the White
House? Put their hot air carbon dioxide emissions to use. Or
how about propeller-head caps to readily identify those in Congress who
are pushing wind farms?
Look back at this Financial Times column by
Gideon Rachman - December 8, 2008 -
"And now for world government". We can give up our
sovereign power through treaties - in effect, trumping our
Constitutional protections if the President and Congress agree to
subordinate us to global deals.
February 24, 2009 - Obama calls for carbon cap regulation - Comment:
If mankind produces anything, even hot air, then government officials
can justify regulating and taxing it, and spending billions for
academics as well as expanded regulatory agencies to study and manage
it. What a concept. See the notes below about Al Gore's
significant stake in all this (February 19 and
February 14).
Update February 20: LaHood's talk of mileage tax nixed
- White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said "It is not and will not
be the policy of the Obama administration". Oops, yet another
gaffe.
February 19, 2009 - Reid: Senate to take up climate change this year
- Comment: Note the moves to kill any offshore drilling. After
slipping many billions into the stimulus bill (see Feb. 14 statement by
Al Gore below), they're going to wait until the summer to talk about
global warming. After all, this has been a pretty harsh winter for
many Americans, so they would rather push other spending priorities now.
February 14, 2009 - US Congress approves stimulus in major win for Obama
- Comment: Note that Al Gore regards $31 billion as just at "downpayment"
for fighting climate change. As another Democrat said, this is just "the
first bite of the apple" as the regular budget cycle begins. Expect
spending to quickly spiral out of control for one illusory crisis or
fairness justification after another.
February 14, 2009 - Statement by Former Vice President Al Gore,
Chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection, on Final Congressional
Passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 -
Comment: Note that Gore just regards the billions in this bill as a
"downpayment". This is just the first crack in the levee before a flood
of other federal spending creates a needless global disaster.
The
inclusion of any website links on this site does not reflect any endorsement
of their content, or vice versa. This information is just shared
openly for the convenient reference of our visitors.
