Obama’s Agenda vs. Problems and Promises

President Barack Obama is experiencing some of the trials of the presidency that cannot be smoothed over by teleprompter eloquence or diplomatic initiative. An AP article by Tom Raum describes several major situations the President is dealing with, after his battle on health care: high unemployment, financial crisis, Gulf of Mexico oil spill, Times Square bombing attempt, Middle East “peace process,” and a Supreme Court vacancy [1]. Also, we suppose, flooding in Tennessee.

After years of lambasting George W. Bush for the response to Hurricane Katrina, liberals are seeing the model of correctness in Obama’s public response to (1) the oil spill and (2) the flooding: (1) Remark on how long it may take to correct the problem, and put pressure on the rig owner to clean it up, and (2) (fill in Obama’s flood response here).

Everything is politicized these days. Probably, the government and BP will do the things expected of them toward cleaning up the spill, and there will be declarations of disaster areas and federal help for flood victims. In both disasters, there will be substantial private relief efforts also. I don’t want to criticize Obama for things beyond his control. He will probably take the appropriate actions. But he may not have a lot better success than G. W. Bush did with Katrina.

Meanwhile, our hearts go out to the families of those lost, and all who have been injured or are otherwise suffering as a result of these disasters.

On things that are proper subjects for political comment:

The economy is beginning to recover, mainly because there is still something of the structure of a free market, despite the government’s persistent meddling and manipulation, and outrageous spending. We should be concerned about the economic (not to mention freedom) effects of the new health care law when the changes take effect. Two other big dangers: Cap and trade, which would deal a serious blow to the recovery, and VAT, which Obama will likely try to have enacted. It has been suggested that Obama’s deficit commission is there to give him cover for massive tax increases, specifically VAT. This would annihilate Obama’s promise of no tax increase for families making under $250,000, a promise already pretty well done for.

Cap and trade would leave America and Americans poorer from new taxes and regulations, and would do nothing for the environment. This should be a no-brainer, but for some reason it isn’t. Mainly, it’s just a device for expanding government power and control over citizens’ everyday lives, like the health care law. It will make people more dependent on government since they’ll have less freedom and less disposable income.

Mr. Obama’s job in dealing with the current tough situations is made more difficult by the fact that his priorities are, I believe, misplaced. He is determined to get his socialist-fascist program in place, at the expense of other needs, such as reduced unemployment, increased private sector economic activity, and building any kind of national unity. His agenda is polarizing and goes against the wishes of most of the American voters, but he knows better than they, he thinks, and is determined to get as much of this stuff done as he can before the elections put a stop to some of it.

Several of his major campaign promises have been casualties of his agenda, notably the aforementioned no-tax-on-below-$250K and some others mentioned below.

Describing Obama’s recent “Nuclear Security Summit,” Susan Dale, of Human Events Guns & Patriots notes the following:

This meeting, oddly enough, did not include the nuclear and soon to be nuclear nations of North Korea and Iran, both of which are led by lunatics and which are the two countries that are primarily responsible for current international fears of rogue nuclear activity. No worries, here, however, as our fearless leader, in an impressive display of courage, determination and diplomatic mastery of international affairs, faced down Canada, Chile and the Ukraine from implementing their nightmarish nuclear scenaria. We can now rest easy knowing that warheads will no longer be heading our way from Ottawa, Santiago or Kiev. [2]

Also, she notes that the meeting, from which the press was excluded, violated Obama’s promise of transparency [3], which had already been destroyed by the antics of the Administration and Congress in the health care and cap and trade bill processes.

Another broken promise:
“Barack Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors…” [4]

Politifact lists 110 promises Obama has kept, most of which have been beneficial to special interests but not the economy, plus 19 which have been broken, 34 compromised, 83 stalled and 255 “in the works.” [5] Some of the promises kept have been fortunate, such as “Expand access to places to hunt and fish,” but many unfortunate, such as “Raise fuel economy standards.” Many of the “kept” promises relate to the healthcare law and “green” energy topics.

The main reason the economy has not rebounded more quickly is the misguided government response: Massive spending and new entitlements, ballooning deficits and rumblings about getting the spending and deficit under control via new taxes. Private sector businesses find this a difficult environment for investing and hiring, with several possible new laws to make things worse.

Right now, the economic outlook is slightly improved, but the horizon remains clouded.


[1] Tom Raum, Associated Press, “Analysis: Obama beset at once by multiple crises,” 05/04/2010, at Yahoo! News.


[2] Susan Dale, “Out Neronian Leader,” 05/04/2010, Human Events Guns & Patriots.


[3] Ibid.

[4] “Barack Obama’s Comprehensive Tax Plan,” PDF linked from Politifact.com, at BarackObama.com.

[5] Politifact.

Photo : Dreamstime.com. Obama in Prague

Governing the “Ungovernable”

Some liberal observers, noticing President Barack Obama’s lack of success in advancing his signature agenda items, “health care reform” and cap and trade, are theorizing (or concluding) that America has become ungovernable.

Newsweek takes up this matter, blaming “obstructionist Republicans, spineless Democrats and an increasingly incoherent electorate” for America’s supposed ungovernability. [1]

The fact that “health care reform” is not yet a done deal is supposed to illustrate the problem. All liberals agree that Obamacare is sorely needed and would greatly relieve a lot of suffering. Yet the Republicans won’t get on board with it, and a majority of Americans, having been informed about it (since the Democrats’ initial dead-of-night, unread-bill effort to pass it didn’t quite work) selfishly don’t want to lose their current coverage, with which they are moderately satisfied, and pay substantially more in taxes.

It’s true that people don’t want to lose their coverage and pay high taxes for the proposed plan. It’s not selfishness, but rational self interest. And, people are becoming more aware of the Constitution and the federal government’s numerous efforts at violating it, thus curtailing freedom. Republicans simply don’t want their name attached to such an offensive piece of legislation, and some may even recognize that this whole area is outside the federal government’s legitimate constitutional authority.

Another consideration is that the Obama Administration has focused on getting their socialist agenda items enacted when the public’s concern was jobs and the economy, about which nothing successful was being done. There was no consensus on cap and trade or the health care effort, both of which could be seen as hurting the economy.

It’s not that America is ungovernable. It simply lacks executive and legislative leadership.

Charles Krauthammer remarks on the similarity of these most recent complaints of ungovernability to the Carter years: “In the latter days of the Carter presidency, it became fashionable to say the office had become unmanageable and was too big for one man. Some suggested a single, six-year presidential term. The president's own White House counsel suggested abolishing the separation of powers and going to a more parliamentary system of unitary executive control. America had become ungovernable.” Then he shows how, in contrast to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter was not able to provide the needed leadership. [2]

Thence the “malaise.” Are we going to be hearing that term again soon?

Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics faults Obama for two errors: First putting Nancy Pelosi (too far left) in charge of writing the health care legislation, and second, insisting on comprehensive reforms. “If the truly great Henry Clay could not pass the Compromise of 1850 through the Congress in a single package, what made Barack Obama think he could sign comprehensive energy and health care reforms?” [3]

As Krauthammer points out, economist Paul Krugman even blames the filibuster, although in the G.W. Bush days, he warned against “extremists” trying to get rid of the procedure, when liberals were using it to block Bush’s judicial nominees. [4]

It seems clear that liberals, very reluctant to acknowledge the demonstrated lack of leadership ability in their top government officials, must cast blame elsewhere: the public, the Republicans, and the basic structure of government (i.e., the Constitution), for their failures.

When Republicans return to power, perhaps they will remember how to lead. They have some good examples to look to. Of course, so do the Democrats.


[1] Michael Cohen, “America the Ungovernable,” 01/25/2010, Newsweek.

[2] Charles Krauthammer, “It’s vogue again to declare America ungovernable,” 02/20/10, Houston Chronicle,

[3] Jay Cost, “America Is Not Ungovernable” 02/08/2010, Real Clear Politics.

[4] Krauthammer, see [2].

Photo: Dreamstime.com

Merry Christmas from Grinch and Company

As I write this, there remains the slenderest possibility that the “health care reform” bill may not pass the Senate. I keep reading that Democratic Party leaders are looking toward a Christmas Eve vote on the measure. The health care bill has less than 40 percent support among the American public (see video in my previous post). President Obama himself has a 41 percent “strong disapproval” rating among likely voters according to Rasmussen (12/20/2009).

But if Sen. Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the President have their way, we’re going to get it come hell or high water. Merry Christmas. Enjoy your “gift.”

Another item under the socialist tree for us is a “meaningful” agreement on climate change. Even China is on board with it, since it is an unenforceable, non-binding “agreement” underwritten with America’s $100 billion pledge to help third world countries deal with the non-existent problem of man-made climate change, although, even if everyone participated fully, there would be produced virtually no measurable change in the earth’s climate. And the Obama Administration and Democrat-controlled Congress want to give us cap and trade as an additional contribution to the cause.

You’ve heard of gifts that break the bank. This one will strain many, many budgets.

Now, if they could only get us to stop driving and flying, stop eating beef and drinking milk, and, preferably, stop breathing, or maybe just kill ourselves off and leave the earth to the more-deserving creatures of nature, that would apparently be their ideal. As ridiculous as that sounds, that is the basic direction the environmental extremists want us to go.

They would like their climate-change religion to replace the traditional religions of the world, especially Christianity. Others might be OK if they don’t interfere with the great environmentalist plan. Before Christians and Christian groups get much more involved in the climate change movement, they should consider the fact that, while the Bible teaches responsible care of things under our stewardship, it also teaches that the earth was created primarily as a home for man. Animals, and indeed all nature, were placed under man’s subjection, and intended for his use, for the glory of God. Although sin has led to various abuses, this intention has not changed.

As we celebrate the birth of the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, we might do well to reflect on these things. Every responsible citizen would like to minimize pollution and preserve a safe and human-friendly environment. But it need not be at the cost of our freedom and our economy.

“… [W]here the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Corinthians 3:17). America’s heritage is liberty and individual responsibility, based explicitly on the Judeo-Christian tradition. These are principles now endangered by what used to be called “creeping socialism,” that has now become blatant socialist-fascist power-grabbing government. Obama is quick, and rather enthusiastic, in pointing out his view that America is no longer considered a Christian nation. He himself claims to be a Christian, but if he is in agreement with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, it’s a far-out fringe using the name Christian. I don’t know what Obama’s actual beliefs are, but we know something of his associations, including twenty years as Wright’s church member.

David Barton, in one of Wallbuilders’ periodic emails (12/17/2009), quotes from Harry Truman’s Christmas message in 1952 (near the end of tenure as President):

“Through Jesus Christ the world will yet be a better and a fairer place. This faith sustains us today as it has sustained mankind for centuries past. This is why the Christmas story, with the bright stars shining and the angels singing, moves us to wonder and stirs our hearts to praise. Now, my fellow countrymen, I wish for all of you a Christmas filled with the joy of the Holy Spirit, and many years of future happiness with the peace of God reigning upon this earth.”

Amen, I say.

Obama can’t bring himself to mention Christmas or Christ on the official Holiday (?) greeting cards. G.K. Chesterton’s words are especially true today: “These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.”
(Illustrated London News 08/11/1928)

There are convincing arguments against “health care reform” and cap and trade that do not rely on theological or religious reasons. Economic and political arguments will suffice. But because of the out-of-touch government officials’ attempts at minimizing Christianity and promoting every kind of multi-culturalism and relativism, some defense appears to be needed. More eloquent spokesmen than I can state this better; I just feel I need to say something.

These presents I’ve mentioned, from our beloved federal government, reflect, I think, the political equivalent of the spirit of the pre-repentant Grinch. Unlike Dr. Seuss’s famous character, these politicians aren’t likely to change their ways (politically, I mean). They’ll continue this kind of “giving” to the American people as long as they have the opportunity.

I wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. So far, it’s still America and still comparatively free. Thanks be to God.

Illustration: clipart.christiansunite.com

Obama’s and Democrats’ Debt and Deficit Trade-Off

The ol’ U.S. National Debt clock keeps ticking. It’s now up to $12,139,146,898,976.64 or an estimated $39,479.46 per person as of 12/16/2009, 5:57 PM CST. [1]

The Treasury Department says the debt was $12.079 trillion as of Tuesday 12/15/2009 and should reach its current limit of $12.1 trillion by month-end. The House voted 218 to 214 to raise the debt limit to $12.394 trillion, which should finance the government for about two months. [2]

Reuters quoted Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) as saying, “When will it stop? When will Washington get the message that we can't borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing America.” [3]

House Democrats discarded the proposed debt increase of more than $1.8 trillion. Of course, this is good news. The House is still expected to consider a “jobs” bill of tens of billions, which would add to the deficit. The Senate apparently won’t consider that item until they finish with health care. [4]

“Fiscal conservatives in the Senate, meanwhile, led by Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), had been seeking the creation of a bipartisan commission with authority to force spending cuts or tax increases through Congress.” [5]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has rejected this idea as giving up too much congressional authority. I almost agree with her. I would say it gives up too much congressional responsibility. If you (or your staff) can’t do your job, hire consultants or contract it out. That seems to be a frequent response by government officials in general, both parties and all levels. The idea is to avoid accountability and tough decisions.

There seems to be concern among Democrats over the deficit and federal spending, yet they press for the health care “reform” bill which will significantly increase spending and the deficit, as well as taxes. There will be serious tax increases, but these won’t really cover the added expense.

The chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Richard S. Foster, reports that national health care spending will increase by $234 billion over ten years under the Senate bill. The report does not allow for increasing Medicare to cover people aged 55 to 64 years. [6]

Also, public support is decreasing, as Senate Republican Mitch McConnell says:



[Politico video at Examiner.com]

President Obama and Democratic Party leaders are determined to get some kind of health care bill passed soon, regardless of what changes might be needed. If they discard the public option, abortion funding, etc., you can be sure these will be added back later.

The high level of public opposition remains the best reason to think this bill might not pass. But Obama and some others are adamant about nationalizing the health care industry as part of their restructuring of American society. Cap and trade and health care socialization are the cornerstone pieces of Obama’s grand plan to spread and consolidate federal government power. Compared to these items, concerns about jobs, the deficit, and the economy in general are strictly secondary.

If that were not the case, steps to greatly help the economy (including discarding health care “reform” and cap and trade) would already be in progress and we would be seeing good results already. But the economy has a hard time flourishing in an environment of increasing massive deficits with no end in sight, high taxes with more on the way, and a regulatory burden that’s quickly becoming unbearable. Current policies have serious risks. Higher levels of debt are harder and more expensive to finance. Will China cooperate indefinitely? Is high inflation on the way? Can interest rates stay low?

Fat cat bankers aren’t the problem. Government is.

[1] U.S. National Debt Clock, 12/15/2009, 5:57 PM CST, at http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

[2]Andy Sullivan, “House backs $290 billion debt limit increase,” 12/16/2009, Reuters.com, at http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BF58220091216?type=politicsNews

[3] Ibid.

[4] Paul Kane, “House Democrats discard larger debt limit,” 12/15/2009, Washington Post.com, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/14/AR2009121403933.html

[5] Ibid.

[6] Terry Hurlbut, “CMS actuary warns Senate bill will cost more,” 12/11/2009, Examiner.com, at http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d11-CMS-actuary-warns-Senate-bill-will-cost-more

Photo: Dreamstime.com

On to Copenhagen, or Much Ado about Nothing

Looking for control
The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, is scheduled for December 7-18 and is supposed to bring together 85 world leaders to discuss the issue. “The United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged world leaders to ‘seal a deal’ on climate change when they meet in Copenhagen next month.” He seems optimistic that a deal can be reached. However, there are growing doubts concerning the scientific validity of global warming claims, and whether the conference will result in a significant agreement. [1]

I’ve been writing quite a lot about the costs and loss of liberty associated with Obamacare, but its (also) evil twin, cap and trade (along with the potential EPA regulations) threatens to seriously undercut the U.S. economy and make these double-digit unemployment rates seem permanent. If that’s not bad enough, the Copenhagen conference and events to follow could very well result in a further surrender of U.S. sovereignty, with serious foreign entanglements through bad treaties, etc.

If the climateers have their way, America would be paying to “aid” less-developed countries to improve their “greenhouse gas” emission levels, and be subject to international regulations. This is an attempt (somewhat successful, so far) at a major deception. It is based on the fraud and hoax of “man-made” global warming. No, wait, since global warming is in pause mode, it’s “climate change” now. In their world, everyone who breathes contributes to climate change, and everyone whose activities result in the release of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, is a guilty polluter who must be brought under control and punished.

Science not so hot
Never mind that the data and so-called science on this is deeply flawed, lacking in substantiation, and is seriously challenged by many qualified scientists. There is no way that the so-called “problem” merits anything like the destructive “solutions” being discussed. It is a patent lie that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. It is untrue that man is able to reverse or control climate change. All that could be accomplished by the solutions being proposed is more economic distress and widespread suffering, with some few profiting from carbon-credit trading and others having the satisfaction of exercising control over the citizens around the world, who will be paying heavily for the privilege of producing anything.

Given the revelations of “Climategate,” showing the deliberate manipulation and misrepresentation of data, destruction of evidence, suppression of opposing views, and manipulation of the peer-review process, the whole issue takes on a conspiratorial tone. Here is an attempt to get the most mileage possible out of the least evidence. One wonders how some of these people can call themselves scientists. They’re more like propagandists, trying to support a predetermined conclusion.

Obama Administration seeks more power
Just in time for Copenhagen, the EPA has declared that greenhouse gases “threaten the health and welfare of the American people….

“The action by the EPA, which has been anticipated for months, clearly was timed to add to the momentum toward some sort of agreement on climate change at the Copenhagen conference and try to push Congress to approve climate legislation.” [2]

The EPA’s action constitutes another major government power grab, as discussed by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:
“Don’t kid yourself into thinking the EPA doesn’t understand the scope of its power. By classifying CO2 and methane (among other so-called greenhouse gases), it can inject itself into just about every industry in the US. Energy production will be its primary target, but the EPA has also gone after coal mining on the basis of the Clean Water Act; it will certainly not be shy about using this new authority to kill coal mining altogether. It will also impact agriculture, especially dairies and cattle ranching, as well as transportation. The entire manufacturing sector will have to answer for its output.” [3]

Mark Whittington at Associated Content quotes Morrissey, and writes:
“Obama administration officials are claiming that President Obama still prefers to address carbon emissions through the legislative process. Obama administration officials claim that the EPA announcement and the opening of the Copenhagen Climate Conference are ‘coincidental.’” [4] Sure, it’s just a coincidence.

Religious devotion encouraged
It has been said that climate change is a new religion and it certainly seems to be. At least its proponents want people to regard it with religious devotion. As George Russell points out in a Fox News article, a paper that resulted from a meeting of top environmental bureaucrats, states far-reaching goals for UNEP (UN Environmental Program): “Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion ‘as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity,’ according to a paper written two years ago to influence the future strategy of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world's would-be environmental watchdog.”
(PDF Text of the paper is linked at Fox News article) [5] Emphasis his

It is unfortunate that President Obama wants an international agreement to come out of this conference. We Americans, and many others, will be paying the price for these useless regulations. It is said that Obama wants Congress to set emission standards through legislation, rather than the EPA doing so through regulations. “‘This is a clear message to Copenhagen of the Obama administration's commitments to address global climate change,’ said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lead author of a climate bill before the Senate. ‘The message to Congress is crystal clear: get moving.’” [6] If cap and trade doesn’t pass, we’ll get the EPA regulations, and probably will anyway.

Meanwhile, a U.N. report by an investigative unit warns that the U.N.’s own environmental management is “out of control and approaching chaos,” according to another article by George Russell. [7]

Trouble Ahead
Issues to be discussed at Copenhagen include pollution offsets. “As part of the Copenhagen talks, officials will be considering which types of offset programs work and can actually be enforced. (There's a big potential for fraud here.) Countries like Brazil and Indonesia, for example, are pushing hard for a forest program that would handsomely reward them for not cutting down their trees,” reports U.S. News. [8] Emphasis added.

The Copenhagen conference is an attempt to open even further the Pandora’s box of the “climate change” issue. Big businesses and big and small countries are trying to position themselves to be at an advantage under whatever scheme is implemented. Too bad they aren’t resisting with all their might, as we all should be. The elites are meeting, and following the Progressive model, that is, having a few “experts” decide policy for everyone, at the expense of the citizens’ money and freedom.

“Open your mouth for the mute,
For the rights of all the unfortunate.
Open your mouth, judge righteously,
And defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.” – Proverbs 31:8,9


[1] Lea Pachta, “Copenhagen Climate Change Conference 2009: Commentary And Analysis Available, freshbusinessthinking.com, 11/30/2009, at http://www.freshbusinessthinking.com/news.php?CID=&NID=2668&Title=Copenhagen+Climate+Change+Conference+2009%3A+Commentary+And+Analysis+Available

[2] Dina Cappiello and H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press, “EPA says greenhouse gases endanger human health,” 12/07/2009, Yahoo News, at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_epa_climate;_ylt=Au.zF0wVWFdgkb2UbyGT2Pes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNlcjVhMDZlBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMjA3L3VzX2VwYV9jbGltYXRlBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDZXBhZ3JlZW5ob3Vz

[3] Ed Morrissey, “EPA declares air a danger to human health” 12/07/2009, Hot Air, at
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/07/epa-declares-air-a-danger-to-human-health/

[4] Mark Whittington, “Copenhagen Climate Conference Praises EPA Carbon Dioxide Decision,” 12/08/2009, Associated Content, at http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2469084/copenhagen_climate_conference_praises.html?cat=9

[5] George Russell, “Document Reveals U.N.’s Goal of Becoming Rule-Maker in Global Environmental Talks,” 11/30/2009, Fox News.com, at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577827,00.html

[6] Cappiello and Hebert, see [2].

[7] George Russell, “U.N. Says its Own Eco-Management Out of Control,” 02/24/2009, Fox News.com, at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,499244,00.html. This was in February; maybe they’ve cleaned it up a bit by now.

[8] Kent Garber, “Top 5 Issues at the Copenhagen Climate Conference,” 12/08/2009, U.S. News.com, at http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/energy/2009/12/08/top-5-issues-at-the-copenhagen-climate-conference.html

Phot: Dreamstime.com (Danish postage stamp with graphic representing a fuel cell)

Cap and Trade Support? It Gets Curiouser and Curiouser

This Won’t Make the Economy Better
We’re apparently still in the recession. Unemployment is up again, now 9.8% for the U.S. with some states well into double digits. And yet we’re expected to believe that somehow cap and trade is a good idea. It’s a bad idea in the best of times, but in the current economy, it’s the gateway to a real depression if enacted. If both cap and trade and Obamacare are enacted, a depression will be unavoidable, and cap and trade alone could bring one.

Why, oh, why are we willing to even entertain the idea of cap and trade? Do we really need our whole energy economy to be restructured for the purpose of trying to deal with a problem, man-made global warming, that likely does not exist, and to the miniscule extent that it might exist, nothing can be done that would produce any measurable effect on the climate. The idea is to regulate “greenhouse gases,” especially carbon dioxide, which in fact is neither a pollutant nor a problem.

The environmentalist activists are in support of this legislation. So is the Obama government and Democratic Congress, because it will provide greatly increased government power to regulate just about everything to do with any aspect of energy, and supposedly provide billions of taxpayer dollars in new taxes, which would allegedly be used to create “green jobs.” If this wasn’t so deadly serious, it would be laughable for its ridiculousness.

Obama Explains Some of the Effects of Cap and Trade
Just to refresh your memory, here’s Barack Obama discussing his ideal cap and trade plan:



This same government that does basically nothing to encourage off-shore drilling, nuclear power development, domestic oil refining capacity, i.e., things that would actually help our energy situation, now wants to place a heavy tax on all users of fossil fuels or producers of more-than-average CO-2 emissions. And they want to reward their Wall Street pals (think Goldman-Sachs) with a lucrative new carbon-emission permit trading industry.

Where’s the Compassion?
Legislators who support this bill will demonstrate conclusively that they are not interested in the well-being of the American taxpayer or the unemployed. They are about as “compassionate” as the pre-haunted Ebenezer Scrooge, if not worse. When House Minority Leader John Boehner read for an hour on the House floor some of the strange things that were in the House bill, it should have been enough of an embarrassment to kill the whole thing right there – but not to these shameless Democrats.

Economic Damage
According to Heritage Foundation analyses, the Waxman-Markey bill would reduce GDP by $9.4 trillion (adjusted for inflation) from 2012 to 2035. Also there would be no net new jobs, but rather, millions of jobs lost. Consumers would suffer from having to pay higher prices for many goods and services. [1]

“In addition to the direct impact on consumers' budgets through higher electric bills and gasoline prices, the resultant increase in energy costs will reverberate throughout the economy and inject unnecessary inefficiencies at virtually every stage of production. It would suppress economic activity and reduce employment, especially in the manufacturing sector. Virtually all costs would eventually filter down to the American people.” [2]

There are so many costs to American taxpayers and so much freedom given up, it is difficult to see how Americans could be willing to give up so much and receive so little in exchange. The emissions effect would be almost unmeasurable. Even if one accepted the environmentalists’ ideas about CO-2, etc., there would be no net global decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, because growing economies such as China and India will not adopt anything like this to restrict their own emissions. Not only does this not help the emissions “problem,” the bill would put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage in world markets, since our prices would have to increase due to higher energy costs.

No Help from Other Countries
President Obama told the UN that climate change is so serious that everyone needs to cooperate to deal with it. That is simply not going to happen. Even the signers of the Kyoto protocol have not decreased their emissions and are doing worse now. Several countries are seeing the negative economic impact of laws restricting carbon emissions and are pulling back on them. Of course, Obama and company wouldn’t consider economic destruction a problem, since their main concern is government control and power. Otherwise, they would see that cap and trade makes no sense.

Another drawback is that the cap and trade bill relies on technology that does not yet exist, in order to meet the tightening emissions targets of future years. This is presumption in the extreme. Don’t be surprised if they pass laws relying on the development of time travel. The development of clean, renewable energy industries should follow market forces. When it’s profitable, private industry goes into action and puts it on the market.

The premise of cap and trade is that energy costs would increase to the point that there would be more demand for “green” energy development and fossil fuels would be conserved. Never mind that economic activity in general would be depressed even more than it is at present. A lot more. We would have less disposable income, i.e., we’d become poorer and have a lower standard of living.

It’s also odd that the government is no longer so much interested in real pollution (smog, carbon monoxide, etc.) in favor of worry over greenhouse gases, particularly the non-pollutant CO-2.

Senator Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) committee is handling the Senate version of cap and trade, which is not expected to be much different from Waxman-Markey. I wonder if Boxer’s bill also has the provision that before a person can sell a house, it must be updated according to a new federal building code for energy efficiency. If the usual pattern is followed, the bill will be voted upon without having been read or perhaps seen, let alone put on the internet for public viewing.

Do You “Feel” the Need for This Bill?
I suppose that with the help of Al Gore’s efforts and stirring up fears of bad things happening to polar bears, baby seals, and those cute little penguins, proponents of this legislation have got some people supporting it so they will feel better. Meanwhile, ski resorts in the Western U.S. are starting their season earlier than usual this year.

[1] David Kzeutzer, Ph.D., Karen Campbell, Ph.D., William W. Beach, Ben Lieberman, and Nicolas Loris, “The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey: An Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” 08/06/09, The Heritage Foundation, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda0904.cfm

[2] Ibid.

Photo: Dreamstime.com. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)

The Economy Is Not a Priority for Obama

Obama has been “getting things done” and “bringing change” since he arrived at the White House. Like many liberal leaders, he has cited “compassion” as his motivation and presented all the major items as emergencies that must be acted upon immediately. This urgent need precludes detailed consideration of proposed legislation and promotes the practice of voting on bills barely seen or unseen, or perhaps not yet written. That is all OK with Obama’s people.

Obama knows that if these bills, e.g., Obamacare, cap and trade, etc., were to be subjected to the normal legislative procedures, public outcry would probably persuade many members of Congress not to support them. Thus the underhanded way they are handling the health care takeover bill this week, even though they heard the protests this past summer. They have to act swiftly, knowing that the American people, by a solid majority, oppose it. Any congressman who is not in a solidly liberal district who votes for Obamacare probably won’t be back after the 2010 elections.

Cap and trade will have to be handled in a similar way, because, except for the diehard environmentalist fanatics, no one in his/her right mind can support this legislation, knowing that it is completely stupid. There shouldn’t even have to be an explanation of why one should oppose it. It is so blatantly bad, I have to wonder why everyone doesn’t see the folly of it and reject it out of hand. No debate should be needed. Why support a law that would (1) do no good for the environment, (2) bring higher costs to each American household on the order of $1,800 per year on average, with some paying much more (in certain geographic areas), and (3) through “carbon trading” and auctions, invite fraud and abuse that would make the financial meltdown look like a normal thing.

The proposed legislation mentioned above would each place a heavy burden on American taxpayers and provide no net improvement to their lives. Passage of both these bills will result in a depression within a few years. The financial burden on Americans is already stretched almost to the limit. The U. S. is in debt to a greater extent than ever and that debt will have doubled in five years from the time Obama took office. We are going to be seeing massive inflation, and fairly soon.

The unemployment rate, last reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics at 9.7% (highest in 26 years), will probably be stuck in double digits for years to come, as it is, and be considerably worse with Obamacare and cap and trade.

The point is, Obama doesn’t care about the economy. He knows all this. He’s focused on getting his great program in place so he can redistribute wealth. He will do little to nothing to actually help the poor (except for illegal immigrants, a future voting bloc), and he will get back at rich people by taxing away their wealth for his programs. He acts as though he doesn’t realize that these taxes on the rich will hurt workers and kill jobs. He acts as if he doesn’t realize that his policies will, sooner than we might think, destroy the middle class that he falsely claims he’s trying to help. But he does understand these things and is OK with them.

At the expense of the economy, he is taking over more and more of the private sector and more and more of the daily lives of the American people. The Democrats want a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages and fast food. Obama fans in Michigan told one woman that her practice of watching her friends’ kids before school constituted an illegal day care operation. She faced fines – until publicity persuaded authorities to relent.

Obamacare will carry a possible prison sentence for not purchasing insurance. This kind of mandate is unheard of in American history, and was commented upon by the Congressional Budget Office. It is unconstitutional. Among other reasons, it has been pointed out, being an American is not the same as engaging in interstate commerce.

One big problem for the American people is that their government is not helping the unemployment situation, a cause of much suffering and stress, but instead is planning things to exacerbate it. The only “help” has been in the form of extended unemployment benefits, which the workers eventually have to pay for, along with all the other wretched excesses of pork-barrel spending, bailouts and takeovers. If this picture isn’t substantially changed by the 2010 elections, we are in for generations of sub-par economic performance and potentially unpayable debt. But we’ll have pervasive government control of practically everything. And we’ll probably be looking at Obama portraits everywhere a la Saddam Hussein. We already can’t get him off TV.

Photo: Dreamstime.com

At UN, Obama Impresses and Receives Praise and Concern from His Mentors

Ah, Hugo Chavez. He just can’t resist picking at George W. Bush. Chavez appears to be proud of his protégé Barack Obama. Obama received high marks for his UN speech from Chavez, Fidel Castro and Muammar Gaddafi, among other tyrants and thugs whom Obama seems to admire.



At the United Nations General Assembly, Obama said, “For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.” For plain arrogance, Obama is hard to beat. And as far as I can tell, Barack Obama is the champion at blaming the previous administration(s) for not only his own troubles, but the world’s.

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline Blog, commented, “Does Obama believe that anything positive will come of this stomach-turning spectacle. Or does he just like to bask in the glow of applause for the proposition that the U.S. was a pretty rotten place until he assumed control, without worrying about who it is that’s applauding?” [1]

Again he apologized for America, as is his custom, and also, as is his custom, he declared that America is now the good guy in the world since he has taken charge. He has shown little respect for America’s true allies, such as Great Britain, Australia, Colombia, and especially Israel. No, he wants to cultivate the world’s dictators at the expense of allies who have actually supported American interests.

U.K. Telegraph commentator Nile Gardiner wrote, “It’s always a bad sign when a US president gets several rounds of heavy applause at the UN General Assembly, as Barack Obama did this morning in New York. Needless to say, the loudest cheers from the gathering of world leaders came when he condemned the actions of a close US ally, Israel, in continuing to build settlements in the West Bank. You can always rely on attacks on the Israelis to generate the biggest roars of approval at any meeting of the United Nations, and Obama dutifully obliged.” [2]

He’s the one who’s stopping America from torturing people. But the techniques used to interrogate detainees were not torture. Again, he has to get in a dig at the Bush Administration, which, by the way, managed to help America avoid another 9/11-type attack by using these methods.

He’s going to get the world on board with dealing with “climate change” when he can’t get the American people on board with his ridiculous cap and trade plan. His promotion of this plan is proof, if any more were needed, that he won’t help the U.S. economy, and, in keeping with his grand plan, he cannot.

Yes, Obama seems to be popular at the UN and probably thinks he’s enhancing America’s standing in the world. But in reality, he’s pandering to a bunch of dictators. Whatever respect he has earned will become evident in future developments.


[1] Paul Mirengoff, “Obama Takes the Supplication of America to a Disgusting New Level,” Powerline Blog 09/23/09 at http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/09/024578.php

[2] Nile Gardiner, “Barack at the UN: Was this Obama’s most naïve speech ever?,” Telegraph.co.uk, 09/23/09 at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100011129/barack-at-the-un-was-this-obama’s-most-naive-speech-ever/, quoted at Stop the ACLU.com http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/09/24/obama-at-united-nations-anti-israeli-sentiment-gets-biggest-applause/

Good News? Could Be ...

1. John Boehner Says Obamacare Is Dead

This would be great if correct. America needs for Obamacare to go the way of Hillarycare. Obamacare proponents discuss the need for a “public option,” but the whole thing is a big “public option,” whether or not it has a feature that is called by that name. In any event, if Obamacare is passed, within a few years, say a decade or less, we’ll have the government option as the only option. We’ll lose important rights if this proposal passes, and it will be very difficult if not impossible to recover them.

“‘There’s been no bipartisan conversation on Capitol Hill about health care,’ [House Republican Leader John] Boehner said in an interview with ‘Meet the Press’ host David Gregory. ‘At some point when these big government plans fail—and they will, the Congress will not pass this—it’s really time for the president to hit the reset button, just stop all of this and let’s sit down and start over in a bipartisan way to build a plan that Americans will support.’

“‘So you think the plan is dead?’ asked Gregory.

“‘I think it is,’ said Boehner.” [1]



2. Cap and Trade Legislation is in Trouble

Politico reports that the cap and trade bill is in trouble for this year because Democrats from coal-, oil- and manufacturing states believe the bill would be unfair to their states by causing disproportionate increases in energy costs. Also, with focus now on health care, and an attempt to pass new regulation of the financial sector, there possibly won’t be time or political capital available for action this year. [2]

As I and others have pointed out before, this is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever proposed. It has already passed the House, but faces an uphill fight in the Senate. This bill is supposed to be the answer to climate change and a big revenue raiser for the government, but in fact it would do nothing to help climate change or government revenues. Even if man-made climate change were an actual problem (which it isn’t) and even if this bill would do something toward controlling it (which it wouldn’t), remember that India and China will never be on board with it, because they are trying to grow their economy rather than destroy it as Obama is trying to do with ours.

And as far as revenues are concerned, enactment of this monstrosity would make the recession seem permanent, and combined with Obamacare would lead to a depression. If cap and trade is passed, many manufacturers and energy producers would shut down business or curtail production, and if possible, seek opportunities overseas. Almost all prices would increase as a result of increased energy costs. Revenues to the government would decrease because there would be fewer taxpayers, and those remaining would be earning less and paying less in taxes.

Also, cap and trade would do nothing to encourage things that would actually help our energy situation, such as domestic oil production, offshore and ANWR drilling, and nuclear power.

“‘I’d like to see climate change done before December so we can go to Copenhagen with something in our hands,’ said Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin. ‘We might be able to get to it in November.’” [3]

This reflects the kind of misguided thinking that exacerbates the economic problems we have – trying to impress some international representatives whose countries are, truth be told, less interested in “climate change,” and more interested in putting the U.S. at an economic disadvantage. I have to hope that some day soon, good sense will prevail and this whole climate change and global warming “issue” will go the way of Prohibition. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid got some opposition from citizens on cap and trade in Nevada in August:



To be rid of both these bills would be wonderful, but, of course, there’s always the chance they’ll be back.

[1] Terence P. Jeffrey, “Boehner Says Democrat Health Care Plan Is Dead,” 09/20/09, at http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54273.

[2]Lisa Lerer, “Vital signs weak for climate bill,” at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27251.html#ixzz0RoQIEGhq.

[3] Ibid.

Negative Progress on Jobs under Obama’s Stimulus

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- AUGUST 2009

Nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline in August (-216,000), and the unemployment rate rose to 9.7 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Although job losses continued in many of the major industry sectors in August, the declines have moderated in recent
months.

Household Survey Data

In August, the number of unemployed persons increased by 466,000 to 14.9 million, and the unemployment rate rose by 0.3 percentage point to 9.7 percent.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 09/04/09 (Emphasis added throughout this article)

The current unemployment rate of 9.7 percent is the highest in 26 years.

The Obama stimulus package was supposed to create 4.1 million new jobs by the end of 2010. [1] It does not appear to be working. The stimulus package of $800 billion is largely a spending bill for liberal projects that can do little to stimulate the economy. It was presented as an emergency measure and passed with a minimum of debate and scrutiny.

Gallup Chief Economist Dennis Jacobe reports the following:
“PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Daily economic data aggregated on a monthly basis show that job creation in August is just not taking place in the U.S. economy. While Gallup data for the month also show a slight moderation in job loss, this is not sufficient to take up the slack for a 35% decline in the rate of job creation compared to a year ago. And, while confidence in the future direction of the U.S. economy is at its highest level in 20 months, Gallup data also show a continued delinking of consumer spending -- which is down 33% from a year ago.” [2]

Why doesn’t all this spending create more jobs than are being lost? It simply isn’t stimulating the economy because to stimulate the economy, it is necessary to encourage private investment. Private investment involves taking risks. The government spending involved in the infrastructure projects can benefit some workers and some companies, but provides no encouragement to other companies. Nothing suggests that the other companies’ investments and hiring would pay off, because the economy is running such a deficit that government debt will crowd out investors. When an investor buys government debt, he/she cannot invest that money in private companies.

Companies outside the construction or other directly stimulus-affected industries see little incentive to expand and hire. They know tax increases are coming as the Bush tax cuts expire. These increases are substantial. There is little the government is doing to encourage lending. If businesses can’t borrow, they generally can’t expand, and, as mentioned they have little incentive to expand anyway. Another serious hindrance to economic growth is the Administration’s determination to pass some kind of government health care and cap and trade. Because the proposals are so intrusive and all-encompassing, many businesses would consider it the height of imprudence to make big changes without knowing what is to become of these proposals. And if they pass, businesses may very well hunker down even more, and, if they can, seek opportunities offshore. The prospect of crippling taxes and regulations slows everything down, except the specific items directed by the stimulus bill. Uncertainty about government policy never helps, especially these potentially big-ticket items.

The Administration must take responsibility for the economy. It’s their stimulus. It isn’t working and can’t work due to the laws of economics. Combined with their other big efforts (if they are enacted), we can expect an even larger negative impact on the economy, resulting in more misery and suffering for American families. The best thing government can do is back off, get out of the way, and free the markets to work. The stimulus and the other proposals mentioned will do more harm than good to the economy.

As the Heritage Foundation’s “Morning Bell” article puts it,
“The federal deficit is expected to approach $2 trillion this year, and to remain well above $1 trillion for many years to come, doubling the national debt in just five years. This situation is not sustainable, but businesses can only guess how the federal government will restore order to its fiscal house, knowing full well that successful businesses make an attractive tax target. In the face of such a threatening environment, it is not surprising that job creation has fallen since President Obama signed the stimulus.” [3]


[1] The Heritage Foundation, “Morning Bell: President Obama’s Failed Stimulus,” 09/04/09, appearing at http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=148525515907&ref=nf (The Heritage Foundation Notes)
[2] Dennis Jacobe, “Gallup Economic Monthly: Job Creation Not Happening,” 09/03/09 at http://www.gallup.com/poll/122696/Gallup-Economic-Monthly-Job-Creation-Not-Happening.aspx
[3] The Heritage Foundation, see [1].

Illustration: Unemployment rates in the United States (1950 - 2005).
• Background colors and dotted lines show the terms of U.S. presidents and their political party affiliation, to give more historical context.
• Data source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
• Chart created by User: Kmf164 on May 10, 2006.
• License at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/
• Illustration found at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.svg

Obama Still Blaming That Bad Ol’ George W. as Things Get Worse

1. Obama Keeps Complaining about His Predecessor.
In his July 22 press conference, Obama complained about the huge deficits inherited from the Bush Administration. Never mind that the last two years of G.W. Bush had a Democratic majority in Congress. The Bush deficits pale in comparison to Obama’s.
This debt will be there for generations to come. And we have yet to see the inevitable inflation. At some point, Bush can no longer be fairly blamed. I think that point is well past.

2. The Economic Problems Now Belong to Obama.
If Obama is trying to help the economy, it’s obvious that he and his congressional allies have no clue about how to do it. But it’s not quite that simple (See #5).

3. His “Remedies” Are Making Things Worse.
The “stimulus” (which could better be named the Pork and Earmark Cornucopia Act) has not stopped the steady increase in unemployment, with millions of jobs being lost. The Obama people are saying that their projections of unemployment figures were too low because they “misread” the economy. Of course, it’s that fiend Bush’s fault. In fact, they’d been ranting for most of the G. W. Bush years about how the sky was falling and it was the worst economy since the Great Depression. That was even before there was a recession. If they didn’t know the state of the economy when Obama took office, it could only be because they didn’t do their homework.

So how are we doing now? Here’s a clue:

Bernanke to lawmaker: Jobless recovery may loom
Thursday, July 23, 2009
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke sees the possibility of continued high unemployment even after the recession loosens its grip, a key U.S. senator said on Monday after talking to him.
“It was a rather sobering meeting,” Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, said on CNBC.
“I said, ... ‘Could this be a jobless recovery?’ ... and he said it could be,” Shelby said.

Most recessions don’t last very long if left to the market. But Obama was on board with Paulsen, Bernanke and, of course, Bush in demanding an immediate “bailout” package that had to be passed so urgently there was no time for study or debate. After the government and the Fed had already spent billions for various bailouts, Obama and company took over GM and Chrysler, etc., which cost many more billions, led to bankruptcy anyway, cheated creditors, dealers, and stockholders, who were chastised if they dared complain. So here we are. Thirty-plus czars will work all this out, while making sure that financial company executive pay is kept in line.

4. Cap and Trade, and Health Care “Reform” Will Do Us In Economically.

Cap and trade will massively increase taxes and unemployment, sending many jobs and companies overseas and closing many manufacturers. It also will do nothing to help the environment. Even if “climate change” were a legitimate issue (which it is not), this law wouldn’t help. India and China aren’t on board and several other countries are realizing that this kind of law is counterproductive. Check the carbon results of the Kyoto signers.

Health care “reform” is as much of a nightmare as cap and trade. It will wreck our health care system, put insurance companies out of business, and greatly disincentivize health care providers and pharmaceutical companies. It will in a relatively short time have everyone on the “public option,” with rationed care. In his July 22 press conference, the President said that health care reform will decrease deficits. It will not decrease deficit levels and the only way to reduce the deficits it will produce will be rationing care.

Rather than making health care more affordable and more available, it will actually deny and delay health care in many cases and degrade quality in just about all. People will be required to purchase insurance. The problems in our health care system do not warrant such an overhaul. The government can address the actual problem areas by helping to, for example, provide affordable catastrophic coverage, and as I and others have suggested, provide tax incentives to employers providing coverage, etc. But the Administration wants to “pay for” their plan by increasing taxes. If you think we’re in a recession now, just wait.

Either of these bills would seriously deepen and extend the recession; both together would make it seem permanent. These are among the very worst laws ever considered in America.

5. It’s OK with Obama, Though; His Plans Are Really Working.
Obama is working feverishly to amass power, avoid scrutiny and reduce people’s ability to resist by making them more and more dependent on government. He wants to follow Rahm Emanuel’s advice and not let any good crisis go to waste. And believe me, there won’t be any shortage of crises. And, he has the mainstream media working for him. However, his popularity is beginning to fade.

6. It’ll Be OK for Us If Enough People Wake Up Before It’s Too Late.
How much loss of freedom and personal independence are the American people willing to put up with? Keep in mind that whatever Obama has done to others he can do to any of us. Obama wants as much control over the daily lives of Americans as he can get. He is working to put the Democratic Party in a perpetual majority by pandering (and lying) to the people and increasing Democrat voters by courting illegal immigrants and enlarging and perpetuating a dependent class.

How much of our Constitution are we willing to rip out as though it meant nothing? I don’t think Americans will stop being Americans. They will act once they see the errors that need to be corrected. Don’t re-elect these people! Contact your elected representatives! I’m still optimistic. Disappointed, but optimistic.

Obama Cares So Deeply About … What?

Must we learn the hard way what Barack Obama’s intentions are? It should be painfully obvious by now that he is not particularly concerned with helping the economy. I think, rather, he’s trying to destroy it. And has “success” in his sights. Obama’s goals involve seizing as much power and control as possible, and redistributing as much wealth as possible. Once a good majority reaches non-taxpayer status, the remaining citizens can have their wealth taxed away to support the great fascist program. And there will be a majority willing to re-elect Barack, Biden, and their Congressional helpers. At least that’s what they seem to think.

1. The $800 billion dollar stimulus has thus far helped nothing. It is noted that only a small fraction of it has been spent so far, but it would be just as well, better even, if no more were spent at all. Now they’re talking Son of Stimulus which won’t help either, except for whatever benefit can be gained from pork projects and bridges to nowhere.

2. Cap and trade, if approved will be the biggest drain ever on our economy, not to mention our freedom. It will effectively “cap” any chance for economic recovery, probably for as long as it is in effect. As Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) observed, it could be called a stimulus bill for India and China. They are not going to allow these mindless restrictions and economy-destroying taxes, because they are trying to build their economies rather than tear them down.

The current employment situation is bad and getting worse. With cap and trade, we will see depression-era unemployment numbers and a steady exit of businesses to other countries, simply because they can no longer afford to stay in business here. Many of the ones that can’t move will simply shut down. Or maybe the government will take them over.

And all this activity, with its massive bureaucracy won’t help the climate one bit. The world of cap and trade is truly a fool’s paradise.

3. Health care and health insurance should not be the domain of the federal government when it comes to replacing private services. What is being proposed must lead to a single-payer government-controlled program with government eventually becoming the provider. If the government controls the insurance, they in effect control health care. The proposed plans seem to be comprehensive, placing all activity under some kind of government scrutiny if not direct control. As Mark Steyn pointed out on today’s Rush Limbaugh Show, an inefficient and unfair private system is far better than an inefficient and unfair government system, because under a private system, you can go somewhere else, but under a public system, you have to go where and when they tell you.

In health care, we are dealing with the most personal and intimate information. It has traditionally received a degree of privacy, protection, and choice. We may be about to give that up for a government system that has physical and decision-making control over our bodies. That is a serious and probably permanent surrender of freedom.

And people are worried about the government taxing our employer-provided health care benefits? That’s only a minor worry in the whole picture, but it is a problem. They’ll eventually be taxed out of existence and everyone will be on government health insurance, forcibly if necessary. “Competition” will be a forgotten concept in the health insurance field. Insurance companies will have to take up some other line of business. All of which is fine with Obama.

The hated pharmaceutical industry will be pressured to provide cheap medicine, which means they’ll have less money and less incentive to develop new medicines.

Oh, and cost? If you have some kind of coverage now, you will be paying more, since you’ll also be paying for a lot of other people’s insurance.

If you want to get treated for, say, a broken arm, you’ll be told when and where, probably put on a waiting list, restricted on any high-tech examining procedures (whatever your doctor might want to do), and all your records will be online for all and sundry to examine if they have the slightest connection with your medical care. Come to think of it, the North Koreans would probably be able to access it as well, along with your Social Security Number, etc., expert hackers that they are. If you’re old or chronically ill, look out for long delays and frequent denials of treatment.

Conclusion
The same folks that brought you Fannie and Freddie and FEMA are ready to offer you climate-saving cap and trade, plus cost-cutting health care insurance. And if you believe that, they might be willing to sell you a bridge somewhere in Brooklyn. Snake oil doesn’t sound all that bad by comparison.

Illustration: “Business Is Business”
From Squibs of California, Or, Every-day Life Illustrated by Palmer Cox, fig. 3, p. 171. This image is in the public domain. Found at http://books.google.com/books?id=Ri8PAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA17&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4

Congress Reaches New Lows in Legislative Substance and Form

Substance
Ah, where to begin? The Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill is a new low in just about every way it could be. It’s high-taxing, job-killing, industry-destroying atrocity that will not achieve its stated objectives and yet will cost trillions of dollars.

As many people have pointed out, the “climate change” issue is a phony one anyway, and other countries are beginning to pull back on their efforts to deal with it. Australia, for example.

But not only does the bill take a convoluted, fraud-inviting and unfair route to dealing with carbon emissions, it also contains numerous very intrusive, unconstitutional and destructive measures, many unrelated to the climate question, or so micro-managing as to constitute not a climate help but simply a costly, freedom-destroying annoyance. For instance, the bill mandates that government experts have to sign off on a house’s environmental efficiency and necessary upgrades must be made before a house can be sold. This is blatantly unconstitutional, but who reads the Constitution any more? Certainly not our leftist government. And the federal code for houses is just one little item tacked on somewhere in that famous 300-page amendment. Has anyone ever heard of the Tenth Amendment?

Republican House Leader John Boehner (R-OH) read from the bill for an hour in the House of Representatives, saying the American people have a right to know what’s in the bill. And some strange and surprising things are in it (see video).

Form
How could all this legislative junk be approved? Well, probably not by normal means. It took some very sneaky and clever activity to do it.

There was no bill available for House members to read before they voted. That in itself is a breach of not only common sense, but the Constitution. I seem to recall a promise from the Democrats some time back that the text of proposed legislation, especially important items, would be posted on the internet for two weeks for public view. This one wasn’t even available for Congress members’ view. If there really is a House Ethics Committee, maybe they should check this out.

There was delivery of the aforementioned 300-page amendment around 3 AM. I’m sure most of the House members studied it carefully before voting.

I predict that the same types of tactics will be used when the healthcare “reform” (i.e., takeover) legislation is presented. But we’ll see.

Conclusion
The Waxman-Markey bill itself and the sneaky manner in which it was handled are so egregious that every Representative who voted for it should be voted out of office in 2010. It’s that bad. They should have known better. But Obama is happy and can now proceed with his plan in the Senate. Maybe they’ll be just embarrassed enough to reject the cap and trade bill. But don’t bet on it.

Let's Sunset This Toxic Cap and Trade Bill

"Cap and trade bills are nothing short of a government re-engineering of the American economy. And S. 2191, with its aggressive targets to reduce emissions from fossil fuel use, would put the nation on a path of serious economic harm not justified by any benefits.” – Ben Lieberman [1]

Cap and Trade is supposed to be the answer to “climate change” and is supposed to create “green jobs.” Waxman-Markey is the pride and joy of its sponsors and of all the leftist environmentalists, except some few who may not consider it radical enough. Why do we need this type of bill? Answer: Emphatically, we don’t!

How working people, let alone corporations, could support this is truly beyond me. It can easily be understood as another piece of Obama’s fascist plan that represents an even bigger take-over of the private sector than the GM, Chrysler, and bank takeovers. Apparently nothing is off limits to this Administration and Democrat Congress, which can be thought of as a great octopus with tentacles out everywhere, grabbing as much as possible. There is no possibility that this can help the climate, the economy, our energy situation or much of anything else except Obama’s voracious appetite for power.

A few simple facts:
1. As pointed out by the Heritage Foundation, the vaunted Kyoto protocol, if followed, would only reduce earth’s temperature by such a miniscule amount it could not be measured. [1]

2. The signers of Kyoto are substantially above the carbon targets, and are doing worse than before the treaty. [1]

3. The “climate change” issue is a hoax anyway. The climate naturally changes, probably due to the sun, which we can’t affect, and there is nothing effective that can be done. It is extremely doubtful that human activity has any significant effect. The main function of “climate change” is not climate-related, but simply to provide an excuse for greatly increased government power and intervention.

4. Carbon dioxide, regardless of what the Supreme Court (climate experts, right?) says, is not a pollutant and there is absolutely no need to regulate it.

5. The cap and trade policy is nothing other than an amazingly large and complex tax which will require every user of fossil fuel or electricity to pay greatly increased prices, and will cause businesses that use a lot of fossil fuels to be greatly harmed, pushed to the edge of failure, or go under. The smart ones who are able to will relocate overseas. This gives the lie to Obama’s concern about “shipping jobs overseas.” He is going to “ship” entire industries overseas.

6. The phoniness and complexity of “carbon credits” assures massive fraud, waste and abuse. Milton Friedman said, “I say thank God for government waste. If government is doing bad things, it's only the waste that prevents the harm from being greater.” That is true, but not overly comforting when the government is doing VERY bad things again and again with no letup in sight.

I suppose everyone is supposed to be studying how much carbon dioxide will be put into the atmosphere with and without Waxman-Markey. My position is: Who cares? The real question is: How much overbearing activism from the government, over nothing, are we going to be willing to put up with?

The enviro-fascists say, “The debate is over,” to which I reply, There is no real issue to debate. It is a fictitious “problem.” However, massive job losses, back-breaking regulations, unbelievable taxes, great loss of liberty and property rights, budget-busting expense for utilities (and, of course, many other things) are real problems for everyone.

Another drawback to all this is that it would discourage actual helpful things like increasing domestic energy production and nuclear power.

Has Obama’s personal charm actually blinded people to the extent that we’ll accept this kind of government control over everything? Obama is not stupid. HE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE ECONOMY except how it might affect his popularity rating, which his teleprompter can help him with. If Obama’s plans, particularly health insurance and cap and trade, take effect, there truly is going to be a financial collapse because the free market will be effectively just about gone. Obama is not stupid, but too many people are misled and grievously ill-informed. The cap and trade proponents make this issue look complicated, but it is really quite simple.

I don’t really want to overdose anyone on videos, but this time it’s going to be a double feature, which I hope you’ll find helpful. First, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) on April 23, 2009, then Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), on May 19, 2009:





Note:
[1] See Ben Lieberman, “Beware of Cap and Trade Climate Bills,” December 6, 2007 at
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/upload/wm_1723.pdf.

Obama Explains the Effects of Cap and Trade

What are two effects Obama says cap and trade would have?
1. A huge sum would be charged that would bankrupt anyone building a coal-powered plant.
2. Electricity rates would skyrocket.

Got it?

Where does this leave the coal industry? Also, when energy rates go up, many other prices also go up. Obama would make this program permanent with stricter requirements each year.

All this would raise costs, raise taxes, and impose more controls in the name of fighting "climate change," a non-existent "crisis" about which, even if climate is changing, which it naturally does over time, nothing can be done anyway. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. But this plan is another step toward wrecking the American economy. Think the financial meltdown has been bad? We've yet to see the impact of Obama's plans for that. This is equally destructive if not worse. How many businesses will close or leave America if this plan comes into effect? Probably a lot. If we think of our economy as a building, cap and trade is a wrecking ball.

Cap and trade is supposed to provide billions for "investment" in alternative energy sources. Wind and solar power industries will develop as entrepreneurs (capitalists!) see a profit potential and are willing to invest in them. Right now these things, as far as massive energy production is concerned, are a pipe dream that's going to cost billions, and with government in charge, the payoff is doubtful, and far away at best.