Bono Mack (CA) 202-225-5330
Castle (DE) 202-225-4165
Kirk (IL) 202-225-4835
Lance (NJ) 202-225-5361
Lobiondo (NJ) 202-225-6572
McHugh (NY) 202-225-4611
Reichart (WA) 202-225-7761
Chris Smith (NJ) 202-225-3765
Make them explain themselves!
Click here for the complete results of the vote.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Cap and Trade: Subversion
As if things couldn’t get any weirder.
As Democrats in the house narrowly pass the thousand page, $2 trillion-dollar plus, cap and trade bill on Friday, EPA documents that refute global warming data are being suppressed.
In a new 2009 study by the EPA on global warming makes the United Nations’ 2007 study, which is being used as the impetus for the Markey-Waxman “Cap and Trade” bill, obsolete. However, this study was suppressed so it wouldn’t interfere with Fridays vote.
Not only does this fly in the face of Obama’s transparency rhetoric it also shows the pragmatism of Obams’s promise when he declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.”
As it turns out the EPA has been keeping the report under wraps and silencing its author because the Obama administration is pressuring them to support carbon dioxide emission regulations.
The report warns that the EPA's adoption of the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” means that it is relying on outdated research and ignoring major new developments on the issue of climate change.
According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which released the report by analyst and economist/physicist Alan Carlin, explained that those new developments include the continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.
Other new data indicates that ocean cycles probably are the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, the institute said. Moreover, reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases.
As Democrats in the house narrowly pass the thousand page, $2 trillion-dollar plus, cap and trade bill on Friday, EPA documents that refute global warming data are being suppressed.
In a new 2009 study by the EPA on global warming makes the United Nations’ 2007 study, which is being used as the impetus for the Markey-Waxman “Cap and Trade” bill, obsolete. However, this study was suppressed so it wouldn’t interfere with Fridays vote.
Not only does this fly in the face of Obama’s transparency rhetoric it also shows the pragmatism of Obams’s promise when he declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.”
As it turns out the EPA has been keeping the report under wraps and silencing its author because the Obama administration is pressuring them to support carbon dioxide emission regulations.
The report warns that the EPA's adoption of the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” means that it is relying on outdated research and ignoring major new developments on the issue of climate change.
According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which released the report by analyst and economist/physicist Alan Carlin, explained that those new developments include the continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.
Other new data indicates that ocean cycles probably are the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, the institute said. Moreover, reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The cost of Universal Healthcare
The proposed healthcare reform measure being touted by the Obama White House is a recipe for failure and the result will be a complete government takeover of healthcare. That will mean higher taxes, lower quality of care, larger deficits, and bureaucratic rationing.
Despite a weak economy and facing trillion dollar deficits Barrack Obama is hurrying to restructure the healthcare system at a cost of more than a trillion dollars. The chances of sweeping healthcare reform being enacted are high since a significant number of Americans have come to accept the belief that healthcare for everyone is a civil right. A recent Rasmussen poll shows 42% of Americans believe healthcare is a fundamental right.
According to the White House, the start up cost for this program is estimated to be a whopping $634 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, however, the cost will be $1 trillion and will only cover one third of the 48 million uninsured Americans. Further more the CBO reports 23 million Americans will loose their private healthcare plans.
Coming up with the money to pay for this entitlement program is proving to be problematic. As it stands the spending cuts praised by the Obama administration only account for $309 billion and his proposed tax increases will only raise $267 billion leaving a shortfall of $60 billion.
So far the Democrats have refused to tell us how they are going to pay for their health plan. What we do know about the plan is Obama’s intentions to increase taxes on businesses and the wealthy and hire 800 new IRS agents to go after offshore tax shelters.
Obama is also considering a plan that would tax the health benefits provided by private employers. This is the very thing Obama criticized John McCain for during the 2008 presidential campaign. If health insurance was taxed as regular income, the government could potentially collect an additional $250 billion a year. Those costs will be shouldered by everyone insured by their employer, provided employers continue to offer healthcare once the tax shelter is lifted.
One notorious pitfall of any government program is that the program always costs more than originally estimated. One reason is that slick politicians lowball the cost as a market strategy to get the measure past and because there are always hidden costs and unforeseen crisis that require more money to keep the program solvent.
Both Medicare and Medicaid cost significantly more than they were originally estimated by over $60 billion. Medicare will exceed the payroll tax by 2017. Medicare is already committed to paying $38 trillion over the next 75 years. Adding to those costs Obama’s nationalized health plan will run an additional $15 trillion.
Another example is President Bush’s massive $534 billion Prescription Drug Benefit Plan to Medicare. Current estimates now place that at $1.2 trillion by 2015. And that’s not all; the 75 year outlook places the added burden to Medicare at $4.4 trillion.
Nowhere to be found in any of these proposals is how to cover those future costs.
If Massachusetts State run healthcare model teaches us anything it is giving the government greater control over healthcare will result in burdensome consequences for taxpayers and healthcare consumers. The original cost estimate was $125 million. This price tag, however, has risen faster than originally predicted to an excess of $400 million in 2009 and will cost the state an estimated $869 million in 2010. Many recipients of the new Massachusetts health system find themselves without a physician because doctor’s offices aren’t taking new patients.
Politicians, in their vigor to promote entitlement spending, say they can do it all; cut taxes, reduce the deficit, and provide healthcare to everyone at a lower cost. History has shown this to be false. Something has to give; expect higher costs or less coverage. This will result in nothing less than lucrative government contracts financed by the tax payer.
Here we have another expensive federal program when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned even without this trillion dollar healthcare reform the ever increasing costs of current programs will soon affect interest rates, economic growth and financial stability. Government has shown us that cutting spending in any meaningful way is pure fantasy. Since it is difficult for politicians to relinquish any government program there are only two choices; raise taxes or borrow money further increasing the deficit.
Despite a weak economy and facing trillion dollar deficits Barrack Obama is hurrying to restructure the healthcare system at a cost of more than a trillion dollars. The chances of sweeping healthcare reform being enacted are high since a significant number of Americans have come to accept the belief that healthcare for everyone is a civil right. A recent Rasmussen poll shows 42% of Americans believe healthcare is a fundamental right.
According to the White House, the start up cost for this program is estimated to be a whopping $634 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, however, the cost will be $1 trillion and will only cover one third of the 48 million uninsured Americans. Further more the CBO reports 23 million Americans will loose their private healthcare plans.
Coming up with the money to pay for this entitlement program is proving to be problematic. As it stands the spending cuts praised by the Obama administration only account for $309 billion and his proposed tax increases will only raise $267 billion leaving a shortfall of $60 billion.
So far the Democrats have refused to tell us how they are going to pay for their health plan. What we do know about the plan is Obama’s intentions to increase taxes on businesses and the wealthy and hire 800 new IRS agents to go after offshore tax shelters.
Obama is also considering a plan that would tax the health benefits provided by private employers. This is the very thing Obama criticized John McCain for during the 2008 presidential campaign. If health insurance was taxed as regular income, the government could potentially collect an additional $250 billion a year. Those costs will be shouldered by everyone insured by their employer, provided employers continue to offer healthcare once the tax shelter is lifted.
One notorious pitfall of any government program is that the program always costs more than originally estimated. One reason is that slick politicians lowball the cost as a market strategy to get the measure past and because there are always hidden costs and unforeseen crisis that require more money to keep the program solvent.
Both Medicare and Medicaid cost significantly more than they were originally estimated by over $60 billion. Medicare will exceed the payroll tax by 2017. Medicare is already committed to paying $38 trillion over the next 75 years. Adding to those costs Obama’s nationalized health plan will run an additional $15 trillion.
Another example is President Bush’s massive $534 billion Prescription Drug Benefit Plan to Medicare. Current estimates now place that at $1.2 trillion by 2015. And that’s not all; the 75 year outlook places the added burden to Medicare at $4.4 trillion.
Nowhere to be found in any of these proposals is how to cover those future costs.
If Massachusetts State run healthcare model teaches us anything it is giving the government greater control over healthcare will result in burdensome consequences for taxpayers and healthcare consumers. The original cost estimate was $125 million. This price tag, however, has risen faster than originally predicted to an excess of $400 million in 2009 and will cost the state an estimated $869 million in 2010. Many recipients of the new Massachusetts health system find themselves without a physician because doctor’s offices aren’t taking new patients.
Politicians, in their vigor to promote entitlement spending, say they can do it all; cut taxes, reduce the deficit, and provide healthcare to everyone at a lower cost. History has shown this to be false. Something has to give; expect higher costs or less coverage. This will result in nothing less than lucrative government contracts financed by the tax payer.
Here we have another expensive federal program when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned even without this trillion dollar healthcare reform the ever increasing costs of current programs will soon affect interest rates, economic growth and financial stability. Government has shown us that cutting spending in any meaningful way is pure fantasy. Since it is difficult for politicians to relinquish any government program there are only two choices; raise taxes or borrow money further increasing the deficit.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Quote Of The Day:
“Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right.”—Hugo Chavez
Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez chiding that Barrack Obama is more liberal than Fidel Castro and himself.
Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez chiding that Barrack Obama is more liberal than Fidel Castro and himself.
More Hypocrisy from the Obama Administration
During the elections Barrack Obama stated that Iran, Cuba, Venezuela are tiny countries that pose no serious threat to the United States.
See Video
Brezhnev never took Kennedy’s diplomatic solutions seriously until he blockaded Cuba leaving the U.S. and the Soviets tittering on the brink of war.
SALT I and SALT II were miserable failures. There wasn’t a serious or lasting nuclear treaty with the Soviets until Ronald Reagan began a massive military build up that forced the Soviets to negotiations proving that negotiating form a position of strength is a recipe for success.
Now Barrack Obama has succumbed to the idea Iran will become a nuclear state, “Iran may have some right to nuclear energy” says Obama.
In N. Korea his strategy is more of the same; to go back to the table for more talks which have failed for last six years.
According to Hilleary Clinton’s warning to N. Korea, which makes no mention of preemption, is a warning without teeth. It would appear American military intervention will come only after an attack on S. Korea or Japan.
Time and time again talk has proven cheap when dealing with these rogue regimes whose leaders are nothing more than escaped mental patients from the asylum. History has shown us that negotiation from a position of weakness is a recipe for failure. Yet the Obama administration is hell bent on modeling failed formulas from the past.
Obama has accepted a nuclear Iran, N. Korea, and Venezuela who is currently working with Russia to develop nuclear power.
The Obama administration is fine with everyone going nuclear except the U.S. where he refuses to allow any new nuclear power plants and has embarked America on a course of green energy that is less than environmental friendly and guaranteed high costs in both jobs loss and tax payer subsides.
See Video
Brezhnev never took Kennedy’s diplomatic solutions seriously until he blockaded Cuba leaving the U.S. and the Soviets tittering on the brink of war.
SALT I and SALT II were miserable failures. There wasn’t a serious or lasting nuclear treaty with the Soviets until Ronald Reagan began a massive military build up that forced the Soviets to negotiations proving that negotiating form a position of strength is a recipe for success.
Now Barrack Obama has succumbed to the idea Iran will become a nuclear state, “Iran may have some right to nuclear energy” says Obama.
In N. Korea his strategy is more of the same; to go back to the table for more talks which have failed for last six years.
According to Hilleary Clinton’s warning to N. Korea, which makes no mention of preemption, is a warning without teeth. It would appear American military intervention will come only after an attack on S. Korea or Japan.
Time and time again talk has proven cheap when dealing with these rogue regimes whose leaders are nothing more than escaped mental patients from the asylum. History has shown us that negotiation from a position of weakness is a recipe for failure. Yet the Obama administration is hell bent on modeling failed formulas from the past.
Obama has accepted a nuclear Iran, N. Korea, and Venezuela who is currently working with Russia to develop nuclear power.
The Obama administration is fine with everyone going nuclear except the U.S. where he refuses to allow any new nuclear power plants and has embarked America on a course of green energy that is less than environmental friendly and guaranteed high costs in both jobs loss and tax payer subsides.
The Morality of Climate Change
According to this article by Paul Driessen Harvard economists predict Cap and Trade will cost the average American family an additional $1500 a year in energy costs. MIT economists predict it will be even higher toping out at $3000 per family. This is sick and immoral and based on lies and unproven theories.
In Spain "green jobs" cost more to create than jobs in other enegry related fields. Can this be our future?
And we get this from a President who has vowed to respect and value science.
You can find more articles by Paul Driessen at Townhall.com
And Eco- Imperialism.com
Compared to no cap-and-tax regime, Waxman-Markey would cost the United States a cumulative $9.6 trillion in real GDP losses by 2035, according to an updated study by the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. The bill would also cost an additional 1.1 million jobs each year, raise electricity rates 90% after adjusting for inflation, cause a 74% hike in inflation-adjusted gasoline prices, and add $1,500 to the average family’s annual energy bill, says Heritage.
The Congressional Budget Office says the poorest one-fifth of families could see annual energy costs rise $700 – while high income families could see their costs rise $2,200 a year. Harvard economist Martin Feldstein estimates that the average person could pay an extra $1,500 per year for energy. MIT says household energy costs could climb $3,000 per year.
Where will families find that extra cash? “What do I tell a single mom, making $8 an hour?” asked North Carolina congressman (and Congressional Black Caucus member) G. K. Butterfield.
In Spain "green jobs" cost more to create than jobs in other enegry related fields. Can this be our future?
Spain’s experience should be cautionary, but probably won’t be. According to a study by Dr. Gabriel Calzada, Spanish taxpayers spent $800,000 for each new job in the wind turbine industry (mostly installing towering turbines) – and destroyed 2.2 regular jobs for each “green” job, primarily because pricey “renewable” electricity forced companies to lay off workers, to stay in business.
And we get this from a President who has vowed to respect and value science.
You can find more articles by Paul Driessen at Townhall.com
And Eco- Imperialism.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
