Showing posts with label CAP-AND-TAX. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CAP-AND-TAX. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

T. Boone Pickens Scuttles Wind Farm Project

81066304DM019_Report_Claims Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens has called off plans to build the world's biggest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle, The Wall Street Journal said.

Pickens said the wind farm project was scuttled partly because of the lack of adequate transmission lines to carry the electricity from remote locations to cities, according to the paper.

The oil tycoon had hoped to build new transmission lines but could not secure financing, the paper said.

Pickens plans to find new homes for the turbines that he already agreed to buy, the paper said, citing a statement.

Pickens could not immediately be reached for comment by Reuters.

(Reporting by Ajay Kamalakaran in Bangalore; Editing by Greg Mahlich)

© 2009 Reuters

Source: NewsMax

Is there anyone out there other than me that is shaking their head in disbelief?? The government is pushing their global warming (ah climate change hoax) agenda down our throats and trying to convince the American People that they need to pass cap-and-trade, which in reality is cap-and-tax, the largest invasive power grab and tax increase in American/world history… and someone like T. Boone Pickens can’t get funding for his “green” project in this climate??? Hello???

And to confirm the lack of available financing, Donald Trump just said the same thing last week in an interview with Fox News’s Greta van Susteren:

When Greta asked Donald Trump what he’d do if he were President he said he would force the banks to loan the stimulus money that we, the taxpayers, have given them. He said no matter how wealthy you are, you cannot go out and get a loan. The banks are just sitting on that money, covering their bottom-line.

It is becoming ever more clear that the stimulus was a disaster, money is not flowing down, the Obama Financial Team either doesn’t know what they are doing (per V.P. Biden) or are purposely doing things to re-make or negatively impact our entire system and that we are being sold a bill of goods, including Cap-and-Trade, Nationalized Health, and the list goes on.

Related Resources:

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

No More Green Guilt

Every investment prospectus warns that "past performance is no guarantee of future results." But suppose that an investment professional's record contains nothing but losses, of failed prediction after failed prediction. Who would still entrust that investor with his money?

Yet, in public policy there is one group with a dismal track record that Americans never seem to tire of supporting. We invest heavily in its spurious predictions, suffer devastating losses, and react by investing even more, never seeming to learn from the experience. The group I’m talking about is the environmentalist movement.

Consider their track record—like the dire warnings of catastrophic over-population. Our unchecked consumption, we were told, was depleting the earth's resources and would wipe humanity out in a massive population crash. Paul Ehrlich's 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb, forecasted hundreds of millions of deaths per year throughout the 1970s, to be averted, he insisted, only by mass population control "by compulsion if voluntary methods fail."

But instead of global-scale famine and death, the 1970s witnessed an agricultural revolution. Despite a near-doubling of world population, food production continues to grow as technological innovation creates more and more food on each acre of farmland. The U.S., which has seen its population grow from 200 to 300 million, is more concerned about rampant obesity than a shortage of food.

The Alar scare in 1989 is another great example. The NRDC, an environmentalist lobby group, engineered media frenzy over the baseless assertion that Alar, an apple ripening agent, posed a cancer threat. The ensuing panic cost the apple industry over $200 million dollars, and Alar was pulled from the market even though it was a perfectly safe and value-adding product.

Or consider the campaign against the insecticide DDT, beginning with Rachel Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring. The world had been on the brink of eradicating malaria using DDT—but for Carson and her followers, controlling disease-carrying mosquitoes was an arrogant act of "tampering" with nature. Carson issued dire warnings that nature was "capable of striking back in unexpected ways" unless people showed more "humility before [its] vast forces." She asserted, baselessly, that among other things DDT would cause a cancer epidemic. Her book led to such a public outcry that, despite its life-saving benefits and mountains of scientific evidence supporting its continued use, DDT was banned in the United States in 1972. Thanks to environmentalist opposition, DDT was almost completely phased out worldwide. And while there is still zero evidence of a DDT cancer risk, the resurgence of malaria needlessly kills over a million people a year.

Time and time again, the supposedly scientific claims of environmentalists have proven to be pseudo-scientific nonsense, and the Ehrlichs and Carsons of the world have proven to be the Bernard Madoffs of science. Yet Americans have ignored the evidence and have instead invested in their claims—accepting the blame for unproven disasters and backing coercive, harmful "solutions."

Today, of course, the Green doomsday prediction is for catastrophic global warming to destroy the planet—something that environmentalists have pushed since at least the early 1970s, when they were also worried about a possible global cooling shifting the planet into a new ice age.

But in this instance, just as with Alar, DDT, and the population explosion, the science is weak and the "solutions" drastic. We are told that global warming is occurring at an accelerating rate, yet global temperatures have been flat for the last decade. We are told that global warming is causing more frequent and intense hurricanes, yet the data doesn’t support such a claim. We are warned of a potentially catastrophic sea level rise of 20 feet over the next century, but that requires significant melting of the land-based ice in Antarctica and Greenland. Greenland has retained its ice sheet for over 100,000 years despite wide-ranging temperatures and Antarctica has been cooling moderately for the last half-century.

Through these distortions of science we are again being harangued to support coercive policies. We are told that our energy consumption is destroying the planet and that we must drastically reduce our carbon emissions immediately. Never mind that energy use is an indispensable component of everything we do, that 85 percent of the world's energy is carbon-based, or that there are no realistic, abundant alternatives available any time soon, and that billions of people are suffering today from lack of energy.

Despite all of that, Americans seem to once again be moving closer to buying the Green investment pitch and backing destructive Green policies. Why don't we learn from past experience? Do you think a former Madoff investor would hand over money to him again?

It's not that we're too stupid to learn, it's that we are holding onto a premise that distorts our understanding of reality. Americans are the most successful individuals in history - even in spite of this economic downturn - in terms of material wealth and the quality of life and happiness it brings. We are heirs to the scientific and industrial revolutions, which have increased life expectancy from 30 years to 80 and improved human life in countless, extraordinary ways. Through our ingenuity and productive effort, we have achieved an unprecedented prosperity by reshaping nature to serve our needs. Yet we have always regarded this productivity and prosperity with a certain degree of moral suspicion. The Judeo-Christian ethic of guilt and self-sacrifice leads us to doubt the propriety of our success and makes us susceptible to claims that we will ultimately face punishment for our selfishness--that our prosperity is sinful and can lead only to an apocalyptic judgment day.

Environmentalism preys on our moral unease and fishes around for doomsday scenarios. If our ever-increasing population or life-enhancing chemicals have not brought about the apocalypse, then it must be our use of fossil fuels that will. Despite the colossal failures of past Green predictions, we buy into the latest doomsday scare because, on some level, we have accepted an undeserved guilt. We lack the moral self-assertiveness to regard our own success as virtuous; we think we deserve punishment.

It is time to stop apologizing for prosperity. We must reject the unwarranted fears spread by Green ideology by rejecting unearned guilt. Instead of meekly accepting condemnation for our capacity to live, we should proudly embrace our unparalleled ability to alter nature for our own benefit as the highest of virtues.

Let’s stop wallowing in Green guilt. It’s time to recapture our Founding Fathers' admiration for the pursuit of each individual's own happiness.

**************

Source: Fushion Magazine Preview Article

By Keith Lockitch, PhD in physics, is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on science and environmentalism.

The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights is located in Washington, DC. It is a Division of the Ayn Rand Institute, whose mission is to advance Ayn Rand's ideas. To learn more go to www.aynrand.org

Source: KnowledgeCreatesPower

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Related Resources:

Monday, July 6, 2009

Scientist: Global Warming Claims a Lot of Hype

(Photo: UCLA Shutterbug - New Hampshire Jan 2009)

Lawmakers who described the alleged effects of global warming are spreading a lot of "eye wash," a top climate scientist says.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax, S. Fred Singer, a renowned climatologist and professor of environmental sciences emeritus at the University of Virginia, discussed the background behind the recent open letter to Congress he and six other scientists sent to members of the House and Senate.

In the letter, the scientists cited a letter sent by the Woods Hole Research Center, which exhorted Congress to act quickly to avoid a global disaster due to alleged global warming.

Singer said the Woods Hole group “put on a sort of scary exaggerated kind of letter to Congress ahead of the vote in the House in an obvious attempt to stampede them into voting for the Waxman-Markey [cap and trade environmental] bill.

Singer explained: “We thought it would be useful to write a letter that would provide a balance. The instigator of the letter was Harold Lewis, a retired professor of physics at the University of California in Santa Barbara.” Lewis, he said, “provided the initial draft, several of us made comments and seven of us signed our names to it."

Lewis sent the letter "to every member of Congress ... and it was also sent to a number of bloggers and others who are generally sympathetic" to the group’s point of view.

“The letter itself is self-explanatory,” Singer said, noting that it did not “give much detail."

“Two of us, Richard Lindzen and myself, are actively working on climate issues. The others are renowned physicists – people of some stature, members of the National Academy and others who have a good amount of scientific judgment but who have not directly published or been pre-eminent in climate research.”

Asked if it is not established that the earth is cooling, Singer explained that “The earth is either always warming or cooling; one cannot tell which it is unless one specifies the time interval.

“It's like the stock market: it is rising or falling. Both depend on whether it's a week or a month or a year. It's the same with the temperature – if we start during the last Ice Age 15,000 years ago, then the temperatures have warmed. If you start from the Little Ice Age, which ended 200 years ago, it certainly has warmed.

“If you start from 1998, however, then it has not warmed – it has cooled. So it depends on the time interval. People argue about this, and much of the difference between groups comes about when you don't specify the time interval. There's no question that the climate has not been warming in the last 10 years."

Reminded that there were members of Congress standing up in the debate and talking about the terrible things that are happening now as a result of global warming, Singer said: “That's all eye wash. That's not true. That's simply hype.”

He went on to explain that “Nothing untoward is happening. The ice is not melting any faster, the sea level is not rising any faster. Hurricanes are not increasing in intensity or frequency; there's been no impact. Those things are always hard to measure. It depends on statistics. The easiest thing is to specify temperature, because it's easily measured and there is relatively little disagreement on what temperature stands for.”

He then went on to challenge what he called former Vice President Al Gore’s “mantra” that he says Gore’s "been handing out for years now – that the science is settled. That is simply not true.

“When you have 31,000 scientists signing the Oregon petition saying they disagree with the current wisdom that humans are producing increased warming, it speaks for itself. It's true that the 31,000 are not all climate scientists. There are not that many in the world.

“However, it does show you that the science is not settled. Among climate scientists there is a split. There are those who believe in models, and those who believe in observations. And there are some who don't believe in both, and some who don't believe in any.

“The modelers believe that the models correctly describe what's going on in the atmosphere, and they trust their models to predict the future. And the models all predict increased global warming. Some more, some less. There are plenty models in the world, and they all get different results. We don't know which one of them is correct, if any, or even if any of them is correct.

Then there are those – sometimes called the skeptics, but we prefer to call them the realists – who believe in the observations, who believe that the atmosphere tells us what's going on. The models try to describe what's going on in the atmosphere, but they don't succeed. It's extremely difficult – the atmosphere is very complicated. For example, the models can't really describe clouds. Yet clouds are very, very important. So that's the basic split.

“When the observations show that the climate has not been warming in the last 10 years, which contradicts the models, who are you going to believe? The models or the observations. Obviously, we believe in the observations.

“When you ask the other side to debate on this issue they either won't debate; or if they do debate, they say, ‘Well there must be something wrong with the observations.'”

Singer agreed that it is a case of "do you believe what the models tell you, or do you believe in your lying eyes?"

Friday, July 3, 2009 10:17 PM
By: Phil Brennan - 2009 Newsmax

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Related Resources:

Sunday, July 5, 2009

Economists Point to Rising Debt as Next Crisis

Image: National debt clock

Yanina Manolova / AP

The soaring national debt is recorded on the National Debt Clock in New York. The national debt was $11,518,472,742,288 on Wednesday, according to the Treasury Department, but could actually be as high as $184,000, explained below.

WASHINGTON - The Founding Fathers left one legacy not celebrated on Independence Day but which affects us all. It's the national debt.

The country first got into debt to help pay for the Revolutionary War. Growing ever since, the debt stands today at a staggering $11.4 trillion — equivalent to about $37,000 for each and every American. And it's expanding by over $1 trillion a year.

The mountain of debt easily could become the next full-fledged economic crisis without firm action from Washington, economists of all stripes warn.

"Unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal sustainability in the longer term, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth," Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently told Congress.

Higher taxes, or reduced federal benefits and services — or a combination of both — may be the inevitable consequences.

The debt is complicating efforts by President Barack Obama and Congress to cope with the worst recession in decades as stimulus and bailout spending combine with lower tax revenues to widen the gap.

Interest payments on the debt alone cost $452 billion last year — the largest federal spending category after Medicare-Medicaid, Social Security and defense. It's quickly crowding out all other government spending. And the Treasury is finding it harder to find new lenders.

U.S. has been debt-free only once, in 1834-35
The United States went into the red the first time in 1790 when it assumed $75 million in the war debts of the Continental Congress.

Alexander Hamilton, the first treasury secretary, said, "A national debt, if not excessive, will be to us a national blessing."

Some blessing.

Since then, the nation has only been free of debt once, in 1834-1835.

The national debt has expanded during times of war and usually contracted in times of peace, while staying on a generally upward trajectory. Over the past several decades, it has climbed sharply — except for a respite from 1998 to 2000, when there were annual budget surpluses, reflecting in large part what turned out to be an overheated economy.

Middle East wars helped 'break' the debt clock
The debt soared with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and economic stimulus spending under President George W. Bush and now Obama. And although Obama inherited a large debt and economic problems from Bush, he has already quadrupled Bush’s debt over the next 10-years, after less than 6-months in office.

The odometer-style "debt clock" near Times Square — put in place in 1989 when the debt was a mere $2.7 trillion — ran out of numbers and had to be shut down when the debt surged past $10 trillion in 2008.

The clock has since been refurbished so higher numbers fit. There are several debt clocks on Web sites maintained by public interest groups that let you watch hundreds, thousands, millions zip by in a matter of seconds.

The debt gap is "something that keeps me awake at night," Obama says.

He pledged to cut the budget "deficit" roughly in half by the end of his first term. But "deficit" just means the difference between government receipts and spending in a single budget year.

This year's deficit is now estimated at about $1.85 trillion.

Deficits don't reflect holdover indebtedness from previous years. Some spending items — such as emergency appropriations bills and receipts in the Social Security program — aren't included, either, although they are part of the national debt.

The national debt is a broader, and more telling, way to look at the government's balance sheets than glancing at deficits.

U.S. is more than $11 trillion in debt
According to the Treasury Department, which updates the number "to the penny" every few days, the national debt was $11,518,472,742,288 on Wednesday.

The overall debt is now slightly over 80 percent of the annual output of the entire U.S. economy, as measured by the gross domestic product.

By historical standards, it's not proportionately as high as during World War II, when it briefly rose to 120 percent of GDP. But it's still a huge liability.

Also, the United States is not the only nation struggling under a huge national debt. Among major countries, Japan, Italy, India, France, Germany and Canada have comparable debts as percentages of their GDPs.

Where does the government borrow all this money from?

Treasury securities still seen as safe investments
The debt is largely financed by the sale of Treasury bonds and bills. Even today, amid global economic turmoil, those still are seen as one of the world's safest investments.

That's one of the rare upsides of U.S. government borrowing.

Treasury securities are suitable for individual investors and popular with other countries, especially China, Japan and the Persian Gulf oil exporters, the three top foreign holders of U.S. debt.

But as the U.S. spends trillions to stabilize the recession-wracked economy, helping to force down the value of the dollar, the securities become less attractive as investments. Some major foreign lenders are already paring back on their purchases of U.S. bonds and other securities.

And if major holders of U.S. debt were to flee, it would send shock waves through the global economy — and sharply force up U.S. interest rates.

As time goes by, demographics suggest things will get worse before they get better, even after the recession ends, as more baby boomers retire and begin collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Public concerned about debt's effects on future
While the president remains personally popular, polls show there is rising public concern over his handling of the economy and the government's mushrooming debt — and what it might mean for future generations.

If things can't be turned around, including establishing a more efficient health care system (which is generally not considered the one being crammed down American’s throat now by the Democrats and the Obama administration) "We are on an utterly unsustainable fiscal course," said the White House budget director, Peter Orszag.

Some budget-restraint activists claim even the debt understates the nation's true liabilities.

The Peter G. Peterson Foundation, established by a former commerce secretary and investment banker, argues that the $11.4 trillion debt figures does not take into account roughly $45 trillion in unlisted liabilities and unfunded retirement and health care commitments.

That would put the nation's full obligations (now) at $56 trillion, or roughly $184,000 per American, according to this calculation.

Source: Associated Press - updated 11:31 a.m. PT, Sat., July 4, 2009

Passing and accepting either the Cap-and-Trade or the Obama Health Care Plan in its present form, both being ramroded down American’s throats without knowing what they are getting and without their representatives being given time to read the plans or bills, would only worsen the present situation and increase the level of debt even more. Cap-and-Trade is a political power grab that wouldl interject government into every aspect of American life and would tax every American into the poor farm with virtually no affect on global warming (or climate change as it is now called), on which humans questionably have had any or little affect. And although healthcare reform including Medicare is vital, the government involved plan is the wrong path.

Cap-and-Trade is a no go… just look at Spain and other countries who have taken the “Green” route. We will lose not gain jobs; we will interject government control into all areas of our lives; and the cost of energy and everything else will skyrocket, including taxes. We need to incentivize the private sector to develop clean and efficient energy along with allowing more drilling and nuclear development as well as revisiting present restrictions and releasing patents that have been bought up by Big Oil, the Auto Industry and Unions.

ObamaCare is also a no go… Just read the stats of countries with socialized or nationalized medicine and the records of Canadians who have testified before the Senate about their care… and why they come to the U.S. if they are really sick. Again, we need to incentivize the private sector, work with or legislate change through the AMA, Big Pharma and private health insurance companies to workout a better and more affordable system and allow creative programs as well as including natural alternatives to be used and considered. We need reform not a government run system. Medicare, Social Security, Veteran’s Benefits and the Post Office are examples of government run programs. Need we say more? Let the Obama Administration fix those 4-programs first, before taking on another program that won’t work and will cost us more money for worse care for everyone while still leaving people without healthcare.

And while President Obama feels he has a good connection with the Arab World he should use it to negotiate with OPEC… Lower priced oil would made drastic a difference in our economy and debt.

Perhaps we should also ask what happened to Obama’s campaign promise of going through the budget line by line as well as reviewing government programs and jobs and streamling? He promised to cut out the fat, lower the cost of government and complete transparency… and well as no tax increases of any kind for anyone making under $250,000 a year. He also promised to used his power of line item veto. None of this has happened, spending is rampant and indirect taxes as well as huge increases for Cap-and-Trade and Healthcare are in the works.

Start calling, writing, faxing and emailing your U.S Congressperson,Senator and the White House… “NO” on Cap-and-Trade and “NO” on nationalized healthcare or any healthcare program that includes a government or single payer option… or our children and grandchildren will never dig out from the debt!! You have the power... 2010 and 2012 elections are right around the corner, in political terms, and there are grassroots movements springing up everywhere.

Remember the National Debt Clock… tick tock, tick tock, tick tock… Ask Marion~

“Taxes can be reversed, stimulus debt can eventually be repaid but if we let Cap-and-Trade and government option health care pass, the United States as we know it will be changed negatively forever!” …Dick Morris on Hannity.

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Related Resources:

Friday, July 3, 2009

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Senator Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into 'Suppressed' Climate Change Report

Administration Buried Report Questioning Global Warming

Republicans are raising questions about why the EPA apparently dismissed an analyst's report questioning the science behind global warming.

Administration Buried Report Questioning Global Warming

EPA analyst Alan Carlin raised questions about the impact of global warming on areas like Greenland. Shown here is an iceberg off Ammassalik Island, Greenland. (AP Photo)

A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency's alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming.

The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin's report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.

"He came out with the truth. They don't want the truth at the EPA," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., a global warming skeptic, told FOX News, saying he's ordered an investigation. "We're going to expose it."

The controversy comes after the House of Representatives passed a landmark bill to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, one that Inhofe said will be "dead on arrival" in the Senate despite President Obama's energy adviser voicing confidence in the measure.

According to internal e-mails that have been made public by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Carlin's boss told him in March that his material would not be incorporated into a broader EPA finding and ordered Carlin to stop working on the climate change issue. The draft EPA finding released in April lists six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, that the EPA says threaten public health and welfare.

An EPA official told FOXNews.com on Monday that Carlin, who is an economist -- not a scientist -- included "no original research" in his report. The official said that Carlin "has not been muzzled in the agency at all," but stressed that his report was entirely "unsolicited."

"It was something that he did on his own," the official said. "Though he was not qualified, his manager indulged him and allowed him on agency time to draft up ... a set of comments."

Despite the EPA official's remarks, Carlin told FOXNews.com on Monday that his boss, National Center for Environmental Economics Director Al McGartland, appeared to be pressured into reassigning him.

Carlin said he doesn't know whether the White House intervened to suppress his report but claimed it's clear "they would not be happy about it if they knew about it," and that McGartland seemed to be feeling pressure from somewhere up the chain of command.

Carlin said McGartland told him he had to pull him off the climate change issue.

"It was reassigning you or losing my job, and I didn't want to lose my job," Carlin said, paraphrasing what he claimed were McGartland's comments to him. "My inference (was) that he was receiving some sort of higher-level pressure."

Carlin said he personally does not think there is a need to regulate carbon dioxide, since "global temperatures are going down." He said his report expressed a "good bit of doubt" on the connection between the two.

Specifically, the report noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend over the past 11 years, that scientists do not necessarily believe that storms will become more frequent or more intense due to global warming, and that the theory that temperatures will cause Greenland ice to rapidly melt has been "greatly diminished."

Carlin, in a March 16 e-mail, argued that his comments are "valid, significant" and would be critical to the EPA finding.

McGartland, though, wrote back the next day saying he had decided not to forward his comments.

"The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision," he wrote, according to the e-mails released by CEI. "I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

He later wrote an e-mail urging Carlin to "move on to other issues and subjects."

"I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research, etc., at least until we see what EPA is going to do with climate," McGartland wrote.

The EPA said in a written statement that Carlin's opinions were in fact considered, and that he was not even part of the working group dealing with climate change in the first place.

"Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This administration and this EPA administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making," the statement said. "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."

The e-mail exchanges and suggestions of political interference sparked a backlash from Republicans in Congress.

Reps. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and Darrell Issa, R-Calif., also wrote a letter last week to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging the agency to reopen its comment period on the finding. The EPA has since denied the request.

Citing the internal e-mails, the Republican congressmen wrote that the EPA was exhibiting an "agency culture set in a predetermined course."

"It documents at least one instance in which the public was denied access to significant scientific literature and raises substantial questions about what additional evidence may have been suppressed," they wrote.

In a written statement, Issa said the administration is "actively seeking to withhold new data in order to justify a political conclusion."

"I'm sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach," Sensenbrenner said in a statement, adding that the "repression" of Carlin's report casts doubt on the entire finding.

Carlin said he's concerned that he's seeing "science being decided at the presidential level."

"Now Mr. Obama is in effect directly or indirectly saying that CO2 causes global temperatures to rise and that we have to do something about it. ... That's normally a scientific judgment and he's in effect judging what the science says," he said. "We need to look at it harder."

The controversy is similar to one under the Bush administration -- only the administration was taking the opposite stance. In that case, scientist James Hansen claimed the administration was trying to keep him from speaking out and calling for reductions in greenhousegases.

By Judson Berger - FOXNews.com

Click here to read Carlin's report.

FOX News' Major Garrett contributed to this report

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Related Resources:

Saturday, June 27, 2009

The 8 cap-and-tax Republicans…and the 44 Democrats who voted no

Introducing the GOP’s Cap-And-Tax 8…


Photoshop credit: Leo Alberti

I listed them earlier tonight, but am breaking out a separate post to spotlight them again.

The 8 cap-and-tax Republican turncoats again are:

Bono Mack (CA) (202) 225-5330
Castle (DE) (202) 225-4165
Kirk (IL) (202) 225-4385 (And he’s seriously considering running for Senate!)
Lance (NJ) (202) 225-5361
LoBiondo (NJ) (202) 225-6572
McHugh (NY) (202) 225-4611
Reichert (WA) (202) 225-7761
Smith (NJ) (202) 225-3765

(Phone numbers h/t commenter rightwingmom)

Congrats, congresspeople, you helped the Democrats pass a junk science-based, massive national energy tax. Headed to Disney World now?

We still want to know: What were your payoffs/earmarks?

***

Stacy McCain’s message to the NRCC: Not one red cent.

***

In case you were wondering, here are the 44 Democrat NAY votes:

Altmire
Arcuri
Barrow
Berry
Boren
Bright
Carney
Childers
Costa
Costello
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Donnelly (IN)
Edwards (TX)
Ellsworth
Foster
Griffith
Herseth Sandlin
Holden
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Kucinich
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
McIntyre
Melancon
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Nye
Ortiz
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rodriguez
Ross
Salazar
Stark
Tanner
Taylor
Visclosky
Wilson (OH)

Reminder: The two Republicans who didn’t vote: Jeff Flake (AZ) and John Sullivan (OK).

Here’s why: Flake had a “family conflict” (his daughter is reportedly in a beauty pageant in Alabama tomorrow) and Sullivan is undergoing alcohol treatment. As I noted earlier today, Dem. Rep. Patrick Kennedy was pulled out of rehab to cast his vote.

And another reminder that the full roll call vote is here.

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for her hard work!! -

The 8 cap-and-tax Republicans…and the 44 Democrats who voted no - By Michelle Malkin • June 26, 2009 10:52 PM

-------

Tea Party Watch: Protesting the cap-and-tax cramdown

By Michelle Malkin • June 27, 2009 09:55 AM


Photoshop: Leo Alberti

It’s not just what’s in the bill. It’s the way they rammed it through the House.

Just like the porkulus: Under-handed, transparency-defying, and stuffed with earmark payoffs and bribes concocted in middle-of-the night, backroom deals.

Taxpayers are mad again. And they’re not going to sit still.

Impromptu flash protests are taking place today at state capitols and federal buildings across the country.

See what others have said:

Pelosi Pushes "Carbon Tax" TODAY To Go On Vacation – You’ve Been Had Again!!

Pelosi Pushes "Carbon Tax" TODAY - To Go On Vacation… Hmmmm… Pushing through legislation during the middle of the night or on the weekend that nobody has read that adds trillions to our debt, ultimately tons in taxes, and then going on vacation, sounds familiar. Only this time it isn’t ultimately. They are going to fast-track it and you new taxes are being voted on today… Saturday… and then the are going on vacation~ Call, Fax and Email NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cap and Trade = "Carbon Tax"
Pelosi, Waxman and the Democrats are fast-tracking Obama's "Carbon Tax" to double your ALL your energy costs.

(Photo… Where is Joel Grey singing Money Money Money Money Money… for Me and My Friends from Cabaret?)

A VOTE IS SCHEDULED FOR TODAY 6/26/09
Pelosi plans a House Floor Vote TODAY to raise taxes for Obama with the NEW "Carbon Tax". She suddenly forced House committees to finish their work on the massive bill in less than 24 hours. Congressmen did not even get time to read the bill with hand written notes in the margin. Why you ask because it is time for her Summer Vacation and Pelosi and Waxman promised Obama they would push the “Carbon Tax”.

Congress Must Know About This Bad "Carbon Tax" Bill NOW!
Select Below to Tell Congress About the Carbon Tax Bill
FAX All Congressmen Educate Them About Obama's "Carbon Tax"!

It is poor judgment and bad policy to raise taxes in difficult economic times, Congress must not pass new taxes on the American people during a recession!
A Heritage Foundation study shows that electricity costs would go up 90% and gas prices would go up another 58%. In turn this will lead to an additional 2.47 million people losing manufacturing jobs.

Obama Pushes Democrats To Get In Line

Waxman and lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee met with Obama on to discuss climate change legislation. The result "We said we're moving it this year and Obama didn't object," Waxman said.

House Democrats leading the charge on President Obama's energy bill said they expect to mark up a bill by the Memorial Day recess and have final legislation passed by the end of the year.

Many Democrats Want Nothing To Do With BTU Tax II

Obama's ambitious agenda has some House Democrats are fearing a repeat of 1994, when the Clinton BTU Tax was a priority and the party lost control of both the House and the Senate.

At a leadership meeting in the Pelosi's Capitol conference room is has been reported that, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) argued that the House should move cautiously on a cap-and-trade bill if it doesn't look like the Senate will approve it.
With a lack of consensus on the varying proposals in the energy plan, Van Hollen has said the House should proceed cautiously on climate change and doesn't want vulnerable House Democrats - especially the freshmen under his care - to be forced to take difficult votes on the measure if it's not going to pass anyway.
A Typical Democrat Voter Response - Is the Spin Working?

This response it typical of what Democrats are saying: "Whatever it is...we're against it! Grand Obstructionist Party first...screw the country (may the economy and President fail for the greater good of the GOP we pray). These people are irrelevant. Pay no attention to those nude hikers behind the bushes." griff, seattle (Sent Tuesday, June 23, 2009 3:48 PM)

The Truth Obama's "Carbon Tax" Plan Taxes All Americans

It's sneaky. The Obama "Carbon Tax" or "Green Energy Tax" is a "Regressive Cap-and-Trade" plan that taxes every single person in America. Every time anyone flips on a light switch, tax dollars are collected. The Obama "Carbon Tax" plan doubles the price of your electric bill immediately. The tax money goes straight to Obama and his Federal Government bureaucrats.


Select Below to Tell Congress About the Carbon Tax Bill
FAX All Congressmen Educate Them About Obama's "Carbon Tax"!

Obama's "Carbon Tax" Plan Cost: $150-billion in NEW Taxes and a 10-Year Program To Develop Renewable Energy Supplies That Don't Even Exist Yet!

  • Wind and solar combined can't even produce 1 percent of our needs yet
  • Gas prices will be deliberately raised to make us cut back
  • Heating bills will be forced up so much we'll be freezing in the dark
  • Ethanol schemes are already shooting food prices through the roof
  • Emission rules will be so harsh that jobs will flee to other countries
The Great Carbon Lie - Carbon Emissions Cause Global Warming
The basis of the Obama "Green Energy Tax" is the "Great Carbon Lie" that carbon emissions cause global warming. This has been proven to be completely wrong and based on bad science. Proof of this comes from Gore's own eco-friends at the United Nations with two simple pieces of data.
  1. Average Global Temperatures Have Decreased in the Last 10 Years.
  2. Carbon Emissions Have Increased 10 fold in the Last 10 Years.

Government Extortion of American Companies

This bill is just government extortion that aims at reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. The Obama "Caron Tax" proposal requires energy companies to buy licenses from the government in order to emit carbon while producing electricity.

The bottom line here is that under the Obama administration's plan money from ordinary energy consumers will be taken out of their pockets to fund big government special interest spending programs in Washington and bailouts on Wall Street. That's why the White House put the expected revenue from its "Carbon Tax plan into the budget to pay for its spending programs.

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of faxes are needed to be delivered to EACH AND EVERY Congressman right away. Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who wants to help FORCE our government to STOP the EXCUSES and Save Taxpayers Not Spend More and Raise Taxes!

Select Below to Tell Congress About the Carbon Tax Bill
FAX All Congressmen Educate Them About Obama's "Carbon Tax"!

Keep calling your Congressmen today, toll free numbers include 1-877-851-6437 and 1-866-220-0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121 AND REGISTER YOUR OUTRAGE at expanding the Obama Green Energy Tax Bill!
CALL PRESIDENT OBAMA 202-456-1111 and 202-456-1414 expressing your outrage at incompetence in wasting tax dollars to increase energy costs.
DO NOT BE SILENCED - MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

NOTE: We need TENS OF THOUSANDS of faxes and PHONE CALLS and EMAILS delivered to ALL Congressmen right away!
Your voice can be heard - we need your urgent help at AmeriPAC.

Even smaller donations are going to help.

Any amount - $1000, $500, $250, or even $100 will help us fight the battle in Congress to tell Congress about the "Green Energy Tax Bill". It's time we stood up and said enough is enough! Please join us with your AmeriPAC donation TODAY. Thank you.
DONATE NOW. Stop Obama's "Carbon Tax" Increase!

For more information, visit www.ameripac.org
Defend America,

Alan Gottlieb
AmeriPAC
President and Founder
www.Ameripac.org
Please make checks payable to AmeriPAC:
American Political Action Committee (AmeriPAC)
PO Box 1682
Dept Code 2634
Bellevue, WA 98009-2634

Paid for by AmeriPAC, a federally-authorized and qualified multicandidate political action committee. Contributions to AmeriPAC will be used in connection with federal elections. Maximum contribution per individual per calendar year is $5,000. Contributions from foreign nationals and corporations are prohibited. Contributions are not deductible for federal income tax purposes.

How Did Your Congressman Vote Yesterday????

CALL CONGRESS TODAY AND TELL THEM TO STOP THE INSANITY AND TO VOTE NO

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- Dante Alighieri / Often Quoted by Mark Twain

Call the switchboard for the House of Representatives in Washington today... your Congressperson and Nancy Pelosi and tell them "NO on Cap and Trade"!!!


1-202-224-3121- Switchboard

1-202-225-3121- Switchboard

(202) 225-0100 - Speaker of the House Pelosi


Speaker Nancy Pelosi
http://speaker.house.gov/contact or http://www.speaker.gov/contact
If the web contact form doesn't work, use this email address:
AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.

-- Dante Alighieri / Often Quoted by Mark Twain

Related Resources:

House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Cap and Trade... Bat and Switch

House Passed Direct Assault on Industrial Base of America… Treason???

The House of Representatives Friday approved a milestone energy and climate change bill that would curb greenhouse gasses omitted by industry and agriculture. In reality, this is a gateway bill to get government into every facet of our lives.

Another 1300 page bill that nobody had time to read… And another scam of a bailout. While America watched two days of Michael Jackson memories and then went to the movies to go see Transformers on a Friday nite… Congress was transforming America. The rest of the world has already voted this down… Wake up America. Even the EPA is staying it is a scam! You have one more chance… stop them in the Senate!!!

WASHINGTON – The Democratic-controlled House, dealing a legislative victory to President Obama, narrowly passed sweeping legislation Friday that calls for the nation's first limits on pollution linked to global warming and aims to usher in a new era of cleaner, yet more costly energy.

The vote was 219-212, capping months of negotiations and days of intense bargaining among Democrats. Republicans were overwhelmingly against the measure, arguing it would destroy jobs in the midst of a recession while burdening consumers with a new tax in the form of higher energy costs.

The House's action fulfilled Speaker Nancy Pelosi's vow to clear major energy legislation before July 4, and sent the measure to a highly uncertain fate in the Senate.

Obama lobbied recalcitrant Democrats by phone from the White House as the debate unfolded across several hours, and Al Gore posted a statement on his Web site saying the measure represents "an essential first step towards solving the climate crisis." The former vice president won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work drawing attention to the destructive potential of global warming.

On the House floor, Democrats hailed the legislation as historic, while Republicans said it would damage the economy without solving the nation's energy woes.

It is "the most important energy and environmental legislation in the history of our country," said Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts. "It sets a new course for our country, one that steers us away from foreign oil and towards a path of clean American energy."

But Rep. John Boehner, the House Republican leader, used an extraordinary one-hour speech shortly before the final vote to warn of unintended consequences in what he said was a "defining bill." He called it a "bureaucratic nightmare" that would cost jobs, depress real estate prices and put the government into parts of the economy where it now has no role.

The legislation would require the U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by about 80 percent by mid-century. That was slightly more aggressive than Obama originally wanted, 14 percent by 2020 and the same 80 percent by mid-century.

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are rising at about 1 percent a year and are predicted to continue increasing without mandatory limits.

Under the bill, the government would limit heat-trapping pollution from factories, refineries and power plants and issue allowances for polluters. Most of the allowances would be given away, but about 15 percent would be auctioned by bid and the proceeds used to defray higher energy costs for lower-income individuals and families.

"Some would like to do more. Some would like to do less," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said in advance of the final vote. "But we have reached a compromise ... and it is a compromise that can pass this House, pass that Senate, be signed by the president and become law and make progress."

One of the biggest compromises involved the near total elimination of an administration plan to sell pollution permits and raise more than $600 billion over a decade -- money to finance continuation of a middle class tax cut. About 85 percent of the permits are to be given away rather than sold in a ceoncession to energy companies and their allies in the House -- and even that is uncertain to survive in the Senate.

The final bill also contained concessions to satisfy farm-state lawmakers, ethanol producers, hydroelectric advocates, the nuclear industry and others, some of them so late that they were not made public until 3 a.m. on Friday.

Supporters and opponents agreed the result would be higher energy costs but disagreed vigorously on the impact on consumers. Democrats pointed to two reports -- one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency -- that suggested average increases would be limited after tax credits and rebates were taken into account. The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year.

Republicans questioned the validity of the CBO study and noted that even that analysis showed actual energy production costs increasing $770 per household. Industry groups have cited other studies showing much higher costs to the economy and to individuals.

The White House and congressional Democrats argued the bill would create millions of "green jobs" as the nation shifts to greater reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and development of more fuel-efficient vehicles -- and away from use of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.

It will "make our nation the world leader on clean energy jobs and technology," declared Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who negotiated deals with dozens of lawmakers in recent weeks to broaden the bill's support.

Pelosi, D-Calif., took an intense personal interest in the measure, sitting through hours of meetings with members of the rank and file and nurturing fragile compromises.

At its heart, the bill was a trade-off, less than the White House initially sought though it was more than Republicans said was acceptable. Some of the dealmaking had a distinct political feel. Rep. Alan Grayson, a first-term Democrat, won a pledge of support that $50 million from the proceeds of pollution permit sales in the bill would go to a proposed new hurricane research facility in his district in Orlando, Fla.

"This is revolutionary. This is a moment in history," declared Markey, a co-sponsor of the bill.

Republicans saw it differently.

This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," declared Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.

How Did Your Congressman Vote????

How will you vote… in 2010 and 2012????

Related Resources:

Thursday, June 25, 2009

WSJ: Cap-and-tax a great deal … if you don’t Measure the Costs

Democrats have hailed the CBO estimates of the costs per family of their new cap-and-trade carbon-emissions scheme, which show an impact of only $175 annually. What they don’t tell voters, the Wall Street Journal explains, is that those costs begin to sharply escalate in ten years. Democrats also fail to mention that the cost estimates of the CBO come just from the trading mechanism and nothing else:

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO’s analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to “offset” their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: “The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap.”

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Nor does this take into account regional variations; these numbers are national averages. The bill will decimate the economies of coal-producing areas of the country, hiking unemployment not just from miners and coal-producing power plants but from the entire supply chain of both. Essentially the same areas of the country now reeling from the collapse of the auto industry, the economies of these states will wind up subsidizing the green dreams of coastal liberals.

Will this result in more energy? Supposedly, cap-and-trade will push green-energy producers into mass production. However, no one has a clue whether any of these resources will have that kind of capability even after we start squeezing conventional energy producers out of business. Instead, the White House and Congressional Democrats have taken an approach that crosses Field of Dreams with European failure — If you build the cap-and-trade market, mass-production green energy will come.

How did that work for Spain, perhaps the leading nation for green-energy public investment? Poorly, as George Will reminds us:

The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating “green jobs” in “alternative energy” even though Spain’s unemployment rate is 18.1 percent — more than double the European Union average — partly because of spending on such jobs?

Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report that, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration’s green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.

Calzada says Spain’s torrential spending — no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources — on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada’s report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies — wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation — sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency — of capital. (European media regularly report “eco-corruption” leaving a “footprint of sleaze” — gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs elsewhere in Spain’s economy.

I wrote about this study three months ago. As Will notes in his column, the White House simply dismisses it, rather than rebuts it — perhaps because they can’t.

Waxman-Markey will get a vote, perhaps as early as tomorrow, Friday 6.26.09, in the House. Call your Congressman and explain that we don’t want to throw away our economic future for the pleasure of a few statists exploiting an unproven theory as a means to gain control of energy production. This fight, though, will be won or lost in the Senate.

Source: Hot Air

There is much more at stake than just higher energy costs. The passing or blocking of this legislation is the most important legislation of our lifetimes. It will ultimately cost every American family approximately $4,600 per family, but it will bring government control into every part of all our lives.

Call, Write, Email or Fax your Congressman tonight and tomorrow… until they vote and then start the process again with your Senators!!

Call the switchboard for the house of Representatives in Washington today... your Congressperson and Nancy Pelosi and tell them "NO on Cap and Trade"!!!


1-202-224-3121 – House of Representative’s Switchboard

1-202-225-3121 - House of Representative’s Switchboard

(202) 225-0100 - Speaker of the House Pelosi

Speaker Nancy Pelosi
http://speaker.house.gov/contact or http://www.speaker.gov/contact
If the web contact form doesn't work, use this email address:
AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Related Resources: