Heard it all before…

King Obama has decreed that we’ll all be huddling in the dark with our solar powered candle in the future that will cost us $300 a kwh and the liberal media’s playing the same tune all over again.

Killing the coal industry without a viable alternative is a good thing.

We’ll save you money. Just like the $2500 you were going to save with ObamaCare. 🙂

It will save mankind from itself!

You’ll be better off under our yoke of control.

They tried to work with Congress, but they wouldn’t kiss our ass fast enough and hard enough and capitulate to everything and anything we wanted so we’re going to go around them AGAIN. It’s all their fault!

Oh, aren’t we so much smarter and so much more grand and superior. We are so far ahead of the curve that it make you morons look like ants compared to our intelligence.

We are Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius Environmentalists! We’ll re-engineer the world!

CNN, kissing King Obama’s ass so hard they come out his anus…

Obama has full authority to make this move

Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency have 100% of the authority they need to do this. You know who gave them the power? Hippie environmentalists like Richard Nixon and John Robert’s conservative Supreme Court.

Nixon created the EPA. He also signed the Clean Air Act, which gave the executive branch authority to regulate air pollution. And in 2007, the Supreme Court found in Massachusetts vs. EPA that carbon counted as an “air pollutant.” Under that case, Obama has the authority — and perhaps the duty — to act boldly to protect public health.

So blame Nixon for this not us! 🙂

Somewhat ironically, Obama would have preferred to co-create a comprehensive solution with Congress. That’s why he has refrained from using his executive authority until now. That’s why he spent the better part of his first term begging members of Congress to pass climate legislation.

He was a patient dictator and he waited to see if they would kiss his ass and they wouldn’t so he now must be The King and do what he must because it’s what he wants that matters.

And House did pass a comprehensive “cap-and-trade” bill in the summer of 2009. But Republicans sided with well-heeled, pro-pollution donors like the Koch Brothers and blocked all progress in the Senate.

Pro-Pollution? Yes, if you disagree with me my King you want to kill everyone with pollution! Oh, and we had to throw in the boogieman- The Koch Brothers…Boo hiss! 🙂

Shaking off this defeat, the President is simply recognizing his responsibility to act under existing law. So today Obama is using powers granted to the president during the Nixon era and approved for this very purpose by the Supreme Court in the conservative Roberts era.

Love the “conservative” justification for liberal control freak mania.

Fact 2: Obama’s clean energy rules will save Americans money on the energy bills

This plan is going to save everyone money. Right now, your utility bill is going to inefficient, dirty energy. That will change.

Just Like the $2500 you were going to save a year on ObamaCare!

Under the Clean Power Plan, states will have incentives to bring down utility bills while putting up solar panels. It will also encourage energy producers to become more efficient.

More efficient production and cheaper energy sources will add up to saving. The EPA estimates consumers will save $8 per month. Another study finds some Americans will save $14 for month. The White House estimates the average American will save $85 on their utility bill by 2030.

Fact 3: Obama’s plan will help poor and minority communities

Well, of course, the Liberals have to make a race issue out of it. After all, if your against anything they do it must be because you’re a racist and/or hate poor people!!

Suddenly Republicans and polluters are sounding like #BlackLivesMatter activists — full of passion to defend people of color from Obama’s plan. Well, if you are feeling skeptical, you should.

Because all Republicans are racists! 🙂

The clean power plan will massively help minorities and low-income Americans. After all, one in six black kids and one in nine Latino children has asthma. Seventy-eight percent of African-Americans live within 30 miles of a dirty, polluting coal plant. African-Americans are also more likely to live in coastal areas and die during heat waves.

Just like Obamacare helped them… 🙂

In fact, health concerns are already driving a move away from coal. Since 2010, more than 200 coal plants have been shut down or had their retirements announced. Do not blame Obama. Communities most affected by polluted air led those fights.

So what’s the alternative? oh, right that tech isn’t available yet and it costs 3 times as much. But it’s so much better for you!

A grassroots movement, supported by organizations like the Sierra Club and Earthjustice, took the fight to the streets, courthouses, and legislatures. Hard-hit communities like Little Village in Chicago and North Omaha, Nebraska, led the way, organizing campaigns to retire the coal plants in their backyards and chart a course to a healthier, more sustainable future.

Obama’s clean power plan will save both lives and bucks spent on hospital bills. It also opens the door to clean-energy jobs for struggling communities. It rewards states that focus on helping low-income communities.

Low income Community Science PHd’s anyone see a problem with that statement? 🙂

Separately, the Obama budget includes a program, POWER+, to invest in coal workers affected by the transition to cleaner energy.

I get a tingle up my leg! 🙂

On top of it all, the administration recently announced a low-income solar program. This initiative will lower utility bills, raise solar panels, and make solar the most diverse energy sector in America. It will do so through a national partnership between solar companies, housing authorities, rural electric co-ops, and states and cities.

America’s government today limits the amount of mercury and arsenic that polluters can spew into our skies. But right now, carbon polluters can dump as much greenhouse gas as they want. They just pass the high costs along to the rest of us, in the form of dangerous weather, health risks, and higher utility bills.

Wow, that some Kool-Aid you’ve got there! Liberal Holy Water.

But the free ride for dirty energy is coming to an end. The clean power plan is dramatic leap toward a healthier, more prosperous America. If anyone tells you otherwise, help them get their facts straight.

Because they are a moron ton believe anything other than our Leftist propaganda!

This piece was written by the disgraced Obama Czar/Communist Van Jones.

So now cometh the Talking Points, the hateful “moron” comments and “you’re stupid” and that’s just from the Left when you disagree with they Holy mission to safe mankind from itself! 🙂

So buckle up, that power bill is about to skyrocket, but don’t worry, it will all be George W. Bush’s fault!

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Mindless III: The Continuation

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner didn’t dispute a Harvard economist’s estimate that each job in the White House’s jobs plan would cost $200,000, but said the price tag is the wrong way to measure the bill’s worth.

“You’ve got to think about the costs of the alternatives,” Geithner said when asked about Harvard economist Martin Feldstein’s calculation that each job created by President Obama’s American Jobs Act would cost taxpayers about $200,000.

And since around 4 million have lost their jobs since Obama took office that’s only $800,000,000,000,000 if everyone who wasn’t unemployed in 2008 got a job under this bill.

Such a deal! 🙂  You can’t pass that up now can you? Really, are you that heartless and cruel and want to protect rich people that much? 🙂

“If government does nothing, it does nothing now because they’re scared by politics or they want to debate what’s perfect, then there will be fewer Americans back to work, the economy will be weaker,” he said. (ABC)

Only government can solve this. Government is the only answer! And only Liberals have the answer!

And at $200,000 per job it’s a bargain and no one could possibly do better, certainly no those evil “obstructionist” “partisan” Republicans. 🙂

Cutting Corporate Taxes (so we aren’t the highest in the world) and cutting regulations that cost $$$ could not possibly work and is only designed to benefit the rich so that’s absolutely impossible.

Any questions… 🙂

“If the alternative plan is for Washington to do nothing, that’s unacceptable,” Geithner said. “If the alternative plan is to sit there and say we’re going to cut our way out of this by just cutting spending, that would make the economy weaker. Or we’re going to sit here and just complain about regulation. … That will not do anything to help the average family now still suffering so much from the crisis.”

Clueless aren’t they? Blinded by ideology.

“The focus right now from him [Obama] is ‘pass my whole bill, pass my whole bill,’ [and] some of the struggle with that is no Democrat in the House has even taken his bill and filed it yet (But when it fails it will be the Republican’s fault, mind you) So we can’t even pass the bill because no one wants to put their name on it and say, ‘this is my bill’ and file it in the House,” said Rep. Lankford in a September 23 interview at the U.S. Capitol.

According to a report by the Office of Personnel Management and reported in Ed O’Keefe’s “The Federal Eye” column in the Washington Post, our government has been sending checks to dead people. “In the last five years,” O’Keefe writes, “the Office of Personnel Management has made more than $601 million in payments to dead federal retirees, according to the agency’s inspector general. Total annual payouts range between $100 million and $150 million.”

This isn’t something new. Inspector General (IG) Patrick McFarland had urged OPM in 2005 and again in 2008 to more closely monitor such payments. It appears his advice has gone unheeded.

“Improper payments to dead retirees are up 70 percent in the last five years,” cites the OPM report. In one outrageous case, the son of a deceased annuitant kept receiving federal benefits for 37 years after his father’s death. OPM didn’t learn about the improper payments until after the son died. Of course, the agency never recovered any of the money. Could this be why the government has no qualms about spending other people’s money?

According to Citizens Against Government Waste (www.cagw.org), “The USPS has 600,000 employees and is the second largest employer in America behind Wal-Mart. The USPS Office of Inspector General reported that employees were paid $21.9 million for 875,540 hours of ‘stand-by’ time in FY 2010, and $4.3 million for 170,666 hours in the first half of FY 2011. The USPS also has a 24 percent vacancy rate in its 284 million square feet of interior office space.”

Also last week, Senate Democrats rejected a continuing spending resolution passed by the House because, among other reasons, it contains cuts in the very solar energy program that funded Solyndra. So just because a company or a person dies does not necessarily disqualify them from receiving additional taxpayer money (borrowed from the Chinese, of course).

It is beyond disgraceful that so many elected officials and unelected bureaucrats continue to waste so much of our money, all the while demanding we be taxed more because they can’t “afford” to cut a dime and some of us allegedly aren’t contributing our “fair share.”

We are past not being able to afford our government and it’s long past time to start cutting them off, much as a parent might stop sending money to a spendthrift college student who wastes it on partying and high-living.(Cal Thomas)

The EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency has said new greenhouse gas regulations, as proposed, may be “absurd” in application and “impossible to administer” by its self-imposed 2016 deadline. But the agency is still asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats — at a cost of $21 billion — to attempt to implement the rules.

The EPA aims to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the Clean Air Act, even though the law doesn’t give the EPA explicit power to do so. The agency’s authority to move forward is being challenged in court by petitioners who argue that such a decision should be left for Congress to make.

The proposed regulations would set greenhouse gas emission thresholds above which businesses must file for an EPA permit and complete extra paperwork in order to continue operating. If the EPA wins its court battle and fully rolls out the greenhouse gas regulations, the number of businesses forced into this regulatory regime would grow tremendously — from approximately 14,000 now to as many as 6.1 million.

These new regulatory efforts are not likely to succeed, the EPA admits, but it has decided to move forward regardless. “While EPA acknowledges that come 2016, the administrative burdens may still be so great that compliance … may still be absurd or impossible to administer at that time, that does not mean that the Agency is not moving toward the statutory thresholds,”
The EPA is asking taxpayers to fund up to 230,000 new government workers to process all the extra paperwork, at an estimated cost of $21 billion. That cost does not include the economic impact of the regulations themselves. (DC)

Don’t worry, be happy and “feel” good. It’s good for the environment! 🙂

The Senate passed a continuing resolution by a vote of 79-12 funding the federal government through Nov. 18. The bill must still be approved by the House, but the Senate also passed a short term bill funding government through Oct. 4, giving both chambers additional breathing room.

They passed the buck and kicked the can down the road a piece.

Remember, Oct 1st is the beginning of a new fiscal year for Congress and the Senate Democrats have refused to pass any budget since April 2009!

It’s all continuing resolutions and stop-gap measures.
So how does that make you feel about the “super committee”?? 🙂
In Washington, “the problem is that things have gotten so ideologically driven, and everybody is focused on the election, and putting party ahead of country,” he claimed, in yet another repetition of the controversial claim that Republicans are unpatriotic for disagreeing with his progressive, big-government policies.“That [GOP disagreement] has got to change, and [that is] why your voices are so important,” he said. “I need everybody here to be speaking out on behalf of the things you care about … and to say to legislators you’ve elected, to say to them, act responsibly.”-President Obama 9/27/11

It’s Not Him, it’s Them!!!
Vote for me the other guys the problem not me!

Obama’s malcontent leftist friends on the Leftist Coast agree that he has not been liberal enough. So to regain their favor, he jetted out West in that covered wagon known as Air Force One and pleaded with them to understand the predicament he is in with nasty Republicans opposing him every step of the way. He is, he assured them, as radical as they are.

In Seattle, representing the downtrodden, Obama told the 65 guests who were paying a paltry $35,800 per couple, “From the moment I took office, what we’ve seen is a constant ideological push-back against any kind of sensible reforms that would make our economy work better and give people more opportunity.”

The bipartisan Obama told his fellow warriors for the poor that the Republican alternative “is an approach to government that will fundamentally cripple America in meeting the challenges of the 21st century.”

That’s the ticket. Unless we agree to Obama’s spending $450 billion more in borrowed money on the grounds that increasing the national debt will decrease the national debt, we will be crippling America. If we demand fiscal responsibility, we simply cannot be trusted to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Why is it so hard for some people to grasp that neither government tax and regulatory roadblocks against economic growth nor massive wealth redistribution programs improve the plight of lower- and middle-income groups? When will a greater percentage of blacks realize that liberal prescriptions harm rather than improve their economic conditions? When will they realize they are being exploited and injured by the very leaders who say they are the only ones who care about them?

These demagogues had better hope minorities and lower- and middle-income groups never systematically study the damning results of their policies. Obama scapegoats Republican obstruction for the failure of his policies, but no matter how hard he dissembles, he had his way the first two years of his term.

Nevertheless, he persists. On the next stop on his propaganda tour, Obama told his audience that the 2012 election will be even more important than the one in 2008. It will be “a contest of values.”

Finally, there’s something we can all agree on. It will indeed be a contest of values. Unfortunately for Obama, recent polls show that essentially half the American people fear his beloved federal government.

So let’s get ready to rumble. (David Limbaugh)

Ronald Reagan noted the only proof of eternal life on Earth is a government program. And Obama and Co want Even More!

And if you don’t give it to them, well, you’re just an “obstructionist” right wing tea-bagger racist who just wants to crush the poor and save the rich.

Now don’t you “feel” better. 🙂

Only The Politically Correct Job Will Do

It’s January. It’s time for Obama to have that “laser like focus” on Jobs for his big speech, then he can go off and do something else for the rest of the year, like focus on his re-election because ,after all, that’s the most important thing in the universe to him.

But this year, it’s different.

Not because of the Republican House. No, no that, silly.

Not Because of over 9% unemployment for more than a year and not expected to be go any lower than 8% by his re-election.

Nope, not that either.

It’s the kind of job created. It has to be a feel good liberal “green” job or nothing.

So let’s hire and puff up the Chairman of a struggling company who has laid off 10’s of thousands of people, got a huge government bailout by morphing into a  “bank”. He’s a close friend and ally and it makes me look more “pro-business” than I am.

He also will stand to benefit from the end of Thomas Edison Incandescent Light bulb (see: https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/the-light/).

He’s a big Defense Contractor.

He has a web of TV networks now 49% owned by his company because Comcast took over the reins of the majority. But still there…

Meet Jeffrey Immelt, The Chairman of General Electric.

Soon to be Government Electric.

And oh, look, gas Prices are expected to hit $5 a gallon  (partially because of Obama’s crushing of the Oil Industry) and Government Motors (GM) has a fake electric car that they will gladly sell you (or you can buy a legitimate one from the Japanese!-funny that)

Oh, and the charging stations for that car, by GE.

Gee, isn’t that a coincidence!!! 🙂

So, you see, Obama wants to promote job growth for his re-election. But he only wants the kind of job that suits the Left.

You must have a Politically Correct Job, or you can just stay on unemployment for 99 weeks.

Hu Cares. 🙂

Especially if you graduate from college with a “green” education and there’s no job for you.

But hey, you have ObamaCare. You can suck off your parents Health Care until you’re 26 and unemployment for 3 years.

Isn’t life grand!

Rick Manning from Americans for Limited Government told TheDC that if the Obama administration was serious about job creation, it would loosen the restrictions its agencies and administrations have on the private sector energy companies.

“If this administration wanted to jump employment, they could re-open drilling, end the EPAs attack on the Texas oil refineries, and stop killing jobs in the coal sector, and millions of jobs would be created,” Manning said in an e-mail.

These “renewable energy” programs are not sustainable industry drivers though, because they start falling apart once the government funding dries up. (Daily Caller)

So, cue GE. Sorta.

Immelt actually eliminated 18,000 GE jobs in 2009, despite receiving untold millions in government stimulus and subsidies — like $60 million to build a “technology center” (office building?) in Michigan and $55 million to build a hybrid locomotive battery plant in New York.

As to competitiveness, consider the rather tawdry August 2009 e-mail solicitation of GE employees by GE’s political action committee (GEPAC), which read in part:

“The intersection between GE’s interests and government action is clearer than ever. GEPAC is an important tool that enables GE employees to collectively help support candidates who share the values and goals of GE. … We have made great strides toward convincing key lawmakers that GE Capital should remain a part of (GE). … On climate change, we were able to work closely with key authors of the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill. . .. (It) would benefit many GE businesses. … GE is working relentlessly to ensure funding for F136 Engine, which is a critically important program for GE Aviation.”

One hundred years ago, Thomas Edison innovated to earn profit for GE.

Now Jeff Immelt lobbies for profit because there is no market for failed businesses, higher energy prices and duplicative military hardware.

That GE is so dependent on government largesse should raise the specter of Immelt’s obvious conflict of interest. Will he advise the president on what’s good for America or what’s good for GE?

The Obama-Immelt partnership is best envisioned as two drowning men clinging to each other in order to stay afloat. The failed CEO needs the president’s central planning policies and favor to keep his job. The struggling politician needs the mega-company CEO to camouflage and smooth over his anti-business beliefs and tendencies.

This symbiotic relationship may work out for Obama and Immelt as individuals, but we ought not hold our collective breath waiting for two men without track records of nonpersonal success to create jobs, increase our competitiveness or to fix what’s ailing our troubled economy. (IBD)

But don’t worry, Barack is on it, “focused like a laser beam”. Until February when his interests will wonder off like they have the last 2 years.

Time to spend more time in Chicago with the machine (and the hopefully new Mayor- his pal Rahm) raising more $$$ than he did last time (the most in history) so he can crush his opponents into dust with 24/7 attack ads and GE’s NBC and it’s affiliates coming along for the slobbering love affair that they already had.

And pushing his agenda through regulations rather than legislation. Much easier and much more productive for his Agenda.

EPA anyone.

This administration isn’t just attempting to regulate what it can’t legislate; it is in open rebellion against the idea of representative government. This administration’s reckless, politically motivated response to the oil spill has crippled offshore drilling, destroyed jobs and undercut economic recovery. Today’s regulatory uncertainty leaves permitting for offshore energy exploration at a virtual standstill.

This administration also continues to twist the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act into a back door cap-and-trade program. Cap-and-trade’s job-crushing mandates couldn’t even pass in the Democrat-controlled Senate, and it shouldn’t be pushed by Washington regulators. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in particular has a history of pushing through regulations that defy the will of the American people.

This kind of Washington overreach destroys jobs, drives up gas prices and raises the cost of energy. Getting rid of these policies is only the first step on the road to regulatory reform.

The president should also take a second look at the thousands of unnecessary new rules that were part of last year’s job-crushing health spending law. He also should reconsider older regulations whose effects have been just as damaging. Nearly two decades ago, President Clinton said “the era of big government is over.”

Somehow, Washington still hasn’t gotten the message.

In his op-ed, the president wrote that he wants to eliminate “absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and money.” He might as well have been talking about one of the worst provisions in his own new health spending law.

This provision requires business owners to submit individual 1099 reporting forms for each business-to-business transaction of more than $600 a year. This is the definition of an “absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirement,” and the president should stop it before it has a chance to do more damage to the economy.

The president has promised to stop imposing “burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs.” I hope he is prepared to be held to account. (IBD)

But we know the answer already, don’t we.

It’s time for Obama to be distracted by a new shiny object and wonder off to collect money for his Re-Coronation in 2012.

And the peasants are left with their crust of bread, underwater mortgage, $5 a gallon gas, inflated prices for goods and rampant unemployment.

They just have to wait for the touchy-feely “green” jobs to magically appear and save us all.

But if you try to repeal job killing ObamaCare, the Universe will come to an end!

Welcome to the 2012 election cycle.

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

2011

People can change the volume, the location and the composition of their income, and they can do so in response to changes in government policies.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the nine states without an income tax are growing far faster and attracting more people than are the nine states with the highest income tax rates. People and businesses change the location of income based on incentives.

John Fund of WSJ’s Political Diary breaks down Tuesday’s most interesting primary contests. Also, WSJ Columnist Mary Anastasia O’Grady translates the latest economic signals from Washington.

Likewise, who is gobsmacked when they are told that the two wealthiest Americans—Bill Gates and Warren Buffett—hold the bulk of their wealth in the nontaxed form of unrealized capital gains? The composition of wealth also responds to incentives. And it’s also simple enough for most people to understand that if the government taxes people who work and pays people not to work, fewer people will work. Incentives matter.

People can also change the timing of when they earn and receive their income in response to government policies. According to a 2004 U.S. Treasury report, “high income taxpayers accelerated the receipt of wages and year-end bonuses from 1993 to 1992—over $15 billion—in order to avoid the effects of the anticipated increase in the top rate from 31% to 39.6%. At the end of 1993, taxpayers shifted wages and bonuses yet again to avoid the increase in Medicare taxes that went into effect beginning 1994.”

Just remember what happened to auto sales when the cash for clunkers program ended. Or how about new housing sales when the $8,000 tax credit ended? It isn’t rocket surgery, as the Ivy League professor said.

On or about Jan. 1, 2011, federal, state and local tax rates are scheduled to rise quite sharply. President George W. Bush’s tax cuts expire on that date, meaning that the highest federal personal income tax rate will go 39.6% from 35%, the highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero. Lots and lots of other changes will also occur as a result of the sunset provision in the Bush tax cuts.

Tax rates have been and will be raised on income earned from off-shore investments. Payroll taxes are already scheduled to rise in 2013 and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will be digging deeper and deeper into middle-income taxpayers. And there’s always the celebrated tax increase on Cadillac health care plans. State and local tax rates are also going up in 2011 as they did in 2010. Tax rate increases next year are everywhere.

[laffer]

Now, if people know tax rates will be higher next year than they are this year, what will those people do this year? They will shift production and income out of next year into this year to the extent possible. As a result, income this year has already been inflated above where it otherwise should be and next year, 2011, income will be lower than it otherwise should be.

Also, the prospect of rising prices, higher interest rates and more regulations next year will further entice demand and supply to be shifted from 2011 into 2010. In my view, this shift of income and demand is a major reason that the economy in 2010 has appeared as strong as it has. When we pass the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 2011, my best guess is that the train goes off the tracks and we get our worst nightmare of a severe “double dip” recession.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan—with bipartisan support—began the first phase in a series of tax cuts passed under the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA), whereby the bulk of the tax cuts didn’t take effect until Jan. 1, 1983. Reagan’s delayed tax cuts were the mirror image of President Barack Obama’s delayed tax rate increases. For 1981 and 1982 people deferred so much economic activity that real GDP was basically flat (i.e., no growth), and the unemployment rate rose to well over 10%.

But at the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 1983 the economy took off like a rocket, with average real growth reaching 7.5% in 1983 and 5.5% in 1984. It has always amazed me how tax cuts don’t work until they take effect. Mr. Obama’s experience with deferred tax rate increases will be the reverse. The economy will collapse in 2011.

Consider corporate profits as a share of GDP. Today, corporate profits as a share of GDP are way too high given the state of the U.S. economy. These high profits reflect the shift in income into 2010 from 2011. These profits will tumble in 2011, preceded most likely by the stock market.

In 2010, without any prepayment penalties, people can cash in their Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), Keough deferred income accounts and 401(k) deferred income accounts. After paying their taxes, these deferred income accounts can be rolled into Roth IRAs that provide after-tax income to their owners into the future. Given what’s going to happen to tax rates, this conversion seems like a no-brainer.

The result will be a crash in tax receipts once the surge is past. If you thought deficits and unemployment have been bad lately, you ain’t seen nothing yet. (Mr. Arthur Laffer is the chairman of Laffer Associates and co-author of “Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status” (Threshold, 2010).)
And there’s the “reduction” in the Deficit from The Government takeover of health care and those associated taxes.

Then the proposals for Cap & Trade that will tax your energy.

Fifty three of the Senate’s 59 Democrats gave unelected, overpaid bureaucrats at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a green light yesterday to do pretty much whatever they choose in their quixotic crusade against global warming. All 41 Republicans and six brave Democrats voted for Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s resolution nullifying the EPA’s recent usurpation of authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate the U.S. economy to combat greenhouse gases. Thankfully, this craven surrender of congressional authority isn’t the last word on the issue, assuming that the November elections produce a Senate with enough backbone to reassert the legislature’s rightful power.

In the meantime, it’s vital to understand how bureaucracies function. Whatever else they may do, leading bureaucrats always do two things, regardless of which party controls the White House or Congress: They limit choices available to the rest of us by imposing regulations that increase government power and thus justify expanding their budgets and staffs; and they protect themselves and their turf by suppressing internal dissent, often at any costs.

As an example of the latter, consider career EPA scientist Alan Carlin. Last year, Carlin went through all the proper channels in submitting a study to the EPA’s top leadership in which he raised serious questions about the credibility of scientific reports used to justify the agency’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases. Carlin’s study became public thanks to the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Carlin’s reward was to be publicly pilloried by President Obama’s EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson. His work was suppressed within the agency, and he was threatened with additional retaliation if he continued voicing his views. Rather than endure this bureaucratic muzzling, Carlin retired.

Similarly, EPA lawyers Allan Zabel and Laurie Williams — a married couple living in San Francisco who between them have four decades of experience at the agency — became so concerned last year about the EPA’s support of cap-and-trade legislation that they created a YouTube video titled “The Huge Mistake” to explain their case. They made it clear that the video represented only their personal opinions, but the EPA still ordered them to change the video’s content or face severe punishment.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., predicts that a suffocating new round of EPA regulations will soon descend upon the “one-fifth of our restaurants, one-fourth of our schools, two-thirds of our hospitals and doctor’s offices, 10 percent of our churches, thousands of farms and millions of small businesses” that emit greenhouse gases. Considering how the EPA grandees mistreat their underlings, we wonder how the agency will respond to the soon-to-be-swelling ranks of critics on the outside.(Washington Examiner)

Then there’s the bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare.

But don’t worry, you can be safe and secure and get the warm fuzzies…

BECAUSE IT’S ALL GEORGE W. BUSH’s FAULT! 🙂

So have your Two Minute Hate (A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp-George Orwell) and go out and work 3 jobs just to put food on the table and a roof over your head.

The Guardian reported on June 2 that the UN was supporting a switch to a radical anti-meat agenda. “A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change, a UN report said today,” wrote the paper.

Here’s how the group Vegan Action describes this extreme vegetarianism. “While vegetarians choose not to use flesh foods, vegans also avoid dairy and eggs, as well as fur, leather, wool, down, and cosmetics or chemical products tested on animals

The UN report is all about the environmental impact of “consumption and production,” or pretty much what humans do – eat and make stuff. It warns: “A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.”

So evil carnivores everywhere beware, the Politically Correct are gunning for you too!

Best rest assured, the government will be here to save you! 🙂

We see it as a entrepreneurial bill – a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care.”-Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Doesn’t that just make you feel so much better! 🙂

Flying the Friendly EPA Skies

But before I get into today’s rants I just want to congratulate Bart “Judas” Stupak (D-MI) for deciding not to run for re-election. It would have been fun to see him try and defend his “staunchly pro-life” stance against his cave on health care for a self-admitted worthless piece of paper.

The spin would have been entertaining.

But now on with the show…

Pilots, airlines and airports are warning the government’s proposed environmental restrictions on deicing fluid used to keep planes from freezing up and crashing could pose serious safety risks.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal seeks to limit the amount of the toxic deicing fluid that trickles off of runways and into nearby streams and rivers, harming water quality.

Critics say the new rules would have an unintended consequence — imperiling airport safety. They say the record-setting blizzards that recently buried the East Coast show how unworkable the regulation would be during winter weather.

“The EPA must acknowledge … the environment cannot trump all other considerations,” a group representing airports said in February public comments to the rule.

The Federal Aviation Administration, which regulates airports for safety considerations, has completed its own comments on the proposal, which it is preparing to send EPA, sources close to the situation say. Some FAA officials have expressed reservations about the rule in the past. The FAA declined to comment for this article.

In the meantime, EPA is considering the concerns carefully. EPA “is concerned about the safety of the traveling public and the operational challenges that airports and airlines face in efficiently serving air traveler,” an agency spokeswoman said, adding that EPA consulted the FAA before issuing the regulation.

EPA’s proposal requires large airports to collect 60 percent of the deicing fluids to keep them from draining off runways. It also sets a 25-gallon limit for the amount of fluid planes can use for taxiing and stipulations on special platforms for deicing and vehicles that can vacuum up the fluids before they escape from the runway.

One of the top concerns air officials have with the EPA’s proposal is that it will force airports to design runways and other facilities with environment as a top consideration rather than safety. They say EPA’s restrictions could also increase runway traffic, which would increase the risk of collisions.

“EPA … does not attempt to consider these safety imperatives and openly acknowledges that it did not gather sufficient information to evaluate these and other safety imperatives,” the Air Transport Association, which represents the airline industry, said in February comments to the proposal.

They argue the 25-gallon limit is far too little fluid for planes to taxi to their loading slots or other locations at the airport. Especially for a big plane such as a DC-10, taxiing with snow still on the plane could be dangerous or damage the plane, some airport officials say.

Officials at the Air Line Pilots Association wonder how they will follow both the FAA’s safety rules and the EPA’s proposed 25-gallon limit. “If the pilot-in-command does determine that additional [deicing fluid] is required, in excess of the allotted 25-gallons, will ground personnel be authorized to apply the requested additional fluid without penalty or a violation being levied against the airport or airline?” the pilots ask.

EPA did not respond to questions about the individual safety concerns raised by its critics.

In addition to the safety considerations, airlines say the regulation could make winter storms even more unbearable for travelers.

The airline industry says that delays from the proposal would be particularly pronounced at some of the busiest airports in the country where a huge number of delays already occur. But EPA, the officials say, didn’t consider delays in estimating the costs of the rule.

Continental airlines says passengers were already severely burdened by the winter storms this past season. A snowstorm in December resulted in nearly 45 percent of flights canceled at Continental’s Newark hub and 11,000 flights canceled.

“Continental will continue to work with the EPA on these issues, but does not believe that the proposed … regulations adequately allow feasible emergency actions taken,” the airline says.

EPA is also under fire from the air industry for appearing to favor environmental activists in what some call an unfair way.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, regulations like EPA’s proposal are subject to public comment. Typically, a federal agency announces a public comment period on a new regulation, during which anyone is free to send in in remarks.

According to an e-mail from environmentalists obtained by The Daily Caller, EPA took this process a step further and solicited comment from environmentalists.

“An EPA representative actually called me asking that we submit comments. The most helpful information they can receive is a waterbody specific account of how low dissolved oxygen affects your ecosystems,” the e-mail, which came from a local chapter in New Jersey of the activist group Waterkeeper.

One industry lawyer blasts the e-mail, saying EPA’s request is “unethical” and compares it to the Bush EPA asking for comment from industry officials, which he says never would have happened.

An environmentalist from the local Waterkeeper chapter that sent the e-mail confirmed its provenance but said such requests are typical.

“I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily unusual, I mean we have open communication with the EPA. If they feel like they aren’t getting comments I don’t think it’s unusual they would look for comments,” the source says, “EPA — they see themselves as put in the middle between two competing groups. They had been getting a lot of comments from … airports and had not been getting a lot of comments from [environmentalists].”

The activist source also charged the Bush EPA routinely coordinated with industry officials. EPA did not respond to a request for comment on the matter.

So during the 2010 Winter of our Discontent watch out for falling planes!

LEAD PAINT

New rules starting April 22 say you have to be specifically licensed for any work on a building or a home  or your company will be fined $37,500 Per day.

Certified Lead Renovator Training Certificate and the certificate of the Certified Renovator assigned to the job.

CO2

EPA’s problem is that the language of the Clean Air Act requires it to regulate air pollutants at levels that are unrealistically low for greenhouse gases. The Clean Air Act says that once a pollutant is “under regulation” — as greenhouse gases are now — EPA must regulate any facility emitting more than 250 tons of the substance per year, which for most air pollutants would indicate a large industrial facility. Greenhouse gas pollutants are far more plentiful, however, so much smaller facilities would trigger the limit.

The wide disparity between what the law says and what EPA is proposing — a factor of 100 — is behind the controversy and the reason businesses face potential calamity if a court were to disagree with EPA.

The agency says it could not possibly follow the law’s lower threshold and oversee so many facilities. Such a scenario “would immediately and completely overwhelm” government bureaucrats, EPA says. The agency has proposed a legal solution, but the debate over the issue is likely to end up in court.

The court battle has not yet started and is months or even years away. But EPA is making the decisions now that will drive that legal fight — one that most say is all but inevitable.(Daily Caller)

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Did the Environmental Protection Agency act too quickly in determining that greenhouse gases are hazardous to the health of Americans? What about the agency’s move to license California and other states that proclaim their own nonfederal fuel-economy standards?

Iain Murray, vice president for strategy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, thinks the agency has gone too far in gobbling up power. “It’s a sure sign that a government agency has become over-mighty when it vastly increases its budget, grabs power unconstitutionally and treats Congress with contempt,” he wrote in the Washington Times. “Unless Congress acts quickly to curb the EPA’s power, it will become a huge drag on the economy.”

Among the things the agency has done deserving of financial cutbacks includes its “finding under the Clean Air Act that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare goes way beyond the powers of the act.” The agency’s power grab has included licensing California and other states “to adopt nonfederal fuel-economy standards within their borders; [acting] co-equal (or even senior partner) with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in setting fuel-economy standards for the auto industry; [establishing] climate and energy policy for the nation; and [tailoring], that is, [amending], the Clean Air Act to avoid an administrative debacle of its own making.”

Murray states that the agency “is ignoring the plain language of the statutes and, in some cases, the constitutional requirements of the Supremacy Clause and separation of powers.”

But a few congressional lawmakers are looking into the agency’s recent activities, including Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who wrote to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to ask for information about the agency’s actions.

Between now and May 25, the Senate will likely vote on “Murkowski’s Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval. This measure would veto the legal force and effect of EPA’s endangerment finding.”(NACS)

We are from the Government and we are here to protect you….just not from us! 😦