This is Your Money

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) spent almost $29 million to cover Medicare Part D prescription drugs for 4,139 individuals “unlawfully present” in the U.S. and thus ineligible to receive federal health care benefits, according to an audit by Daniel Levinson, inspector general of the Department of Health & Human Services.

CMS “inappropriately accepted 279,056 PDE [prescription drug event] records with unallowable gross drug costs totaling $28,990,718” between 2009 and 2011, Levinson reported. Total federal expenditures under Medicare Part D during that same two-year time period came to $227 billion.

Medicare Parts A and B cover hospitalization, skilled nursing care, doctor visits, and other medical services and supplies. The IG previously reported in January that CMS had also paid $91.6 million to health care providers to cover 2,600 ineligible illegal aliens.

And with them flooding the border in record numbers and ObamaCare and besides:

“When a Mexican, or any other citizen, crosses a boarder, let’s say illegally, they are not committing a crime. They are doing it illegally, but they are not committing a crime. No, they are not. Check your law,” Public Affairs Minister Ariel Moutsatos-Morales says. (CNS)

The unallowable payments were made by CMS despite the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which prohibits illegal aliens from receiving federal health care benefits, and CMS’ own 2003 memo warning: “Make no payments for Medicare services furnished to an alien beneficiary who is not lawfully present in the United States.”

Like Liberals care about The Rule of Law. They care about the Rule of The Agenda.

Medicare Part D is a voluntary program that requires individuals who are entitled to benefits under Part A or enrolled in Part B to opt in by filling out a form to enroll in a federally approved prescription drug plan that has a contract with CMS. Enrollee premiums cover about a quarter of the overall cost, with Medicare picking up the rest.

Each time a Medicare Part D beneficiary fills a prescription, his or her plan sponsor is required to fill out a PDE and submit it to CMS. Medicare Part D providers receive “prospective payments…based on information in the sponsors’ approved annual bids” which are later reconciled with actual prescription costs.

CMS uses data from the Social Security Administration to determine Medicare eligibility, but “CMS did not have a policy addressing payments for unlawfully present beneficiaries under Medicare Part D that was equivalent to the existing policy that covers payments for these beneficiaries under Parts A and B,” the IG reported.

“Because CMS did not have such a policy, it did not have internal controls to identify and disenroll unlawfully present beneficiaries and to automatically reject PDE records associated with them,” auditors noted.

The IG recommended that CMS “develop and implement controls to ensure that Medicare does not pay for prescription drugs for unlawfully present beneficiaries” by preventing them from enrolling, disenrolling those already in the Medicare Part D system, and “automatically rejecting PDE records submitted by sponsors for prescription drugs provided to this population.”

The IG also recommended that CMS take steps to recover the $29 million. However, CMS said that “there was no effective way to fully recover the improper payments in question without first implementing the appropriate policies and procedures” that would have prevented the overpayment problem in the first place. (CNS)

The electricity price index and the average price for a kilowatthour (KWH) of electricity both hit records for May, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The average price for a KWH hit 13.6 cents during the month, up about 3.8 percent from 13.1 cents in May 2013.

The seasonally adjusted electricity price index rose from 201.431 in May 2013 to 208.655 in May 2014—an increase of about 3.6 percent.

If the prevailing trend holds, the price of electricity will hit an all-time record high this summer, when demand for electricity is at its peak.

And remember Obama is having the EPA screw these producers of electricity for his “green” agenda so that they’ll go even higher. But hey, that’s “fighting” “Global Warming” for you… 🙂

In 2008, President Obama said he would “bankrupt” coal plant owners and force energy prices across the U.S. to “skyrocket” as part of his plan to combat global warming – and now a new EPA rule on power plant emissions promises to do just that, slashing as much as 40 percent of the nation’s power supply and possibly even doubling Americans’ energy bills.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted” Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board in January 2008.

He added, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to, uh, retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.” (WND)

The Agenda is The Agenda!

Daniel Simmons, vice president of policy at the Institute for Energy Research  told WND the new rule slashes emissions standards in half from existing levels, and he believes future coal plants are not the only targets here.

“If they are able to do this, and if they get away with it, they will then go after existing coal-fired power plants,” Simmons warned.

According to Simmons, coal provides about 40 percent of the nation’s power supply, and it is not at all clear how that would be replaced.

“That’s a heck of a lot of electricity that would have to be made up somewhere. We’re talking about dramatically increasing the cost of electricity all to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. I think that is the real goal,” said Simmons, who has not officially crunched the numbers but firmly believes if the EPA proceeds with the rule it will have disastrous effects on American pocketbooks and the economy at large.

“It could get awfully expensive,” he said. “Some people might see their electricity rates double. If there’s no backup power plants, that means electricity is going to get awfully expensive when you have shortages around the country. If we want to build manufacturing in this country again, the cost of electricity is critical. Otherwise, companies are going to go places where electricity is reliable and inexpensive, and the EPA is trying to make it so that the electricity in the United States is neither reliable nor inexpensive.” (WND)

But you’ll get stuck with the bill!! 🙂

Don’t worry, Be Happy…

149872 600 IRS Lost Emails cartoons

149873 600 Migrant children cartoons

 

 

The End Justifies The Means

“We’re headed in the right direction. Unemployment continues to drop and those people who are unemployed, they’re not going to be voting for the party who wants to cut their benefits, cut access to food stamps, cut job training,” Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) said on MSNBC’s Al Sharpton program.

“The idea that Republicans are trying to help those who are unemployed is nonsense and I think that on this election day, those who have a job can credit the administration for stabilizing our economy and those who don’t know that this administration is trying to put them to work,” he said.

We’re Counting on Naivete,Greed, and Narcissism and if that doesn’t work, then we’ll just use Fear,Envy, Cheating, and Intimidation.

Democracy, Liberal style!

More people giving up and being taken off the unemployment statistics is not progress. And 8%+ for OVER 3 YEARS STRAIGHT is not an “accomplishment” in a good way, unless you’re a Liberal or a slobbering Ministry of Truth hack like NBC.

But here’s a creative solution to the Post Office’s Bankruptcy problems (no government unions and their campaign money were harmed during this presentation):

Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) comes up with a plan to save the collapsing United States Postal Service: build wind farms off of the Atlantic Coast to power a new fleet of battery-operated postal delivery vehicles.

<<RIMSHOT>>

Man, with brain power like that no wonder everything is just perfect in Liberal La-La Land.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 

“[O]il and gas is an enforcement priority, it’s one of seven, so we are going to spend a fair amount of time looking at oil and gas production,” Al Armendariz says in the video.

The top-ranking EPA official goes on to explain his philosophy of policy enforcement [emphases added]:

“But as I said, oil and gas is an enforcement priority, it’s one of seven, so we are going to spend a fair amount of time looking at oil and gas production. And I gave, I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said. It was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years. And so you make examples out of people who are in this case not compliant with the law. Find people who are not compliant with the law, and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them, and there is a deterrent effect there. And, companies that are smart see that, they don’t want to play that game, and they decide at that point that it’s time to clean up. And, that won’t happen unless you have somebody out there making examples of people. So you go out, you look at an industry, you find people violating the law, you go aggressively after them. And we do have some pretty effective enforcement tools. Compliance can get very high, very, very quickly. That’s what these companies respond to is both their public image but also financial pressure. So you put some financial pressure on a company, you get other people in that industry to clean up very quickly. So, that’s our general philosophy.”

“[The] EPA’s proposal for controlling greenhouse gas emissions from about half the nation’s electric power supply is a poorly disguised cap-and-tax scheme that represents energy and economic policy at its worst,” President and CEO Hal Quinn said in a statement from the National Mining Association.

The regulations will limit the emissions from new coal-based plants (as opposed to plants that existed before the drafting of the proposal). This, of course, will discourage entrepreneurs from establishing and building new power plants. And although the proposed regulations don’t specifically dictate which fuels a plant can and can’t burn, the rules still require new coal plants to match the dioxide emissions from more their “more efficient” gas-powered cousins, according to Reuters.

In order to meet the EPA’s new emissions standards, coal-based power plants have been encouraged to invest in equipment that captures carbon emissions and buries them underground for “permanent storage.” But there’s a catch: carbon capture and storage technology isn’t yet “commercially available,” according to the coal industry.

So what, Solar power is not commercially viable at this time but yet the little skulls of “feel good” mush want it anyways. They don’t care how many companies go bankrupt because in typical liberal fashion – The End Justifies The Means.

Not to worry; the EPA believes the tech will be available soon enough.

Just like that Algae-driven car. 🙂

“Supporters of the rules argue that the industry has been moving away from coal and towards natural gas because of low prices and abundant supply,” Reuters reports.

“The portion of U.S. electricity fired by coal has slipped from about 50 percent to 45 percent in the last few years as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and other drilling techniques have allowed access to vast new domestic supplies of natural gas,” the report adds.

However, as Ed Morrisey of Hot Air points out, considering the EPA’s current stance against natural gas, this argument may not hold up very well:

This leads us to the natural-gas option…The response might be, “Well, okay, Obama’s bankrupting the coal industry, but we can still use natural gas.”  That’s only true if we can get the natural gas.  The EPA has also begun blocking the use of hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, which allows for massive improvement in extraction and access to vast amounts of natural gas.

Environmentalist groups praised the Obama administration for proposing “performance standard rules” they say will help “protect the country from climate change.”

“The bottom line for our country is that cleaner power will cut harmful carbon dioxide pollution, protect our children and help secure a safe prosperous future,” said Vickie Patton, the general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.

Oh, but here’s the best part: none of these new EPA climate rules need to be approved by Congress.

“After Congress refused to pass carbon caps, the administration insisted there were other ways to skin the cat, and this is another way — by setting a standard deliberately calculated to drive affordable coal out of the electricity market,”

More stealth regulations, maneuvers, and back-handed “well if I can’t get by Congress I’ll get it my way anyhow by regulations”

Higher utility bills and fewer jobs are the only certain outcomes from this reckless attempt to override Congress’s repeated refusal to enact punitive caps on carbon dioxide emissions.

But it’s for your own good. So what if you’re unemployed or poor and you have to pay higher utility bills. Vote for Obama, he’ll make you feel better than that evil capitalist pig “silver spoon” Romney.

After all, they are evil polluters and you should be glad to have that $40 light bulb and pay 4,5,6 times as much for electricity than you do know.

The government will take care of you! 🙂

They will provide!

Unlike the republicans who just want you to starve, and die. 🙂

Trust them. They have your back (the large and multiple knifes in your back are the Republicans fault for not wanting to do as we wanted them to).

This proposal is the latest convoy in EPA’s regulatory train wreck that is rolling across America, crushing jobs and arresting our economic recovery at every stop. It is not an “all of the above” energy strategy; it does not create jobs; and it does not make it easier for Americans to pay their mortgages. Instead, the proposed New Source Performance Standards would deliberately push America to abandon coal, its most abundant and reliable energy source in favor of costlier fuels—even though Congress has repeatedly rejected this policy.

“If you thought gas prices will never stop rising, just wait until you see what happens to electricity after the Barack Obama’s EPA gets its way,” Ed Morrissey writes. (The Blaze)

President Obama’s Interior Secretary Ken Salazar confirmed that the administration has gotten “more strict on denying drilling permits” since the Deepwater Horizon, though he contended Obama is also pursuing an effective all-of-the-above energy strategy.

“Yes,” Salazar answered when asked if he is “being more strict on denying drilling permits based on safety and environmental concerns” since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

“We have new sets of regulations that that have been put into place,” Salazar told reporters at the National Press Club yesterday. “The permit reviews are rigourous. We make sure that any company that is going to be operating in the waters of the United States is going to be complying in the rules that we set out.”

Salazar also declared that “we are now producing 13 percent more oil off of our public lands than was being produced three years ago.”

The Department of Energy seems to contradict Salazar’s claim. Oil production is at the same level it was in 2009 — and dramatically lower than in 2010 — according to a recent report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. (Washington Examiner)

Less is More because I said so. 🙂

The oil production that is up is on PRIVATE LANDS not federal lands. But it’s not like Liberals care about Facts…

“they don’t think we should be getting rid of every regulation on the books.”-Obama when asked about Congressional Republicans and the people.

I love the all-or-nothing extremism of Liberals. It’s either do it my way or it must be the most extreme on the other end.

Obama 10/2011: “My plan says we’re going to put teachers back in the classrooms, construction workers back to work,” President Obama said at a campaign event today. “Tax cuts for small businesses, tax cuts for hiring veterans, tax cuts if you give your workers a raise –- that’s my plan.”

The Republicans plan, Obama says, boils down to this: ‘Dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance.’ (RCP)

“Frankly, I know that there are good, decent Republicans on Capitol Hill who, in a different environment, would welcome the capacity to work with me,” Obama said. “But right now, in an atmosphere in which folks like Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist are defining what it means to be a true conservative, they are lying low. My hope is that after this next election, they’ll feel a little more liberated to go out and say, ‘Let’s redirect the Republican Party back to those traditions in which a Dwight Eisenhower can build an interstate highway system.'”

So basically, there’s a category of “decent” Republicans who believe in a large role for the federal government, but those of us who believe in a smaller government are somehow indecent, and are holding the good guys hostage.(Washington Examiner)

Can I get an “Amen”. 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Unpopular Popularity

President Obama hugs an increasingly unpopular, vulgar, and lawless movement. The Hill reports that after President Obama was heckled by protesters at an event in New Hampshire, he said: 

“I appreciate you guys making your point; let me go ahead and make mine,” Obama said before continuing his speech. “I’ll listen to you, you listen to me, OK?”

A few minutes later, Obama acknowledged the Occupy protest movement again, saying: “You are the reason I ran for office.”

Shiftless, lazy, violent, anarchist squatters who expect you and me to support them because they are entitled to it.

Isn’t that a good enough reason to make sure we don’t have 4 more years??

And then there’s The Global Warming Fraud:

Almost exactly two years since damning email messages were released from Great Britain’s University of East Anglia showing a pattern of deception and collusion between scientists involved in spreading the global warming myth, a new batch of such correspondence has emerged that seems destined to get as little press coverage as the original ClimateGate scandal did in November 2009.

James Delingpole reported in Britian’s Telegraph Tuesday:

Breaking news: two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the “scientists” at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they’d like it to be.In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower ‘FOIA 2011′ (or “thief”, as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.

The BBC is reporting that these email messages also come from UEA, and number around 5,000. The entire set is available at MegaUpload.

As you might imagine, climate realists across the globe are beginning to sift through these messages. Our friend Tom Nelson has already uncovered some whoppers:

<3066> Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run. […]

<2884> Wigley:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]

<4923> Stott/MetO:

My most immediate concern is to whether to leave this statement [“probably the warmest of the last millennium”] in or whether I should remove it in the anticipation that by the time of the 4th Assessment Report we’ll have withdrawn this statement – Chris Folland at least seems to think this is possible.

<3062> Jones:

We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written […] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff. […]

<3373> Bradley:

I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”. […]

<4369> Cook:

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.

Of course, the “Mike” and “Michael” being regularly disparaged by his peers is Michael Mann, the creator of the thoroughly-debunked Hockey Stick graph which so much of this myth is dependent on.

As physicist Lubos Motl notes, these messages “surely show that Michael Mann is a fraudster even according to most of his colleagues.”

Also for those not connecting the names, Jones is the infamous Phil Jones of UEA. Speaking of which:

<2440> Jones:

I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process

<2094> Briffa:

UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC task.

… <1577> Jones:

[FOI, temperature data]

Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

Briffa of course is Keith Briffa, the man exposed to have manipulated tree ring data in order to assist Mann’s Hockey Stick charade.

As previously stated, realists from around the world are just starting to go through all these thousands of messages, and it will likely be days if not weeks before we know everything they contain.

Regardless, people that have been pushing back on this myth for years are beginning to weigh in.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Ok.), the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee issued the following statement Tuesday:

“Even before the Climategate emails were released in 2009, the so-called ‘consensus’ peddled by the IPCC was already shattered,” Senator Inhofe said. “Nevertheless, the Obama administration is moving full speed ahead to implement global warming regulations that will impose the largest tax increase in American history, significantly raise energy prices, and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs.

“Remember, the Obama EPA is basing these regulations on its endangerment finding, which relies on the flawed science of the IPCC. Now a recent report by the EPA Inspector General has revealed that EPA cut corners in the process leading up to the endangerment finding: it shows that EPA did not engage in the required record-keeping procedures or conduct an independent review of the science underpinning these costly regulations. If the first Climategate scandal – and the over one hundred errors in the IPCC science that were revealed in its wake – were not enough, the apparent release of the Climategate 2.0 emails is just one more reason to halt the Obama EPA’s job killing global warming agenda.

“The crisis of confidence in the IPCC translates into a crisis of confidence in the EPA’s endangerment finding. The IPCC science has already disintegrated under the weight of its own flaws, and I believe it will only be a matter of time before the endangerment finding follows suit. It’s time for the Obama administration to stop trying to resurrect policies that are all pain for no gain, and get to work on reviving our economy.”

The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Myron Ebell issued the following statement Tuesday:

“If there were any doubts remaining after reading the first Climategate e-mails, the new batch of e-mails that appeared on the web today make it clear that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an organized conspiracy dedicated to tricking the world into believing that global warming is a crisis that requires a drastic response,” said Myron Ebell, Director of CEI’s Center on Energy and Environment.

“Several of the new e-mails show that the scientists involved in doctoring the IPCC reports are very aware that the energy-rationing policies that their junk science is meant to support would cost trillions of dollars,” said Ebell.

And Climate Depot’s Marc Morano wrote Tuesday:

“It appears that Climategate 2.0 has arrived to drain what little life there was left in the man-made global warming movement.

“The new emails further expose the upper echelon of the UN IPCC as being more interested in crafting a careful narrative than following the evidence. The release of thousands of more emails is quite simply another victory for science.”

As this is just the beginning of this latest round of email messages from UEA, readers are advised to stay tuned to NewsBusters for regular updates as well as to see how the global warming-loving media are responding.

UPDATE

Tom Nelson has found some remarkable observations concerning these email messages from warmist David Appell:

On a second reading of the stolen UAE emails leaked today, and just reading the README file emails, these sound worse than I thought at first – their impact will be devastating…The original release of emails 2 years ago had a significant impact. My guess is that these are going to throw the science off-kilter for perhaps the rest of this decade, and may well lead some people to rethink how they are doing business (including certain journalists).

But don’t worry, the faithful don’t care, for proof denies faith and without faith they are nothing.

So here’s another way of looking at it:

Consider California’s new mandate. The state’s peak electricity demand is about 52,000 megawatts. Meeting the one-third target will require (if you oversimplify a bit) about 17,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity. Let’s assume that California will get half of that capacity from solar and half from wind. Most of its large-scale solar electricity production will presumably come from projects like the $2 billion Ivanpah solar plant, which is now under construction in the Mojave Desert in southern California. When completed, Ivanpah, which aims to provide 370 megawatts of solar generation capacity, will cover 3,600 acres — about five and a half square miles.

The math is simple: to have 8,500 megawatts of solar capacity, California would need at least 23 projects the size of Ivanpah, covering about 129 square miles, an area more than five times as large as Manhattan. While there’s plenty of land in the Mojave, projects as big as Ivanpah raise environmental concerns. In April, the federal Bureau of Land Management ordered a halt to construction on part of the facility out of concern for the desert tortoise, which is protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Wind energy projects require even more land. The Roscoe wind farm in Texas, which has a capacity of 781.5 megawatts, covers about 154 square miles. Again, the math is straightforward: to have 8,500 megawatts of wind generation capacity, California would likely need to set aside an area equivalent to more than 70 Manhattans. Apart from the impact on the environment itself, few if any people could live on the land because of the noise (and the infrasound, which is inaudible to most humans but potentially harmful) produced by the turbines.

Industrial solar and wind projects also require long swaths of land for power lines. Last year, despite opposition from environmental groups, San Diego Gas & Electric started construction on the 117-mile Sunrise Powerlink, which will carry electricity from solar, wind and geothermal projects located in Imperial County, Calif., to customers in and around San Diego. In January, environmental groups filed a federal lawsuit to prevent the $1.9 billion line from cutting through a nearby national forest.

Not all environmentalists ignore renewable energy’s land requirements. The Nature Conservancy has coined the term “energy sprawl” to describe it. Unfortunately, energy sprawl is only one of the ways that renewable energy makes heavy demands on natural resources.

Consider the massive quantities of steel required for wind projects. The production and transportation of steel are both expensive and energy-intensive, and installing a single wind turbine requires about 200 tons of it. Many turbines have capacities of 3 or 4 megawatts, so you can assume that each megawatt of wind capacity requires roughly 50 tons of steel. By contrast, a typical natural gas turbine can produce nearly 43 megawatts while weighing only 9 tons. Thus, each megawatt of capacity requires less than a quarter of a ton of steel.

Obviously these are ballpark figures, but however you crunch the numbers, the takeaway is the same: the amount of steel needed to generate a given amount of electricity from a wind turbine is greater by several orders of magnitude.

Such profligate use of resources is the antithesis of the environmental ideal. Nearly four decades ago, the economist E. F. Schumacher distilled the essence of environmental protection down to three words: “Small is beautiful.” In the rush to do something — anything — to deal with the intractable problem of greenhouse gas emissions, environmental groups and policy makers have determined that renewable energy is the answer. But in doing so they’ve tossed Schumacher’s dictum into the ditch.

All energy and power systems exact a toll. If we are to take Schumacher’s phrase to heart while also reducing the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions, we must exploit the low-carbon energy sources — natural gas and, yes, nuclear — that have smaller footprints. (NY Times)

So a Liberal scheme turns out to be worse than the “cure”. Gee, that never happens.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Re:Volt ting

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Government Motors’ all-electric car isn’t all-electric and doesn’t get near the touted hundreds of miles per gallon. Like “shovel-ready” jobs, maybe there’s no such thing as “plug-ready” cars either.

So Government Motors spends $50 Billion dollars of stimulus money and comes up with a fraud. Gee, no one saw that coming…:)

The government backed, government subsidized All-Hail-The-Green-Revolution car is a fraud.

Much like everything else under Obama, it promises one thing and then doesn’t deliver. And what it delivers smells rotten and sulfurous like it came from the bowels of hell.

Maybe this was Bush’s fault too.

The Chevy Volt, hailed by the Obama administration as the electric savior of the auto industry and the planet, makes its debut in showrooms next month, but it’s already being rolled out for test drives by journalists. It appears we’re all being taken for a ride.

When President Obama visited a GM plant in Hamtramck near Detroit a few months ago to drive a Chevy Volt 10 feet off an assembly line, we called the car an “electric Edsel.” Now that it’s about to hit the road, nothing revealed has changed our mind.

Advertised as an all-electric car that could drive 50 miles on its lithium battery, GM addressed concerns about where you plug the thing in en route to grandma’s house by adding a small gasoline engine to help maintain the charge on the battery as it starts to run down. It was still an electric car, we were told, and not a hybrid on steroids.

That’s not quite true. The gasoline engine has been found to be more than a range-extender for the battery. Volt engineers are now admitting that when the vehicle’s lithium-ion battery pack runs down and at speeds near or above 70 mph, the Volt’s gasoline engine will directly drive the front wheels along with the electric motors. That’s not charging the battery — that’s driving the car.

So it’s not an all-electric car, but rather a pricey $41,000 hybrid that requires a taxpayer-funded $7,500 subsidy to get car shoppers to look at it. But gee, even despite the false advertising about the powertrain, isn’t a car that gets 230 miles per gallon of gas worth it?

We heard GM’s then-CEO Fritz Henderson claim the Volt would get 230 miles per gallon in city conditions. Popular Mechanics found the Volt to get about 37.5 mpg in city driving, and Motor Trend reports: “Without any plugging in, (a weeklong trip to Grandma’s house) should return fuel economy in the high 30s to low 40s.”

Car and Driver reported that “getting on the nearest highway and commuting with the 80-mph flow of traffic — basically the worst-case scenario — yielded 26 miles; a fairly spirited backroad loop netted 31; and a carefully modulated cruise below 60 mph pushed the figure into the upper 30s.”

The non-government produced Toyota Prius and Nissan Leaf make this pretender look stupid.

But I’m sure Obama and his Czars at the EPA will come up with some scheme to punish you for not buying their green miracle car.

Apparently, there are plans to make Solar Panel Parking Spaces especially for the car. Now who do you suppose will be subsidizing those? 🙂

Bend over….He comes Obama…

After all, they are way smarter and far superior to you greedy fossil fuel, earth-destroying pigs who don’t want the government controlling your freedom of movement  and choice either.

How dare you! This is the Anointed Vehicle. All Hail The Anointed One! 🙂

This is what happens when government picks winners and losers in the marketplace and tries to run a business. We are not told that we will be dependent on foreign sources like Bolivia for the lithium to be used in these batteries. Nor are we told about the possible dangers to rescuers and occupants in an accident scenario.

There’s the issue of asking grandma to use her electricity for the three or four hours necessary to recharge your car so you can get home to charge it again. Where’s the electricity going to come from considering that solar and wind don’t work when the sun don’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow? We aren’t building any nukes.

And since electricity rates are necessarily going to skyrocket as a result of this administration’s energy policies and fondness for cap-and-trade, what’s the true cost of operating a not-so-all-electric car like the Volt?

In 2008, candidate Obama pledged to put 1 million plug-in vehicles on the road by 2015. Not likely. It was a tough sell when we thought it was all-electric and could get 230 mpg. It will be a tougher sell now that we find it’s a glorified Prius with the price tag of a BMW that seats only four because of a battery that runs down the center of the car.

President Obama likes to talk about not giving the GOP back the keys to the car. It’s his industrial policy and central planning that have driven us into the ditch. (IBD)

And wrecked the car to boot.

Political Cartoon by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoon by Glenn Foden

 

The Sweet Science II: Cap & Trade

President Obama has admitted that under a cap-and-trade bill, “electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.”  The Obama
administration’s budget director, Peter Orszag, estimated that a 15 percent decrease in emissions would cause the average American family to pay $1,300 in additional utility costs a year. At the upper end, that amount could reach $1,761 a year.

But it’s better than doing nothing! 🙂

Kerry and Boxer deserve credit for their work so far, and encouragement in fending off the inevitable calls for compromises by

industries that fear the cost of change. The cost of inaction – or inadequate action – would be far greater.(boston.com)

Rep. Henry Waxman (D) – The harsh reality is that America’s global warming and energy challenges are just too important for us to keep  mailing it in by not enacting a comprehensive energy and global  warming bill.”

“The bill does not add one penny to the deficit,” Boxer said. “We’re very excited about that.”

The House passed its version of the bill, which is almost 1,500 pages long, at a cost of about $900 billion.  Members had less than 16 hours to read the final bill before it was voted on.  Legislators are seizing power and adding unprecedented tax burdens to Americans
without even reading the legislation. (IBD)

Poor households will receive additional payments to compensate for purchasing power they will lose due to cap-and-trade, another
indication that the administration sees the law’s effects on prices. Oh, like the subsidies to pay for the mandatory health insurance…

President Obama and congressional Democratic leaders, who have suggested that a cap on carbon emissions would help
revive the U.S. economy. (NYT)

But then again, so was the stimulus and health care reform, and the secret talks about another stimulus!!

Heard this one before??

In June, the House of Representatives narrowly passed the Waxman-Markey energy bill, which aims to increase investment in
renewable energy and slash carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.  In early October Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer unveiled the Senate’s version of the bill.  It is even more ambitious, with a goal of cutting emissions by 20 percent by 2020.

The sponsors also drop the politically loaded term “cap and trade,”calling it “pollution reduction and investment” instead.
Orwellian word games always inspires confidence doesn’t it?
But there’s a $3.6 trillion gas tax on the table that already passed the House and is making its way through the Senate, and cap and trade has Americans all over the country concerned. The $3.6 trillion gas tax figure, which includes gasoline and diesel gas, comes from a new report from Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Kit Bond (R-MO) on the effects of climate change legislation. And the energy tax has rippling economic effects, as Senators Hutchison and Bond explain in their Washington Times op-ed:

Americans will be double-hit by the gas tax when it raises the costs of goods and services such as groceries and utilities they must continue to purchase. Energy costs are among businesses’ top operational expenses already. While companies face a variety of energy expenses, ranging from heating and cooling their work space to powering equipment and lighting, operating their vehicles is the most costly. Every company, from the small-town local florist to a package delivery service with nationwide operations, will be hard hit. In order for these businesses to withstand the heavier tax burden and to remain profitable, they will be forced to pass these energy cost increases along to consumers through higher prices.”

Some industries are more energy-intensive than others, and  farmers and ranchers are hit particularly hard. Heritage Senior Policy Analyst Ben Lieberman writes, “In addition to higher diesel fuel and electricity costs, prices for natural gas-derived fertilizers and other chemicals will also rise. Everything else affecting agriculture, from the cost of constructing farm buildings to the price of tractors and other farm equipment, will also go up.”

According to the Hutchison-Bond report, U.S. farmers and ranchers will incur higher fuel costs of $550 million in 2020. That figure will jump to $1.65 billion by 2050. According to The Heritage Foundation’s cap and trade analysis, farm profits are expected to decline by 28 percent in 2012 and will be an average 57 percent lower from 2012-2035. Congress is attempting to buy the farm vote by touting them as the beneficiaries of a carbon offset program because farmers can use cleaner technology, reduce nitrous oxide emissions, or simply not grow crops. However, the revenue gained from offset revenue will pale in comparison to lost income from cap and trade.(Heritage.org)

A Liberal Democrat calls it a Tax, for heaven’s sake: There’s a reason Democrat John Dingell (Mich.) called the cap-and trade portion of the House bill a “great big” tax.  Energy costs will soar under this bill, and those costs will be passed on to consumers.

While in the business of handing out $300 million in stimulus rebates to consumers who purchase Energy Star rated appliances, the US Department of Energy acknowledges in an internal audit that that it does not properly track whether products labeled with the Energy Star actually meet the required specifications for energy efficiency. (examiner)

2008 analysis:
The problem is: the benefits to cutting CO2 are negligible. Even the Environmental Protection Agency found that a 60 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 in the U.S. alone would affect world temperatures by 0.1 to 0.2 degrees C. It would take a global policy with the same cuts to reduce world temperature by just 1 to 2 degrees C.
What about the costs? Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis calculated the costs of global warming legislation in the U.S. alone and the
cumulative GDP losses for 2010 to 2029 approach $7 trillion. Single-year losses exceed $600 billion in 2029, more than $5,000 per
household. Annual job losses exceed 800,000 for several years. That’s a scary price to pay for what little benefits we receive.
(heritage.org)

And of course, we are the most evil on the planet in regards to global warming right? And when we co to Copenhagen in December for the Global Warming summit everyone in the world will happily jump on board just like they did in Kyoto when the evil George W Bush refused to bow to the pressure. Right?

China and India are the first and fourth biggest emitters of carbon dioxide emissions, respectively, but they refuse to commit to binding missions cuts. As “progressive” Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold has said, “You know, the other countries won’t play ball…They cannot be given a free pass, and we cannot do cap and trade alone.”
The Chinese will be happy to see us cut our throats.
So will the EU.
The European Union has had a cap-and-tax regime since 1997.  But 12 of the 15 EU nations that signed on are failing to meet their targets.

Other countries have temporarily abandoned enacting crippling cap-and-trade schemes.  The Australian government’s Emission Trading Scheme legislation has been postponed until mid-2011 because of popular backlash fueled in part by increasing evidence against man-made global warming, as well as increasing recognition of the legislation’s economic toll.

But don’t worry, live in Hope and Change!

“The shifts will be significant,” the CBO director said. “We want to leave no misunderstanding that aggregate performance — the fact that jobs turn up somewhere else for some people — does not mean that there are not substantial costs borne by people, communities, firms in affected industries and affected areas. You saw that in manufacturing, and we would see that in response to changes that this legislation would produce.”

But Greenpeace USA’s climate director, Damon Moglen, questioned the bill’s strength.

“While the language the Senate unveiled today contains some improvements over the House bill, it fails to commit the U.S. to
meaningful, science-based greenhouse gas emissions reductions needed to protect us from runaway climate change,” Moglen said. “This proposal meets neither the needs of science nor those of the international community, which is currently negotiating the landmark climate treaty.”

Currently, 60% of the electricity generation in the U.S. comes from coal. The Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House would raise the cost of electricity generated by burning coal. Demand would therefore increase for less carbon-intensive generation sources, such as nuclear power or natural gas. John Shelk, president of the trade association Electric Power Supply Association, predicts that we will see an “increase in revenues to carbon-free power sources like nuclear.” He adds that “this is exactly what is supposed to happen.”

The fact that NO Nuclear plant has been built in this country for over 30 years is not a deterrent. Or the fact that the main reason they haven’t been built is the self-same “environmentalists.

And to give you an idea of what you’re up against:

Liberal post on heritage.org (I fixed the bad speeling and grammar): This is sad to say but Heritage foundation is a conservative right wing research center that includes their bias opinion. This isn’t necessarily true that cost will rise. Profit will fall and the owner can’t have that. They claim they ‘have’ to lay people off. Which isn’t true. Owners need to realize they have to start taking pay cuts for everyone to survive. Cap N Trade isn’t enough. Change the Economy entirely by adding more efficient wind energy and solar. Second use the oceans to create energy. We have the capabilities to do all of this but the upper-upper elite can’t stand the idea of losing just a little bit for the better of humanity. Its always about them. They drag us down with them in this sinking pit.

Don’t pay any attention the the envoronmentalist behind the curtain!

Recommend you read: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15762

Section 198 of the bill adds a presidentially-appointed “consumer advocate” to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which already has such an office. H.R. 2454 gives the Commission itself no authority over the advocate, but gives the advocate authority over almost all of FERC’s legal staff.
Thus the White House has you by the legal short-hairs.

We are from the government and we are here to save the planet and you.

A new report from the Environmental Protection Agency shows that 10 states, mostly in the Midwest, would be hardest hit. Rust belt
senators know the legislation will hurt industry and consumers in their region.  And the legislation will punish farmers by raising the
cost of fertilizer and diesel fuels, which will increase food prices.

So higher Electric Bills.
Higher Food Bills.
Higher Fuel costs.

Higher Unemployment

Higher Transportation costs.

Higher Energy costs for businesses passed on to you.

Aren’t you glad in 2013 you’ll have lower Health Care costs?!! 🙂