First off, Just to let you all know- This blog will be down for a few days because I have something important that has be taken care of.
Now onto it…
The Liberal Meme: But opposition to the mandate also stems from the public’s failure to understand — or, alternatively, the administration’s failure to communicate — basic facts. (How many YEARS has this been the liberal line- after all you “have to pass it to know what’s in it”!!??)
And when you know you’ll jump for joy. And if you don’t you just don’t understand. 🙂
That’s why it’s just as unpopular (or more so) now as it was over 2 years ago when it passed!
“People don’t understand how the mandate works at all, and they don’t understand why it’s there,” Kaiser’s polling director, Mollyann Brodie, told me. Brodie suspects that it’s too late to change minds. “This law as a whole has really become a symbolic issue to people, and they really aren’t open to information,” she said.
Maybe, but the administration must keep trying — not only to sell the law’s goodies but to explain how the mandate makes them possible. Otherwise, they could end up winning the minds of the justices, yet losing the hearts of the people whose votes they need to keep the law in place.
The most compelling sentences in the Obama administration’s brief defending the constitutionality of the health care law come early on. “As a class,” the brief advises on page 7, “the uninsured consumed $116 billion of health care services in 2008.” (Ruth Marcus)
Yeah, and the CBO says it will cost twice as much as it was when it was sold by the Liberals and it hasn’t even “started” yet.
So I am inclined to believe her pie-in-the-sky Government can fix everything Liberalism…NOT!
The administration’s new tax-reform proposal indicates a continued stubbornness to pick winners and losers in the marketplace — slashing, among others, broad-based provisions that benefit all industries such as accelerated depreciation, deductions for interest expense, LIFO for inventory accounting along with tax provisions for the oil and gas industry in order to finance tax breaks and permanent credits for expensive renewable energy.
It’s a disturbing plan after so many failed renewable energy gambles including Solyndra. A new report by a White House-appointed commission concluded that the U.S. could lose as much as $2.7 billion as a result of the loans offered to the renewable energy industry.
Meanwhile, consumers are losing. Gas prices aren’t showing any signs of decreasing. The president’s thumbs-down to the Keystone XL pipeline cost the U.S. thousands of new jobs, economic growth and energy price stabilization.
His 2012 budget calls for cutting outlays for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program to $3 billion, nearly $2 billion less than in the 2011 budget. This drastic cut will leave many homes in cold weather states suffering and is further evidence of misplaced priorities when it comes to the administration’s energy policies.
But they better vote for him anyways, because he’s going to kiss their government dependent asses… 🙂 Otherwise, they might be “racists” or just “mean”. 🙂
The president’s “promise of clean energy” comes with a high price tag. Data from the Department of Energy’s EIA show that new electric generating capacity using wind and solar power tends to be considerably more expensive than conventional, available and secure natural gas and coal resources.
And in a world of real tradeoffs, every dollar spent producing more expensive renewable energy is money that could be used for producing jobs and spurring economic growth. Indeed, there is a direct linkage between energy use and economic recovery, as in recent years each 1% increase in GDP has been accompanied by a 0.2% increase in energy use.
Simply put, it takes more power to turn on more light switches in more plants that employ more people.
The problem, of course, trickles down to consumers, as well. USA Today recently reported “households paid a record $1,419 on average for electricity in 2010, the fifth consecutive yearly increase above the inflation rate.” This “jump has added about $300 a year to what households pay for electricity. That’s the largest sustained increase since a run-up in electricity prices during the 1970s.”
Meanwhile, subsidizing renewables costs jobs and slows economic growth, burdening taxpayers by grabbing up a massive share of tax code subsidies.
In 2010, an estimated 76% of the $19.1 billion in federal tax incentives went to renewables for energy efficiency, conservation and alternative technology vehicle projects (while only 13% went to fossil fuels), according to the Congressional Research Service. Some renewable electricity enjoys negative tax rates: Solar thermal’s effective tax rate is -245% and wind power’s is -164%.
Yet the federal government continues pouring money on non-traditional energy sources, which is especially troubling since the wind, solar power, biofuel and ethanol industries do not meet the standard criteria used to justify taxpayer-funded subsidies for their deployment across the U.S. economy.
They are not “infant industries” or essential for U.S. economic and job growth, and they are unlikely to provide benefits commensurate with their costs. Addressing the huge U.S. federal budget deficit requires cutbacks in programs whose costs exceed their benefits.
There are much fairer policies available that do not force the government to pick winners and losers. Accelerated depreciation, Section 199, the foreign tax credit deduction and LIFO are examples of tax code provisions that are available to any industry and are not considered “subsidies.”
Perhaps even more frightening than the government’s current tax incentive structure and spending for renewables and alternative fuel vehicles is the potential for a national mandate (called a Clean Energy Standard) requiring electricity retailers to supply a specified share of their sales from clean energy sources.
This would have adverse economic impacts. A recent Department of Energy analysis shows that by 2035 the mandate will raise electricity prices by 20% to 27% and reduce GDP by $124 billion to $214 billion.
For those who support clean energy powering our nation’s economy, all is not lost: The issue is simply about responsibly looking away from the “promise of clean energy” and focusing on the reality of clean energy.
Government funding for basic research and development of renewables and conservation may be a better use of taxpayer dollars than the current suite of tax incentives and direct spending programs, for instance. Clearly, there are more efficient ways to meet our nation’s needs for today and tomorrow. (IBD)
But it won’t make Liberal “feel” good and be the soothing pie-in-the-sky warm fuzzy that they want it to be.
And if you disagree, well, you’re just “mean”.
MADDOW: So, President Obama in 1990 said that he wanted to move — wanted to work toward a world, country, that was less mean-spirited, and more generous. The right says that means he hates America. I think it sounds like I want a kinder and gentler America, which is what George H.W. Bush said.
LEWIS BLACK: That’s then. That language doesn’t apply anymore. That is a different Republican Party because we have moved on, there is a new Republican Party, and they seem to have — that language doesn’t work for them.
It’s a new Republican Party. It’s — there is a — it’s like — I mean, I think of it like if you were in the Communist Party, toe the line, here`s what they think, that`s the deal, screw him, that`s the deal, you can’t — are you going to use those words, or those words don`t work? Whatever words he uses, don’t work for them.
(and that doesn’t sound Like the Liberals wanting to control everything and everyone from birth to death at all!) 🙂
MADDOW: But do you think we’re at the point some were some — I mean, I feel like it’s not that weird. It wouldn’t be that much of a joke for a Republican candidate to come out and say, actually, we need a less gentle, meaner country. (Katie Pavlich)
Apparently wanting to balance the budget and limit burdensome debt for future generations is somehow “mean.”
It sucks being the grown-up in the room instead of the head-in-the-clouds, pie-in-the-sky Liberal whose hubris prevents them from not feeling vastly superior to other living beings doesn’t it? 🙂