April 8-10, 2009
Apr 08 06:00 It's Official: CBC Hearts Communists Apr 08 08:09 Obama Administration: Let's Threaten Our Israeli Allies Apr 08 08:52 Time's Running Out Apr 08 10:12 Arne Duncan's Questionable Honesty Apr 09 04:44 How To Go Toe-To-Toe With Barney Frank Apr 09 05:44 Myriam Marquez Asks ALL the Right Questions Apr 10 04:43 Correcting Mr. Schumacher Apr 10 04:05 Cap & Trade Notes Apr 10 11:29 Tea Parties: Gateway to Independents?
It's Official: CBC Hearts Communists
It shouldn't surprise anyone to find out that the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) 'hearts' communism. Thanks to this article , though, we have official proof of that:
Key members of the Congressional Black Caucus are calling for an end to U.S. prohibition on travel to Cuba, just hours after a meeting with former Cuban president Fidel Castro in Havana.It isn't surprising that a former Black Panther would have much in common with Castro, especially after considering this information from the Black Panthers' Platform :
"The fifty-year embargo just hasn't worked," CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Ca.) told reporters this evening at a Capitol press conference after returning from a congressional delegation visit to Cuba. "The bottom line is that we believe its time to open dialogue with Cuba."
Lee and others heaped praise on Castro, calling him warm and receptive during their discussion. But the lawmakers disputed Castro's later statement that members of the congressional delegation said American society is still racist.
"It was quite a moment to behold," Lee said, recalling her moments with Castro.
"It was almost like listening to an old friend," said Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Il.), adding that he found Castro's home to be modest and Castro's wife to be particularly hospitable. "In my household I told Castro he is known as the ultimate survivor," Rush said.
We want full employment for our people.That's a document that Fidel himself would be proud of. Well, except that he's squashed people who've dared demand things of their Cuban government. Still, it's accurate to say that Fidel hasn't objected to his thugs taking over businesses, which seems to be the goal of the Black Panthers' platform. Coming to think of it, it doesn't sound that dissimilar to Obama's TARP takeover.
We believe that the federal government is responsible and obligated to give every person employment or a guaranteed income. We believe that if the American businessmen will not give full employment, then the technology and means of production should be taken from the businessmen and placed in the community so that the people of the community can organize and employ all of its people and give a high standard of living.
Barbara Lee is notorious for being the only person in either house of Congress who voted against the war resolution for Afghanistan. Even Dennis Kucinich voted for it. That's why nothing proceeding from her mouth surprises me. That's why it isn't surprising that she "heaped praise on Castro, calling him warm and receptive during their discussion."
Just because Fidel's kept dissidents locked in prisons for disagreeing with him doesn't mean he isn't capable of great warmth, right? Who cares that some of those dissidents have been imprisoned for several decades? All Fidel did was flash the CBC a smile and he was miraculously transformed into a man of warmth.
Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Ca.) said Castro was receptive to President Obama's message of turning the page in American foreign policy. "He listened. He said the exact same thing" about turning the page "as President Obama said," said Richardson. Richardson said Castro knew her name and district. "He looked right into my eyes and he said, 'How can we help? How can we help President Obama?'"What magnamity on Fidel's behalf! He's such a caring man that he wants to help President Obama. What munificence! Having such proof of Fidel's big-heartedness just sends a tingle down my leg.
Seriously, these droppings disgust me. The article doesn't suggest that the CBC said a thing about Fidel's imprisoning of dissidents or the harsh treatment they receive. Nothing in the article suggests that they did anything other than lavish praise on a ruthless dictator.
Freedom-loving people everywhere should be repulsed by the CBC's behavior. In fact, repulsive is a mild adjective considering the things Fidel's done to people who did nothing more than disagree with him.
In the spirit of bipartisanship, I'm offering this trade: Fidel can keep the CBC's delegation if Fidel liberates the dissidents being kept in his hotels of death.
UPDATE: Ed has more on the Democrats' asskissing here .
Posted Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:25 AM
Comment 1 by KT D at 08-Apr-09 02:37 PM
You make some valid points. I was also annoyed by Rep. Richardson's absolute praise of Fidel, especially--as you mention here--when there are still 'dissidents' stuck in prison or worse. Yet, while I don't think over-the-top praise nor Fidel's approval were necessary in the recent discussions, I do think the trade embargo is an issue worthy of reexamination. I watched an interesting video on the recent Cuba-U.S. talks at newsy.com. It gives a few different opinions/sources and is worth watching:
http://www.newsy.com/videos/u_s_cuba_removing_the_wall/
Comment 2 by eric z. at 08-Apr-09 05:03 PM
Gary, are you saying they harbor anti-American views, or are engaging in anti-American activities, as in something an UnAmerican Activities committee should investigate? Or do you not go that extreme, and leave that level of hardball discourse to the more outspoken reaches of the House of Representatives?
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 08-Apr-09 11:20 PM
Eric, Don't hear what I didn't say. If pressed, however, I'd say that their behavior didn't live up to the principles of our Founding Documents.
For elected representatives to talk about a man who despises individual liberty as a "great man of warmth" isn't talking how the Founding Fathers would've talked.
Perhaps you can tell me what American tradition Fidel was following when he imprisoned people for simply disagreeing with him or for writing about what his regime was doing?
The Founding Fathers literally wrote the book on thirsting for freedom. What proof do you have that Fidel thirsts for freedom?
At the heart of Americanism is the thirst for freedom. By that standard, yes, Bobby Rush, Barbara Lee & the rest of these useful idiots didn't measure up to the best of Americanism.
Comment 4 by Kieran Adams at 20-May-10 09:16 PM
Fidel Castro would always be an icon of history evethough he is against the U.S.-`.
Comment 5 by Shower Radio ` at 11-Oct-10 05:17 PM
Fidel Castro may not be a hero for western countries but he did a good job in providing subsidized medical care in Cuba~*~
Obama Administration: Let's Threaten Our Israeli Allies
The Obama administration's intentions towards Israel is crystal clear and disturbing. According to this Haaretz article , the Obama administration is planning on publicly confronting the newly-minted Netanyahu government:
In an unprecedented move, the Obama administration is readying for a possible confrontation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by briefing Democratic congressmen on the peace process and the positions of the new government in Israel regarding a two-state solution.The Obama administration's pro-Arab bent is painfully apparent and disgusting. It appears as though everyone that thinks it's in the United States' interests to afflict Israel while comforting Hamas (to the tune of $900,000,000), Hezbollah and the "moderate factions" of the Taliban has been hired by Obama's State Department or been picked to be President Obama's VP. Here's what VP Biden said during a CNN interview:
The Obama administration is expecting a clash with Netanyahu over his refusal to support the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
In recent weeks, American officials have briefed senior Democratic congressmen and prepared the ground for the possibility of disagreements with Israel over the peace process, according to information recently received. The administration' blockquote Congress.
United States Vice President Joe Biden told CNN on Tuesday he did not think that Israel's new government would order a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. "I don't believe that Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu would do that. I think he would be ill-advised to do that," Biden told the U.S. network's reporter Wolf Blitzer.This question needs to be asked of this administration: Why are they so friendly to terrorists bust hostile towards allied democracies? Doesn't the Obama administration believe in giving carrots to our allies? Doesn't this administration believe in giving terrorists a healthy taste of the United States' stick?
Thus far, I haven't seen proof that this administration's national security priorities are the right priorities. Thus far, I've seen abundant proof that their priorities are as wayward as Jimmy Carter's priorities were.
There are signs that this is part of the Obama administration's campaign against Israel and against their critics here stateside. This article is written in a serious tone but its content is laughable:
In America's struggle against the extremists and terrorists epitomized by Al Qaeda, the strategic imperatives are to divide the enemy and neutralize their base. Fortunately for the United States and its allies, the new American president understands how to do that-and is uniquely suited to accomplish the mission.Joe Conason isn't a journalist. He's a cheap political hack :
From 1978 to 1990, he worked as a columnist and staff writer at The Village Voice.Does that sound like the history of someone who's qualified to write about national security issues? Let's get serious.
In The Free Voice of Labor], a 1980 documentary movie about the Yiddish anarchist newspaper Freie Arbeiter Stimme (or Free voice of labor), a young Joe was interviewed. His grandfather Joseph Cohen served as the paper's editor for a number of years and Conason may have been an intern for them.
From 1990 to 1992, Conason was "editor-at-large" for Details magazine. In 1992, he became a columnist for the New York Observer, a position he still holds.
He served as investigative editor for The American Prospect.
In 1992 Conason wrote an article for Spy magazine naming Jennifer Fitzgerald and Jane Morgan as women who allegedly were having affairs with George H. W. Bush, using Linda Tripp as a source.
Conason was a regular guest and a guest host on The Al Franken Show, where he had the distinction of being the only guest with two theme songs. He made an appearances every Friday as a commentator, as well as co-judging with Al their weekly quiz show Wait, wait, don't lie to me.
It wouldn't be surprising to find out that Mr. Conason is a willing participant in The Call :
The vast new left-wing conspiracy sets its tone every morning at 8:45 a.m., when officials from more than 20 labor, environmental and other Democratic-leaning groups dial into a private conference call hosted by two left-leaning Washington organizations.It's my opinion that this coalition of crazies is running interference while the Obama administration attempts to threaten the Israeli government into not defending itself against Iran's threats of annihilation. It's also my opinion that the Obama administration's foreign policy is governed more by a desire to be liked than by its desire to keep the United States and her democratic allies safe.
The "8:45 A.M. call," as it's referred to by members, began three weeks ago, and it marks a new level in coordination by the White House's allies at a time when the conservative opposition is struggling for a toe-hold and major agenda items like health care reform appear closer than ever to passage.
The call has helped attempts to link the Republican Party to radio host Rush Limbaugh, and has served as the launching ground for attacks on critics of Obama's policy proposals. It springs from a recognition of what was lacking in the Clinton years, said Jennifer Palmieri, the senior vice president for communications at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, one of the groups hosting the call.
"[CAP President John] Podesta's and my experience was in the White House during the Clinton years, and we didn't have a coordinated echo chamber on the outside backing us up," she said. "There's a real interest on the progressive side for groups to want to coordinate with each other and leverage each other's work in a way I haven't ever seen before."
Until I see a change of direction by this administration, I'll operate from the assumption that they'll have as disastrous of a national security record as Jimmy Carter's.
Posted Wednesday, April 8, 2009 8:17 AM
Comment 1 by Joe Heasley at 16-Apr-09 01:52 AM
It is a great country we live in that allows all of us to speak our views, and have forums to publish them in. Even fools that swaddle themselves in the ready-made hate mongering antics of a weak minded group of political poor losers who betray their ignorance of world affairs...as displayed in this article, in this forum.
Time's Running Out
Steve Gottwalt, my adopted State representative, has laid out the time crunch that's about to hit the Minnesota legislature in his latest e-letter update. Here's the first important part of the picture:
As of midnight tonight (Tuesday night), your State Legislature is officially in recess for the Easter/Passover break. We will reconvene in a House Floor session at noon next Tuesday. Tuesday, April 14th, is also the second deadline for committees to pass policy bills that met the March 27th deadline. The next deadlines follow soon after: By April 16th, all omnibus finance bills (large collections of individual spending bills) must pass in their respective House or Senate divisions. By April 22nd, all omnibus finance and tax bills must be sent to their respective House or Senate floors for consideration. House/Senate conference committees then have until May 7th to approve final, compromise versions of the omnibus finance and tax bills , and send them to the floor for final votes. The final bills that pass off the floor are sent to Governor Pawlenty for his consideration. The constitutional deadline for ending this legislative session is midnight, May 18th.When the legislature reconvenes, there will be little over a month before the constitutional deadline of midnight, May 18th. Considering the fact that none of the omnibus bills haven't been put together, much less been debated, voted on and sent to conference committees, why should Minnesota's taxpayers trust that the DFL's haphazard leadership team will get their work done in an orderly fashion?
More importantly, why should Minnesota's taxpayers trust that the DFL's haphazard leadership team will pass bills that address the right priorities?
Steve writes here of a genuine concern for GOP legislators:
As you can see, with only six weeks remaining in the 2009 session, we have a tremendous amount of work to do! We still face the largest budget deficit in state history ($6.4 billion), and have yet to pass a single bill that helps balance the budget. There is deep concern this compressed timeframe is setting the stage for hasty passage of huge omnibus bills, and pressure-cooker face-offs between the majority Democrats and Governor Pawlenty.If the DFL leadership wants a high profile fight with a popular governor over whether to pass massive tax increases, that's a fight that Gov. Pawlenty and the GOP leadership should welcome because it's a fight that the DFL won't win. It's a fight that they'll get beaten up over.
If the DFL was wise, which I haven't seen proof of, they'd abandon their hardline stance on job-killing tax increases. They'd listen to the St. Cloud Area Economic Development Partnership's recent testimony:
Representatives from our St. Cloud Area Economic Development Partnership (The Partnership) today testified before the House Bioscience and Workforce Development Policy and Oversight Committee, pointing out that corporate taxes are the "number one" challenge in trying to attract and grow jobs for our area. State Economist Tom Stinson, has advised us that business tax increases "would not be helpful" to Minnesota's economic recovery.Why won't the DFL leadership accept as truthful "The Partnership's" testimony that high corporate taxes are stifling Minnesota's private sector job creation capabilities? We have to assume that the DFL leadership doesn't trust them because they're opposed to lower corporate tax rates.
This portion of Steve's e-letter lays things out perfectly:
In fact, by freezing state spending at its current level for the coming two-year cycle, we could cover $3 billion of the projected deficit. It is possible for Minnesota to live within its means without the severe "cuts" some have threatened and many fear. We need to set good priorities, and take advantage of the many good ideas that have surfaced for doing things better.Perhaps there are legitimate reasons why freezing state spending isn't plausible but I haven't heard of one yet. Until I do, I'm going to operate under the assumption that freezing state spending is a viable, desirable option in balancing Minnesota's FY2010-2010 budget.
I've said before that prioritize is the longest four-letter word in the DFL's dictionary . They haven't given me reason to change my thinking on that. I'm not holding my breath that they'll change, either.
If the DFL wants to play political games with Minnesota's taxpayers, that's their right. I wouldn't recommend it, though, because Minnesota's taxpayers aren't in a 'business-as-usual' mood right now.
Posted Wednesday, April 8, 2009 8:52 AM
No comments.
Arne Duncan's Questionable Honesty
It's impossible for me to take Arne Duncan's statements seriously. I'm not the only person that's finding it difficult to trust Secretary Duncan's statements. David Harsanyi's column indicates that he's finding it difficult trusting Secretary Duncan's statements:
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan argues that we have an obligation to disregard politics to do whatever is "good for the kids."Let's remember that this administration refused to veto the omnibus bill that ended the DC Voucher Program :
Well then, one wonders, why did his Department of Education bury a politically inconvenient study regarding education reform? And why, now that the evidence is public, does the administration continue to ignore it and allow reform to be killed?
When Congress effectively shut down the Washington, D.C., voucher program last month, snatching $7,500 Opportunity Scholarship vouchers from disadvantaged kids, it failed to conduct substantive debate (as is rapidly becoming tradition).
Then The Wall Street Journal's editorial board reported that the Department of Education had buried a study that illustrated unquestionable and pervasive improvement among kids who won vouchers, compared with the kids who didn't. The Department of Education not only disregarded the report but also issued a gag order on any discussion about it.
Is this what Duncan meant by following the evidence?
REP. DAVID R. Obey (Wis.) and other congressional Democrats should spare us their phony concern about the children participating in the District's school voucher program. If they cared for the future of these students, they wouldn't be so quick as to try to kill the program that affords low-income, minority children a chance at a better education. Their refusal to even give the program a fair hearing makes it critical that D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) seek help from voucher supporters in the Senate and, if need be, President Obama.If there's anything I get more upset about than politicians cheating the children most in need of help, it's politicians cheating the children most in need of help, then telling those children's parents that they're doing their utmost for the children.
Last week, the Democrat-controlled House passed a spending bill that spells the end, after the 2009-10 school year, of the federally funded program that enables poor students to attend private schools with scholarships of up to $7,500. A statement signed by Mr. Obey as Appropriations Committee chairman that accompanied the $410 billion spending package directs D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee to "promptly take steps to minimize potential disruption and ensure smooth transition" for students forced back into the public schools.
That's ALMOST the ultimate in moral bankruptcy.
This is the ultimate in moral bankruptcy:
The Department of Education had buried a study that illustrated unquestionable and pervasive improvement among kids who won vouchers , compared with the kids who didn't. The Department of Education not only disregarded the report but also issued a gag order on any discussion about it.This is proof that Democratic politicians won't hesitate in selling out underprivileged children in exchange for the education lobby's campaign contribution and GOTV assistance. If anything makes my blood run cold, this is it. There's no excusing this behavior or this policymaking.
Another disturbing portion of this tragedy is what David Harsanyi found out about the depths of the Obama administration's dishonesty:
When I had the chance to ask Duncan , at a meeting of The Denver Post's editorial board Tuesday, whether he was alerted to this study before Congress eradicated the D.C. program, he offered an unequivocal "no." He then called the WSJ editorial "fundamentally dishonest" and maintained that no one had even tried to contact him, despite the newspaper's contention that it did, repeatedly.Mr. Duncan is either a liar or an idiot or both. Furthermore, it's inconceivable to think that President Obama didn't know about this scholarship program because some of the children receiving this scholarship attend the same school as his daughters:
When I called The Wall Street Journal, I discovered a different, that is, meticulously sourced and exceedingly convincing, story, including documented e-mail conversations between the author and higher-ups at his office.
We would like Mr. Obey and his colleagues to talk about possible "disruption" with Deborah Parker, mother of two children who attend Sidwell Friends School because of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. "The mere thought of returning to public school frightens me," Ms. Parker told us as she related the opportunities, such as a trip to China for her son, made possible by the program. Tell her, as critics claim, that vouchers don't work, and she'll list her children's improved test scores, feeling of safety and improved motivation.It's appalling that the first African-America president would turn his back on inner-city children by exiling them to violence-riddled public schools. If President Obama doesn't insist that this program gets re-instated in the FY2010 budget, then we'll know that he cares more about the NEA's campaign contributions than he cares about inner-city children.
I'm asking thoughtful conservatives to join with me in criticizing, AND ridiculing, the Obama administration for abandoning such a successful government program. It's time that we told this administration and this president that his doublespeak won't be tolerated.
It's time that we told him he must abandon his education policies, not abandon underprivileged children.
Posted Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:19 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 08-Apr-09 04:55 PM
Is there any link that you'd have to offer to this allegedly sidetracked report? Is it available online? Would you post a link in a comment if you have one?
How To Go Toe-To-Toe With Barney Frank
Anyone who's heard of Harvard Law School student Joel Pollak's run-in with Barney Frank are likely calling him a hero. I certainly am, especially after I watched Greta's interview of him last night:
What's more impressive is what he said about his political journey :
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. He said that it was part of a right-wing attack. I think at some point, you said that you were a conservative. Are you part of some, you know, right-wing organization? You know, can you tell us a little bit about yourself?I hope my liberal friends will think about that last paragraph. I hope they ask themselves if they deflect blame onto someone else or if they change subjects without answering questions. I hope they can say they don't react like Chairman Frank reacted. His behavior, which he consistently displays, is that of a bitter, hateful man who gets agitated by people he perceives don't wholeheartedly buy into his thinking.
POLLAK: Sure. Well, when I came to law school, I was actually a Democrat. My first year, I was the section representative to the Harvard law school Democrats. But I found that my positions differed widely from those of some of my friends and those of the Democratic Party, especially on foreign policy, but on other issues, as well. And I liked many Democratic politicians. I voted for Senator Obama when he was running for senator in 2004, but I was disappointed with the job he did for Illinois.
I still had some hope for him as a candidate, but as the election cycle started, I really was alarmed by some of the things he was saying about foreign policy and about free trade and the economy. So I had always admired Senator McCain, and I volunteered on the McCain campaign, and that was my first time that I was involved in Republican politics of any kind.
And one of the reasons I don't consider myself a Democrat anymore is because whenever you ask a question, you're labeled. You're put into a box. I found that even when I was a left-wing Democrat, as I was, and I was so left-wing in my undergrad days that I thought Bill Clinton was too far to the center. When I would go to left-wing events, I found that questioners did exactly what Congressman Frank did. When I went to conservative events, they listened to the question and they gave me an answer. And so I think that that has a profound effect on you over time, if you're the kind of person who's curious about the way the world works.
Chairman Frank represents the worst qualities of the Democratic Party. He's a contemptible man who'd rather belittle people than deal honestly with those who don't agree with him. Chairman Frank long ago lost the notion that he's a public servant. Chairman Frank apparently thinks that it's ok for public servants to belittle the people who pay his salary. That's a disgusting attitude and there's no excusing it.
Posted Thursday, April 9, 2009 4:47 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 09-Apr-09 05:56 AM
I think you are misreading the motivations here. Frank, like every other liberal on the planet, believes himself intellectually and morally superior to anyone who disagrees with that assessment, thus guaranteeing their self-inflated vision of themselves. It doesn't matter WHY they believe any particular thing about any particular issue, or how they arrived at that position (since it's likely just an emotional reaction that cannot be logically defended, anyway), it is that they shouldn't have to be explaining it to the likes of YOU. Believe or begone, says the annointed one.
Myriam Marquez Asks ALL the Right Questions
After writing my post about the CBC's trip to Cuba, I found a marvelous article that Myriam Marquez wrote for the Miami Herald. Ms. Marquez's column asks all the right questions, which is why I'm recommending everyone reads it. Here's a sample of Ms. Marquez's column:
If only the group had met with even one prisoner of conscience or one of the wives, mothers, daughters or sisters of the 75 independent journalists, librarians and human-rights advocates imprisoned in Cuba's "Black Spring" of 2003. They would have easily spotted the Ladies in White in Havana on Palm Sunday, walking in protest to raise awareness about their men's harsh sentences for daring to think outside the communist box of limitations.The CBC is willingly blinding itself to the atrocities that Fidel commits on a daily basis. What's stunning to me is that they were turning a blind eye to these atrocities while our president was profusely apologizing for the United States' actions.
What's wrong with this picture? The Leader of the Free World spends a week apologizing for the United States, the greatest liberator in the history of the world while seven members of the CBC heap praise on a despotic ruler who imprisons men who "think outside the communist box of limitations."
What's wrong with this picture? The Leader of the Free World didn't lift a finger to stand up for the country he's president of while the CBC's puppets didn't lift a finger to stand up to one of the most evil totalitarians in the history of the Western Hemisphere.
Europe wants the liberator to apologize so he apologizes. Meanwhile, the CBC sees no reason to criticize Fidel for his murderous rampages and his purges of anyone who'd dare speak truth to power.
The black U.S. lawmakers' concerns weren't for the 300-plus Cuban prisoners of conscience listed by Amnesty International or the hundreds of dissidents working from their homes under the watch of a totalitarian regime. Or the lack of civil rights in a country with a majority black and mixed-race population ruled by an overwhelmingly white gerontocracy.Willful blindness is the technique used by liberals in rationalizing despotic behavior. People that refuse to look for despotism won't find despotism. Thanks to their willful blindness, they can think of the world as a nice place to live.
Unfortunately, the world is a terrible neighborhood to live in. It's teeming with despots who either want to control the world (Iran) or despots whose goal is to 'just' control an island paradise.
The CBC's actions, coupled with President Obama's actions, is proof that they'll coddle every despot while turning their back on special allies like Israel .
Rep. Kendrick Meek, who's running for the Senate seat in Florida criticized his blind brethren this way:
"Political prisoners jailed in Cuba are held for peacefully expressing their rights and freedoms, like Dr. Oscar Biscet and Antinez," he said. "The Cuban spies held in the U.S. federal prisons were a threat to our national security. That's the difference between night and day."That's what happens when the blinders are willfully removed.
I wish I'd said what Ms. Marquez said:
Just once, I'd like to see a delegation of muckety-mucks see the real Cuba. Sure, talk with Tio Fidel, as three of the Clueless reportedly did during their trip that ended Tuesday. But also go see opposition members, feel their pain.That would be nice indeed but I won't hold my breath waiting for it to happen. Criticizing a despot just doesn't seem like a weapon in the CBC's arsenal.
Posted Thursday, April 9, 2009 5:53 AM
No comments.
Correcting Mr. Schumacher
After reading Larry Schumacher's article on yesterday's Cap and Trade event at SCSU, I must take exception with something Larry said in his opening paragraph. Here's his opening paragraph:
U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann brought her opposition to President Obama's plan to reduce carbon emissions to St. Cloud State University on Thursday, repeating a discredited claim about how much the plan would cost Minnesotans in the process.After making that incendiary statement, Mr. Schumacher then doesn't cite a report disrediting Rep. Bachmann's claims. I, however, cited a Washington Times article quoting Jason Furman, a top Obama staffer, who said this:
At the meeting, Jason Furman, a top Obama staffer, estimated that the president's cap-and-trade program could cost up to three times as much as the administration's early estimate of $646 billion over eight years. A study of an earlier cap-and-trade bill co-sponsored by Mr. Obama when he was a senator estimated the cost could top $366 billion a year by 2015.Whether Mr. Furman's figure is right is irrelevant to this extent: Mr. Furman's quote doesn't discredit Rep. Bachmann's claims. In fact, if you accept Mr. Furman's figures, that figures out to approximately $250,000,000,000 a year from this tax increase. If you divide that up by the number of families in the United States, you arrive at the average cost-per-family. Further supporting Rep. Bachmann's claims was her noting that Minnesota's families get most of their electricity from coal-fired power plants.
Another section that I found interesting was a section titled "Distortions" in which Larry quotes Bob Weisman, professor of meteorology at St. Cloud State. Here's the quote from Larry's article:
"For the most part, it was a political statement. There wasn't a lot of science there," Weisman said. "We'd say the same thing about (former Vice President Al Gore's climate change documentary) 'An Inconvenient Truth,' by the way."I'd agree with Professor Weisman that this event was a political event. That's the whole point. You can only talk about the politics and the economics of the issue because it'd relatively devoid of scientific value. Rather than titling that section Distortions, it should've been titled Clarifications.
What isn't cited is that the IPCC report was a political, not scientific, report. That somehow didn't find its way into Larry's article.
To be fair, though, Larry did include this quote from Professor Weisman:
Despite disagreeing with him "100 percent, politically," Weisman said he agreed with Horner that the Obama administration's cap-and-trade program likely won't do anything to effect climate change. "Like the Kyoto treaty, it won't bring down global warming," Weisman said. "You'd need something more like a 40 percent cut in emissions (to do that)."Professor Weisman's quote explicitly says that Cap and Trade isn't about the saving the planet. It isn't a stretch to say Cap and Trade is about increasing taxes.
Posted Friday, April 10, 2009 5:24 AM
No comments.
Cap & Trade Notes
Yesterday's Cap and Trade event on the SCSU campus had a huge attendance, with both sides of the issue well-represented. Chris Horner made a number of statements that elicited jeers from those that think MMGW is a serious threat to our planet.
One of Mr. Horner's statements that elicited a response was that Cap and Trade won't shrink the amount of greenhouse gases. In fact, Horner said that "since Kyoto's implementation, America's greenhouse gas emissions have risen at a slower rate than those countries that implemented Kyoto."
One thing that's clear is that it's a tax increase. While MMGW advocates talk about the need to save the planet, the reality is that there's little proof that humankind effects the earth's climate.
When one of the MMGW believers said that "At least we don't go to war over windmills", Horner instantly replied that, since oil products were needed to manufacture windmills, that yes, we did go to war for windmills.
Another key point that Horner made was that most of the IPCC's infamous 2,000 scientists weren't really scientists, that "75% of "IPCC's 2000" are anthropology TA's." The chief 'expert' that the IPCC highlighted is an economist.
Another point Mr. Horner made was through a question. He asked those who advocated Cap and Trade where windmills supplied the needs of industries, homes and businesses. He asked this question to highlight the fact that no such places exist.
Horner's speed was too fast, though, partially because Mr. Horner wanted to cover alot of ground.
According to Mr. Horner, a study by Johns Hopkins said that "replacing 3/4ths of US coal-based energy with higher priced energy would lead to 150,000 extra premature deaths annually in the US alone."
Mr. Horner also cited a Penn State report that says replacing 2/3 of the US Coal-based energy with more expensive energy would cost 3 million jobs, with losing 4 million job a definite possibility.
Most of the questions submitted were from Mr. Horner's critics. To his credit, Mr. Horner answered those questions on point. To their credit, the MMGW advocates behaved themselves pretty well. That doesn't mean, however, that they weren't vocal in their opposition.
UPDATE: Make sure you check out Andy's post and King's post on the event.
If you're interested in reading a thoroughly biased post from the dark side, Eric's post is the one I'd recommend.
UPDATE II: After the event, Andy and I plotted the overthrow of the DFL over subs at Bo Diddley's. I'll have to talk with Andy to see if we want to publish the report on our blogs or if we'll email it to our tiny cabal of bloggers. (Personally, I'm voting for keeping it secret.)
Posted Friday, April 10, 2009 5:33 AM
Comment 1 by Political Muse (Eric Austin) at 10-Apr-09 09:04 AM
"If you're interested in reading a thoroughly biased post from the dark side, Eric's post is the one I'd recommend."
HA! That's good. As a member of the dark side, I plotted afterwards the overthrow of the entire democratic system so that I might institute a commusociofascist regime controlled by myself and an as yet to be determined minion. Would you like to be that minion?
Oh, and btw, that post is SO biased that King wrote about agreeing with portions of it! :)
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 10-Apr-09 09:43 AM
Eric, That was said with tongue planted firmly in cheek. FWIW, I agree that Mr. Horner's pace was too fast.
(Is there even a tiny bit of space left on the Dark Side to accomodate that opinion.)
Tea Parties: Gateway to Independents?
FNC Contributor Andrea Tantaros' article about the Santelli-inspired Tea Party movement examines whether these events are simply momentary expression of anger against the bailouts or whether they're events solidifying people's belief that they're carrying too heavy a burden and that Obamanomics is the wrong path to prosperity:
As tax day approaches there is a crescendo growing across America in the form of organized protests, also known as tea parties, and the noise is on a path to becoming deafening. Thousands of rallies are planned across the country; one in every single congressional district and larger gatherings slated for cities like New York, Sacramento and Atlanta which hope to boast an upwards of 20,000 participants.The anger people are expressing isn't turning into apathy. Apathetic people don't gather into crowds of 20,000 people, especially in places like New York and Sacramento, though it isn't startling in a city like Atlanta. What type of impact are these tea parties having politically? Though he doesn't mention them specifically, I think Gary Andres' article says what's happening politically:
The message is simple: repeal the pork, cut taxes and cut spending. But there is much more at stake than the money. The impact these actions will have on our culture is key.
Those who discount the frustration and fury across America should so do at their own peril, particularly incumbents who voted for the Obama budget. This time anger is being transformed into action. Each person who participates in a Tax Day Tea Party is being asked to organize a group of friends, family and neighbors. These groups will be asked to develop a consensus around two candidates, a fiscally responsible Democrat and Republican that they can unite behind to support in 2010 to unseat their big spending representative.
Recent history is instructive. Electoral trends among non-aligned voters are by no means constant. Exit polls reveal Republicans won among independents by three points in 1998 (48%-45%) and again in 2000 (49%-46%). Democrats prevailed narrowly in 2002 (46%-45%) and 2004 (49%-46%). But for Republicans, the bottom dropped out in the 2006 cycle when they lost among independents by a whopping 18 points (57%-39%). 2008 was a little better; but losing non-aligned voters by eight points (51%-43%) still meant further political erosion in both the House and Senate.Let's factor an independant's tendencies into this equation. While many independents voted for President Obama, that doesn't mean they bought into his ideological package. Independents are likely to vote more on who they perceive as competent rather than on whose policies they prefer more.
Some new indications suggest an improving environment for Republicans among independent voters. The first sign comes from a recent bipartisan poll conducted by National Public Radio (NPR). In a surprising result, the survey shows Republicans and Democrats in a virtual tie on the congressional generic ballot question ("Do you plan on voting for a Democrat or Republican in the next congressional election?"). GOP pollster Glen Bolger points out that the two parties tie despite a six-point party ID advantage for the Democrats. "The reason for the tie is simple," Bolger writes on his blog. "Independents are moving toward the GOP." The NPR survey finds Republicans leading on the generic ballot among independents (38%-24%), a result one strategist joked "hasn't occurred since the Lincoln Administration." Bolger further notes the Republican position is now preferred among independents on taxes, energy, health care and the deficit.
It simply isn't an ideolocial vote.
After winning the presidential election and after seeing the size of their majorities in Congress, Democrats read that as proof that the nation had slid dramatically to the left. That's the Democrats' biggest mistake.
After proposing monstrous stimulus and omnibus bills, after spending or proposing trillions of dollars on a litany of bailouts, after reading about President Obama's Cap and Trade tax increase, it isn't a stretch to think that independents are voting in polls that they aren't satisfied with the Obama administration's direction.
In 2006, Democrats campaigned on the slogan that the nation needed to change directions. After the nation bought into that slogan, it was just a matter of time before the election verified what the polls showed.
It's still far too early to tell but the conditions are developing that might lead to a similar situation in 2010. In this instance, though, it isn't a stretch to think that independents will change directions by reversing course.
This paragraph from Ms. Tantaros' column is too powerful to trivialize:
The message is simple: repeal the pork, cut taxes and cut spending. But there is much more at stake than the money. The impact these actions will have on our culture is key. Massive government control is a clear threat to our liberties and our values of American exceptionalism. The argument from Tax Day to Election Day 2010 should be focused on helping voters connect the dots, not only about why we can't afford to spend money we don't have or why we can't trust Washington, but also about how spending and borrowing will cause irreversible damage to our union and put us on a slippery slope toward a European model of stagnate economies, welfare states and mediocrity. Plainly put: the spending and borrowing threatens our greatness.If Republicans do their job right, they'll forego the little pissing match statements. Instead, they'll spend time telling everyone within the sound of their microphone, everyone with a Twitter feed, everyone who works on Main Street, everyone who knows that government in total takes too much of their money, that they'll cut taxes, stop the bailout mania and exercise fiscal restraint if returned to the majority.
If Republicans are smart, they'll also start asking whether voters would rather have the option of writing a customized health insurance policy with the assistance of their primary care doctor that's paid for with a tax credit or if they'd trust a government-run health care system that increases bureaucracy, increases the cost (combine the premiums with the cost of the tax increase needed for the program) and slows the R & D investment in miracle cures.
Showing people that we're serious about finding cost-savings at all levels of government without cutting important services is a great first step in getting independents to vote for Republicans in 2010.
And to think it started with a single rant by a previously low profile financial reporter. That's what happens when you get on the right side of an issue.
Posted Friday, April 10, 2009 11:35 AM
Comment 1 by karen at 12-Apr-09 10:47 AM
PROTEST!!!
TEA DAY PARTIES ROCK.
STOP SPENDING MY TAX MONEY ON WAR!!!
Why should my money go to buy bombs to spend over there? Let me keep my money.
