June 14-15, 2009
Jun 15 01:45 Health Care Reform vs. ObamaCare Rhetoric Jun 14 00:56 Cut Taxes & Stop Spending Jun 14 09:58 Affordability, Accessibility & Quality Jun 14 11:29 Which Article Should We Trust? Jun 14 16:37 Mr. Biden's Spin Is Dizzying Jun 15 01:37 Dr. Hanson Schools President Obama Jun 15 08:18 Competing Energy Plans
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Health Care Reform vs. ObamaCare Rhetoric
It isn't a secret that President Obama's gift is for rhetoric. Another of President Obama's gifts is his ability for creating strawman arguments. It's just unfortunate that he rarely lives up to the moderation he professes to believe in. During his visit to Green Bay, WI, President Obama offered the false choice of a public option . It's many things but, in the end, it won't be an option. Thankfully, Paul Ryan has responded to President Obama's rhetoric:
Another favorite refrain of the President is that entitlement reform is health care reform. With health security threatened by the unsustainable growth of Medicare and Medicaid, serious reform of these programs is no longer an option. Last year, I introduced comprehensive reforms of both programs, and yet again ; nothing but rhetoric from Washington. What's worse, the Administration's current strategy to fixing our entitlement crisis is to add yet another entitlement program to an already unsustainable fiscal future. You can't create new government entitlements, impose trillions of dollars of new taxes, and call this cost containment. We already spend over two-and-a-half times any other country on health care. The problem is not that we don't spend enough money, but that we don't spend it efficiently or effectively.I recently asked a number of my conservative friends if it's reform if the end product costs more, is less flexible and leads to rationing. The consensus was that that doesn't constitute reform. True reforms bring true progress. ObamaCare isn't true reform because it's taking a step backwards.
What every person in America needs to know is that the Democrats' health care plan is all about controlling people's lives by adding mountains of taxes on the would-be job creators. There's a provision in the Democrats' bill that's called play or pay and it's aimed at employers. If entrepreneurs don't offer health insurance to their employees, they get fined.
The Obama administration hasn't explained why their public 'option' is needed. I suspect that they won't because their explanation isn't compelling. I further suspect that they won't engage in that conversation because it'll expose their desire to control a big part of the economy. The only way that the government plan will save money over the current system is through cost controls. That's the first step to rationing. This video proves it:
As I said before, it's intellectually dishonest for President Obama to call this a public option. It's nothing of the sort. It isn't even being sold as a trojan horse. As Mr. Hacker states without equivocation, it's right there for all the world to see.
This Bloomberg article says that the Democrats' bill includes a huge tax increase:
Health-care overhaul legislation being drafted by House Democrats will include $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said.If this keeps up, affordabe health insurance will be too expensive.
Let's summarize. ObamaCare is being sold to the public as having a public option. In private, though, politicians like Rep. Schackowsky and activists like Jacob Hacker tell people that their plan "will put insurance companies out of business." We also know that a massive tax increase is included in the bill, quite likely because it's wildly expensive. We know that eliminating private insurance leads to single payer and that single payer leads to rationing of health care resources.
Put in simpler English, we're being lied to about what the Democrats' plan is. If the Democrats' health care reform is enacted, taxes will increase and health care will get rationed.
Earlier in this post, I said that the Democrats' plan was a step backwards. I'd like to amend that statement to say the Democrats' plan is a giant step backwards, both in terms of value and freedom.
Originally posted Monday, June 15, 2009, revised 30-Jun 11:51 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 15-Jun-09 07:38 AM
Hello, Gary. I have a somewhat overlapping reaction - but with differences for certain, in my most recent Crabgrass post, at the end, but I think myself a bit more fair in harping about the disingenuousness on both sides; two parties vs. the people. Have a look if you care to. Do you think for one minute that PAYGO business is anything at all more than pure sizzle without any steak?
What about Sutton-Brodkorb? It looks as if it's sizzle around for everyone. You can't eat the sizzle.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 15-Jun-09 07:53 AM
Eric, I totally agree with Mike Pence on the 'government option':
The Indiana congressman replied:
"The government competes in the private sector the way an alligator competes with a duck."
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 15-Jun-09 08:49 AM
Gary:
I got a great idea. We went through the stimlus bill where no one read the bill.
How about when the Senate debates the health care bill they take a week to debate and amend fifty pages at a time. If it's a 1000 page bill we will have a careful and well thought out debate on a bill that change the rules for 17% of our economy.
You think Reed and obama will ensore this careful step?
Walter hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by eric z. at 15-Jun-09 12:42 PM
Gary - I don't see it as a competition. The profit-makers cannot compete on base coverage for everyone and want to play "preexistant condiiton" games anyway. Let the government assure a minimal coverage for everyone having the power to negotiate with big Pharma and off-shore suppliers, the whole thing. Let the private profit aimed firms compete on extended coverage the way auto dealers try to flog those extended warranties.
But you and Pence miss the entire point - it is not a competition, it is meeting a too-long unmet duty. And to get a good plan, if you don't like Canada's, look at Germany, France, anywhere in the civilized world, for civilized measures.
I realize with Biden and that independent guy from Conneticut having a voice that nothing really decent will likely ensue, but people like McDermott in the House, from Washington, they know and speak the truth.
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 15-Jun-09 01:21 PM
Eric:
are you implying you want us to be like Canada or some other single payer country.
Canada technically has opened up some private payer to make their system function along with people going to the United States.
Obama's idea of health care reform is to cap costs. Once you cap costs you lose:
* Doctor's willing to treat more patients (they won't have a real financial incentive)
* drug companies not having any financial incentive to develop new drugs. Keep in mind the cap system that other countries use on drugs work because the US drug market exists. Cap the US drug market and you kill the drug industry.
About the only thing that Obama doesn't want to cap is malpratice rules and the costs that creates.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 15-Jun-09 08:25 PM
Eric, That video is proof that President Obama isn't interested in playing a secondary role in health care. It's rather explicit that he wants the government to control the health care industry.
I'm vehemently opposed to single-payer because it's a race to the bottom in terms of quality & quantity. Yes, everyone has insurance but health care dollars are rationed & pharmaceutical companies stop innovating.
Ask a parent whose kid was just diagnosed with cancer whether they think the extra profits that 'Big Pharma' make are worth it in exchange for their child's life.
As an adult son or daughter if they're ok with 'Big Pharma' making a little extra profit in exchange for finding a new drug that slows down Alzheimer's.
That's literally what's at stake here. I'll guarantee that I won't be alone in fighting the 'public option' plan.
Comment 7 by Jay.Mac at 16-Jun-09 06:08 PM
Another important point to bear in mind with the "reform" is the issue of so-called gateways which will have the power to guide people to certain approved plans amongst other things. They will also be able to charge a 3% tax on the premium to offset their admin costs.
Under the current proposal, unions will be able to operate at gateways.
Cut Taxes & Stop Spending
Based on this polling , support for President Obama's economic policies is disappearing. Here's something that Scott Rasmussen's polling has found:
Fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans favor an across-the-board tax cut for all Americans to stimulate the U.S. economy, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.Here's something else that Rasmussen's polling confirmed:
Thirty-four percent (34%) oppose such a tax cut, and 15% are undecided.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of both Republicans and adults not affiliated with either major political party think an across-the-board tax cut is a good idea. Democrats are fairly evenly divided on the wisdom of such a tax cut.
Most voters (53%) believe increases in government spending hurt the economy, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. While that result is unchanged from last month, it's up five points from 48% in January. Just 27% now say increased government spending helps the economy, and 10% say it has no impact.In other words, a distinct minority of people now think that President Obama's plan is the right plan.
What's more important is that the business community is turning against President Obama :
It remains an open question whether the much-heralded "green shoots" truly signal a turn toward a U.S. economic recovery. What's clearer is that the business backlash against government is well under way.During the 2008 campaign, I read more than a few articles about how Big Business was siding with then-Candidate Obama. What's the likelihood that they'll side with him in 2012? I'll bet that those people that were taken in with President Obama's moderate-sounding speeches realize that he's a manipulative radical of historic proportions.
Not so long ago, business and policymakers alike were calling for Uncle Sam to step in and stop the bleeding-in the financial sector, at the automakers, in the housing and job markets. Most of the sniping that occurred came as various government figures criticized one another for doing too little. Now, however, the grousing is shifting to arguments that the government is overstepping that subjective line between helpful intervention and harmful meddling, including in areas where business only recently welcomed Uncle Sam's dollars.
"They're making business decisions in a way that is political," John A. Allison IV, chairman of BB&T Bank, told BusinessWeek at a Beltway gala on June 11. BB&T was cleared this past week to return $3.1 billion in federal bailout money. "Where does it stop? The people making the decisions don't have the knowledge of the industries, of the institutions, to make good business decisions."
It's a safe bet that a significant portion of the people who supported him in 2008 won't support him again because they're worried that he isn't done trying to control their businesses, either directly or through a stifling regulatory regime.
The thing that President Obama hasn't figured out is that people want their freedom. That's why they want tax cuts and lower spending. The people know that he's pushing an anti-liberty agenda.
That's why people prefer the government tax cuts and fiscal restraint.
Posted Sunday, June 14, 2009 1:01 AM
No comments.
Affordability, Accessibility & Quality
During her weekly news conference, Speaker Pelosi was asked how they'd sell their health care package to John Q. Public. Here response was that their "overarching message" would focus on " affordability, accessibility, and quality ." That might make sense if you're living out a fantasy but it doesn't have anything to do with reality. Here's the exchange between reporter and Speaker:
QUESTION: Madam Speaker, on health care, given what you just described is going to be very complicated for people to understand, and given the experience that the Clinton health plan had, and then that we had with Medicare part D, with public worries and anxieties and confusion, what strategy are you going to follow to explain this massive bill to people? Because health care is people's most, one of their most basic worries in life.It isn't a surprise that Speaker Pelosi is spinning her backside off. Let's first deal with the issue of quality. Single-payer health care, which is what the administration is focusing on, is a race to the bottom. Value isn't part of that equation. The best proof I've found of that was provided through a single-payer advocate's website:
PELOSI: It sure is. It is a personal worry in terms of their health and well being. It is also an economic issue for them as well. And I always say everybody in the country is an expert on his or her health care and how to be able to afford it.
We have our overarching message of affordability, accessibility, and quality that the President has put forth. In that framework, we will have the initiatives to help us meet those goals and are deeply rooted in those values. Right now, the bill is being considered, and I can only speak to the House. The three committees are working in unison, practically, with a unified staff. They will have something on the table in a week or two. Hopefully, most of it will already be scored, because at some point we have to know how much each element of it costs to see what we can afford and then how we pay for it. Because it will be paid for. And that challenge for us is to relate what we are doing here to the lives of the American people and how this makes a difference to them.
3. Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement .That statement is laughable. Saying that reduced profits might lead to a reduction in R & D is understating things by quite alot. If honesty and clear thinking were required, that statement would read 'reduced profits will lead to a reduction in R & D.' There are no maybes involved. Here's another delusional statement from AMSA's study:
5. There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care . The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.I've asked alot of businessmen the best way to guarantee that that they stop doing something other than making it illegal. With unanimity, they've said that eliminating profits will get them to stop doing something. Their statements verify the accuracy of the time-tested axiom that anything you regulate, you get less of whatever you're regulating.
Another thing that's beyond dispute is that you don't get quality when price controls are imposed.
ACCESSABILITY
If accessability is a major concern, and it should be, that could be remedied with a health care tax credit. That isn't President Obama's or Speaker Pelosi's goal. It wasn't Hillary's goal in the 1990s, either. Their goal is to increase accessability while increasing the government's control on a major industry. Lest anyone argue that that isn't President Obama's goal, ask GM, Chrysler and the TARP-laden financial institutions whether they think the Obama administration wants to control as much of everything as politically possible.
AFFORDABILITY
Finally, let's discuss affordability. The way ObamaCare provides affordability is with price controls. It's an artificial way of temporarily providing affordability. It isn't the way to maintain quality while lowering costs. The only thing that will drive costs down while maintaining quality is competition between private companies. The minute the government gets involved, it destroys markets with price controls.
This statement needs to be destroyed:
But we are very excited about it, whether it is about prevention and wellness, which is the important part of it, investments in scientific research, that we can have personalized, customized care for all Americans, with investments in technology so that we have a common record for all people to be on it, whether it is investments in community health centers to reach out to achieve this, as many people being involved as possible, because that is hard, and community health centers will enable us to do that. Whether it is having the resources to have sufficient health care providers at every step of the way.When Speaker Pelosi talks about having "personalized, customized care for all Americans", she's aware that that won't exist the minute the public option is implemented. It's that simple. That's a one-size-fits-all option and she knows it. She also knows that the glut of regulations eliminates creative options by telling insurers what they can or can't do.
It's time that the American people demanded the whole truth from President Obama and Speaker Pelosi. They deserve better than the Democrats' fact-free spin that's currently being spewed by corrupt politicians like Speaker Pelosi. Rest assured that I'll do my part in exposing the Democrats' spin. I need your help, though, in spreading the word. My question for you is simple: Will you get involved or will you just complain when bad policies are enacted?
Posted Sunday, June 14, 2009 10:03 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 15-Jun-09 07:28 AM
Pelosi, as usual, is talking like a fool. "Accessibility, affordability and quality are mutually exclusive" and you cannot have all three. Pick a government option, and you probably cannot have even ONE. See:
http://www.freedomdogs.com/news-archive-mainmenu-2/105-far-left-madness/3838-a-fools-folly.html
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Jun-09 07:37 AM
Actually, it's possible to hit that trifecta if you use the free market system.
Which Article Should We Trust?
Glenn Reynolds posted a link to Scott Wilson's article about what's got the Democrats worried. Meanwhile, RealClearPolitics linked to Dan Balz's article essentially declaring the GOP all but dead and buried. Let's start with an examination of Balz's article :
For the past few months, political analysts and demographers have been poring over the results of the 2008 election and comparing them with presidential results from the past two decades. From whatever angle of their approach, age, race, economic status, geography, they have come to a remarkably similar conclusion. Almost all indicators are pressing the Republicans into minority status.Let's compare that with what Mr. Wilson wrote:
Republicans are still capable of winning individual elections, but until they find a way to reverse, or at least minimize, these broader changes in the country, their chances of returning to majority status will be severely reduced.
After enjoying months of towering poll numbers, legislative victories and well-received foreign policy initiatives, the White House has become increasingly concerned that President Obama's spending plans, which would require $9 trillion in government borrowing over the next decade, could become a political liability that defines the 2010 midterm elections.I've never bought into the 'demographics is destiny' argument, especially since it's been disproved too many times. Issues and events matter, as does quality of candidates. This cycle, Republicans have recruited alot better candidates than have Democrats. Add into this the fact that Democrats have some difficult policies and alot of vulnerable seats to defend and you've got a recipe for electoral disaster for Democrats in 2010.
The concern was reflected in the aggressive response from administration officials to criticism that money from Obama's stimulus plan is arriving too slowly to help the languishing economy, as well as in the president's public endorsement of "pay as you go" legislation, which would require Congress to make room for new non-discretionary spending with equivalent cuts to other parts of the budget. Yesterday, Obama also outlined billions of dollars in savings that would be used to pay for his health-care reform proposal.
But there is evidence of growing public concern over his fiscal policies. As he traveled Thursday in Green Bay, Wis., Obama was greeted by demonstrators holding signs that said, "No socialism" and "Taxed Enough Yet?"
People are getting either scared or angry at the thought of this administration firing CEOs and nationalizing major corporations. They don't like the Democrats' out-of-control spending and they don't like the prospect of staring at a major inflation spike in the near future. Consumers are already getting wary of the interest rate increases. Then factor in the latest Rasmussen polling showing more people trust Republicans on properly handling the economy than Democrats . After factoring all those things in, it's difficult for thoughtful people to not disagree with Mr. Balz's premise.
The GOP's problem isn't demographics. It's they stopped behaving like conservatives. They got complacent. They stopped being the party of ideas. Such things matter. ALOT. Mr. Balz looks only at the statistics. He should've looked at the causality, too, to figure out the driver for the statistics.
I'm not saying that everything is fixed within the GOP. It isn't. What I'm saying, though, is that the Democrats' policies have hurt their standing with independents. I'm also suggesting that the best way for Republicans to do well with Hispanics isn't through immigration or treating Judge Sotomayor with kid gloves. It's best achieved by understanding that a huge portion of the Hispanic vote are deeply religious and that that portion of the Hispanic population can be appealed to with socially conservative messages.
It's time that the GOP examined President Bush's 2004 campaign because it's one of the best campaigns I've seen in terms of appealing to the broadest spectrum of voters I've seen. You can agree with President Bush's policies while still learning from his campaign. It's time we started learning those lessons.
If we do, then we'll refute Mr. Balz's assumptions.
Posted Sunday, June 14, 2009 11:35 AM
No comments.
Mr. Biden's Spin Is Dizzying
This morning, Vice President Biden appeared on Meet the Depressed. During his interview, he made a statement that needs immediate refutation . Here's what he said:
Vice President Joe Biden says "everyone guessed wrong" on the impact of the economic stimulus.Vice President Biden isn't telling the truth. Lots of people, including the CBO, predicted that ARRA wouldn't create the amount of jobs that the administration said it would. Far from "everyone got it wrong", it seems more like the administration is the only people who got it wrong.
Biden says the economy was worse off than anyone thought when officials estimated the number of jobs that could be saved or created under the administration's $787 billion stimulus spending.
Biden says White House economists used standard formulas to estimate that 3.5 million jobs would be saved or created under the plan Congress passed earlier this year.
Then again, that isn't surprising because the administration has misled people on a wide range of things thus far. Let's recall that President Obama said that Caterpillar would rehire a bunch of workers if his stimulus plan was passed:
"Yesterday, Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off," Obama said today in Peoria.Minutes after President Obama left, "Jim" set the record straight:
But when asked today if the stimulus could do that, Owens said, "I think, realistically, no. The honest reality is we're probably going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again."It's becoming a habit of this administration to stretch projections. Let's remember the graphic from King's post :
People have been critical of the Obama administration's calculations since almost the first day. It's only recently that the Obama administration has admitted that they've been badly wrong. In his announcement that his administration would be accelerating the spending of ARRA funds, President Obama promised this newest measure would create or save 600,000 jobs . That's drawing criticism, too:
Several economists said Monday the economy is unlikely to see much boost from the stimulus before next year.Then there's this:
"It takes time to organize projects, to get the bids in, the funds out and the work started," said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight.
Some analysts believe the White House is still not being realistic, that Obama will be lucky if any real job creation from his recovery effort is seen by the end of the year, let alone the employment explosion he predicts. "I think these estimates are overly optimistic," said Arpitha Bykere, a senior analyst with RGE Monitor.In other words, there are lots of skeptics of this administration's predictions. It's nothing more complicated than that. Vice President Biden can try spinning it like everyone's getting it wrong. The reality is, though, that it's the Obama administration that's getting it wrong.
Posted Sunday, June 14, 2009 4:39 PM
No comments.
Dr. Hanson Schools President Obama
If you haven't read Victor Davis Hanson's article for NRO, put that down as today's must reading. VDH excoriates President Obama for "making things up." I particularly appreciate the fact that he isn't gentle in his excoriation of President Obama. Here's a sample:
The "Big Lie." Team Obama says that Judge Sotomayor misspoke when she asserted that Latinas were inherently better judges than white males. Yet the people around Obama knew before Sotomayor was nominated that she has reiterated such racialist sentiments repeatedly over many years.Simply put, there isn't a whopper that President Obama isn't willing to tell if he thinks it'll help him win an argument. President Obama hasn't proven an ability to say no to telling big whoppers. I suspect that that's because he's willing to do anything to accumulate power and praise. Simply put, he's a narcissist, perfectly willing to say anything to anyone if it's said in the furtherance of achieving a goal.
Obama complained that his deficits were largely inherited, even though his newly projected annual deficit and aggregate increase in the national debt may well, if they are not circumvented, equal all the deficit spending compiled by all previous administrations combined.
The president lectures Congress on its financial excesses. He advocates "pay as you go" budgeting. But he remains silent about the unfunded liabilities involved in his own proposals for cap-and-trade, universal health care, and education reform, which will in aggregate require well over a trillion dollars in new spending on top of existing deficits - but without any "pay as you go" proposals to fund them.
By the same token, his promise that 95 percent of Americans will receive an Obama "tax cut" is impossible. Remember, almost 40 percent of households currently pay no income taxes at all, and the $1.7-trillion annual deficit will necessitate a broad array of taxes well beyond those assessed on incomes above $250,000.
Obama talks about cutting federal outlays by eliminating $17 billion in expenditures, one-half of one percent of a $3.4-trillion budget. Here the gap between rhetoric and reality is already so wide that it simply makes no difference whether one goes completely beyond the limits of belief. Why would a liberal "budget hawk" go through the trouble of trying to cut 10 or 20 percent of the budget when he might as well celebrate a 0.5 percent cut and receive the same amount of credit or disdain? If one is going to distort, one might as well distort whole-hog.
President Obama isn't the only administration official who is comfortable with telling whoppers. Vice President Biden is adept at it , too:
Vice President Joe Biden says "everyone guessed wrong" on the impact of the economic stimulus. Biden says the economy was worse off than anyone thought when officials estimated the number of jobs that could be saved or created under the administration's $787 billion stimulus spending.It's long past time since the fawning traditional media held Democrats accountable on anything that wasn't a scandal. If they scrutinized this administration's statements and actions properly, this administration would have a job approval rating in the 40s.
Did anyone on the networks, other than Jake Tapper , report that Caterpillar's CEO disputed President Obama's statement about the impact of President Obama's stimulus plan? Has anyone at the networks challenged President Obama's saved or created nonsense?
As long as the traditional media treat President Obama with kid gloves, this administration's lies will continue.
Fortunately for the American people, they don't have to rely on the traditional media for their information. Fortunately, blogs and right-leaning websites like NRO are perfectly content to hold President Obama accountable for his doublespeak.
Posted Monday, June 15, 2009 1:39 AM
Comment 1 by Conscious & Awake at 16-Jun-09 01:27 AM
It's always curious to see how the ultra conservatives attack Obama. Now he's a liar.
Probably my favorite laugh-out-loud moment was when Obama's correct assertion that he inherited a deficit is considered a lie. Just b/c he's doing what has to be done to keep your neighbors employed - the economy afloat - pushing banks to lend, etc he's a bad guy and a liar.
Gimme a break. Like my 15 yr old nephew would say ... I'm going to forward this like it's hot and enjoy the hilarity that will ensue.
You know how some scary movies are so effing ridiculous that they're funny - so too are you and your conservative fear mongering tactics. You're living in the past - the rest of us are looking forward.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 16-Jun-09 02:07 AM
Conscious, Just answer this: How many campaign promises has he gone back on, especially national security things? More than a couple?
Was it intentional that President Obama said that Caterpillar would rehire some laid off workers if his stimulus plan passed? Less than an hour after President Obama left, Jim Owens confirmed that he didn't tell President Obama that & that they'd likely have to lay off more workers.
Was President Obama telling the truth when he said that 95% of Americans would get a tax cut under his administration? Let's remember that the National Energy Tax is a regressive tax & that it'll hit everyone.
I could go on but I think I've proven my point.
You'll notice, too, that I didn't dispute the fact that he inherited a record deficit.
That's a statement of fact.
It's also a statement of fact that President Obama created newer, bigger deficits since coming into office.
Comment 3 by Kman at 16-Jun-09 03:22 PM
Conscious is like ALL libs -- they don't want to let facts get in the way of their agenda! The ENDS ALWAYS justifies the MEANS with them! Also, why do all the libs feel like they can only get their message out by using the word effing (very, very sad indeed)?
Competing Energy Plans
This weekend, Mike Pence delivered the Republican radio address. In doing so, he touched a nerve with Speaker Pelosi. I suspect that it's something that she'll regret after the dust settles. Here's what the AP is reporting :
"The Republican energy plan calls for more domestic exploration for oil and natural gas, renewed commitment to clean emission-free nuclear energy, investments in renewable and alternative energy technologies and incentives to spur greater conservation among individuals and businesses," he said.Speaker Pelosi's 'remedy' is to tax anyone who uses more energy than the government wants us to use. She won't consider increasing domestic energy supplies. She won't let any legislation be debated, much less voted on, that includes increasing nuclear power, which is totally free of greenhouse gas emissions.
The GOP plan calls for using revenue from more oil and gas drilling to promote renewable energy such as wind and solar; it also makes it easier to get approval to build more nuclear power plants. The proposal also sets a goal of doubling the number of nuclear reactors over the next 20 years.
When Pence introduced the GOP measure, the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called it "the same tired policies embraced" for years by former President George W. Bush "at a time when Americans are seeking new solutions to rebuild our economy and break our dependence on foreign energy sources."
Simply put, Speaker Pelosi wants the federal government to limit the choices that We The People have. Speaker Pelosi's goal is to pass a national energy tax. PERIOD. She doesn't want us making our own decisions.
It's time that We The People told Ms. Pelosi and the Democrats that she works for us, not vice versa. It's time that We The People told Ms. Pelosi and the Democrats that they'd better have irrefutable evidence that the things that they're limiting are dangerous to our health.
Ms. Pelosi and the Democrats keep talking about greenhouse gas emissions as though they were killing our planet. Part of Al Gore's schtick is his lunatic rantings about polar ice caps melting, raising ocean levels so much that Florida ceases to exist.
Thus far, there isn't proof that that's happening, though there's theories aplenty.
What the arguments essentially boil down to is whether you believe in controlling people's lives because your special interest allies demand that in exchange for campaign contributions vs. whether (a) you believe that We The People should have access to this nation's natural resources and (b) you believe that these natural resources should be used to increase We The People's prosperity.
That's an easy decision with me. Last summer, with gas hitting $4 a gallon, 75% of the people agreed with me.
The Pelosi Democrats' solution isn't a solution. It's a tax increase. PERIOD. It's an assault of our freedoms, with artificial science being cited as justification.
It's time we rejected the Democrats' non-solution energy solution.
Posted Monday, June 15, 2009 8:20 AM
No comments.
