Anthropogenic (human caused) global warming is the biggest hoax in the history of the world. Never have such draconian changes been proposed in the way humans live and run their economies based on such flimsy evidence.
Friday the House was scheduled to vote on a cap and trade scheme, which is nothing more than a huge, new tax on every American. It will not only drive up the cost of heating, cooling and electrifying our homes and workplaces, but it will increase the cost of everything we buy.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) makes up .038% (38/1000ths of one percent) of Earth’s atmosphere. Only 4% of that CO2 is from human activity. (The other 96% comes from nature.) The United States accounts for, at most, 25% of all anthropogenic CO2. Even if we all reverted to being hunter/gatherers, we couldn’t eliminate all of it, but let’s assume we could reduce it by 75%.
That would reduce the total CO2 in the atmosphere from .038% to .037715% or a whopping reduction of .000285%. That infinitesimal decrease would require the destruction of our civilization as we know it.
We are told that there is a “scientific consensus” on man made global warming. Nonsense. As Kimberley Strassel says in her excellent WS Journal opinion piece today, Sen. Jim Inhofe lists over 700 scientists who disagree with the UN’s 2007 climate summary. Ms. Strassel reports that “Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak ‘frankly’ of her nonbelief.” Strassel also mentions Japanese environmental physical chemist, Dr. Kiminori Itoh, who calls man made global warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.”
Notice that you hear the term “climate change” more than global warming now. That’s because there has been no measurable increase in the earth’s temperature since 2001. Besides, now the proponents can blame any climate event on human activity. How convenient.
So why has the human-caused climate change myth persisted? Because, as David Horowitz says, its supporters are like watermelons, green on the outside, but red on the inside. While there are many honest, though misguided, true believers, climate change is being used by its extreme, core proponents to promote a panoply of liberal causes from anti-automobile, anti-urban sprawl, and anti-consumerism to anti-capitalism and anti-Americanism.
The way to get people to give up their freedom is to convince them that the alternative is certain disaster.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Politics Trumps Health Care
With a straight face Obama says he is going to reduce healthcare costs by extending the Medicare/Medicaid formula to an additional 40+ million people.
Where to begin? First, let’s look at these people. About ten million are illegals who are unlikely to be covered by whatever comes out of Congress. Another ten million or so make at least $75,000 per year and simply choose not to buy health insurance. At least another ten million qualify for Medicaid but are too stupid to apply for it. Also, millions of these people are between jobs and many will get coverage when they get a new job.
Like “the poor” the “uninsured” are not a fixed group of people. It is estimated that if you tabulated the names today and again six months from now, one-third of the names on the list would be different. In a dynamic, opportunity-driven economy people’s circumstances are subject to change.
Read David Brooks’ (NY Times) current column to understand how the healthcare train is being driven by politics instead of concerns for health or financial viability. A majority of experts attending a Senate Finance Committee hearing agreed that any reform should include ending the tax exemption for employer-provided healthcare plans.
These all-inclusive plans result in a high demand for all kinds of tests and procedures which, in many cases, are unnecessary or of dubious benefit. This drives up healthcare costs. A plan was presented at that meeting that had broad bipartisan support and which the Congressional Budget Office said would be revenue neutral.
But Chairman Max Baucus(D) used his power to kill this baby in it’s crib. You see, ending that tax exemption is anathema to the labor unions to which funnel tens of millions of dollars into Democrat coffers every election cycle.
So, government-run healthcare, the biggest threat to our national solvency, is being tailored to accommodate the same special interest, organized labor, that drove the huge misappropriation of TARP funds for the auto bailout.
Oh, and forget about Obama’s campaign pledge that “you’ll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves.” Section 3116 of the Kennedy Bill, which Obama supports, specifically exempts all federal employees, including members of Congress, from the strait-jacket being designed for the rest of us.
Where to begin? First, let’s look at these people. About ten million are illegals who are unlikely to be covered by whatever comes out of Congress. Another ten million or so make at least $75,000 per year and simply choose not to buy health insurance. At least another ten million qualify for Medicaid but are too stupid to apply for it. Also, millions of these people are between jobs and many will get coverage when they get a new job.
Like “the poor” the “uninsured” are not a fixed group of people. It is estimated that if you tabulated the names today and again six months from now, one-third of the names on the list would be different. In a dynamic, opportunity-driven economy people’s circumstances are subject to change.
Read David Brooks’ (NY Times) current column to understand how the healthcare train is being driven by politics instead of concerns for health or financial viability. A majority of experts attending a Senate Finance Committee hearing agreed that any reform should include ending the tax exemption for employer-provided healthcare plans.
These all-inclusive plans result in a high demand for all kinds of tests and procedures which, in many cases, are unnecessary or of dubious benefit. This drives up healthcare costs. A plan was presented at that meeting that had broad bipartisan support and which the Congressional Budget Office said would be revenue neutral.
But Chairman Max Baucus(D) used his power to kill this baby in it’s crib. You see, ending that tax exemption is anathema to the labor unions to which funnel tens of millions of dollars into Democrat coffers every election cycle.
So, government-run healthcare, the biggest threat to our national solvency, is being tailored to accommodate the same special interest, organized labor, that drove the huge misappropriation of TARP funds for the auto bailout.
Oh, and forget about Obama’s campaign pledge that “you’ll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves.” Section 3116 of the Kennedy Bill, which Obama supports, specifically exempts all federal employees, including members of Congress, from the strait-jacket being designed for the rest of us.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Redistribution Boulder Style
Here’s an idea for redistributing wealth under the guise of preventing “climate change.” Big houses consume more resources to build and more energy to heat, cool and light than smaller houses. So why not have a cap and trade scheme for houses?
Give “credits” to owners of houses or lots who sign a deed restriction limiting the size of their houses to 2,000 square feet. (Deed restrictions become part of the title and are binding on future owners.) If someone else wants to build, or expand a house to more than 6,000 square feet, he would have to buy credits from the people who have restricted their house sizes.
The credits would be valued at $10,000 each. The first 500 sq. ft. over the 6,000 limit costs one credit. The next 500 sq. ft. costs two credits. Add an extra credit for each additional 500 sq. ft. increment. The money is collected by the government as a condition to issuing a building permit. The government hands the money over to the aforementioned deed restrictors.
Voila! In one stroke we help save the planet, redistribute wealth and, not incidentally, feed an underlying impetus of class envy. Outrageous, you say? Yes, but this exact system is already in place in Boulder County, Colorado.
How do they get away with it? Well, people want to build a house, not spend years and many tens of thousands of dollars fighting what could be a losing court battle. Democrats at the County and State level have for years now filled the benches with judges who have “empathy.”
The number of permit applications for 6,000+ sq. ft. houses has dried up, how much due to this extortion and how much due to economic and market conditions no one knows. But, since the system is in place, it would be easy to drop the limit to 5,000sq. ft. or 4,000.
Maybe this is not surprising in a place that has adopted the Kyoto Treaty and has a carbon tax, but things like this have a way of starting in leftist enclaves and eventually spreading to the rest of the Country.
And the same idea can be applied to other transactions. For example, why not make buyers of gas guzzlers buy “credits” from people who are willing to risk their lives driving the econoboxes that Obama and Congress are going to force GM and Chrysler to build?
Can tofu credits for steak be far away?
Give “credits” to owners of houses or lots who sign a deed restriction limiting the size of their houses to 2,000 square feet. (Deed restrictions become part of the title and are binding on future owners.) If someone else wants to build, or expand a house to more than 6,000 square feet, he would have to buy credits from the people who have restricted their house sizes.
The credits would be valued at $10,000 each. The first 500 sq. ft. over the 6,000 limit costs one credit. The next 500 sq. ft. costs two credits. Add an extra credit for each additional 500 sq. ft. increment. The money is collected by the government as a condition to issuing a building permit. The government hands the money over to the aforementioned deed restrictors.
Voila! In one stroke we help save the planet, redistribute wealth and, not incidentally, feed an underlying impetus of class envy. Outrageous, you say? Yes, but this exact system is already in place in Boulder County, Colorado.
How do they get away with it? Well, people want to build a house, not spend years and many tens of thousands of dollars fighting what could be a losing court battle. Democrats at the County and State level have for years now filled the benches with judges who have “empathy.”
The number of permit applications for 6,000+ sq. ft. houses has dried up, how much due to this extortion and how much due to economic and market conditions no one knows. But, since the system is in place, it would be easy to drop the limit to 5,000sq. ft. or 4,000.
Maybe this is not surprising in a place that has adopted the Kyoto Treaty and has a carbon tax, but things like this have a way of starting in leftist enclaves and eventually spreading to the rest of the Country.
And the same idea can be applied to other transactions. For example, why not make buyers of gas guzzlers buy “credits” from people who are willing to risk their lives driving the econoboxes that Obama and Congress are going to force GM and Chrysler to build?
Can tofu credits for steak be far away?
Monday, June 15, 2009
The Post-Constitutional America
We’ve been so busy guarding the eggs that we haven’t noticed that the farm has been taken over. We cluck about the TARP and Chrysler bondholders and the Porkulus and the Fed printing money, as well we should. But we’re missing the big picture.
The Executive Branch is effectively seizing control of the United States economy without firing a shot or imprisoning any dissidents. You think that’s an exaggeration? Well, let’s look at the facts.
Start with the TARP. It was approved by Congress for the express and exclusive purpose of rescuing the banking industry. The use of these funds for bailing out the UAW, oops, I mean the auto industry, is a clear violation of the statute. And in fairness it must be pointed out that it was Bush who took the first step down this road. Where were Congress and the media?
Now consider the Obama Administration’s czarification of the US economy. This is not the first time President’s have appointed so-called czars in times of distress. We’ve had drug czars and energy czars, for examples, in the past.
After less than five months in office, Obama has appointed at least twenty-one czars, exercising broad powers over the United States economy, businesses and individuals. Never has so much power been concentrated in hands of so few people unelected and unconfirmed by Congress. And, most disturbing, these aptly named czars answer to only one person, President Obama. This completely transcends issues like judicial activism and Congressional overreach. This is a blatant, unprecedented Executive power grab that tosses the Constitiution in the trash can.
Last week when Congress held major hearings on the future of the Detroit-based auto industry, the top executives of the nationalized GM and Chrysler dared not ignore the call. But Obama’s Car Czar, Steve Rattner, thumbed his nose at Congress and skipped the hearings, so he could attend his son’s high school graduation. Rattner knew he would pay no price for this insolence because he knows he has only one boss, Obama. Again, where are Congress and the media?
Liberty is not lost overnight. Power is seized gradually, step by step. The charismatic leader is elected during a time of crisis. Power grabs are tolerated in hopes of realizing promised government benefits until the point of turning back is irretrievably passed. And the rest, as they say, is history.
The Executive Branch is effectively seizing control of the United States economy without firing a shot or imprisoning any dissidents. You think that’s an exaggeration? Well, let’s look at the facts.
Start with the TARP. It was approved by Congress for the express and exclusive purpose of rescuing the banking industry. The use of these funds for bailing out the UAW, oops, I mean the auto industry, is a clear violation of the statute. And in fairness it must be pointed out that it was Bush who took the first step down this road. Where were Congress and the media?
Now consider the Obama Administration’s czarification of the US economy. This is not the first time President’s have appointed so-called czars in times of distress. We’ve had drug czars and energy czars, for examples, in the past.
After less than five months in office, Obama has appointed at least twenty-one czars, exercising broad powers over the United States economy, businesses and individuals. Never has so much power been concentrated in hands of so few people unelected and unconfirmed by Congress. And, most disturbing, these aptly named czars answer to only one person, President Obama. This completely transcends issues like judicial activism and Congressional overreach. This is a blatant, unprecedented Executive power grab that tosses the Constitiution in the trash can.
Last week when Congress held major hearings on the future of the Detroit-based auto industry, the top executives of the nationalized GM and Chrysler dared not ignore the call. But Obama’s Car Czar, Steve Rattner, thumbed his nose at Congress and skipped the hearings, so he could attend his son’s high school graduation. Rattner knew he would pay no price for this insolence because he knows he has only one boss, Obama. Again, where are Congress and the media?
Liberty is not lost overnight. Power is seized gradually, step by step. The charismatic leader is elected during a time of crisis. Power grabs are tolerated in hopes of realizing promised government benefits until the point of turning back is irretrievably passed. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Media Betray Obtuse Values
There were two murders in the news last week. One was that of a late-term abortion doctor. The other was that of a soldier shot outside an army recruiting center in Arkansas by a home-grown Muslin convert who doesn’t like the US military. Guess which one got all the media coverage while the other was downplayed or not reported at all.
Not only did the murder of the baby-killer get all the press, but get this: the FBI dispatched agents to Boulder to give 24/7 protection to a local abortionist who specializes in late-term “procedures.” The Arkansas murderer was in custody and no specific threat had been made against the Boulder doc.
Many women have been killed by their estranged husbands or boyfriends after requesting, and being denied, police protection. And it’s not like the doc can’t afford a bodyguard.
What does it say about a society when it places such a high political value on protecting those who make their living by destroying unborn human life? What we do to the unborn today we will do to the elderly tomorrow.
Now, turning to the murder of the soldier by the home-grown Muslim terrorist, why was this story given so little coverage? One reason might be that we’re really worried about offending Muslims. Another might be that this bears directly on the Gitmo issue.
We have been told by the NoMoGitmo crowd that US SuperMax prisons are a viable alternative because no one has ever escaped from one. No, but people have been released from them. The real danger is that these fanatics will recruit new terror acolytes from the disaffected prison population whose presence in SuperMax attests to their predilection to violence.
The score for this round is: Muslim terrorists – 1, unborn babies – 0.
Not only did the murder of the baby-killer get all the press, but get this: the FBI dispatched agents to Boulder to give 24/7 protection to a local abortionist who specializes in late-term “procedures.” The Arkansas murderer was in custody and no specific threat had been made against the Boulder doc.
Many women have been killed by their estranged husbands or boyfriends after requesting, and being denied, police protection. And it’s not like the doc can’t afford a bodyguard.
What does it say about a society when it places such a high political value on protecting those who make their living by destroying unborn human life? What we do to the unborn today we will do to the elderly tomorrow.
Now, turning to the murder of the soldier by the home-grown Muslim terrorist, why was this story given so little coverage? One reason might be that we’re really worried about offending Muslims. Another might be that this bears directly on the Gitmo issue.
We have been told by the NoMoGitmo crowd that US SuperMax prisons are a viable alternative because no one has ever escaped from one. No, but people have been released from them. The real danger is that these fanatics will recruit new terror acolytes from the disaffected prison population whose presence in SuperMax attests to their predilection to violence.
The score for this round is: Muslim terrorists – 1, unborn babies – 0.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)