 |
| Get Your Daily Dose of Humor and Reality from A.F. (Tony) Branco |
_____________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Showing posts with label taxpayer money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxpayer money. Show all posts
Thursday, June 25, 2015
Another GOP obstacle to the Whitehouse
From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically Incorrect.com
Friday, June 19, 2015
Deep in the weeds with PC
From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically Incorrect.com
 |
| Get Your Daily Dose of Humor and Reality from A.F. (Tony) Branco |
_____________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Hillary? Ho-hum, she's so yesterday
From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically Incorrect.com
 |
| Get Your Daily Dose of Humor and Reality from A.F. (Tony) Branco |
_____________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Friday, May 29, 2015
U.S. judge thrashes Obama administration
A shared media report from the files of Colonel Allen B. West
A U.S. judge on Thursday blasted the Obama administration’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives over the implementation of the Democratic President’s signature healthcare law.
Reuters Reports:
 |
| Visit Colonel Allen B. West Online |
A U.S. judge on Thursday blasted the Obama administration’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives over the implementation of the Democratic President’s signature healthcare law.
Reuters Reports:
Republicans in the House filed a lawsuit in November, saying administration officials unlawfully bypassed Congress.
At issue are executive changes authorizing Treasury payments to healthcare insurers without the funding being agreed by Congress and delaying implementation of the law’s employer mandate, which required employers with more than 50 employees to provide healthcare coverage.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, appointed by Obama’s predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, repeatedly interrupted U.S. Justice Department lawyer Joel McElvain during the hearing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Justice Department lawyers argue that the House lacks standing to sue, citing a section of U.S. law that means the House would have to prove it has been directly harmed.
“So it is your position that if the House of Representatives affirmatively voted not to fund something … then that vote can be ignored by the administration, because after all, no one can sue them?” she asked.There is more to the story here:
_____________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Friday, May 22, 2015
Republicans lose faith in party leadership
From the files of Jeff Crouere at Ringside Politics on WLAE-TV 32 in New Orleans, LA
A new Pew Research Center poll shows that America is unhappy with the GOP led Congress. In fact, Americans are disgusted as Republican congressional leaders only registered a 22% overall approval rating.
What is especially significant is that the poll shows this anger is bi-partisan. Only 41% of Republicans approve of the performance of the GOP congressional leadership. This is much lower than the 60% approval rating GOP leaders received in 2011 and the 78% approval rating they received from Republicans in 1995, months after the party took control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.
There is a major difference between the congressional leaders of today and those at the helm in 1995. During that era, Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House. In the November 1994 elections, Americans sent Republicans to Congress with a mission, enact the Contract with America.
Led by Gingrich, the Congress was actually able to get some tangible goals accomplished by moving then President Bill Clinton to the right. As a result, Clinton signed into law bills that lowered capital gains taxes and established welfare reform. Even more miraculous, a significant budget surplus was created.
Gingrich was an unabashed conservative, who truly believed in the concepts of lower taxes and less government. Unfortunately, today, the GOP leadership in Congress, specifically Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner, are typical establishment Republicans who have been on Capitol Hill too long.
They are opposed to the Tea Party and true conservatives and have no interest in real reform or following the wishes of grassroots Republicans.
Just four months after the Republicans took control of the Senate and House, most of the GOP electorate has lost faith in congressional leadership. It is no surprise since nothing has been accomplished except the Keystone Pipeline bill, which President Obama vetoed, and the House passed bill ending abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. On almost everything else, there has been rhetoric, but no action.
Despite the fact that almost every Republican congressional candidate campaigned against Obamacare and the President’s executive amnesty for five million illegal aliens, Congress voted to fund both programs. The Senate approved the radical nomination of Loretta Lynch as Attorney General and just gave Obama a major victory by approving legislation giving him more power to enact trade deals.
This trade promotion authority would force Congress to accept the upcoming Trans-Pacific Partnership between the United States and 11 other nations without any amendments. It would require Congress to schedule an up or down vote on the trade pact, creating “fast track” legislation.
Many conservatives are leery of any trade deal that gives the President more power and might lead to the further dissolution of American manufacturing jobs. Both Boehner and McConnell are supportive of this agreement, which critics label as another gift to big business at the expense of middle class America.
After passing a trade deal, McConnell will turn to renewing the Patriot Act, despite major NSA abuses and a significant invasion of the privacy of ordinary Americans. It is another issue that pits GOP leadership against the majority of Republicans.
Clearly, congressional Republicans are not advancing a conservative agenda or stopping President Obama. This betrayal of conservatism is reflected in the Pew poll. The stage is now set for the 2016 presidential race where true conservative candidates will be facing establishment backed candidates like former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.
If an establishment Republican is nominated, millions of conservatives will be disgusted and will bid farewell to the GOP. This will insure that the Republican Party, which has lost the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections, will lose again.
Jeff Crouere is a native of New Orleans, LA and he is the host of a Louisiana based program, “Ringside Politics,” which airs at 7:30 p.m. Friday and 10:00 p.m. Sunday on WLAE-TV 32, a PBS station, and 7 till 11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990 AM in New Orleans and the Northshore.
For more information, visit Jeff's web site at www.ringsidepolitics.com or email him at jeff@ringsidepolitics.com.
 |
| I Really Wonder If There Is A Difference |
A new Pew Research Center poll shows that America is unhappy with the GOP led Congress. In fact, Americans are disgusted as Republican congressional leaders only registered a 22% overall approval rating.
What is especially significant is that the poll shows this anger is bi-partisan. Only 41% of Republicans approve of the performance of the GOP congressional leadership. This is much lower than the 60% approval rating GOP leaders received in 2011 and the 78% approval rating they received from Republicans in 1995, months after the party took control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.
There is a major difference between the congressional leaders of today and those at the helm in 1995. During that era, Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House. In the November 1994 elections, Americans sent Republicans to Congress with a mission, enact the Contract with America.
Led by Gingrich, the Congress was actually able to get some tangible goals accomplished by moving then President Bill Clinton to the right. As a result, Clinton signed into law bills that lowered capital gains taxes and established welfare reform. Even more miraculous, a significant budget surplus was created.
Gingrich was an unabashed conservative, who truly believed in the concepts of lower taxes and less government. Unfortunately, today, the GOP leadership in Congress, specifically Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner, are typical establishment Republicans who have been on Capitol Hill too long.
They are opposed to the Tea Party and true conservatives and have no interest in real reform or following the wishes of grassroots Republicans.
Just four months after the Republicans took control of the Senate and House, most of the GOP electorate has lost faith in congressional leadership. It is no surprise since nothing has been accomplished except the Keystone Pipeline bill, which President Obama vetoed, and the House passed bill ending abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. On almost everything else, there has been rhetoric, but no action.
Despite the fact that almost every Republican congressional candidate campaigned against Obamacare and the President’s executive amnesty for five million illegal aliens, Congress voted to fund both programs. The Senate approved the radical nomination of Loretta Lynch as Attorney General and just gave Obama a major victory by approving legislation giving him more power to enact trade deals.
This trade promotion authority would force Congress to accept the upcoming Trans-Pacific Partnership between the United States and 11 other nations without any amendments. It would require Congress to schedule an up or down vote on the trade pact, creating “fast track” legislation.
Many conservatives are leery of any trade deal that gives the President more power and might lead to the further dissolution of American manufacturing jobs. Both Boehner and McConnell are supportive of this agreement, which critics label as another gift to big business at the expense of middle class America.
After passing a trade deal, McConnell will turn to renewing the Patriot Act, despite major NSA abuses and a significant invasion of the privacy of ordinary Americans. It is another issue that pits GOP leadership against the majority of Republicans.
Clearly, congressional Republicans are not advancing a conservative agenda or stopping President Obama. This betrayal of conservatism is reflected in the Pew poll. The stage is now set for the 2016 presidential race where true conservative candidates will be facing establishment backed candidates like former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.
If an establishment Republican is nominated, millions of conservatives will be disgusted and will bid farewell to the GOP. This will insure that the Republican Party, which has lost the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections, will lose again.
____________________________
Jeff Crouere is a native of New Orleans, LA and he is the host of a Louisiana based program, “Ringside Politics,” which airs at 7:30 p.m. Friday and 10:00 p.m. Sunday on WLAE-TV 32, a PBS station, and 7 till 11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990 AM in New Orleans and the Northshore.
For more information, visit Jeff's web site at www.ringsidepolitics.com or email him at jeff@ringsidepolitics.com.
_____________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Squirrely tax dollars at work
From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically Incorrect.com
 |
| Get Your Daily Dose of Humor or Reality from A.F. (Tony) Branco |
_____________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
The big money give-a-way
From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically Incorrect.com
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
 |
| Get Your Daily Dose of Humor and Reality from A.F. (Tony) Branco |
______________________________________________
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Democrats opposition agenda revealed
From the art studios of Dan Youra at Utoons.com
Dan Youra is one of the outstanding conservative cartoonists in the trade today who follows in the footsteps of the great political cartoon masters, whose quotes inspire a new generation of followers.
"As long as there are politicians who continue to try and fool the voters, there is no chance of ever running out of material to work with because they create it themselves and about themselves," says Dan Youra.
Dan is the small business owner and operator of the Youra Studios located in the State of Washington.
Visit the Youra Studios at Utoons.com
 |
| Get Your Daily Dose of Humor and Reality from Dan Youra at Utoons.com |
"Outside of basic intelligence, there is nothing more important to a good political cartoonist than ill will." ~ Jules Feiffer, Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist.
"Too many of today's artists regard editorial cartooning as a trade instead of a profession. They try not to be too offensive. The hell with that. We need more stirrer-uppers." ~ Bill Mauldin.Youra was one of the first recipients of a Fulbright Scholarship and worked in Latin America. He served as an editor of Current Thought on Peace and War at the United Nations in New York.
"As long as there are politicians who continue to try and fool the voters, there is no chance of ever running out of material to work with because they create it themselves and about themselves," says Dan Youra.
Dan is the small business owner and operator of the Youra Studios located in the State of Washington.
Visit the Youra Studios at Utoons.com
_____________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Pentagon bet your $10 billion and lost
U.S. Missile Defense Agency SBX Program
It was the most powerful radar of its kind in the world, they told Congress. So powerful it could detect a baseball over San Francisco from the other side of the country.
If North Korea launched a sneak attack, the Sea-Based X-Band Radar — SBX for short — would spot the incoming missiles, track them through space and guide U.S. rocket-interceptors to destroy them.
Crucially, the system would be able to distinguish between actual missiles and decoys.
In reality, the giant floating radar has been a $2.2 billion flop, a Los Angeles Times investigation found.
Although it can powerfully magnify distant objects, its field of vision is so narrow that it would be of little use against what experts consider the likeliest attack: a stream of missiles interspersed with decoys.
The project not only wasted taxpayer money but left a hole in the nation's defenses. The money spent on it could have gone toward land-based radars with a greater capability to track long-range missiles, according to experts who studied the issue.
Over the last decade, the agency has sunk nearly $10 billion into SBX and three other programs that had to be killed or sidelined after they proved unworkable,
Read More.
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
 |
| Photograph provided by Boeing, the Sea-Based X-Band Radar, a key component of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency's Ground-based Midcourse Defense system |
It was the most powerful radar of its kind in the world, they told Congress. So powerful it could detect a baseball over San Francisco from the other side of the country.
If North Korea launched a sneak attack, the Sea-Based X-Band Radar — SBX for short — would spot the incoming missiles, track them through space and guide U.S. rocket-interceptors to destroy them.
Crucially, the system would be able to distinguish between actual missiles and decoys.
In reality, the giant floating radar has been a $2.2 billion flop, a Los Angeles Times investigation found.
Although it can powerfully magnify distant objects, its field of vision is so narrow that it would be of little use against what experts consider the likeliest attack: a stream of missiles interspersed with decoys.
The project not only wasted taxpayer money but left a hole in the nation's defenses. The money spent on it could have gone toward land-based radars with a greater capability to track long-range missiles, according to experts who studied the issue.
Over the last decade, the agency has sunk nearly $10 billion into SBX and three other programs that had to be killed or sidelined after they proved unworkable,
Read More.
______________________________________________
Thursday, April 9, 2015
Windmills should blow not suck
From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically Incorrect.com
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
 |
| Get a Daily Dose of Humor and Reality from A.F. (Tony) Branco |
______________________________________________
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
The sun and wind are free of charge
But converting them to reliable electricity is expensive if not impossible from the files of Marita K. Noon at Energy Makes America Great, Inc.
In an effort to get America off of fossil fuels, “free” solar and wind energy is often touted as the solution. However, in reality, the so-called free energy has high costs and does little to minimize fossil-fuel use or cut greenhouse gases.
Because solar-and-wind energy are not available 24/7—also frequently referenced as not “dispatchable”—incorporating them into the electricity portfolio requires back-up power to be available on demand.
When the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow, we still expect to have heating or air conditioning, cook our dinners, charge our phones, and use our computers. To do this, requires fossil fuels—typically natural gas “peaking plants,” but depending on what is available, it may be a coal-fueled power plant that is forced to operate inefficiently; releasing more CO2 than it would if allowed to operate as intended.
Think of it this way.
If you want to cook a hamburger, and you have a charcoal grill, you go outside about 30 minutes before you plan to cook. You mound up the charcoal, sprinkle it with lighter fluid, and toss on a match.
When the coals are white on the edges, you know they are ready. You put your burger on the grill and cook it for five to eight minutes. Once you remove the burger, the coals are still hot for hours. Ultimately, they burn down to ashes and are cold enough that you can throw them into your plastic trash can, or into the forest. To restart it later in the same day is not efficient.
By comparison, if you are going to cook that same hamburger over natural gas, or propane, you go out five minutes before you plan to grill to heat up the elements. You cook your burger, and you turn it off. No coals, no cool down needed.
Power plants function in a similar fashion.
A coal-fueled power plant cannot easily be turned on and off. It works most efficiently—i.e. cleanly—when it burns continuously. Like the grill, you can add more coal throughout the process to keep the temperature up, which creates the steam that generates electricity.
But, with a natural-gas-fueled power plant, you can easily turn it on and off. So when the wind suddenly stops blowing—with no warning, the gas plant can quickly ramp up to generate the needed power.
As Germany, with the highest implementation of renewable energy of any country, found out, to maintain grid stability, it needs the coal- and natural-gas-fueled power plants. As a result of its policies that favor renewables, such as solar and wind, Germany has had to subsidize its fossil fueled power plants to keep them open.
So, by adding solar and wind power, to the energy mix, we actually increase costs by paying for redundant power supplies—which ultimately, through rate increases, hurts the less fortunate who also have to cover the costs of the renewables.
Recently, in Florida, the state NAACP chapter had an op-ed published that, essentially, said the same thing: renewable energy for some people, costs those who can least afford it.
It is not that renewable energy is bad. I have friends who live off the grid. They are cattle ranchers, who live in New Mexico’s Gila Forest. Were it not for their solar panels, they’d have no lights, no computers, no direct contact with the rest of the world.
For them, solar panels on the roof—with a back-up system of car batteries—are their salvation. At a cost that worked for them, they were able to purchase used solar panels that someone else had discarded. They are grateful for their solar panels, but they have little option—and they know that; they accept it.
Without thinking of what works well in each situation, government has tried to apply a one-size-fits-all solution. Based on a phony narrative of energy shortages and global warming, err, climate change, renewables have been sold as the panacea.
While they may be the right choice in a few cases, such as my cattle ranching friends, or even in the oil fields—which are one of the single biggest industrial users of solar power, many individual locales may be better served by coal, or natural gas, even nuclear, than by renewable power. But the mandates, or the EPA, have not taken that into consideration.
In New Mexico, there are two coal-fueled power plants situated, virtually, at the mouth of the coal mine. The coal is extracted and sent straight to the power plants that generate most of New Mexico’s power and provide enough excess to sell to neighboring Arizona and California.
But, EPA regulations require that these plants, now, with years of useful service left, be shut down. Some of the units will be converted to natural gas—something the region also has in abundance. However, the natural gas has pipelines that can take it to the world markets; it is not stranded the in the San Juan Basin.
In contrast, the coal cannot conveniently leave the area—there is no rail to transport it. Looking at the specifics of the basin, it makes sense to continue to generate electricity from coal and allow the natural gas to benefit markets (perhaps even our allies) without other resources—but the EPA and its environmental advocates will hear nothing of it. Their ideology drives the policy whether it makes economic, or practical, sense or not.
Just try to bring truth or logic into the discussion and the crusaders will treat you as they have Indiana’s Governor Mike Pence.
Last month, I released a white paper: Solar power in the U.S. Using real-life data and news reports, we present the harsh realities of today’s solar market—which has reacted, not with facts, but by smearing me and the supposed funding of the organizations I lead.
Apparently, when you have emotion and messaging on your side, you do not need to be impeded by facts—such as the sun and the wind are free, but converting them to electricity is expensive; converting them to reliable, albeit expensive, electricity is virtually impossible.
Ah, but they never let the truth stand in the way of their feel-good story.
The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column.
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
 |
| Visit the Marita Noon Website |
Because solar-and-wind energy are not available 24/7—also frequently referenced as not “dispatchable”—incorporating them into the electricity portfolio requires back-up power to be available on demand.
When the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow, we still expect to have heating or air conditioning, cook our dinners, charge our phones, and use our computers. To do this, requires fossil fuels—typically natural gas “peaking plants,” but depending on what is available, it may be a coal-fueled power plant that is forced to operate inefficiently; releasing more CO2 than it would if allowed to operate as intended.
Think of it this way.
If you want to cook a hamburger, and you have a charcoal grill, you go outside about 30 minutes before you plan to cook. You mound up the charcoal, sprinkle it with lighter fluid, and toss on a match.
When the coals are white on the edges, you know they are ready. You put your burger on the grill and cook it for five to eight minutes. Once you remove the burger, the coals are still hot for hours. Ultimately, they burn down to ashes and are cold enough that you can throw them into your plastic trash can, or into the forest. To restart it later in the same day is not efficient.
By comparison, if you are going to cook that same hamburger over natural gas, or propane, you go out five minutes before you plan to grill to heat up the elements. You cook your burger, and you turn it off. No coals, no cool down needed.
Power plants function in a similar fashion.
A coal-fueled power plant cannot easily be turned on and off. It works most efficiently—i.e. cleanly—when it burns continuously. Like the grill, you can add more coal throughout the process to keep the temperature up, which creates the steam that generates electricity.
But, with a natural-gas-fueled power plant, you can easily turn it on and off. So when the wind suddenly stops blowing—with no warning, the gas plant can quickly ramp up to generate the needed power.
As Germany, with the highest implementation of renewable energy of any country, found out, to maintain grid stability, it needs the coal- and natural-gas-fueled power plants. As a result of its policies that favor renewables, such as solar and wind, Germany has had to subsidize its fossil fueled power plants to keep them open.
So, by adding solar and wind power, to the energy mix, we actually increase costs by paying for redundant power supplies—which ultimately, through rate increases, hurts the less fortunate who also have to cover the costs of the renewables.
In the cold weather of Albuquerque’s winter, I received a call from an “unemployed single mother living in an 800 square-foot apartment.” When I answered the phone, she dumped on me. She was angry. Her life circumstances meant she didn’t turn on her heat because she couldn’t afford it. After stating her position, she ranted at me: “I just opened up my utility bill. I see that I am paying $1.63 a month for renewable energy.” She continued: “I don’t give a f%^& about renewable energy! Why do I have to pay for it?”I tried to steer her attention away from the utility company and toward the Legislature that nearly a decade ago passed the Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires increasing amounts of more expensive renewable energy. As a result, her rates went up, and she had no say in the matter—except that she may have voted for the legislators who approved the policy.
Recently, in Florida, the state NAACP chapter had an op-ed published that, essentially, said the same thing: renewable energy for some people, costs those who can least afford it.
It is not that renewable energy is bad. I have friends who live off the grid. They are cattle ranchers, who live in New Mexico’s Gila Forest. Were it not for their solar panels, they’d have no lights, no computers, no direct contact with the rest of the world.
For them, solar panels on the roof—with a back-up system of car batteries—are their salvation. At a cost that worked for them, they were able to purchase used solar panels that someone else had discarded. They are grateful for their solar panels, but they have little option—and they know that; they accept it.
Without thinking of what works well in each situation, government has tried to apply a one-size-fits-all solution. Based on a phony narrative of energy shortages and global warming, err, climate change, renewables have been sold as the panacea.
While they may be the right choice in a few cases, such as my cattle ranching friends, or even in the oil fields—which are one of the single biggest industrial users of solar power, many individual locales may be better served by coal, or natural gas, even nuclear, than by renewable power. But the mandates, or the EPA, have not taken that into consideration.
In New Mexico, there are two coal-fueled power plants situated, virtually, at the mouth of the coal mine. The coal is extracted and sent straight to the power plants that generate most of New Mexico’s power and provide enough excess to sell to neighboring Arizona and California.
But, EPA regulations require that these plants, now, with years of useful service left, be shut down. Some of the units will be converted to natural gas—something the region also has in abundance. However, the natural gas has pipelines that can take it to the world markets; it is not stranded the in the San Juan Basin.
In contrast, the coal cannot conveniently leave the area—there is no rail to transport it. Looking at the specifics of the basin, it makes sense to continue to generate electricity from coal and allow the natural gas to benefit markets (perhaps even our allies) without other resources—but the EPA and its environmental advocates will hear nothing of it. Their ideology drives the policy whether it makes economic, or practical, sense or not.
Just try to bring truth or logic into the discussion and the crusaders will treat you as they have Indiana’s Governor Mike Pence.
Last month, I released a white paper: Solar power in the U.S. Using real-life data and news reports, we present the harsh realities of today’s solar market—which has reacted, not with facts, but by smearing me and the supposed funding of the organizations I lead.
Apparently, when you have emotion and messaging on your side, you do not need to be impeded by facts—such as the sun and the wind are free, but converting them to electricity is expensive; converting them to reliable, albeit expensive, electricity is virtually impossible.
Ah, but they never let the truth stand in the way of their feel-good story.
______________________________________________
The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column.
______________________________________________
Perverse climate morality
Current climate policies mean energy deprivation, poverty, disease and death for billions from the files of Paul Driessen at CFACT.org
You’ve got to admit, liberal are masters at describing every initiative they launch as “the moral thing to do.” Their campaign for draconian energy regulations and a new global warming treaty is no exception.
Protecting people, wildlife and ecosystems from climate catastrophes is the greatest moral cause of our time, alarmist scientists, activists, politicians, bureaucrats, clerics and journalists insist. Rubbish.
It has nothing to do with morality. It’s all about money, power and control. It narrowly defines “morality” to ignore the incredible benefits that fossil fuels and electricity bring to people everywhere – while dismissing the enormous harm their policies will wreak on families and ecological values that they profess to care so much about. And it makes no mention of the fact that they will rarely, if ever, be held accountable for their falsehoods and fraudulent science, or the damage and deaths they cause.
On March 31, President Obama promised to slash America’s carbon dioxide emissions 28% below 2005 emission levels by 2025 and 80% by 2050, taking us back to Civil War era emission levels, 150 years ago. He wants U.S. taxpayers to contribute our “fair share” to a new UN $100-billion-per-year UN slush fund to help poor countries adapt to and mitigate rising seas, storms and other climate change disasters that our plant-fertilizing CO2 emissions allegedly cause. He instructed his federal agencies to implement a host of new rules prior to the December 2015 United Nations climate conference in Paris.
Mr. Obama’s EPA will use “Clean Power Plan” and other regulations to shutter more coal-fired generating plants, issue new methane rules for landfills and natural gas production, funnel countless millions of dollars to activist and propaganda groups, and use sue and settle lawsuits to impose even tighter restrictions. FEMA will require that states use CO2-based computer models to determine how manmade climate change threatens communities, if they want disaster preparedness funding.
The Council on Environmental Quality will require that all applicants for federal project permits fully evaluate greenhouse gas emissions and potential impacts on climate change, to the satisfaction of bureaucrats and litigious Big Green pressure groups. The Department of Energy will issue new efficiency standards that double the cost of pickup trucks and appliances, and spend more taxpayer billions on wind, solar and biofuel loans and subsidies. The Interior Department will close more federal lands to drilling, and exempt more wind and solar projects from endangered species and other environmental laws.
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation and World Bank will refuse to lend money for coal-fired power plants, and even most gas-fueled generators and hydroelectric facilities, in developing countries.
These actions will have disastrous consequences. According to the Heritage Foundation, NERA economic consultants and other experts, EPA’s actions alone will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and a $100-billion loss in gross domestic product. By 2030, America’s electricity output will drop by nearly 10% even as we add 54 million people to our population. Brownouts and blackouts will occur regularly, and we will be told to get used to using expensive electricity when it’s available, instead of when we need it.
Poor, minority and blue-collar families will have to find thousands of dollars a year for soaring electricity, vehicle and appliance costs. Small businesses will have to find tens of thousands of dollars to keep the heat and lights on. Factories, malls, school districts, hospitals and cities will have to pay millions more.
Millions of middle class workers will get laid off – in coal mines, power plants, factories, shops and other businesses. Entire families and communities will be impoverished. Bread winners lucky enough to find work will be forced to work multiple jobs, commute longer distances, and suffer severe sleep deprivation.
Families will have to cope with more stress, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, spousal and child abuse. Nutrition and medical care will suffer. More people will have strokes and heart attacks. More will die. But the White House, EPA and other federal agencies studiously ignore these impacts. The only moral issue they want to talk about is alleged impacts from exaggerated and fabricated manmade climate change.
Two-thirds of Florida’s endangered manatees survive cold winters by huddling in warm waters that flow from coal-fired power plants. EPA’s plant closures could cause hundreds of them to die, while millions of birds and bats will be slaughtered every year by proliferating wind turbines.
Meanwhile, thousands of elderly people perish every winter from hypothermia, because they can no longer afford to heat their home properly, due to soaring electricity costs under Britain’s climate policies.
In poor countries, millions already die every year from lung and intestinal diseases, because of polluted air from open cooking fires, filthy water, spoiled food, substandard hospitals and squalid living conditions – because billions still do no have access to electricity. Imagine your life following hurricanes or other natural disasters that make electricity and safe water unavailable for a week or month. Then picture living that way for decades on end. White House, World Bank and OPIC policies will save people from “climate disasters” decades from now by killing them tomorrow. This they pass off as morality.
In the years since EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972, tens of millions of Africans and Asians died from malaria. Now his daughter is promoting similarly deadly policies, as lead author for the National Climate Assessment, which hypes every exaggerated and imaginary climate scare imaginable. Other Big Green and Climate Crisis radicals oppose GMO crops and chemical fertilizers, and insist that starving, energy deprived families limit their living standards to what is dictated by climate activists and supported by wind, solar and biofuels. The death tolls continue to mount.
African Development Bank’s president Donald Kaberuka says poor nations will no longer tolerate these hypocritical, lethal policies. His bank will continue loaning money for coal-fired generating units. But in a perverse irony, the absence of World Bank and OPIC money means those projects will not have sufficient funding to install modern, readily available pollution controls. So millions of families will finally have electricity and won’t be sickened by wood and dung fires, but new pollutants will needlessly afflict them.
Japan is also financing coal-fired power plants in Japan, India and Bangladesh – often using Green Climate Fund money! It points out that these high-efficiency units burn coal with less pollution and fewer carbon dioxide emissions than older plants – and stresses the importance of helping impoverished countries get reliable, affordable electricity to create jobs, improve living standards and save lives.
China, India, Germany, Poland and other countries are also building coal-fueled power plants at a steady clip. And Russia says it will “comply” with any new treaty primarily by emphasizing CO2 reductions due to absorption by forests. At this rate, the United States will soon be the only nation that strangles its economy and imperils people’s health and welfare in the name of stopping climate change.
But the Obama Administration is imposing its authoritarian policies anyway – and justifying them by falsifying temperature data and ignoring the reality that:
Earth’s climate and weather will continue changing, because the forces driving them are always in flux. We simply have to adjust to them. But Obama prefers the Lewis Carroll approach to climate and morality.
“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less,” Humpty Dumpty told Alice, “The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things,” Alice replied. No, Humpty responded. “The question is, who is to be master, that’s all.”
We the People must not let Obama and Company be our master. Congress can and should refuse to ratify any climate treaty. It can and should defund these totalitarian initiatives.
The next president can and should review and revoke every one. States can and should challenge them in court and refuse to knuckle under.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death, coauthor of Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine, and honored as a bonafide manmade climate disaster denier by Inside Climate News, though the blog could not manage to get his name right. (“David Paul”???)
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
 |
| Read the Driessen Files at CFACT.org |
Protecting people, wildlife and ecosystems from climate catastrophes is the greatest moral cause of our time, alarmist scientists, activists, politicians, bureaucrats, clerics and journalists insist. Rubbish.
It has nothing to do with morality. It’s all about money, power and control. It narrowly defines “morality” to ignore the incredible benefits that fossil fuels and electricity bring to people everywhere – while dismissing the enormous harm their policies will wreak on families and ecological values that they profess to care so much about. And it makes no mention of the fact that they will rarely, if ever, be held accountable for their falsehoods and fraudulent science, or the damage and deaths they cause.
On March 31, President Obama promised to slash America’s carbon dioxide emissions 28% below 2005 emission levels by 2025 and 80% by 2050, taking us back to Civil War era emission levels, 150 years ago. He wants U.S. taxpayers to contribute our “fair share” to a new UN $100-billion-per-year UN slush fund to help poor countries adapt to and mitigate rising seas, storms and other climate change disasters that our plant-fertilizing CO2 emissions allegedly cause. He instructed his federal agencies to implement a host of new rules prior to the December 2015 United Nations climate conference in Paris.
Mr. Obama’s EPA will use “Clean Power Plan” and other regulations to shutter more coal-fired generating plants, issue new methane rules for landfills and natural gas production, funnel countless millions of dollars to activist and propaganda groups, and use sue and settle lawsuits to impose even tighter restrictions. FEMA will require that states use CO2-based computer models to determine how manmade climate change threatens communities, if they want disaster preparedness funding.
The Council on Environmental Quality will require that all applicants for federal project permits fully evaluate greenhouse gas emissions and potential impacts on climate change, to the satisfaction of bureaucrats and litigious Big Green pressure groups. The Department of Energy will issue new efficiency standards that double the cost of pickup trucks and appliances, and spend more taxpayer billions on wind, solar and biofuel loans and subsidies. The Interior Department will close more federal lands to drilling, and exempt more wind and solar projects from endangered species and other environmental laws.
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation and World Bank will refuse to lend money for coal-fired power plants, and even most gas-fueled generators and hydroelectric facilities, in developing countries.
These actions will have disastrous consequences. According to the Heritage Foundation, NERA economic consultants and other experts, EPA’s actions alone will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and a $100-billion loss in gross domestic product. By 2030, America’s electricity output will drop by nearly 10% even as we add 54 million people to our population. Brownouts and blackouts will occur regularly, and we will be told to get used to using expensive electricity when it’s available, instead of when we need it.
Poor, minority and blue-collar families will have to find thousands of dollars a year for soaring electricity, vehicle and appliance costs. Small businesses will have to find tens of thousands of dollars to keep the heat and lights on. Factories, malls, school districts, hospitals and cities will have to pay millions more.
Millions of middle class workers will get laid off – in coal mines, power plants, factories, shops and other businesses. Entire families and communities will be impoverished. Bread winners lucky enough to find work will be forced to work multiple jobs, commute longer distances, and suffer severe sleep deprivation.
Families will have to cope with more stress, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, spousal and child abuse. Nutrition and medical care will suffer. More people will have strokes and heart attacks. More will die. But the White House, EPA and other federal agencies studiously ignore these impacts. The only moral issue they want to talk about is alleged impacts from exaggerated and fabricated manmade climate change.
Two-thirds of Florida’s endangered manatees survive cold winters by huddling in warm waters that flow from coal-fired power plants. EPA’s plant closures could cause hundreds of them to die, while millions of birds and bats will be slaughtered every year by proliferating wind turbines.
Meanwhile, thousands of elderly people perish every winter from hypothermia, because they can no longer afford to heat their home properly, due to soaring electricity costs under Britain’s climate policies.
In poor countries, millions already die every year from lung and intestinal diseases, because of polluted air from open cooking fires, filthy water, spoiled food, substandard hospitals and squalid living conditions – because billions still do no have access to electricity. Imagine your life following hurricanes or other natural disasters that make electricity and safe water unavailable for a week or month. Then picture living that way for decades on end. White House, World Bank and OPIC policies will save people from “climate disasters” decades from now by killing them tomorrow. This they pass off as morality.
In the years since EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972, tens of millions of Africans and Asians died from malaria. Now his daughter is promoting similarly deadly policies, as lead author for the National Climate Assessment, which hypes every exaggerated and imaginary climate scare imaginable. Other Big Green and Climate Crisis radicals oppose GMO crops and chemical fertilizers, and insist that starving, energy deprived families limit their living standards to what is dictated by climate activists and supported by wind, solar and biofuels. The death tolls continue to mount.
African Development Bank’s president Donald Kaberuka says poor nations will no longer tolerate these hypocritical, lethal policies. His bank will continue loaning money for coal-fired generating units. But in a perverse irony, the absence of World Bank and OPIC money means those projects will not have sufficient funding to install modern, readily available pollution controls. So millions of families will finally have electricity and won’t be sickened by wood and dung fires, but new pollutants will needlessly afflict them.
Japan is also financing coal-fired power plants in Japan, India and Bangladesh – often using Green Climate Fund money! It points out that these high-efficiency units burn coal with less pollution and fewer carbon dioxide emissions than older plants – and stresses the importance of helping impoverished countries get reliable, affordable electricity to create jobs, improve living standards and save lives.
China, India, Germany, Poland and other countries are also building coal-fueled power plants at a steady clip. And Russia says it will “comply” with any new treaty primarily by emphasizing CO2 reductions due to absorption by forests. At this rate, the United States will soon be the only nation that strangles its economy and imperils people’s health and welfare in the name of stopping climate change.
But the Obama Administration is imposing its authoritarian policies anyway – and justifying them by falsifying temperature data and ignoring the reality that:
(1) rising carbon dioxide levels are improving crop and tree growth;No wonder alarmists won’t debate skeptics.
(2) temperature, hurricane, sea ice and other trends contradict climate models and manmade disaster hysteria;
(3) any human influences on the climate are drowned out by the sun, deep ocean circulation patterns and other powerful natural forces.
Earth’s climate and weather will continue changing, because the forces driving them are always in flux. We simply have to adjust to them. But Obama prefers the Lewis Carroll approach to climate and morality.
“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less,” Humpty Dumpty told Alice, “The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things,” Alice replied. No, Humpty responded. “The question is, who is to be master, that’s all.”
We the People must not let Obama and Company be our master. Congress can and should refuse to ratify any climate treaty. It can and should defund these totalitarian initiatives.
The next president can and should review and revoke every one. States can and should challenge them in court and refuse to knuckle under.
_____________________________________________
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death, coauthor of Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine, and honored as a bonafide manmade climate disaster denier by Inside Climate News, though the blog could not manage to get his name right. (“David Paul”???)
______________________________________________
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Solar power propaganda vs the real world
From the Files of Marita K. Noon at Energy Makes America Great, Inc.
When a former “senior communications official at the White House” writes a blog post for U.S. News and World Report, you should be able to trust it. But when the author states that the Keystone pipeline (should it be approved) would create only 19 weeks of temporary jobs, everything else he says must be suspect—including the claim that our “energy infrastructure will be 100 percent solar by 2030.”
I contacted both a union representative and one from TransCanada—the company behind the Keystone pipeline. Each affirmed that the 19-week timeframe was total fantasy. The portion of the Keystone pipeline that remains to be built is 1179 miles long—the vast majority of that within the U.S.—with construction expected to take two years.
TransCanada’s spokesperson Mark Cooper responded to my query: “While some people belittle these jobs as temporary, we know that without temporary construction jobs—and the hard work of the men and women who do them—we wouldn’t have roads, highways, schools or hospitals. We wouldn’t have the Empire State Building, the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Hoover Dam. So, I would say to these detractors: ‘It is OK if you don’t like or support Keystone XL. But let’s stop putting down the very people who have helped build America.’”
The premise of the On the Edge blog post is that we shouldn’t look at Keystone as a jobs creator. Instead, the author claims, the jobs are in “solar energy disruption.” He is frustrated that “GOP leaders almost universally ignore or disdain this emerging energy economy.”
He states: “A third of all new electric generation in 2014 came from solar. A new solar installation or project now occurs somewhere in the U.S.—built by a team of American workers employed in the fastest growing energy sector in the world—every three minutes.”
This may be true but, as you’ll see, it belies several important details. Plenty of cause exists for Republican lawmakers to “disdain” the growth in renewable energy.
If “a third of all new electric generation in 2014 came from solar,” there is reason for it—and it does not include sound economics.
First, efficient and effective base-load, coal-fueled electricity that has provided the bulk of America’s power is being prematurely shut down by regulations prompted by environmental lobbyists and promulgated by the Obama administration. It is virtually impossible to get a new coal-fueled power plant permitted in the U.S.
Even natural gas-powered plants, such as the one planned to replace the Salem Harbor coal-fueled plant, meet with resistance from groups such as Grassroots Against Another Salem Plant, which “has pledged to use peaceful civil disobedience to block construction of the gas plant.” And, of course, just try to build a nuclear power plant and all the fear-mongers come out.
What’s left? Renewables, such as wind and solar, receive favorable treatment through a combination of mandates and subsidies. Even industrial wind and solar have their own opposition within the environmental lobby groups because they chop up and fry birds and bats— including protected bald and golden eagles.
The brand new report, Solar Power in the U.S. (SPUS), presents a comprehensive look at the impacts of solar power on the nation’s consumers.
Clearly, without the mandates and subsidies, this “solar energy disruption” would go dark.
We’ve seen companies, such as Solyndra, Abound Solar, and Evergreen Solar, go bankrupt even with millions of dollars in state and federal (taxpayer) assistance. I’ve written extensively on these stories and that of Abengoa—which received the largest federal loan guarantee ($2.8 billion) and has resorted to questionable business practices to keep the doors open (Abengoa is currently under investigation from several federal agencies).
SPUS shows that without the subsidies and mandates these renewable projects can’t survive. For example, in Australia, sales of solar systems “fell as soon as the incentives were cut back.” Since the Australian government announced that it was reconsidering its Renewable Energy Targets, “investments have started to dry up.”
Knowing the importance of the “incentives,” the solar industry has now become a major campaign donor, providing political pressure and money to candidates, who will bring on more mandates, subsidies, and tax credits. Those candidates are generally Democrats, as one of the key differences between the two parties is that Democrats tend to support government involvement. By contrast, Republicans lean toward limited government and the free market.
The GOP doesn’t “disdain” solar, but they know it only survives because of government mandates that require a certain percentage of renewables, and specifically solar, in the energy mix, plus the subsidies and tax credits that make it attractive. Therefore, they can’t get excited about the jobs being created as a result of taxpayers’ involuntary investment, nor higher energy costs. There is a big difference between disdaining solar power and disdaining the government involvement that gives it an unfair advantage in the marketplace.
The blog post compares the “solar energy disruption” to what “occurred when direcTV and Dish started to compete with cable television. More choices emerged and a whole lot of new jobs were created.” However, those jobs were created through private investment and the free market—a fact that, along with solar’s dependence on incentives, he never mentions. Likewise, the jobs supported by building the Keystone pipeline would be through private funding.
The blog’s author touts this claim, from the book Clean Disruption: “Should solar continue on its exponential trajectory, the energy infrastructure will be 100 percent solar by 2030”—15 years from now. Even if state and federal governments were to continue to pour money into solar energy—which, as is pointed out in SPUS, subsidies are already being dialed back on a variety of fronts, there is no currently available solution to solar’s intermittency.
SPUS draws upon the example of Germany, which has led the way globally in solar and other renewables. Over time the high renewable penetration has contributed to residential electricity prices more than doubling. Renewables received favored status, called “priority dispatch,” which means that, when renewable electricity becomes available, the utilities must dispatch it first, thereby changing the merit order for thermal plants.
Now many modern natural gas-fueled plants, as well as coal, couldn’t operate profitably. As a result, many were shut down, while several plants were provided “capacity payments” by the government (a double subsidy) in order to stay online as back-up—which maintains system stability.
In Germany’s push for 80 percent renewable energy by 2050, it has found that despite the high penetration of renewables, given their inherent intermittency, a large amount of redundancy of coal- and natural-gas-fueled electricity (nuclear being decommissioned) is necessary to maintain the reliability of the grid.
As the German experience makes clear, without a major technological breakthrough to store electricity generated through solar systems, “100 percent solar by 2030” is just one more fantasy.
The blog post ends with this: “the GOP congressional leadership ignores these new jobs inside an innovative, disruptive energy sector that is about to sweep across the country it leads—in favor of a vanishingly small number of mythical Keystone ‘jobs’ that may never materialize. It makes you wonder. Why?”
The answers can be found in SPUS, which addresses the policy, regulatory, and consumer protection issues that have manifested themselves through the rapid rise of solar power and deals with many more elements than covered here. It concludes: “Solar is an important part of our energy future, but there must be forethought, taking into account future costs, jobs, energy reliability and the overall energy infrastructure already in place. This technology must come online with the needs of the taxpayer, consumer and ratepayer in mind instead of giving the solar industry priority.”
The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column.
 |
| Ivanpah Solar Plant in California is Asing for a Billion Dollars in Federal Subsidies |
When a former “senior communications official at the White House” writes a blog post for U.S. News and World Report, you should be able to trust it. But when the author states that the Keystone pipeline (should it be approved) would create only 19 weeks of temporary jobs, everything else he says must be suspect—including the claim that our “energy infrastructure will be 100 percent solar by 2030.”
I contacted both a union representative and one from TransCanada—the company behind the Keystone pipeline. Each affirmed that the 19-week timeframe was total fantasy. The portion of the Keystone pipeline that remains to be built is 1179 miles long—the vast majority of that within the U.S.—with construction expected to take two years.
TransCanada’s spokesperson Mark Cooper responded to my query: “While some people belittle these jobs as temporary, we know that without temporary construction jobs—and the hard work of the men and women who do them—we wouldn’t have roads, highways, schools or hospitals. We wouldn’t have the Empire State Building, the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Hoover Dam. So, I would say to these detractors: ‘It is OK if you don’t like or support Keystone XL. But let’s stop putting down the very people who have helped build America.’”
The premise of the On the Edge blog post is that we shouldn’t look at Keystone as a jobs creator. Instead, the author claims, the jobs are in “solar energy disruption.” He is frustrated that “GOP leaders almost universally ignore or disdain this emerging energy economy.”
He states: “A third of all new electric generation in 2014 came from solar. A new solar installation or project now occurs somewhere in the U.S.—built by a team of American workers employed in the fastest growing energy sector in the world—every three minutes.”
This may be true but, as you’ll see, it belies several important details. Plenty of cause exists for Republican lawmakers to “disdain” the growth in renewable energy.
If “a third of all new electric generation in 2014 came from solar,” there is reason for it—and it does not include sound economics.
First, efficient and effective base-load, coal-fueled electricity that has provided the bulk of America’s power is being prematurely shut down by regulations prompted by environmental lobbyists and promulgated by the Obama administration. It is virtually impossible to get a new coal-fueled power plant permitted in the U.S.
Even natural gas-powered plants, such as the one planned to replace the Salem Harbor coal-fueled plant, meet with resistance from groups such as Grassroots Against Another Salem Plant, which “has pledged to use peaceful civil disobedience to block construction of the gas plant.” And, of course, just try to build a nuclear power plant and all the fear-mongers come out.
What’s left? Renewables, such as wind and solar, receive favorable treatment through a combination of mandates and subsidies. Even industrial wind and solar have their own opposition within the environmental lobby groups because they chop up and fry birds and bats— including protected bald and golden eagles.
The brand new report, Solar Power in the U.S. (SPUS), presents a comprehensive look at the impacts of solar power on the nation’s consumers.
Clearly, without the mandates and subsidies, this “solar energy disruption” would go dark.
We’ve seen companies, such as Solyndra, Abound Solar, and Evergreen Solar, go bankrupt even with millions of dollars in state and federal (taxpayer) assistance. I’ve written extensively on these stories and that of Abengoa—which received the largest federal loan guarantee ($2.8 billion) and has resorted to questionable business practices to keep the doors open (Abengoa is currently under investigation from several federal agencies).
SPUS shows that without the subsidies and mandates these renewable projects can’t survive. For example, in Australia, sales of solar systems “fell as soon as the incentives were cut back.” Since the Australian government announced that it was reconsidering its Renewable Energy Targets, “investments have started to dry up.”
Knowing the importance of the “incentives,” the solar industry has now become a major campaign donor, providing political pressure and money to candidates, who will bring on more mandates, subsidies, and tax credits. Those candidates are generally Democrats, as one of the key differences between the two parties is that Democrats tend to support government involvement. By contrast, Republicans lean toward limited government and the free market.
The GOP doesn’t “disdain” solar, but they know it only survives because of government mandates that require a certain percentage of renewables, and specifically solar, in the energy mix, plus the subsidies and tax credits that make it attractive. Therefore, they can’t get excited about the jobs being created as a result of taxpayers’ involuntary investment, nor higher energy costs. There is a big difference between disdaining solar power and disdaining the government involvement that gives it an unfair advantage in the marketplace.
The blog post compares the “solar energy disruption” to what “occurred when direcTV and Dish started to compete with cable television. More choices emerged and a whole lot of new jobs were created.” However, those jobs were created through private investment and the free market—a fact that, along with solar’s dependence on incentives, he never mentions. Likewise, the jobs supported by building the Keystone pipeline would be through private funding.
The blog’s author touts this claim, from the book Clean Disruption: “Should solar continue on its exponential trajectory, the energy infrastructure will be 100 percent solar by 2030”—15 years from now. Even if state and federal governments were to continue to pour money into solar energy—which, as is pointed out in SPUS, subsidies are already being dialed back on a variety of fronts, there is no currently available solution to solar’s intermittency.
SPUS draws upon the example of Germany, which has led the way globally in solar and other renewables. Over time the high renewable penetration has contributed to residential electricity prices more than doubling. Renewables received favored status, called “priority dispatch,” which means that, when renewable electricity becomes available, the utilities must dispatch it first, thereby changing the merit order for thermal plants.
Now many modern natural gas-fueled plants, as well as coal, couldn’t operate profitably. As a result, many were shut down, while several plants were provided “capacity payments” by the government (a double subsidy) in order to stay online as back-up—which maintains system stability.
In Germany’s push for 80 percent renewable energy by 2050, it has found that despite the high penetration of renewables, given their inherent intermittency, a large amount of redundancy of coal- and natural-gas-fueled electricity (nuclear being decommissioned) is necessary to maintain the reliability of the grid.
As the German experience makes clear, without a major technological breakthrough to store electricity generated through solar systems, “100 percent solar by 2030” is just one more fantasy.
The blog post ends with this: “the GOP congressional leadership ignores these new jobs inside an innovative, disruptive energy sector that is about to sweep across the country it leads—in favor of a vanishingly small number of mythical Keystone ‘jobs’ that may never materialize. It makes you wonder. Why?”
The answers can be found in SPUS, which addresses the policy, regulatory, and consumer protection issues that have manifested themselves through the rapid rise of solar power and deals with many more elements than covered here. It concludes: “Solar is an important part of our energy future, but there must be forethought, taking into account future costs, jobs, energy reliability and the overall energy infrastructure already in place. This technology must come online with the needs of the taxpayer, consumer and ratepayer in mind instead of giving the solar industry priority.”
____________________________
The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column.
_____________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Monday, March 9, 2015
Funding an unconstitutional action
From the files of the Colonel Allen B. West website
Ok, gonna keep this one REALLY short. Why was there a debate in Congress about funding for the Department of Homeland Security?
What should not be funded is anything related to President Obama’s executive action on immigration.
President Obama does not possess the enumerated power to make any rules on matters of naturalization. That is clearly stated in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4.
President Obama stated over 22 times that he could not constitutionally take a unilateral action on illegal immigration. A federal judge has ruled that President Obama cannot take the unilateral action by executive order on illegal immigration. So I am asking, what part of not funding an unconstitutional action do we not comprehend?
Cast aside the fact that this is Obama — do we in this Constitutional Republic want to create a precedent that any future executive can just disregard our rule of law and Congress must fund the lawless endeavor?
There is nothing in Article II of the Constitution stating that the president has prosecutorial discretion – that’s a made up mess just to appease an out-of-control executive branch.
So why do we have this debate?
I do not want to see my taxpayer dollars used for something that defies our rule of law. It is unconscionable to me that the Democrat Members of Congress are standing for lawless action and not honoring the oath they took to support and defend the Constitution.
And to think, they want to provide drivers licenses to illegals — which means based on the Motor Voter Law, they can be registered to vote and have a legal picture ID document. The progressive socialist left also wants illegals to get back tax refunds for three years based on Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
I just cannot believe how anyone, with some 92 million Americans dropped from the workforce, can look the American people in the eye and promote this chicanery.
Shame, shame on anyone who is completely disrespecting the voice of the people — then again, President Obama did say he heard the two-thirds of Americans who didn’t vote the day after last year’s midterm election. Maybe the voices he heard were in Spanish?
And if Obama cared so much about keeping illegal immigrant families together with the “dreamers,” then why, when he had control of the House and Senate in his first two years — supermajorities – he didn’t take any action?
This is just more politics and certainly not policy from Obama and the left. They know how to play the game, and with a highly complicit leftist media who will NOT report the truth, they get away with it.
I am sick of hearing liberal progressive media outlets and pundits talk about a GOP government shutdown. I am quickly tiring of a GOP House and Senate majority that cannot get the message right when they’re sitting on the moral high ground.
The GOP Senate needs to do a Harry Reid and end all filibusters, and go to simple majority. Pass a funding bill but not any line item relating to Obama’s unconstitutional executive action.
Send it to Obama and let him tell the American people that their Homeland Security is less important than undermining our sovereignty and disrespecting our rule of law by advancing his illegal advocacy on the behalf of illegal immigration.
Make President Obama prove if he does indeed love America — or prefers the fundamental transformation thereof.
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
 |
| Meet Colonel Allen B. West |
What should not be funded is anything related to President Obama’s executive action on immigration.
President Obama does not possess the enumerated power to make any rules on matters of naturalization. That is clearly stated in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4.
President Obama stated over 22 times that he could not constitutionally take a unilateral action on illegal immigration. A federal judge has ruled that President Obama cannot take the unilateral action by executive order on illegal immigration. So I am asking, what part of not funding an unconstitutional action do we not comprehend?
Cast aside the fact that this is Obama — do we in this Constitutional Republic want to create a precedent that any future executive can just disregard our rule of law and Congress must fund the lawless endeavor?
There is nothing in Article II of the Constitution stating that the president has prosecutorial discretion – that’s a made up mess just to appease an out-of-control executive branch.
So why do we have this debate?
I do not want to see my taxpayer dollars used for something that defies our rule of law. It is unconscionable to me that the Democrat Members of Congress are standing for lawless action and not honoring the oath they took to support and defend the Constitution.
And to think, they want to provide drivers licenses to illegals — which means based on the Motor Voter Law, they can be registered to vote and have a legal picture ID document. The progressive socialist left also wants illegals to get back tax refunds for three years based on Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
I just cannot believe how anyone, with some 92 million Americans dropped from the workforce, can look the American people in the eye and promote this chicanery.
Shame, shame on anyone who is completely disrespecting the voice of the people — then again, President Obama did say he heard the two-thirds of Americans who didn’t vote the day after last year’s midterm election. Maybe the voices he heard were in Spanish?
And if Obama cared so much about keeping illegal immigrant families together with the “dreamers,” then why, when he had control of the House and Senate in his first two years — supermajorities – he didn’t take any action?
This is just more politics and certainly not policy from Obama and the left. They know how to play the game, and with a highly complicit leftist media who will NOT report the truth, they get away with it.
I am sick of hearing liberal progressive media outlets and pundits talk about a GOP government shutdown. I am quickly tiring of a GOP House and Senate majority that cannot get the message right when they’re sitting on the moral high ground.
The GOP Senate needs to do a Harry Reid and end all filibusters, and go to simple majority. Pass a funding bill but not any line item relating to Obama’s unconstitutional executive action.
Send it to Obama and let him tell the American people that their Homeland Security is less important than undermining our sovereignty and disrespecting our rule of law by advancing his illegal advocacy on the behalf of illegal immigration.
Make President Obama prove if he does indeed love America — or prefers the fundamental transformation thereof.
______________________________________________
Friday, March 6, 2015
Whitehouse considers stripping more taxes
An Obama Executive Order Can Yield More Taxes from the files of Colonel Allen B. West
In 2012 I stated that a reelection of President Obama would be the greatest Pavlovian experiment the world has ever known.
In other words this great nation would be rewarding bad behavior and failure and would therefore receive more of same.
And so it was — but it was truly manifested the day after the midterm elections last year when we were told the referendum of the people meant nothing to President Obama because he hears the voices of the two-thirds of Americans who did not vote.
Not long after that, President Obama decided to do that which he had stated he could not — issue an executive order suspending actions against illegal immigration.
Now there are rumblings that President Obama is feeling his oats and has set his sights on yet another tyrannical use of executive action.
As reported by Forbes.com, “In another sign that the gloves have come off for the last 2 years of his term, President Obama suggests he can raise taxes by executive action. That’s the same method he used for his controversial immigration ‘reform.’
The Congressional Budget Office says Mr. Obama’s executive immigration action will increase federal deficits by $8.8 billion over the next ten years. Now, we may see unilateral tax hikes too. The tax gauntlet was tossed down by his White House Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, who said the President was “very interested” in raising taxes through executive action.
Some of the blame goes to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who called upon the President to raise over $100 billion in taxes through IRS executive action. Sen. Sanders dispatched this letter to Mr. Obama’s Treasury Secretary identifying actions the IRS can take without asking Congress.”
Ok, let me explain. In the Constitution (like who reads THAT anymore), the Origination Clause, Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1, states “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
Here we go again with the executive usurpation of Congressional enumerated power. Congress has rolled over on unconstitutional release of GITMO detainees (violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11) and executive action on illegal immigration (violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 4).
But you have to give it to President Obama, because he feels no one will stand in his way — you saw the treatment given to Prime Minister Netanyahu and we know Obama has dispatched campaign operatives to defeat Netanyahu in his reelection. So where does this end?
Obama is shrewd enough not to use another violation of our Constitution to raise taxes on the individual Americans — nope, he’s going after corporate taxation.
“Sen. Sanders wants the President to fix “check the box” rules that allow multinational corporations to shield profits from taxation. He also wants to end the tax break for carried interests. But as long as executive action may expand to tax, it is worth asking what else from President Obama’s budget might be considered. For example, of the many tax proposals in his budget, the President wants to increase taxes on retirement savings. ”
“According to Press Secretary Earnest, “the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals. So I am not in a position to talk in any detail at this point, but the President is very interested in this avenue generally.”
Now, this is the same President Obama who talked about economic growth and corporate tax reform — I get it, those were code words. If we really wanted to spur on economic growth in America we should move towards a flat corporate tax.
Instead of what Obama seeks to do in “closing deductions,” we should eliminate the deductions — yes, eliminate ALL corporate tax deductions. But the difference is that Obama wouldn’t do as I would — lower the rate from a global high of 39.6 percent to between 23 and 25 percent. A dynamic scoring analysis could find the best rate.
I would also allow for a one-time tax-free repatriation of the trillions in capital sitting offshore in fear of Obamanomics. There is a reason why corporate inversions exist — corporations must make profits to ensure dividends are paid to investors — that is how business expands, through investment. Better profits, better pay and benefits for workers – that’s what the free market and opportunity economics provides — bonuses and fiscal incentives.
Forbes says Obama also wants to tax retirement savings, but “taxing retirement savings is hard to understand given the fact that we so desperately need private savings. Our Social Security system is going broke, Americans are living longer and living costs keep going up. It almost seems impossible to have too much for retirement.
Nevertheless, Mr. Obama proposes cutting back on allowable retirement savings. The cuts would be big, limiting retirement savings to an amount sufficient to generate $210,000 a year beginning at age 62. This may not be enough money for many retirees, especially in high cost of living cities.”
Ask yourself America, why do we even have a Ways and Means Committee anymore? Heck, why does the Constitution state which branch can originate revenue-raising legislation?
And just an additional tidbit, how many of you know that Obamacare violated the Origination Clause? Yep, when the SCOTUS ruled that Obamacare was constitutional because the individual mandate — albeit not in compliance with the commerce clause — was acceptable under the taxing authority of Congress, Chief Justice Roberts ruled that the individual mandate was a tax.
The problem is revenue-generating legislation must “originate” from the House. Obamacare originated in the Senate, and that is unconstitutional because Obamacare raises revenue. But apparently who cares? It just keeps on happening and emboldening the most constitutionally-corrupt president in U.S. history.
Here are few other little known items that President Obama could do via executive orders — just because he thinks he can.
“The President wants more tax reporting too. Businesses that purchase more than $600 worth of goods or services from a contractor would have to get that contractor’s Taxpayer Identification Number and check it with the IRS. If it doesn’t check out, the business would have to withhold from 15% to 35% of the payment, sending it off to the IRS.
It isn’t an exaggeration to say that it would double or triple the reporting obligations of small businesses. The President wants to deny tax deductions for donations linked to sports tickets. Many colleges and universities rely on event tickets to goose alumni contributions.
Today, if you give to charity and your contribution makes you eligible to buy advance tickets, you can only deduct 80% of your contribution, not 100%. The White House says no part of your donation should be deductible, period.”
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is an admitted socialist — just like New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio. This is how they think. And it seems Obama fully embraces their philosophy of “by any means necessary” to spread the wealth, share the prosperity, advance economic fairness and fair share.
He displays a complete disdain for our rule of law and continues to push the envelope because no one will stand in his way. Heck, we can’t even get House and Senate Republicans to bring up a resolution for censure.
What do you call it when someone believes himself above the rule of law? A tyrannical dictator.
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
|
| Meet Colonel Allen B. West |
In other words this great nation would be rewarding bad behavior and failure and would therefore receive more of same.
And so it was — but it was truly manifested the day after the midterm elections last year when we were told the referendum of the people meant nothing to President Obama because he hears the voices of the two-thirds of Americans who did not vote.
Not long after that, President Obama decided to do that which he had stated he could not — issue an executive order suspending actions against illegal immigration.
Now there are rumblings that President Obama is feeling his oats and has set his sights on yet another tyrannical use of executive action.
As reported by Forbes.com, “In another sign that the gloves have come off for the last 2 years of his term, President Obama suggests he can raise taxes by executive action. That’s the same method he used for his controversial immigration ‘reform.’
The Congressional Budget Office says Mr. Obama’s executive immigration action will increase federal deficits by $8.8 billion over the next ten years. Now, we may see unilateral tax hikes too. The tax gauntlet was tossed down by his White House Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, who said the President was “very interested” in raising taxes through executive action.
Some of the blame goes to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who called upon the President to raise over $100 billion in taxes through IRS executive action. Sen. Sanders dispatched this letter to Mr. Obama’s Treasury Secretary identifying actions the IRS can take without asking Congress.”
Ok, let me explain. In the Constitution (like who reads THAT anymore), the Origination Clause, Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1, states “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
Here we go again with the executive usurpation of Congressional enumerated power. Congress has rolled over on unconstitutional release of GITMO detainees (violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11) and executive action on illegal immigration (violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 4).
But you have to give it to President Obama, because he feels no one will stand in his way — you saw the treatment given to Prime Minister Netanyahu and we know Obama has dispatched campaign operatives to defeat Netanyahu in his reelection. So where does this end?
Obama is shrewd enough not to use another violation of our Constitution to raise taxes on the individual Americans — nope, he’s going after corporate taxation.
“Sen. Sanders wants the President to fix “check the box” rules that allow multinational corporations to shield profits from taxation. He also wants to end the tax break for carried interests. But as long as executive action may expand to tax, it is worth asking what else from President Obama’s budget might be considered. For example, of the many tax proposals in his budget, the President wants to increase taxes on retirement savings. ”
“According to Press Secretary Earnest, “the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals. So I am not in a position to talk in any detail at this point, but the President is very interested in this avenue generally.”
Now, this is the same President Obama who talked about economic growth and corporate tax reform — I get it, those were code words. If we really wanted to spur on economic growth in America we should move towards a flat corporate tax.
Instead of what Obama seeks to do in “closing deductions,” we should eliminate the deductions — yes, eliminate ALL corporate tax deductions. But the difference is that Obama wouldn’t do as I would — lower the rate from a global high of 39.6 percent to between 23 and 25 percent. A dynamic scoring analysis could find the best rate.
I would also allow for a one-time tax-free repatriation of the trillions in capital sitting offshore in fear of Obamanomics. There is a reason why corporate inversions exist — corporations must make profits to ensure dividends are paid to investors — that is how business expands, through investment. Better profits, better pay and benefits for workers – that’s what the free market and opportunity economics provides — bonuses and fiscal incentives.
Forbes says Obama also wants to tax retirement savings, but “taxing retirement savings is hard to understand given the fact that we so desperately need private savings. Our Social Security system is going broke, Americans are living longer and living costs keep going up. It almost seems impossible to have too much for retirement.
Nevertheless, Mr. Obama proposes cutting back on allowable retirement savings. The cuts would be big, limiting retirement savings to an amount sufficient to generate $210,000 a year beginning at age 62. This may not be enough money for many retirees, especially in high cost of living cities.”
Ask yourself America, why do we even have a Ways and Means Committee anymore? Heck, why does the Constitution state which branch can originate revenue-raising legislation?
And just an additional tidbit, how many of you know that Obamacare violated the Origination Clause? Yep, when the SCOTUS ruled that Obamacare was constitutional because the individual mandate — albeit not in compliance with the commerce clause — was acceptable under the taxing authority of Congress, Chief Justice Roberts ruled that the individual mandate was a tax.
The problem is revenue-generating legislation must “originate” from the House. Obamacare originated in the Senate, and that is unconstitutional because Obamacare raises revenue. But apparently who cares? It just keeps on happening and emboldening the most constitutionally-corrupt president in U.S. history.
Here are few other little known items that President Obama could do via executive orders — just because he thinks he can.
“The President wants more tax reporting too. Businesses that purchase more than $600 worth of goods or services from a contractor would have to get that contractor’s Taxpayer Identification Number and check it with the IRS. If it doesn’t check out, the business would have to withhold from 15% to 35% of the payment, sending it off to the IRS.
It isn’t an exaggeration to say that it would double or triple the reporting obligations of small businesses. The President wants to deny tax deductions for donations linked to sports tickets. Many colleges and universities rely on event tickets to goose alumni contributions.
Today, if you give to charity and your contribution makes you eligible to buy advance tickets, you can only deduct 80% of your contribution, not 100%. The White House says no part of your donation should be deductible, period.”
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is an admitted socialist — just like New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio. This is how they think. And it seems Obama fully embraces their philosophy of “by any means necessary” to spread the wealth, share the prosperity, advance economic fairness and fair share.
He displays a complete disdain for our rule of law and continues to push the envelope because no one will stand in his way. Heck, we can’t even get House and Senate Republicans to bring up a resolution for censure.
What do you call it when someone believes himself above the rule of law? A tyrannical dictator.
______________________________________________
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Socialism in U.S. gaining steam
From the files of Colonel Allen B. West
I know there are many times y’all just want hearty red meat and sadly this current government allows me to provide you with a steady helping. However, there are times when I need to clarify a few things in order for you to be better informed citizens — not mindless lemmings and subjects.
The first tenet of a socialist agenda is to nationalize production. What that means is the central government begins to usurp more of the private sector functions of a nation and put it under its control.
Let me start with a pretty scary exercise. Examine the ten planks offered by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the Communist Manifesto and ask yourself — how applicable is this to America today?
Let’s look at the healthcare system — which I admit needed reform — however, one-sixth of our economy is being shifted to government control. Do we truly believe the federal government can provide better insurance coverage and access than the private sector?
Just ask yourself what would happen in the private sector if a website went down for three weeks? Or what would happen if some 800,000 customers received inaccurate tax data?
There is no real accountability in the public sector for failure, and that’s exactly what we see occurring with the Affordable Care Act — actually a tax measure that created 20 new taxes. Sure, there were some key items that needed to be corrected, such as coverage for pre-existing conditions. And if parents wanted to maintain their “children” on their insurance coverage, so be it.
But nearly 160 new agencies and bureaucracies is not the way we fix healthcare in America. Instead we have created an unwieldy behemoth funded by the American taxpayer.
Can there be fair competition between the public and private sector? Hardly, because government doesn’t operate based on profit and loss. When in trouble, it just makes itself more money, by raising taxes.
Never forget, if the government decides it can compete in the market, its funding is borne on the backs of you — regardless of the slick progressive socialist lexicon of “investments” — sadly government investment “spending” has a very low rate of return.
And no, healthcare is not a right. It is a privilege provided through equality of opportunity in this great nation. For those less fortunate, there are safety nets, but they are not meant to be a permanent solution. And for those who believe in Medicaid for all, that is an expansion far beyond its original intentions.
And speaking of government telling you what you have a right to…remember the Community Reinvestment Act of President Jimmy Carter?
That venture, circa 1978 and subsequent government intrusions into the mortgage industry, led to the financial collapse of 2008. Yes, someone decided that mortgage-backed securities were a good investment. Someone decided that separation of commercial and investment banking was not a good decision — therefore government repealed the Glass-Steagall Act.
Today, we now have GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises) that control nearly 90 percent of the mortgages in our America. What happened to small community banks making those home loans? Now, I fully support the VA home loan program.
Why? Because veterans earned that privilege. Yet here again, we see the government nationalizing our free market production and on the backs of the American taxpayer who ended up having to “bail out” those who the government allowed to create the subprime mortgage crisis.
And if you’re not paying attention, percentage rates for down payments are being lowered, in some places from 20 percent to 3 percent. Why, and who will be on the hook all over again — yep, the American taxpayer. This is what happens when we don’t pay attention and allow government to assume expansive control of our production.
There is nothing too big too fail — and that includes government. Dodd-Frank has done nothing but enable further intrusion into the banking industry and resulted in small community banks, the lifeblood for small businesses, to become slowly almost obsolete.
On a related note, another part of the Affordable Care Act was the government usurpation of college student loans. Now American college students no longer have any competitive options for loans — just the government. The government raised college loan interest rates to help fund the expansion into healthcare — remember all those new agencies and bureaucracies?
Healthcare, banking, mortgages, small business loans, college student loans, and more welfare nanny-state dependency — this is what progressive socialist policies bring. It’s not about individual economic freedom but rather collective shared prosperity — meaning shared misery.
It is an ideology that has failed place it has been tried — and it’s certainly not part of the grand experiment promoting the indomitable entrepreneurial spirit that gave us this impressive country in just 238 short years.
And for those who feel America isn’t impressive or exceptional, and requires fundamental transformation, just be honest and tell us if this is what you really want to transform our Republic into. No more slick slogans, just be honest – of course we know that’ll be a challenge because progressive socialism can only advance through lies, deception, coercion and intimidation.
And I close by saying this: the person who can clearly distinguish and explain the difference between American greatness and fundamental transformation will win in 2016. The former advances liberty. The latter uses tyranny to advance collective subjugation.
 |
| Read the West Files Online |
The first tenet of a socialist agenda is to nationalize production. What that means is the central government begins to usurp more of the private sector functions of a nation and put it under its control.
Let me start with a pretty scary exercise. Examine the ten planks offered by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the Communist Manifesto and ask yourself — how applicable is this to America today?
1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.What is happening in our America, an exceptional Constitutional Republic just 238 years old, is a rapid advancement of government-centered economic activity.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.
Let’s look at the healthcare system — which I admit needed reform — however, one-sixth of our economy is being shifted to government control. Do we truly believe the federal government can provide better insurance coverage and access than the private sector?
Just ask yourself what would happen in the private sector if a website went down for three weeks? Or what would happen if some 800,000 customers received inaccurate tax data?
There is no real accountability in the public sector for failure, and that’s exactly what we see occurring with the Affordable Care Act — actually a tax measure that created 20 new taxes. Sure, there were some key items that needed to be corrected, such as coverage for pre-existing conditions. And if parents wanted to maintain their “children” on their insurance coverage, so be it.
But nearly 160 new agencies and bureaucracies is not the way we fix healthcare in America. Instead we have created an unwieldy behemoth funded by the American taxpayer.
Can there be fair competition between the public and private sector? Hardly, because government doesn’t operate based on profit and loss. When in trouble, it just makes itself more money, by raising taxes.
Never forget, if the government decides it can compete in the market, its funding is borne on the backs of you — regardless of the slick progressive socialist lexicon of “investments” — sadly government investment “spending” has a very low rate of return.
And no, healthcare is not a right. It is a privilege provided through equality of opportunity in this great nation. For those less fortunate, there are safety nets, but they are not meant to be a permanent solution. And for those who believe in Medicaid for all, that is an expansion far beyond its original intentions.
And speaking of government telling you what you have a right to…remember the Community Reinvestment Act of President Jimmy Carter?
That venture, circa 1978 and subsequent government intrusions into the mortgage industry, led to the financial collapse of 2008. Yes, someone decided that mortgage-backed securities were a good investment. Someone decided that separation of commercial and investment banking was not a good decision — therefore government repealed the Glass-Steagall Act.
Today, we now have GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises) that control nearly 90 percent of the mortgages in our America. What happened to small community banks making those home loans? Now, I fully support the VA home loan program.
Why? Because veterans earned that privilege. Yet here again, we see the government nationalizing our free market production and on the backs of the American taxpayer who ended up having to “bail out” those who the government allowed to create the subprime mortgage crisis.
And if you’re not paying attention, percentage rates for down payments are being lowered, in some places from 20 percent to 3 percent. Why, and who will be on the hook all over again — yep, the American taxpayer. This is what happens when we don’t pay attention and allow government to assume expansive control of our production.
There is nothing too big too fail — and that includes government. Dodd-Frank has done nothing but enable further intrusion into the banking industry and resulted in small community banks, the lifeblood for small businesses, to become slowly almost obsolete.
On a related note, another part of the Affordable Care Act was the government usurpation of college student loans. Now American college students no longer have any competitive options for loans — just the government. The government raised college loan interest rates to help fund the expansion into healthcare — remember all those new agencies and bureaucracies?
Healthcare, banking, mortgages, small business loans, college student loans, and more welfare nanny-state dependency — this is what progressive socialist policies bring. It’s not about individual economic freedom but rather collective shared prosperity — meaning shared misery.
It is an ideology that has failed place it has been tried — and it’s certainly not part of the grand experiment promoting the indomitable entrepreneurial spirit that gave us this impressive country in just 238 short years.
And for those who feel America isn’t impressive or exceptional, and requires fundamental transformation, just be honest and tell us if this is what you really want to transform our Republic into. No more slick slogans, just be honest – of course we know that’ll be a challenge because progressive socialism can only advance through lies, deception, coercion and intimidation.
And I close by saying this: the person who can clearly distinguish and explain the difference between American greatness and fundamental transformation will win in 2016. The former advances liberty. The latter uses tyranny to advance collective subjugation.
______________________________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
DHS funding: Who runs the Senate?
From the art studios of A.F. (Tony Branco) at Comically Incorrect.com
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
 |
| Get Your Daily Dose of Humor from A.F. (Tony) Branco |
______________________________________________