Obama announces $50-billion stimulus plan
Considers closing oil, gas firm tax loopholes to pay for six-year infrastructure plan
Read more on The Globe and Mail
Obama announces $50-billion stimulus plan
Posted on 07 September 2010 by admin
Passing health reform could be a nightmare for Obama
Posted on 30 August 2010 by admin
Barack Obama’s quest for historic health-care legislation has turned into a parody of leadership. We usually associate presidential leadership with the pursuit of goals that, though initially unpopular, serve America’s long-term interests. Obama has reversed this. He’s championing increasingly unpopular legislation that threatens the country’s long-term interests. “This isn’t about me,” he likes to say, “I have great health insurance.” But of course, it is about him: about the legacy he covets as the president who achieved “universal” health insurance. He’ll be disappointed. Even if Congress passes legislation — a good bet — the finished product will fall far short of Obama’s extravagant promises. It will not cover everyone. It will not control costs. It will worsen the budget outlook. It will lead to higher taxes. It will disrupt how, or whether, companies provide insurance for their workers. As the real-life (as opposed to rhetorical) consequences unfold, they will rebut Obama’s claim that he has “solved” the health-care problem. His reputation will suffer.
It already has. Despite Obama’s eloquence and command of the airwaves, public suspicions are rising. In April, 57 percent of Americans approved of his “handling of health care” and 29 percent disapproved, reports the Post-ABC News poll; in the latest survey, 44 percent approved and 53 percent disapproved. About half worried that their care would deteriorate and that health costs would rise.
These fears are well-grounded. The various health-care proposals represent atrocious legislation. To be sure, they would provide insurance to 30 million or more Americans by 2019. People would enjoy more security. But even these gains must be qualified. Some of the newly insured will get healthier, but how many and by how much is unclear. The uninsured now receive 50 to 70 percent as much care as the insured. The administration argues that today’s system has massive waste. If so, greater participation in the waste by the newly insured may not make them much better off.
The remaining uninsured may also exceed estimates. Under the Senate bill, they would total 24 million in 2019, reckons Richard Foster, chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. But a wild card is immigration. From 1999 to 2008, about 60 percent of the increase in the uninsured occurred among Hispanics. That was related to immigrants and their children (many American-born). Most illegal immigrants aren’t covered by Obama’s proposal. If we don’t curb immigration of the poor and unskilled — people who can’t afford insurance — Obama’s program will be less effective and more expensive than estimated. Hardly anyone mentions immigrants’ impact, because it seems insensitive.
Meanwhile, the health-care proposals would impose substantial costs. Remember: The country already faces huge increases in federal spending and taxes or deficits because an aging population will receive more Social Security and Medicare. Projections the Congressional Budget Office made in 2007 suggested that federal spending might rise almost 50 percent by 2030 as a share of the economy (gross domestic product). Since that estimate, the recession and massive deficits have further bloated the national debt.
Obama’s plan might add almost an additional $1 trillion in spending over a decade — and more later. Even if this is fully covered, as Obama contends, by higher taxes and cuts in Medicare reimbursements, this revenue could have been used to cut the existing deficits. But the odds are that the new spending isn’t fully covered, because Congress might reverse some Medicare reductions before they take effect. Projected savings seem “unrealistic,” says Foster. Similarly, the legislation creates a voluntary long-term care insurance program that’s supposedly paid by private premiums. Foster suspects it’s “unsustainable,” suggesting a need for big federal subsidies.
Obama’s overhaul would also change how private firms insure workers. Perhaps 18 million workers could lose coverage and 16 million gain it, as companies adapt to new regulations and subsidies, estimates the Lewin Group, a consulting firm. Private insurers argue that premiums in the individual and small-group markets, where many workers would end up, might rise an extra 25 to 50 percent over a decade. The administration and the CBO disagree. The dispute underlines the bills’ immense uncertainties. As for cost control, even generous estimates have health spending growing faster than the economy. Changing that is the first imperative of sensible policy.
So Obama’s plan amounts to this: partial coverage of the uninsured; modest improvements (possibly) in their health; sizable budgetary costs worsening a bleak outlook; significant, unpredictable changes in insurance markets; weak spending control. This is a bad bargain. Health benefits are overstated, long-term economic costs understated. The country would be the worse for this legislation’s passage. What it’s become is an exercise in political symbolism: Obama’s self-indulgent crusade to seize the liberal holy grail of “universal coverage.” What it’s not is leadership.
Quoting & Saving just got easier…Easy To Insure ME Health Insurance Quotes… Quote all carriers in seconds
The Ultimate Media and Cartoon Creation ? Barack Obama
Posted on 27 August 2010 by admin
Shrek would make a good President. He has green skin – uber cool color. He has never had a job. He loves animals. He has big ears. He talks in halting stultified and often times irrational rhythms. He believes in sharing wealth. He has a thing for fat chicks. Why not Shrek for 2012 ? If Barack Obama who is a media created cartoonish politician can seize power why not the real thing ? After all Shrek is green and when the fetish with Black skin as carried by the new Messiah evaporates, the eco-cult, the socialists and other cult members can smoothly move over from the Obama cult to the Shrek cult. It is perfectly sensible.
No one knows what Shrek believes – but it can’t be any worse than what the Black Jesus has espoused over 12 years in politics. Obama believes in 4 core issues consistent in his voting and political record:
1.government ownership of much of production and equalisation of profits;
2.a redistribution of income to create equality amongst ‘classes’;
3.a reduced US military and more subservience to international institutions and
4.an ambivalence towards life with the most extreme pro-abortion record in recent US senate history. The support of death over life says alot about both the man and his inner beliefs.
Obama is also the first man in history to hold the highest office in the world without ever having a job. Like Shrek, Obama has never worked in what constitutes the reality of life. No private sector concerns; payroll; adhering to idiotic government rules and over-taxation; competition; the pain of being innovative; or business process rationalisation has ever troubled the new Dear Leader Barack. No need for uncertainty, a respect for individuality, a comprehension of complex market and capital forces or an understanding of management skills and planning has ever bothered the knitted brow of the Great Messiah.
A Harvard trained lawyer; a community organiser who organised his own political ambitions on the backs of others; a crony-politician of the corrupt Chicago-Democratic party; a man who sat in a racist church for 25 years smiling; the new Dear Leader has led a life of Pauline beatitude – inured to such bothersome things as competition, failure, and the heavy hand of the state. Like Shrek the new Messiah exists in a fantasy world – one in which his greatness should be obvious and respected.
Obama is also the first US president elected on skin color. If skin is in, why the heck not Shrek? The reality of the Obama vote is this – he won 80% or more of votes amongst the following:
-the brainwashed, globaloneywarming cult of 18-25 year olds, who don’t like their country too much and who are taught in school that the ills of the world are the fault of the White Devil
-minorities with 98% of Blacks voting for Obama [but that is not racist you understand]
-the poor and those on welfare
-union workers
-the media, whose adulation makes a mockery of the 4th estate
-Silicon Valley and Wall Street
-the uber-rich with their champagne socialism
-Catholics and Jews [many of these groups are far left giving lie to the idea that all Christians vote 'right wing' whatever that term means]
-those who want a very liberal judiciary and constitutional reform to enhance the power of left wing courts
These are hardly the groups that you want running a country. They are a sad collection of leftist state-lovers; opportunists looking for welfare, handouts, corporate bailouts, subsidies, rich hypocrites, or those who want to buy off regulatory agenices. Many are anti-American; peace at all costs nihilists; or outright racists preaching anti-White and indeed anti-American vitriol.
Quite a large minority could be termed secular fascists with the true elements of that word which comprises intolerance, thought-control; and a viral dislike of the modern world. Radical Gay and Lesbo organisations attacking Churches recently come to mind, as does talk of the ‘fairness’ doctrine in media with many Democrats and Obama-lovers musing about shutting down ‘right wing’ and conservative media outlets.
There is no ‘hope and change’ in such a collection of interests. There will not be a ‘reform’ of Washington inside such a coalition of negative dead-enders – those who hate capital, markets, White ‘domination’, the US, or those who display a cultish inability to think, rationalise and listen. As for solving the economic crisis Obama has rehired the entire Clinton team. This is interesting. Did people vote for change to change back to the Clinton years ? Isn’t that what Obama opposed in 2 years of campaigning and ‘Yes we can’ innuendo ? How is hiring very old White guys who need hearing aids and drool when they speak, an affirmation of radical cleansing and renewal ?
Yes the Obama cartoon show is a very interesting display of manipulation, lies, deceit and platitudes parading as policy. Maybe he will reinvent himself as a practical leader, who though never holding a real job, is able to lead the most complex organisation on the planet and perhaps he will reform the economy, win foreign wars, and re-establish American primacy. Maybe. Then again maybe Shrek will make a good President in 2012. After all, green is the new uber-cool – apart from the Black Messiah’s skin color of course. Blessed be the Messiah. All hail the Shrek.
Log on to Craig read for more about eco-cults.
Don’t Call Obama a Socialist; He’s a Corporatist
Posted on 26 August 2010 by admin
www.RonPaul.com – 04 Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization. This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility toward the truly free market. But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that much like the previous administration he is very much a corporatist. This, in many ways, can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist. Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design policies that give those interests a monopoly position to the detriment of competitors and consumers. A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the healthcare bill that recently passed has not established a Canadian-style government-run single-payer healthcare system. Instead it relies on mandates, forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low income Americans and government run healthcare …
Obama talks recession in Clintonville backyard
Posted on 21 August 2010 by admin
Obama talks recession in Clintonville backyard
President Barack Obama visited Columbus on Wednesday for the second time in as many months, this time in a more informal setting. In an open forum for one local family and more than 30 neighbors in the family’s backyard, the president touched on issuessuch as the economy and health care.
Read more on The Lantern
Jimmy Carter: Racism fuels hatred of Barack Obama
Posted on 18 August 2010 by admin
timesofearth.com – The former US president Jimmy Carter has condemned as “dastardly” and “based on racism” a southern Republican’s outburst during Barack Obama ’s big healthcare speech to Congress last week. ATLANTA — Former US President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday “intensely demonstrated animosity” toward President Barack Obama is fueled by racism. “That racism inclination still exists. And I think it’s bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country,” Carter said in an interview with NBC’s Brian Williams. “It’s an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply.” Carter, the first president from the Deep South since the Civil War, made the remarks in Atlanta. “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man,” Carter said. In an apparent reference to the outburst by US Rep. Joe Wilson, RS.C., during Obama’s speech to Congress on healthcare, Carter predicted the president will “triumph over the racist attitude that is the basis for the negative environment that we see so vividly demonstrated in public affairs in recent days.” Carter, a Democrat who was president from 1977 to 1981, intervened in the row during a town hall meeting at his presidential centre in Atlanta, Georgia, suggesting Wilson’s comment was an …
?the Year of the Youth Vote?: Mccain and Obama Work to Attract Young Voters
Posted on 03 August 2010 by admin
Student Voters Look to Candidates for Answers to Crisis in Student Loans and College Affordability
With problems growing in the student loan industry, spurred both by an ongoing credit crunch with its roots in the subprime mortgage crisis and by congressional legislation that cut subsidies to lenders of federal student loans, the affordability of a higher education has remained at the forefront of young Americans’ minds this election year.
Increases in college tuition continue to outstrip the rate of inflation. Families, hurt by mounting unemployment and high gas and food prices, are applying for federal grants and student loans in record numbers.
Lenders, crippled by troubles in the nation’s credit markets and by a lack of subsidies that have made federal college loans largely unprofitable, are dropping out of the federal student loan business and tightening credit criteria on their non-federal private student loans or abandoning these credit-based private loans altogether — leaving thousands of families scrambling to find a source for their federal and private student loans.
Students needing private student loans to supplement the federal college loans they have been able to get can’t find co-signers with credit scores high enough to satisfy lenders’ increasingly stringent credit criteria. And parents, who historically have been able to borrow against the value of their house or draw on their investments to provide the additional financing their college children may have needed, have watched their stock values and home equity evaporate in the post-subprime housing and financial breakdown.
Making Their Voice Heard — Finally — at the Polls
Against this backdrop of a rocky student loan landscape and a still-distressed economy, Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s proposals to boost college accessibility may prove to be a deciding factor in swaying the emergent youth vote, those ballots being cast by the normally non-voting 18- to 30-year-olds that have already proven to be a powerful force on the road to this year’s electoral showdown.
“Frustrated by feckless Washington, energized by the unscripted, pundit-baffling freedom of a wide-open race, young people are voting in numbers rarely seen since the general election of 1972 — the first in which the voting age was lowered to 18,” wrote David Von Drehle back in January, in his piece, “The Year of the Youth Vote,” for Time magazine.
More than 6.5 million voters under the age of 30 participated in the 2008 presidential primaries and caucuses, making the age group an important demographic for presidential hopefuls Obama and McCain at a time when national polls show the two candidates are statistically tied or separated by only single digits in the race for the White House.
Both candidates are eyeing the votes of this emerging voting population — “an estimated 50 million Twittering, text messaging, iPod-toting young voters” — in the final stretches of this year’s general election, writes The Nation columnist Andy Kroll.
Candidates Speak to Higher Education Issues Affecting Young Voters
In their quest to woo these young voters, the candidates have promoted education platforms that could give them the edge they need among the country’s 16 million college students and their families.
Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, outlines a host of national education proposals that span early childhood education to college; McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, focuses on supporting local education initiatives and expanding virtual learning opportunities.
Both candidates have taken a stand on three issues in particular aimed at promoting college affordability and accessibility:
Federal Pell Grants. McCain encourages incremental increases in federal Pell Grant awards that would better keep up with the rising cost of a college education. Both he and Obama supported the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, which raised the maximum Pell Grant award from $4,050 to $5,400.
Federal student loans. McCain backs the expansion of the Federal Family Education Loan Program, which provides federal subsidies to private lenders that offer government-backed parent and student loans as a third-party provider. Obama wants to eliminate the FFEL program and its subsidies, directing borrowers instead to the government’s Direct Loan Program, in which families take out their federal college loans directly from the Department of Education and which he maintains is less costly for taxpayers than the FFEL program.
Public service programs. McCain supports an expansion of the Teach for America program, which places college graduates in low-income school districts across the country, under an accelerated teacher-certification process. Obama has put forth the idea of an American Opportunity Tax Credit, which would give students a $4,000 tax credit toward a college education at a public college or university in exchange for 100 hours of public service. Obama also calls for an expansion of the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps community service programs.
Obama Leading McCain in the Charge to Win Over Youth Vote
With the general election only two months away, the candidates have little time left to get the word out to students that they care about the issues young Americans are facing. And up to this point, Obama has clearly made more of a direct effort than McCain to specifically target college students and other young adults.
Between Feb. 1 and July 31, Obama held 32 campaign events in college towns; McCain held three. And the McCain campaign has yet to publicly announce an official youth outreach or youth vote campaign director. Obama, on the other hand, has hired former Rock the Vote political director Hans Reimer. Polls show Obama leading McCain among young voters by 20 percent.
“Obama has enjoyed impressive support from young people since entering the race, and the chances of his throngs of voters inexplicably switching their allegiance are about as good as McCain creating his own Second Life avatar,” Kroll writes.
While young Republicans have complained that McCain hasn’t done enough to reach out to the voters of Generation Y, the senator’s young supporters haven’t given up hope.
Justin York, a grassroots youth organizer for McCain in Florida and a junior at the University of Central Florida, points out that Ronald Reagan, nearly McCain’s age in 1984, won the majority of youth voters in his re-election bid and that the first President Bush, at the age of 64, also captured the majority of youth voters just four years later.
If McCain “can chip away at Obama’s commanding lead among those 50 million young voters,” Kroll says, “it could mean the difference between the slimmest of victories or a significant loss.”
Jeff Mictabor is an enthusiast on the topic of student loan issues in the news. He has been writing for the past 10 years for a variety of education publications. He now offers his writing services on a freelance basis.
HEALTHCARE: In Obama we trust
Posted on 22 July 2010 by admin
HEALTHCARE: In Obama we trust
How refreshing to hear a voice of reason and reality about the Bush tax cuts (to the wealthiest) coming to an end. Thank you Chad. The bottom line is we cannot continue entitlements and bailouts while cutting taxes and have a healthy economy.
Read more on Coeur d’Alene Press
OBAMA LIES – About every thing he tells you-Check IT OUT!
Posted on 18 July 2010 by admin
Stop the Cap & Trade vote – NOW in the U.S. Senate. CALL YOUR SENATOR NOW.
Cap and Trade Sold under False Pretenses
Obama’s health care is just misdirection — the administration doesn’t want you to focus on what’s really happening. While everyone is focused on the propaganda charges with ABC — they won’t notice that Cap & Trade has been jammed down our throats. Now, with Governor Sanford’s debacle, you can bet the White House is cheering on yet another distraction taking eyes away from Cap & Trade.
The 1,500-page cap-and-trade climate legislation, also known as Waxman-Markey, passed by a narrow margin late in the day on June 26. Members of Congress added 300 of those pages early in the morning on the day of the vote. It is safe to assume that hardly any of the 435 Members of Congress read the bill in its entirety, meaning one of the costliest bills in American history was rushed through so politicians could enjoy their 4th of July recess.
Cap and trade is nothing more than a massive energy tax, which is why its chief alternative is a carbon tax, and it has been sold under the following false pretenses:
* It will not cost anything;
* It will increase jobs;
* It will increase green investment; and
* It will save the environment.
A Lot More Than a Stamp a Day
A commonly quoted cost estimate of Waxman-Markey comes from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which claims that cap and trade will cost the equivalent of a postage stamp per day–$175 per household in 2020.[1]
But CBO admittedly ignores economic costs such as the decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) as a result of the bill[2] and the fact that consumers and business will change their behavior as a result of higher energy prices. This is a serious oversight that has significant economic consequences.
In The Heritage Foundation’s economic analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation, the GDP loss in 2020 was $161 billion (in 2009 dollars).[3] For a family of four, that translates into $1,870–more than 10 times the size of the $175 CBO claim.Furthermore, the Heritage analysis found that for all years, the average GDP loss was $393 billion, or more than double the 2020 loss. In 2035 (the last year analyzed by Heritage), the inflation-adjusted GDP loss works out to $6,790 per family of four.
Energy-intensive industries will also suffer significant losses. For instance, farming is very energy-intensive, with fuel, chemical, electricity, and fertilizer costs; since cap and trade drives up the cost of energy prices, farmers’ losses will undoubtedly outweigh any money they collect from offsets (the money businesses would pay farmers to reduce carbon emissions by either not farming or using more efficient technologies). The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that farm income (or the amount left over after paying all expenses) is expected to drop $8 billion in 2012, $25 billion in 2024, and over $50 billion in 2035. These are decreases of 28 percent, 60 percent, and 94 percent, respectively. The average net income lost over the 2010-2035 timeline is $23 billion–a 57 percent decrease from the baseline.
It Is a Jobs-Destroying Bill
President Obama and Democratic House leaders claimed that Waxman-Markey is a jobs bill. With the lavish subsidies for green investment placed in the bill, surely companies will hire workers to build solar panels and windmills; however, the number of “green” jobs will pale in comparison to the number of jobs lost due to higher energy prices and slower economic growth.
The goal of cap and trade is to drive up the costs of energy in order for people to use less of it. Because just about every business uses energy to produce goods and must pay their own electricity bills, the cost of production for businesses increases, and consumer demand falls for two reasons:
1. Price hikes on goods reduce demand, and
2. People have less disposable income due to higher energy prices.
Overall, production cuts and reduced consumer spending destroy jobs and slow economic growth, which further increases unemployment.
The Heritage analysis found that over the 2012-2035 timeline, job losses average over 1.1 million. By 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline–without a cap-and-trade bill.[4] Some jobs will be lost completely, while others will move to different countries where the cost of production is cheaper. Again, these losses are on top of “green jobs” created as a result of the bill.
Less Renewable Energy
The final House bill contained many renewable energy investments in an effort to attract votes. The Waxman-Markey proposal even requires that more electricity come from so-called renewable sources, chiefly wind energy but also others like biomass and solar. Ironically, according to an analysis of the bill by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Waxman-Markey would actually result in less renewable energy produced than without the bill because of the overall decline in electricity use.[5]
Green projects do not pay for themselves; it is the taxpayers who fund the research and development of renewable energy and the cost of the subsidies that are required to make renewables competitive. Yet renewable energy still only provides a small fraction of America’s energy needs, and it is more expensive per kilowatt hour than traditional, reliable sources of energy. Consumers lose doubly, paying more as taxpayers and as ratepayers.
It Will Not Save the Planet
The alleged benefit from cap and trade is that the regulations will reduce carbon dioxide emissions enough to slow warming and reduce global temperatures.
According to climatologist Chip Knappenberger, Waxman-Markey would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.[6] Even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson concurred, recently saying, “I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.”[7]
A multilateral approach would not fare much better. In the case of international cooperation, India, China, and the rest of the developing world would have to revert to their 2000 levels of CO2 emissions by 2050. On a per-capita basis, China would backtrack to about one-tenth of what the U.S. emitted in 2000. India and most of the developing world would have to drop to even lower levels. This scenario, in addition to being highly unlikely, would de-develop the developing world.
Moving Forward
Now that the bill has passed the U.S. House of Representatives, it will likely move to the U.S. Senate this fall. It is important to remember that everything policymakers have promised this bill will do will in fact do the opposite. Cap and trade will drive up energy costs for years to come, resulting in economic pain and higher unemployment. All of these points will be equally important, if not more so, in the Senate debate.
Stop the Cap & Trade vote- NOW in the U.S. Senate CALL 1-212-224-3121 or http://www.usa.gov/ Email, Fax , Call State Local Phone Number SEE Gov. Website For Info.
STOP THE SENATE VOTE NOW!
OBAMA’S LIES
Obama and his lying team is telling the people exactly what they want to hear. The people are getting half-truths or down right lies after they tell them what they want to here.
OBAMA LIES – to voters
Posted on 17 July 2010 by admin
OBOAMA’S LIES
Stop the Cap & Trade vote – NOW in the U.S. Senate. CALL YOUR SENATOR NOW.
The 1,500-page cap-and-trade climate legislation, also known as Waxman-Markey, passed by a narrow margin late in the day on June 26. Members of Congress added 300 of those pages early in the morning on the day of the vote. It is safe to assume that hardly any of the 435 Members of Congress read the bill in its entirety, meaning one of the costliest bills in American history was rushed through so politicians could enjoy their 4th of July recess.
Cap and trade is nothing more than a massive energy tax, which is why its chief alternative is a carbon tax, and it has been sold under the following false pretenses:
* It will not cost anything;
* It will increase jobs;
* It will increase green investment; and
* It will save the environment.
A Lot More Than a Stamp a Day
A commonly quoted cost estimate of Waxman-Markey comes from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which claims that cap and trade will cost the equivalent of a postage stamp per day–$175 per household in 2020.[1]
But CBO admittedly ignores economic costs such as the decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) as a result of the bill[2] and the fact that consumers and business will change their behavior as a result of higher energy prices. This is a serious oversight that has significant economic consequences.
In The Heritage Foundation’s economic analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation, the GDP loss in 2020 was $161 billion (in 2009 dollars).[3] For a family of four, that translates into $1,870–more than 10 times the size of the $175 CBO claim.Furthermore, the Heritage analysis found that for all years, the average GDP loss was $393 billion, or more than double the 2020 loss. In 2035 (the last year analyzed by Heritage), the inflation-adjusted GDP loss works out to $6,790 per family of four.
Energy-intensive industries will also suffer significant losses. For instance, farming is very energy-intensive, with fuel, chemical, electricity, and fertilizer costs; since cap and trade drives up the cost of energy prices, farmers’ losses will undoubtedly outweigh any money they collect from offsets (the money businesses would pay farmers to reduce carbon emissions by either not farming or using more efficient technologies). The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that farm income (or the amount left over after paying all expenses) is expected to drop $8 billion in 2012, $25 billion in 2024, and over $50 billion in 2035. These are decreases of 28 percent, 60 percent, and 94 percent, respectively. The average net income lost over the 2010-2035 timeline is $23 billion–a 57 percent decrease from the baseline.
It Is a Jobs-Destroying Bill
President Obama and Democratic House leaders claimed that Waxman-Markey is a jobs bill. With the lavish subsidies for green investment placed in the bill, surely companies will hire workers to build solar panels and windmills; however, the number of “green” jobs will pale in comparison to the number of jobs lost due to higher energy prices and slower economic growth.
The goal of cap and trade is to drive up the costs of energy in order for people to use less of it. Because just about every business uses energy to produce goods and must pay their own electricity bills, the cost of production for businesses increases, and consumer demand falls for two reasons:
1. Price hikes on goods reduce demand, and
2. People have less disposable income due to higher energy prices.
Overall, production cuts and reduced consumer spending destroy jobs and slow economic growth, which further increases unemployment.
The Heritage analysis found that over the 2012-2035 timeline, job losses average over 1.1 million. By 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline–without a cap-and-trade bill.[4] Some jobs will be lost completely, while others will move to different countries where the cost of production is cheaper. Again, these losses are on top of “green jobs” created as a result of the bill.
Less Renewable Energy
The final House bill contained many renewable energy investments in an effort to attract votes. The Waxman-Markey proposal even requires that more electricity come from so-called renewable sources, chiefly wind energy but also others like biomass and solar. Ironically, according to an analysis of the bill by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Waxman-Markey would actually result in less renewable energy produced than without the bill because of the overall decline in electricity use.[5]
Green projects do not pay for themselves; it is the taxpayers who fund the research and development of renewable energy and the cost of the subsidies that are required to make renewables competitive. Yet renewable energy still only provides a small fraction of America’s energy needs, and it is more expensive per kilowatt hour than traditional, reliable sources of energy. Consumers lose doubly, paying more as taxpayers and as ratepayers.
It Will Not Save the Planet
The alleged benefit from cap and trade is that the regulations will reduce carbon dioxide emissions enough to slow warming and reduce global temperatures.
According to climatologist Chip Knappenberger, Waxman-Markey would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.[6] Even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson concurred, recently saying, “I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.”[7]
A multilateral approach would not fare much better. In the case of international cooperation, India, China, and the rest of the developing world would have to revert to their 2000 levels of CO2 emissions by 2050. On a per-capita basis, China would backtrack to about one-tenth of what the U.S. emitted in 2000. India and most of the developing world would have to drop to even lower levels. This scenario, in addition to being highly unlikely, would de-develop the developing world.
Moving Forward
Now that the bill has passed the U.S. House of Representatives, it will likely move to the U.S. Senate this fall. It is important to remember that everything policymakers have promised this bill will do will in fact do the opposite. Cap and trade will drive up energy costs for years to come, resulting in economic pain and higher unemployment. All of these points will be equally important, if not more so, in the Senate debate.
Stop the Cap & Trade vote- NOW in the U.S. Senate CALL 1-212-224-3121 or http://www.usa.gov Email, Fax , Call State Local Phone Number SEE Gov. Website For Info.
STOP THE SENATE VOTE NOW!
http://www.squidoo.com/obamalies
Obama and his lying team are telling the people exactly what they want to hear. The people are getting half-truths or down right lies, after they tell them what they want to hear. Obama and his lying team must be STOPPED NOW.
Obama’s plan to give all U.S. citizens one thing, that is LIFE TIME BONDAGE TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR EVERY PART OF YOUR LIFE WILL BE UNDER CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT, check it out for yourself. Read all the bills that have been passed and sign in to law, go to http://www.usa.gov/. Or http://www.heritage.org/ Read the book of REVELATION in the Holy Bible and looking at 2 Timothy 3:1-5. DO NOT BE A NAIVE PERSON it is time to be a RESPONSIBLE PERSON for yourself, family, other people and the United States and the world. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A VOTER and a citizens of the U.S.A. and the world.
http://www.squidoo.com/obamalies
