Fuzzy Math
According to an MIT study, cap and trade could cost the average household more than $3,900 per year.
by John McCormack
04/22/2009 12:00:00 AMIt's just another inconvenient truth: If Americans want any of the government remedies that would supposedly save a planet allegedly imperiled by global warming, it's going to cost them.
Just how much it will cost them has been a point of contention lately. Many congressional Republicans, including members of the GOP leadership, have claimed that the plan to limit carbon emissions through cap and trade would cost the average household more than $3,100 per year. According to an MIT study, between 2015 and 2050 cap and trade would annually raise an average of $366 billion in revenues (divided by 117 million households equals $3,128 per household, the Republicans reckon).
But on March 24, after interviewing one of the MIT professors who conducted the study on which the GOP relied to produce its estimate, the St. Petersburg Times fact-check unit, Politifact, declared the GOP figure of $3,100 per household was a "Pants on Fire" falsehood. The GOP claim is "just wrong," MIT professor John Reilly told Politifact. "It's wrong in so many ways it's hard to begin."
According to Politifact, Reilly's report included an "estimate of the net cost to individuals" that "would be $215.05 per household. A far cry from $3,128."
Running with Politifact's report, bloggers at Think Progress called the GOP's claim a "deliberate lie," a "myth", and an "outright lie". On April 1, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann said that cap and trade's "average additional cost per family six years from now would be 79 bucks, minus the amount foreign gas prices would drop based on decreased demand, and minus lowered health care costs, because of the cleaner atmosphere. Thirty-one bucks, 3,100 bucks, it's all the same to Congressman John the mathlete Boehner, today's worst person in the world." On April 8, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow said of the GOP's figure: "No. Pants on fire. The MIT guy says 'no.' That's not what the study says. Not true. You can't say that." ...more
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Obama's 'Fuzzy Math' cost families more than $3900 yr
Monday, April 27, 2009
Obama and Dems agree to use "budget reconciliation" to ram health-care bill through Congress
http://renocon.blogspot.com/2009/04/healthcare-reform-subsidize-devised-to.html
http://renocon.blogspot.com/2009/03/obamas-big-lie-about-healthcareoverhaul.html
By RenoCon
Ramming a bill through Congress is not in the public interest.By JOHN E. SUNUNU APRIL 27, 2009Late last week President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders agreed to use "budget reconciliation" if necessary to jam a massive health-care bill through Congress.
Most Americans probably greeted this news with the glazed eyes and yawns that should rightfully accompany any discussion of "the federal budget process" longer than 30 seconds. But this decision is a deeply troublesome attempt to circumvent the normal and customary workings of American democracy.
It's a radical departure from congressional precedent, in which budget rules have been designed and used to reduce deficits, not expand the size of government. And it promises bitter divisiveness under an administration that has made repeated promises to reach across the partisan divide.
Reconciliation was established in 1974 as a procedure to make modest adjustments to mandatory spending such as farm programs, student loans and Medicare that were already well established in law. Over the past 35 years, it has been used only 22 times -- and three of those bills were vetoed. There are good reasons it has been used so rarely.
The annual congressional budget resolution is simply an outline of federal spending anticipated for the coming fiscal year. It doesn't appropriate any funds or carry the force of law, and as a practical matter only two parts of the resolution have any meaningful effect on the spending bills and other legislation that move through Congress during the remainder of the year.
First, the resolution sets limits for discretionary spending and allows procedural points of order to be raised later in the year against spending bills that exceed these caps. Second, the budget resolution may include a "reconciliation" figure. This is, effectively, a dollar amount assigned to a congressional committee, with instructions to produce legislation that decreases projected spending by the specified amount.
The power of a reconciliation bill is this: Senate rules allow only 20 hours of debate and then passage with a simple majority of 51 votes. This represents a lightning strike in the normal deliberative time-frame of the Senate. The historic precedent of open debate, and the requirement of 60 votes to close debate, are completely short-circuited.
Budget reconciliation was never intended to push through dramatic and expansive new programs. It was created as a way to help a reluctant Congress curb spending, reduce deficits, and cut the debt. Moreover, changes made under reconciliation expire after five or 10 years, depending on the budget. This is clearly not the appropriate process for implementing significant new policies.
The threat to use reconciliation to drive through dramatic policy changes such as a national health-care program also destroys any incentive for good-faith negotiations over the details between the Democrats and Republicans. The president's message is clear: He wants to include reconciliation as an option in case he doesn't like the way discussions are going.
Why should anyone negotiate with him in good faith with such a threat hanging over the deliberations? Taking a bipartisan approach means committing to working with the other side, not just offering to talk until things don't go your way.
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton governed effectively by coupling the vision of an outsider with irrepressible self-confidence. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon used the depth of their insider knowledge to coax the Congress into moving their policies forward. Barack Obama brings neither of these traits to the Oval Office. Misusing reconciliation undermines him on two counts: It shows a lack of confidence in his own ability to pass an agenda using the regular legislative order. And it exposes his limited experience with the history, traditions and temperament of the U.S. Congress.
Mr. Sununu was a Republican U.S. senator from New Hampshire from 2003-2009.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Obama's ponzi scheme... 'The Bogus Bank Recovery'
The Bogus Bank Recovery
At its core, the financial crisis is about uncertainty; who's holding what, how much it's worth, when it will blow up.
By Rana Foroohar | NEWSWEEK
Published Apr 25, 2009
From the magazine issue dated May 4, 2009
If you take the headlines at face value, it has been a good month for banks. Wells Fargo announced $3 billion in first-quarter profits, Goldman Sachs racked up $1.8 billion, JPMorgan Chase had $2.1 billion, Bank of America $4.25 billion and even beleaguered Citigroup tallied $1.6 billion in profits. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner validated the good news by declaring that the "vast majority" of the nation's banks are now well capitalized and solvent. Markets rallied. The worst of the financial crisis, it seemed, had passed.
Smart investors know better. At the core, this financial crisis has been driven by uncertainty—about who's holding what, how much it's worth and when it might blow up. A careful look at last week's profit news reveals that there's still plenty of uncertainty lurking on the balance sheets of America's top banks.
First, the most glaring examples: even as Bank of America was chalking up its profits, it was also warning that it faced growing credit losses, due to a decline in credit quality across all of its businesses (the bank's provisions for credit losses rose to $13.4 billion in the first quarter from $8.5 billion in the last quarter of 2008). "Make no doubt about it," said BOA chairman Kenneth Lewis, "credit is bad, and we believe it will get worse before it eventually stabilizes and improves." ...more
Monday, April 6, 2009
Obama and leadership...hmmm
North Korea presents Obama with leadership test
Sun Apr 5, 2009 6:16pm BST
By Caren Bohan
PRAGUE (Reuters) - North Korea's missile launch presented U.S. President Barack Obama with a leadership test on Sunday during a European tour where he hoped to focus on the economy, Afghanistan and nuclear non-proliferation.
Obama, who took office in January, has tried to emphasise a consultative approach to foreign policy during an eight day-trip that began with an economic summit in London and included an open-air speech in Prague where he called for a world free of nuclear weapons. continue...
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Acrylic Missile Defense Shield - TOTUS
If the Power of the Teleprompter doesn't make North Korea stand down, maybe a busload of ACORN activists at Ground Zero can stop a Taepodong-2 ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead. Let's give it a try! source
Friday, April 3, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Healthcare reform = "subsidize ...devised to cover those without health coverage."
Congressman: Medicare Advantage cuts will help fund health reform
Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., says cuts to Medicare Advantage programs are a necessary part of putting together the funding for the massive health care overhaul bill that Congress is intent on passing this year. Pallone says cutting payments to hospitals, insurers and drugmakers will also help offset the $634 billion the plan would cost over 10 years. National Underwriter (free registration) (4/1)