County Commission Forum – District 1 Primary Candidates
The Palm Beach County Tea Party, a TAB coalition partner, was a co-sponsor of this event.
If I Wanted America to Fail
Tax Day Tea Party Rocks Wellington
On a bright sunny afternoon in the beautiful Wellington Amphitheatre, an exuberant crowd sat on the astroturf and took in the sounds of LEVEL, and the stirring words of Allen West, Dick Morris, Anita MonCrief and many others.
The Tea Party is alive and well and ready to engage in – as some would say, “.. the most important election of our lifetime…”
The event drew a good size crowd, from tea party and 912 “regulars” to members of the “other side” who lined the back of the field with posters critical of some of the speakers and themes. The protest was peaceful though and even these folks seemed to enjoy themselves.
A lot of local candidates, from Congress down to School Board were in the audience, their teams fanning out to collect hundreds of signed nominating petitions, and most with whom we spoke thought the event was very productive for them.
The speakers covered the bases, some with some new food for thought. MC Brian Mudd from WJNO gave one of the most unusual but highly positive introductions of Congressman Colonel Allen West I have heard, alluding to his national appeal. The Congressman laid out the dangers of another four years of Barack Obama, and assured him (are you listening Mr. President?) that he would most assuredly be voting against the “Buffet Rule” this week.
Anita Montcrief told her tale of finding corruption at the highest levels of ACORN, and then laid out the more current conspiracy between that organization in its new form and the Justice Department to overturn voter ID laws across the country.
Dick Morris, a recent passenger on the Romney train, speculated that Mitt Romney would be one of the best Presidents in history. He asked for a show of hands for “who is more conservative now after 3 years of Obama?” and after seeing an overwhelming yes, tried to convince us that Mitt is too. He also told of the dangers of another Obama term, but suggested that his re-election was definitely not assured.
All in all, a pleasant and stirring day and a good kickoff to the 2012 electoral season.
Some pictures of the event: CLICK HERE to see all the photos at once.
[slide]
TAX DAY TEA PARTY! Congressman Allen West and Dick Morris top the list of speakers.
Print the Flyer:
Join us for a fun, family afternoon of amazing music, picnic food, kids activities, and excellent speakers on Sunday, April 15th from 1:30pm to 5pm. Our guest speakers will include:
- US Congressman Allen West, Florida District 22
- Dick Morris, cable news commentator and political analyst
- Anita MonCrief, ex-liberal and ACORN whistleblower
- Dan Mangru, Fox Business News Mangru Report
- Joyce Kaufman, local talk show radio host on WFTL 850
- Michael Solomon, author and facilitator of the 1st tea party in the US
- Roberto Alonzo (Cuban exile who became a freedom fighter in Venezuela before fleeing to America
- Representative Pat Rooney
- Representative Mark Pafford
- Slade O’Brian, Americans for Prosperity
- Craig Henne, conservative talk radio host
Our master of ceremonies for the afternoon’s festivities will be Brian Mudd, station manager and show host on WJNO AM1290. We are pleased to have Lou Galterio, “The Golden Voice”, sing the National Anthem. Please click here to read more about Lou.
David DiCrescenzo, publisher at The Patriots Press, will give the invocation and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Music will be provided by LeVeL, a West Palm Beach-based band (area code 561) best known for edgy, acoustic rock with elements of classic rock, punk, funk, jazz, acoustic rock, dance music and heavy metal; an amazing sound for all ages. Check it by clicking here and clicking on their sample music videos. A special guest singer will be Brie Goldsobel who will sing original patriotic songs.
The place is the beautiful new Wellington Amphitheater. The address is: 12100 Forest Hill Boulevard, Wellington, FL.
Click here for a description of the facilities. Bring your chairs and blankets and enjoy the beautiful afternoon! And here’s a map:
View Tax Day Tea Party in a larger map
For children, the park includes a large, beautiful, and well equipped playground. Parents and grandparents can accompany their children in the playground and still hear the speakers or the music. We will also provide face painting patriotic tattoos, and build-a-bear activities.
This will be fun for the whole family! Ask your friends early so they can join us as well. The park holds 5000 and there will be plenty of parking. Refreshment will be available for purchase. See the menu.
Last but not least, Amy Hair will provide signing for the deaf and HOH. There will also be a special section for the hearing impaired where they can set up their chairs or blankets and comfortably enjoy all the festivities.
Our thanks to AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY for providing the travel expenses for Anita MonCrief! Americans for Prosperity is an excellent alliance partner!
Freedom Rally shows we have to do a better job of educating!
Several Palm Beach County Tea Party members, along with other like-minded folks, stood on the intersection of Parker Ave and Okeechobee Blvd during rush hour on Wednesday, rallying in support of the First Amendment and Religious Freedom. It was a difficult corner – since the road was very wide in all directions and the vehicles were moving at fairly high speed. As one person put it “we have 20 mph signs in a 50 mph zone’.
The ralliers were enthusiastic and we’ve got some pictures, below. Thanks to all who took the time to come out for our Freedoms! What was clear, however, was that when people were able to read the signs – most didn’t have a clue about the latest incursions on our First Amendment Rights, or anything about the Obamacare regulations related to ‘free’ contraception or it’s impact on Freedom of Religion. Those of us experienced at sign waving from past rallies and demonstrations, could tell by the blank stares of drivers/passengers, and the minimal responses (eg horn-honking, thumbs-up or other less pleasant finger signs) that our topic did not strike any kind of chord with our intended audience.
Our rights are being taken away little by little with barely a whimper. ACT! NOW!
A few pictures of the event:
[slide]
Energy and Climate Realities by Mark Wohlschlegel
In my 40 year career involved in working in the energy business, I can’t recall a time when the facts about energy and climate are so tortured with contradictions, bad math, and just plain lies. And now with the Supreme Court ruling that CO2, one of the lower constituents of “green house” gases should in fact be regulated by the US EPA! That’s right; CO2 constitutes a very small percentage of all greenhouse gases which by the way, are absolutely essential to sustain human life on our planet! How many times have you heard that statement made in the media? Actually, the highest percentage of what constitutes greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is water vapor. Why doesn’t the Supreme Court mandate that the EPA regulate water vapor?
My intentions in writing this article are to try to have an honest factual discussion about energy policy, global warming, and how devastating an impact that a cap and trade regulation would have on America. My goal is to appeal to your common sense with easily verifiable facts—not hype and propaganda.
A little background and facts. Our atmosphere consists of 75% nitrogen, 22% oxygen, 1% argon, and .0001% neon, helium, and krypton. These are constant gases. Variable gases which are greenhouse gases consist of water vapor 4%, and CO2 at .038% plus four other gases that are consider trace in concentration, methane, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and nitrogen oxide. So one can see greenhouse gases represent a very, very small amount of what composes our atmosphere, however, greenhouse gases perform an important and critical function that allows us to sustain life on our planet. Greenhouse gases serve as a blanket over our earth that keeps our planet from cooling. Our planet without the presence of greenhouse gases would on average be 33 degrees F cooler than at present. Greenhouse gases are fundamental to all known forms of life and in fact studies show that the gases are very beneficial for crop production, i.e. sources of food for people on our planet.
Carbon dioxide is NOT a toxin, is not directly harmful to human health, and is not projected to become so even without legislative or regulatory action. If we look at the percentages closer isolating just greenhouse gases, water vapor is the largest component—between 36-72% and when we consider clouds 66-85% and by the way, water vapor, clearly the most significant component of greenhouse gases is NOT affected by humans. CO2 represents from between 9-26% of greenhouse gases—the variations are as a result of photosynthesis, ocean and crop absorption. Methane is between 4-9% and nitrous oxides, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons constitute the balance.
There are few greater challenges facing mankind today than to figure out how we are going to meet the energy needs of a planet that is projected to have 9 billion people living here by the year 2050. The magnitude of this challenge becomes even more daunting when you consider that of the 6.5 billion people on the planet today, more than 1.6 billion don’t even have electricity—that’s a fact—25% of the people living on this earth today do not have electricity—have never flipped on a light switch.
The media long ago along with the politicians declared that CO2 greenhouse gases produced by man are creating a “global emergency” and that we must take immediate action to reduce the man-made concentrations of CO2. Scientists by the way are hugely divided on this debate. Recently, an article appearing in the Wall Street Journal, January 27th edition, opinion section signed by 16 scientists, summarized the situation as follows:
The article states “a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.” This is based on the inconvenient fat that “there is a lack of global warming documentation for well over 10 years.” This was actually substantiated by the “2009 Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth-stating the fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Lastly, the WSJ article states, “The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller than predicted warming over the 22 years since the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change began issuing projections-suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional man made CO2 can cause.” “Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.”
I would encourage you to read this article in the WSJ.
My further research of fact suggests that yes; we have been in a cycle of incremental warming, but not by an unusual and not so alarming amount. Over the past 250 years since the end of the Little Ice Age, CO2 levels in the upper atmosphere have increased by about 280 parts per million to about 380 parts per million today—that’s .00038. What this tells us is that CO2, the gas we all exhale, the gas in a Diet Coke, the gas that plants need to grow—is in fact a trace gas, comprising just four out of every 10,000 molecules in the atmosphere. Allow me to put this into an example that we can all appreciate. Imagine a football stadium with 40,000 people in it. 380 parts per million CO2 is analogous to just 16 people in a stadium of 40,000. Bottom line—CO2 is a vital trace gas—there would be no earth without it.
Contrary to what you hear in the media and through politicians, no one knows how much warming will occur in the future if any at all. That is fact. No one knows or can predict if any warming will occur due to man, or due to nature. When someone tries to convince you otherwise, recall Mark Twain’s advice: respect those who seek the truth, be wary of those who claim to have found it!
The scientist’s computer models, as complex as they are, simply do not accurately predict future warming. If the only variable driving global average temperatures were CO2, man-made CO2, then the math would be simple. Global average temperatures would increase 1 degree over the next 100 years. But the earth’s climate is what engineers and scientists call a non-linear, dynamic system and thus impossible to model. The most sophisticated models depend on man’s multiple inputs which are the “opinions and assumptions” of the modelers. As an example, scientists assume that clouds and water vapor’s (the highest percentage of greenhouse gases) net effect is to cool the earth by reflecting radiant heat from the sun back into space. But it’s an assumption, one that some well-qualified scientists doubt. The point is if you don’t have consensus on how to model clouds, you don’t have consensus on the significance of human CO2 emissions.
There are other inconvenient facts that are seldom communicated to us by the media and politicians. We all know that the sun is by far the biggest driver of the earth’s climate. Over the past 50 years, global-temperatures have shown a higher correlation with solar radiation from the sun than from atmospheric CO2 levels. In fact, data over millions of years shows no cause-effect relationship between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global-average temperatures. The warmest year in the US in the last century was 1934—75 years ago, when human CO2 emissions were far less than they are today. Global-average temperatures have been essentially flat for the past 11 years, despite continued increases in manmade CO2. None of the models predict this reality. Atmospheric CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and somehow the planet has survived. This simply proves one thing—the climate is always changing!
So with the above facts, can anyone explain to me how Congress can for example pass the Waxman-Market bill containing 1,428 pages with a House vote of 219-212 to pass it followed by similar legislation in the Senate sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry?
The fact is W-M is arguably one of the most asinine pieces of legislation passed by our Congress in the century. It is government at its worst. The W-M bill has promulgated over 1,500 new regulations and mandates involving 21 federal agencies. It has essentially engaged our federal government to micromanage energy choices.
Briefly, to translate W-M into common language, the requirement which is now law is to reduce emissions by 83% from a 2005 baseline by 2050! Americans emitted about 5.8 billion tons of CO2 in 2005. Divide 5.8 billion by the US population of roughly 300 million and you get America’s carbon footprint—about 20 tons of CO2 per person in 2005. Under W-M, by 2050, we’d have to cut US CO2 emissions by 83% to just 1 billion tons per year. The Census Bureau projects that by 2050, the US population will reach 430 million people. Divide one billion by 420 million people and you get 2.4 tons per person per year.
When was the last time America’s carbon footprint was as low as 2.4 tons per person per year? The answer is in the 1800’s when Thomas Edison taught us how to use electricity, before cars, trucks, and planes. 2.4 tons is roughly the per-capita carbon footprint of Bangladesh, Cuba, and North Korea. Tell me folks—does this make sense to you? How is this great country going to wean ourselves of fossil fuels in just four decades? It is simply impossible to get there from here.
The reality is that government through their deliberate actions and complete disregard for “facts” is completely incapable of reconciling our prosperity and our way of life with our environmental ideals which are based on fiction—not facts. Who of us is willing to make this sacrifice? We all aspire to our way of life, and to an improvement of our way of life. We like our computers, our flat screen TV’s, our air conditioning, our plastic things and clothes—all of these depend on abundant, affordable, and growing supplies of energy. And guess what, as stated above, we share this planet with 6.2 billion other people who all want the same things!
The U.S’s energy demand has been growing by about 1% per year, driven by prosperity and population growth. But while our way of life is directly affected by increasing amounts of energy, we are “crazy” when it comes to the things that energy companies must do to deliver the energy the makes modern life possible. We want energy security—we don’t like being dependent on foreign oil. But we don’t like drilling in the US million of acres of onshore lands plus the entire east and west coasts of the US. We hate paying $4.00/gallon for gasoline—but not as much as we hate the refineries that turn crude oil into gasoline. We have not built a refinery in this country for over 30 years. We expect the lights to come on when we turn them on, but we don’t like coal which produces 50% of our electricity today very efficiently with our own abundant in the ground resources. We don’t like and will not expand nuclear energy (100 plants) which produces 20% of our energy and is clean. Hydro power is also clean and inexpensive and renewable but it has been black listed—dams hurt fish.
We don’t want pollution of any kind, in any amount, but we also refuse to ask and answer the question, “How much are we willing to pay for environmental perfection?”
Reduction of CO2 and the commensurate value of doing so based on the above discussion is a real questionable objective. But let’s say just for argument sake, that there is a solid correlation between the production of man-made CO2 and climate change. There are some significant facts that we must consider in proposing a “solution” to reduce future levels.
1) Worldwide demand for energy will grow by 30-50% over the next few decades. Simply put, America and the world will need all the energy that the markets can deliver.
2) There are no near-term alternatives to oil, natural gas, and coal. Folks may not like to hear this but this is fact. Not only is there no alternatives now, but their frankly are no alternatives for decades to follow. Projections by IEA on World Energy Outlook forecasts that fossil fuels will supply about 80% of the world’s energy demand in 2030—which is roughly the same as today. Someday at least part of this need can be supplied by renewable but that is still a long way off. This is not about who is in the White House, or who is in Congress, or who is in power positions in other OECD countries. It’s about thermodynamics and economics.
Renewables such as wind and solar are NOT alternatives to fossil fuels, at best they are and will always be only supplements. Taken together, in spite of huge government subsidies over the past decade in the US, wind and solar are still less than 1% of the generation in the US. The reason for arguing supplements is very simple. Electricity in bulk cannot be stored—it must be produced when consumers use it. With wind and solar, that translates into the fact that when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, these technologies cannot produce electricity—and therefore they must have fossil fuel or nuclear backups. There is a metric in the power industry called capacity factor. Capacity factor simply stated is the ratio of the availability of a generator to produce electricity when it is needed. For wind and solar, at best this ratio is 30%. Translated, this means that 70% of the time, when you need electricity to be produced by a solar plant or a wind plant, it will not be available! So our politicians who continue to subsidize and make statements like we will eventually get to a solar and wind generation based asset in our country are either stupid, or grossly gullible, or they are lying to us.
Why are the subsidies for wind and solar power materially failed? The answer to that question has nothing to do with politicians or environmentalists, but is has everything to do with the laws of thermodynamics. Turning diffused sources of energy such as photons in sunlight or the kinetic energy in wind requires massive investment to concentrate that energy into a form that’s usable on any meaningful scale. The technologies will never compete with conventional sources of power generation—just can’t happen based on facts.
It is impossible to safely or reliably operate the power grid with more than just a few percentage of electricity coming from intermittent sources like wind and solar. Until there is a major breakthrough in high-density electricity bulk storage (and it has been worked on for more than 100 years)—wind and solar cannot be relied upon for base-load power.
Besides thermodynamics, there is a second and large factor which makes these technologies impractical—economics. The US has invested trillions of dollars in electricity infrastructure over the past 150 years. Changing these systems based on a renewable energy will require massive new investment for many, many decades.
In summary, please understand that solar and wind will never be alternatives for fossil and nuclear plants—at best supplements and most likely for a long time—very small supplements.
3) Cap and trade has not been recently discussed but rest assured, it is on the hearts and minds of the EPA and environmental groups. It is a disaster as has been clearly demonstrated in Europe. It will drive the cost of electricity painfully higher which by the way is the whole objective of a cap and trade strategy—to drive up the cost of fossil energy so that otherwise uneconomical alternatives can compete because they cannot compete on a level playing field. The price tag for cap and trade to US consumers and industry will be in the trillions of dollars. This is not a strategy to re-tool our manufacturing and create jobs! Furthermore, higher electricity costs will hurt low-income Americans very hard.
What we as citizens must demand of our administration and Congressman is how much future warming will be avoided for all of this sacrifice? The answer to this question is probably none.
This brings me to the next topic. Global warming is not a US problem presuming it is happening, it is a world problem. A pound of CO2 emissions in Houston is the same as a pound of emissions in Beijing. What this says, is that even if the US severely reduces its CO2, unless you have 100% participation throughout the world, it simply will do no good. China today for example, is commercializing one large coal fired power plant each week! In the US, we essentially have stopped all new coal power plant additions as they are virtually impossible to get permitted. India is right behind China in building out new coal fired power plants. Our own government’s forecasts show that by 2050, 70% of global manmade CO2 emissions will be coming from China, India, and non-OECD countries (developing countries). Our Congressman cannot (or maybe they are) so naive to believe if we jump off the cliff, that the rest of the world will do the same. China and India will not—it has been publicly stated by their politicians. There is no way these countries will sacrifice economic growth in a futile attempt to sever the link between prosperity and fossil fuels.
So what are we to do? Perhaps we should consider given the sketchy scientific facts, an alternative strategy. Let’s call it adaptation. Even if we believe there is some very small incremental warming of the planet (and many of your older folks remember in the late sixties and early seventies that pundits were arguing that the planet was cooling and that we were going into an ice age), maybe we should adapt to this small warming. Many scientists believe that added CO2 in the atmosphere may be good for the planet because CO2 helps plants grow. How many times have you heard this opinion in the media or from a politician? There also is a theory touted by some scientists that we are about to go into a global cooling cycle!
There are some that say we are not sure of the facts but we should take heed and employ a precautionary principle. There are at least three major problems with employing this strategy.
1) No one in our daily lives live according to the precautionary principle. Example-around the world there are about 1.2 million people who die each year in automobile accidents—about 3,200 deaths a day. If we impose a 5 mph speed reduction, we could reduce a substantial percentage of these fatalities. How many of us are willing to do that? Answer—none. We all accept trade-offs in life and many of us do a cost-benefit analysis and conclude that we will not do without our cars, or we will not drive slower to save a percentage of these fatalities.
2) The politicians and media dwell on the potential harm from global warming but never balance this against the fact that the costs to reduce CO2 will also do substantial harm. We have hunger, poverty, malaria, dirty water, and many other social problems that kill millions each year. The world has finite wealth. By taking huge amounts of this wealth and investing it in the reduction of CO2 that otherwise could be spent addressing these other problems to save lives should be evaluated and considered. When was the last time you heard a media person ask the EPA or the administration, what if we took the billions of dollars that we are spending in subsidizing renewable technologies and move that instead into bolster our inner cities, or creating jobs—now wouldn’t that be a worthy question to ask?
3) The consequences of regulation that force shifts to inefficient and otherwise uneconomic forms of energy will be slower economic growth. Slower growth, compounded over decades means we leave future generations with less wealth to deal with the effects of global warming whatever they may be. The impact will hit poor and the disadvantages proportionally more. When again have you heard the media or a politician discuss this issue?
In conclusion, let’s look at history. We have learned over the past 30 or more years that energy choices favored by politicians but not confirmed by markets are destined to fail. We must insist that politicians do not substitute their judgments for the markets, and let the markets determine how much energy get used, what types of energy get used, where, how, and by whom energy gets used. The fact is no energy source is perfect, thus only markets can weigh the pros and cons of each source. Government’s role is to set reasonable standards for environmental performance, and allow the markets to work. This is not happening in our current political environment today. We must all look at this situation and elect officials that will truly reverse our craziness.
Keystone XL Pipeline
I was furious today when I heard the president said “No” to the Keystone XL pipeline.
He is saying NO to shortening our transportation pathways for crude oil supplies, NO to getting supplies from a stable and reliable ally, NO to sending a positive economic message, and most of of all NO to shovel -ready jobs!! We will not get the 20,000+ jobs, which could lead up to as many as 100,000 jobs, which has been estimated by this pipeline going through.
Info on the pipeline:
This pipeline has been in the works for many years. TransCanada has most recently been working with the State of Nebraska to ensure the Sandhills would not be disturbed. (They were successfully working to go around any environmental concerns).
June 2010 TransCanada started operations on the first phase of the Pipeline. This first phase had to do with conversion of natural gas to crude oil and construction of a “bullet line” that brings the crude oil non-stop from Canada to market in the U.S. Midwest.
Keystone (Phase II) which was an extension from Steele City, Nebraska to Cushing, Oklahoma became operational February 2011. This 36-inch pipeline connects storage/distribution facilities at Cushing, a major crude oil pipeline hub.
The Keystone GulfCoast Expansion is approx.1,661 miles, pipeline which would start at Hardisty, Alberta and go southeast through Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. It would encompass a portion of Phase II through Nebraska and Kansas for markets at Cushing, Oklahoma continuing through Oklahoma and deliver to terminals in Nederland, Texas to serve the Port Arthur, Texas market.
Former Obama U.S. National Security advisor Gen. Jim Jones said “If we get to the point where we cannot bring ourselves to do what is in our national interest, then we are clearly in a period of decline, in terms of our global leadership and our ability to compete”.
We are going the wrong way people, let’s wake up and fast!!
Federal Government’s Continued Medling in the Private Sector Will Make It Impossible For US Industry to Recover
The oppressiveness of our federal government continues to constrain any real recovery in our economy and until we can get them off the private sectors back, economic stagnation will continue in the US making us more and more non-competitive in both our own markets and overseas markets.
Take the example that I am pointing out in only a single industry and multiply the same kind of behavior across many industries including the power sector, the energy sector, and others. It is no wonder we can’t snap out of this recession that we find ourselves in today.
The airline industry in the US is a significant “driver” of our economic engine. Yet our federal government continues to use the industry and their investors as a piggy bank to fund their outrageous, undisciplined, and out of control spending. The airlines today and we the passengers currently pay 17 different federal aviation taxes and fees which totaled last year $16.5 billion. Federal taxes have increased from 7 percent of the price of a ticket in 1972 to 20 percent in 2011. By the way, this excludes income taxes paid by the airline companies! When is this going to end? Just imagine if you started a business and the federal government took 20% off the top before you saw any money coming into your business operations. Airlines are now taxed higher than the so-called “sin” taxes which are applied to alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.
The airline industry is a significant driving force to the US’s economic activity and employs millions of Americans. They also are involved in creating lots of jobs at hub cities and reaching out to small and medium-sized communities. Why do they deserve to be taxed as they are today? When will it stop?
Guess what, the federal government is not stopping here. Obama administration is now proposing under the American Jobs Act a new $100 per flight tax that would cost $11 billion over the next 10 years. The proposal also seeks increase the passenger security tax from today’s minimum of $2.50 per customer per flight segment to $7.50! This is outrageous—a 3x increase! This proposed increase would cost nearly $25 billion over 10 years. More than half of that would be not to improve security but instead applied to paying down our federal government’s debt. Why should the airline industry be singled out to pay for Washington’s irresponsible spending?
If these major tax increases get put into place, not only will we as consumers be saddled with them but airlines themselves being increasingly squeezed, will be forced to pull out of serving smaller communities. The airlines then will be forced to lay off more employees as it downsizes to eliminate routes and service that become unprofitable. It is a death spiral.
Our airlines also compete against foreign airline companies whose government in many cases have enlightened aviation policies.
Again, just multiply these oppressive government taxes and tariffs across many other industries and it does not take a rocket scientist to understanding how damaging the current federal government is to industry and job creation.
EPA and Obama are Bullies
Please email your Senator in support of Senator. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., bill introduced into the Senate on Nov. 3 that prohibits the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from rejecting a state implementation plan under certain provisions of the Clean Air Act when the state has not been given “reasonable time” to develop the plan.
The bill, S. 1805, comes in response to EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which addresses power plant emissions the agency has identified as crossing state lines. The EPA rule became final in July and requires compliance starting in January 2012, a timeframe many state officials have argued will be nearly impossible to meet. Under the legislation, the compliance deadline for the rule would be
delayed until states have been given at least two years to develop a state regulatory plan.
The fact is that the EPA is crafting new rules left and right with little to no regard for their practicality and negative consequences on our economy, the cost of electricity, and the severe unemployment situation that the US is currently dealing with at this time. Complying with these rules under the current timeline is not feasible and freezing states out of the due process is unprecedented and wrong,” The states in the past have always had a chance to at minimum develop their own rules to try to balance environmental issues and to protect jobs and avoid skyrocketing electricity bills. The proposed legislation trying to move back to the ways the process used to work, not as it is working under the current administration.
States have long been given the power to develop their own regulatory regimes, with federal intervention occurring only under limited circumstances.
EPA and the Obama administration in recent months has taken steps to disregard this process by implementing federal emissions rules on a rushed timeline without giving states adequate time to develop their own plans. Unless action is taken states are faced with meeting new EPA regulations starting in January, which could lead to layoffs, tens of millions of dollars in increased utilities costs and dramatically increased electricity prices for many Americans. S. 1805 requires the EPA to give states at least two years to submit their own regulatory plan and prohibits the agency from implementing a federal plan if states have not been given enough time.
By a vote of 249-169, the House of Representatives on Sept. 23 approved H.R. 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act, which mandates a study of the cumulative impact of several EPA rules, including the cross-state rule, on the economy. The White House threatened to veto the House legislation.
The Obama administration under his leadership either doesn’t appreciate or understand the impact of these onerous EPA mandates or they do and are supporting them with no interest of truly trying to get our country back on the right track but instead are doing it exclusively for political means. I think the latter is the case.
During these difficult times, why is our administration and the EPA pushing accelerated and overly controlling restrictions on our economy when in fact our economy especially now, needs to recover. It simply makes no logical sense. There are reasonable balances and trade offs in all choices that are made—why doesn’t our federal government recognize this—well—you know the answer to that question now don’t you?
Solyndra – a perfect example of “Crony Capitalism”
The events surrounding the bankruptcy of Solyndra, Barack Obama’s favorite solar energy company, should remind us again why the federal government should not play venture capitalist with our money. You’ll recall that Soylyndra was given a loan guarantee of $535 Billion dollars by the administration. It appears to me that this waste of our money was prompted by 2 goals – 1) payback for generous campaign donations, and 2) an obsession with destroying the existing energy industry.
This ‘investment’ would not have been made by anyone with a basic understanding of economics. As recently as early 2010, an audit by Price Waterhouse concluded that Solyndra, which lost over $500M in its first 5 years of operation, “has suffered recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows since inception and has a net stockholders’ deficit that, among other factors, raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.” Despite this, Solyndra’s loan guarantees were fast-tracked, while an established solar company, Evergreen Solar in Massachusetts, was struggling, and in that same year moved to China (along with 800 jobs). Interestingly, Solyndra spent a half million dollars in 2010 lobbying Washington. And, curiously, as part of the deal the taxpayers interests were subordinated to those of George Kaiser, a wealthy billionaire and large contributer to Obama’s campaign. Guess he had his vision of “Hope and Change” fulfilled.
An FBI investigation has begun, but I don’t expect it to go anywhere with the current Justice Department. This is a prime example of the “crony capitalism” that Sarah Palin is always railing about.
