Hope and Change Obama Style

[dude1394]

Here's the hope.

Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added

Here's the change.

The capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat.

"He's from Hawaii, O.K.?" said Mr. Obama's senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. "He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there."

[alexamenos]

change

[92bDad]

alex,

that's funny bit...for two reasons:

First all the Bush bashers are hearing more of the same from Obama...

Second all us Bush supporters are hearing more fo the same from Obama...

How can they support and how can we criticize...

Funny stuff!!!

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

First all the Bush bashers are hearing more of the same from Obama...

Second all us Bush supporters are hearing more fo the same from Obama...

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

(humanity has been making this same mistake for the past 10,000 years, yet we still wonder why the same old problems never get fixed...)

[dude1394]

More hope and change.

Tom Daschle has joined Timothy Geithner in the not-so-exclusive club of Obama Cabinet appointees who evaded tens of thousands of dollars in federal taxes until they were vetted for their Cabinet nominations.

So if lawmakers were put in jail for this crap, we'd get a better tax code.

[12 Tone Melodies]

Thanks Obama supporters for all you do to help save the environment:
http://news.newsmax.com/?mKOvaTpu7d-...nSDXHkQrkxJR1m
Obama Inauguration Sets Record for Private Jets
Recession? What recession?
The inauguration of Barack Obama set an all-time record for the number of pricey private jets flying into the Washington area for the festivities.
At Washington Dulles airport, up to 600 private jets landed in the days leading up to the inauguration.
That number shatters the old record of 300 private planes that the airport accommodated for President George W. Bush’s second inaugural in 2004, Bloomberg reported.
“Of course, flying private to a celebration of a populist, pro-environment president is a bit like the Detroit execs jetting to Washington for bailout money,” Robert Frank observed in the Wall Street Journal.
“How do you call for social responsibility after touching down in a $40 million, gas-guzzling Gulfstream?”
Obama’s inauguration was the most expensive in history. ABC News estimated the cost at upwards of $170 million, four times what Bush’s inauguration cost four years ago.

[92bDad]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.p...rnia#continueA

Here's the article for those who don't want to click on the link...some great figures and facts that are rather alarming, this is the example that Obama is following.

__________________________________________________ ________________________

Obama May Not Realize It, But California Is A Dependant Neighbor
by Max Schulz

01/12/2009 Print This
Forward
Feedback
Digg This!
Subscribe
Sponsored By:

President-elect Obama wants to base his greening of America on the great policies that California has followed for years. The global warming crowd embraces that idea, but skepticism is much more in order.

California’s model is broken: the state is bankrupt and so are its ideas on “green” economics.

At a mid-December press conference, President-elect Obama said, “Consistently, California has hit the bar and then the rest of the country has followed,” referring to the Golden State’s approach to green issues. “And rather than it being an impediment to economic growth, it has helped to become an engine of economic growth.” Continued
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored Links:
Free Book arms you with powerful answers to liberal lies
Ann Coulter: Get Ann's scathing commentary by email every week!
Huge Profits from ETFs in 5 Easy Steps
BRIC Investor Report: Brazil, Russia, India & China stocks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Obama’s remarks naturally drew praise from environmental groups, which have long hailed California as a shining example of growing the economy while protecting the environment. They consistently tout California as a paragon of green awareness and a model that other states -- not to mention policymakers in Washington, D.C. -- should follow. The Natural Resources Defense Council, for instance, paid tribute to California’s four decades of environmental consciousness with a 2006 cover story in its magazine OnEarth entitled, “California Illuminates the World.”

Of course, anyone who recalls the California electricity crisis of 2000-2001 will recognize that title as a fantasy, since California proved painfully incapable of illuminating itself. Yet the incoming president seems to buy into environmentalist delusions about California that could have disastrous consequences for America’s energy future and economic security.

California’s vaunted reputation as an environmental and economic leader hinges on two misleading facts. The first is the state’s seemingly dynamic economy. With a gross state product of more than $1.6 trillion, California’s is arguably the eighth-largest economy on the planet. The second is the fact that since the mid-1970s, the state’s economy has grown while per-capita energy consumption stayed flat. Given that such consumption has increased by roughly 50 percent elsewhere in the country over the same period, such a statistic seems particularly impressive.

But California’s environmental leadership is a mirage. Under the mantle of environmental consciousness, California operates a free-rider energy economy that relies on other states for the goods and services it refuses to produce at home. Green activists and left-wing politicians have helped spread the California smokescreen; they fail to see the folly of policies that require the rest of the country to be as unlike California as possible.

Take energy production. California imports lots of energy from neighboring states to make up for the shortfall caused by having too few power plants. Up to 20 percent of the state’s power comes from coal-burning plants in Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, and Montana, and another significant portion comes from large-scale hydropower in Oregon, Washington State, and the Hoover Dam near Las Vegas. This energy colonialism -- relying on other states to supply California with power generation that its policymakers have proved unwilling to build for themselves -- is one of the state’s dirty secrets. California gets not just the power it needs but the smug self-satisfaction of having no coal plants located within its borders. Other states get the emissions, the pollution, and other hassles of large-scale energy production.

The truth behind California’s specious claim to be an energy-efficiency leader is another well-kept secret. The state has kept per-capita energy consumption flat while growing its economy partly because the mild climate in population centers like San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco minimizes heating and cooling costs. No other state is similarly blessed with geography and climate. More significantly, California’s regulations have produced some of the highest, business-crippling energy prices in the country, driving out heavy manufacturing and other energy-intensive industries. Two decades ago, the state boasted eight automobile factories. Today, that’s down to one. It’s the same story with other industries, from chemicals to aerospace.

Yet Californians still enjoy the fruits of those manufacturing industries -- driving cars built in the Midwest and the South, importing chemicals and resins and paints and plastics produced elsewhere, and flying on jumbo jets manufactured in places like Everett, Washington. California can pretend to have energy consumption under control, but it has only displaced it.

The best exhibit of how California’s energy smokescreen works in the real world is Google. Silicon Valley is the face of California’s 21st century information technology economy; industry leader Google is the IT poster boy. Yet Google must locate its new energy-hungry server farms -- the actual engines of its growth -- anywhere but California, which is too expensive for anything but the company’s headquarters. Despite the company’s own preening eco-awareness, when it comes to dollars and cents Google recognizes that economic growth is incompatible with the anti-energy and overly regulatory approach California has enforced for decades.

It’s not just high costs. California’s energy economy is marked by the unreliability of its power supply. In 2001, Intel’s CEO vowed not to open any new chip-making facilities in the state until it could guarantee reliable supplies of electricity. It still can’t, and each summer Californians are warned about possible rolling blackouts. Intel, meanwhile, recently opened a $3 billion microprocessor factory near Phoenix.

The mess California has made of its energy affairs provides no model anyone should follow. Given how the state manages -- or mismanages -- its own money matters, that’s hardly a surprise. “We are running out of cash,” said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently of the state’s fiscal implosion. “We are on track to a disaster.” Schwarzenegger has suggested that a broke California should receive its own federal bailout.

What is a surprise, however, is how anyone could think that Horace Greeley’s admonition to “go west” will provide the answers Washington needs. The president-elect is right in saying there are lots of things we can learn from California. Unfortunately for him, the lessons the Golden State teaches us are exactly what not to do.

__________________________________________________ ______________________

[dude1394]

D'em facts....day do be pains in the arse's.

[Mavdog]

the "facts"?

texas has the highest electric rates in the country, and the hydro power california imports is green.

google does have a server farm in california...and dozens more spread around the country and the world. they do not have two farms in the same state.

intel does have plants in california, the phoenix plant mentioned (actually chandler, intel already had a plant there) was won by az giving a huge amount of incentives to intel. while that's az's right, it has nothing to do with any california green initiatives.

the falacy of the article is it's apparent goal of pitting environmentalism as being directly opposed to economic growth. that simply is not the case. in fact investing in new technologies that are environmentally clean is a prescription for economic growth.

one can have economic growth while also being good stewards of our planet.

[dude1394]

So how much energy does California manufacture?

That's the point of the article, if you can import a large portion of your energy needs, your carbon needs will necessarily go down. Googles server farms are a good example, how much of their energy is created in california, how would their "stewardship" of the planet stack up if they created their energy.

[Mavdog]

california manufactures more energy from renewable resources than all the other states combined.

california generates 5.5% of america's electricity, it consumes 8.5%.

what point are you makling about google? they have a server farm in california. guess what? it costs google less to operate that farm in california than it would here in texas....go figure.

[Murphy3]

So, you're saying Obama is a failure?

[dude1394]

Hmmm.. A long time native and family farmer weighs in...on kalifornia..

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavish...apeutic-style/

Who is the “They” now in California?

Who is the “They” now in California?

How does one explain how California is broke, tens of billions of dollars in aggregate debt, despite having among the highest sales and income taxes in the nation?

We are naturally rich beyond belief—timber, oil, agriculture, a long sea-coast, wonderful weather, mountains, sea, and valleys—and inherited lucrative industries in tourism, computers and software, defense and great universities. Our grandparents left us a once wonderful freeway network, a tripartite higher education system, ports, airports, dams and canals.

So what went wrong, and why are tens of thousands of Californians leaving the state with bachelor degrees and above, while tens of thousands enter without high-school diplomas?

Many answers have been offered—incompetent governance, judicial intrusions, the ballot propositions, trial lawyers, unions, dysfunctional and politically-correct schools, or illegal immigration. But look at it in some sense as the long hoped-for end of the nebulous “them / they.”

For years the open borders lobby accused “them” (whites? The establishment? Conservatives? etc.) of racism in wanting the border with Mexico closed, an end to state entitlements to illegal aliens (remember the Satanic Prop 187?), and deportations of thousands of aliens in state prisons (a cost nearing $1 billion per annum). But now the state legislature is largely controlled by those who in the past argued for de facto open borders and an expansion, not a curtailment, of entitlements for those without legal residence. So whom to blame? There is no “they” anymore. The outsiders are insiders and own the state—and its contradictions they once helped to ensure.

Ditto environmentalism. “They” (fill in the blanks: right-wing employers, CEOs, national companies, etc.) were the villains to be overcome in order to stop drilling off our shores, and to put ever more of our timber and recreational and scenic areas into no-use wilderness areas. We were not to build dams. No more canals. Put aside more farm land. No more nuclear plants. Forget coal. Tax gasoline and make it expensive to refine. It is fair to say now that the environmentalist agenda runs the state, and so there likewise is no more “them” to blame—and we must live with the results. I cannot begin to count in my own personal realm of knowledge the farmers who went broke, the high-tech engineers who moved to Nevada, the small business owners who shut down or moved out of state.

Anyone with capital who wants to start business X, knows that he can be put out of business by one supposed sexual harassment suit, a racial discrimination complaint, trying to fathom 500 pages of state EPA applications, a 10% income tax rate, and now a 9% sales tax to come. In California we hunt out the misdemeanor and ignore the felonies. Drive down my avenue, drop five trash bags of wet garbage on the side of the road, and the chances are great you will never be held accountable (even if your receipts are found in the trash and turned over to the sheriff), but please don’t wire an outdoor light in the barnyard without a permit. You see, anyone who nods and obeys the law and pays, we hound; anyone who simply won’t or can’t, or causes too much trouble, we the state employee simply ignore.

Ditto unions and big government. Ever more high pensions, ever more strict work rules, ever more administrators and high salaries, ever more rules against firing and accountability—and ever fewer to pay for it all. The evil “they” who used to try to moderate unions and state spending are gone—dead, moved away, retired, zilch. And so we the taxpayers work for the unionized government employee rather than vice versa.

So now those who want unchecked entitlements, open immigration, restrictions on resource development, unionized work forces and ever expanded government won—and won big. The problem is, again, the evil “they” who were to pay for all this in ever increased income and sales taxes, to take the blame of being racist, or sexist, or homophobic or greedy, are pretty much gone (cf. the last stand of the 1% of the state that pays the majority of state income taxes). There are no more “greedy” left to pay money or emotional penance, and the therapeutic mindset is now screaming to high heaven as it looks for its awful, but missing mean parent to make it all right.

[alexamenos]

Daschle apologizes for failing to pay taxes

WASHINGTON – Tom Daschle said Monday that he's "deeply embarrassed and disappointed" about his failure to pay more than $120,000 in taxes.

He's embarrassed not because of his naked hypocrisy, but because this hurts his efforts to get something. After watching congress closely for a time, Matt Taibbi (rollin' stones guy) said ...

...there are whores and there are whores, and then there is Tom Daschle. Tom Daschle would suck off a corpse for a cheeseburger.

The level of corruption and naked hypocrisy from these guys is sometimes quite astounding. Savages in suits....

[wmbwinn]

this seems to fit in this thread...


Jesse Jackson's Newest Staff Member is Mel Reynolds


Jesse Jackson has added former Chicago Democrat Congressman Mel Reynolds to Rainbow/PUSH Coalition's payroll. Reynolds was among the 176 criminals excused in President Clinton's last-minute forgiveness spree. Reynolds received a commutation of his six-and-a-half-year federal sentence for 15 convictions of wire fraud, bank fraud, and lies to the Federal Election Commission. He is more notorious, however, for concurrently serving five years for sleeping with an underage campaign volunteer.


This is a first in American politics: An ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate...won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate...then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate!


His new job?


Ready for this??


*****YOUTH COUNSELOR******


Verified on Snopes!!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/reynolds.asp

[dude1394]

Ah...can we call obama chimpy or obamahitler yet? Hope and change baby...Maybe just Hope...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...state_secrets/

Obama Administration Maintains Bush Position on 'Extraordinary Rendition' Lawsuit

The Obama Administration today announced that it would keep the same position as the Bush Administration in the lawsuit Mohamed et al v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.

A source inside of the Ninth U.S. District Court tells ABC News that a representative of the Justice Department stood up to say that its position hasn't changed, that new administration stands behind arguments that previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. The DOJ lawyer said the entire subject matter remains a state secret.

This is not going to please civil libertarians and human rights activists who had hoped the Obama administration would allow the lawsuit to proceed.

The ACLU's Wizner said this:

We are shocked and deeply disappointed that the Justice Department has chosen to continue the Bush administration’s practice of dodging judicial scrutiny of extraordinary rendition and torture. This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course. Now we must hope that the court will assert its independence by rejecting the government’s false claims of state secrets and allowing the victims of torture and rendition their day in court.

[dude1394]

Ah more hope and change...Whew...this makes me feel much better...

http://sev.prnewswire.com/constructi...6022009-1.html

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) today denounced an Executive Order signed by President Obama that repeals Executive Order 13202, that prohibited federal agencies and recipients of federal funding from requiring contractors to sign union-only project labor agreements (PLAs) as a condition of performing work on federal and federally funded construction projects.

"Today's decision to repeal Executive Order 13202 opens the door to waste and discrimination in federal and federally funded construction contracts," said ABC President and CEO Kirk Pickerel. "This action removes the safeguards that prohibited discrimination based upon union affiliation in the awarding of federal contracts.

"Construction contracts subject to union-only PLAs are designed to be awarded exclusively to unionized contractors and their all-union workforces," said Pickerel. "Absent the economic benefits of competitive bidding, union-only PLAs are known to increase construction costs between 10 percent and 20 percent and discriminate against minorities, women and qualified construction workers who have traditionally been excluded from union membership.

"Union-only PLAs drive up costs for American taxpayers while unfairly discriminating against 84 percent of U.S. construction workers who choose not to join a labor union," added Pickerel. "All taxpayers should have the opportunity to compete fairly on any project funded by the federal government."

[12 Tone Melodies]

More change on the way--hope not so much
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aLzfDxfbwhzs
Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey
Commentary by Betsy McCaughey

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

New Penalties

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

More Scrutiny Needed
On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at Betsymross@aol.com

Last Updated: February 9, 2009 00:01 EST

[dude1394]

Everyone can get into the hope and change act...

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/69645/

OUCH:

Well, they are completely different.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by 12 Tone Melodies

More change on the way--hope not so much
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aLzfDxfbwhzs
Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey
Commentary by Betsy McCaughey

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

New Penalties

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

More Scrutiny Needed
On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at Betsymross@aol.com

Last Updated: February 9, 2009 00:01 EST

I sure as hell hope SOMEBODY has the gonads to start basing elderly care on cost benefit analysis. They don't need to eliminate coverage for those things... but they DAMN WELL SHOULD make people and their families pay a higher proportion of cost-ineffective treatments... so that people have to confront decisions on what THEY THINK is cost worthy.

Not to be heartless, but.... the cost of the last couple of years of treatment for individuals is what is killing the system, and it frankly isn't worth it. (I say that having had to watch my father die, because he was no longer a good candidate for a liver transplant--- it is a sucky calculus to have to make, but that doesn't take away the need to make the decisions anyway)

[mcsluggo]

btw... my first daughter cost "the system" several hundred thousand dollars in her first year of life. That is a worthwhile investment, in my opinion.

My mother cost "the system" several hundred K in her last 6 months.... sigh

[dude1394]

Wow...Obama is one staggering dude. He broke records in raising money for his campaign and now he's REALLY breaking records in raising money for his party.

But if you don't agree with him you are waging "war" on theOne. This is going to be one lean couple of decades.

Well some were saying that they'd vote for theOne and then wait to see what he REALLY would do once in the office...here it is..the largest government transfer of power and wealth in history.... Sorta sounds like a war was one without firing a shot to me.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...-historic.html

Obama Makes History... Breaks US Debt Record In Just 30 Days

On Friday the 13th, the Democratic Congress will approve the largest transfer of private wealth to public officials in US history.
That move will put the 2009 Democratic Congress and President Barack Obama into the record books.

Via Powerline-- This chart shows the federal surplus or deficit as a percentage of GDP from 1965 to the present, with the 2009 deficit shown as estimated by Strategas Group with the stimulus added in. The debt currently being run up by the Obama administration exceeds anything in our peacetime history in at least the last 5 decades:

Hee-lariouss...then he throws out this tripe and of course no one points out the tremendous ridiculousness of it. Right...we're going to triple the deficit in three weeks but after that...we're REALLY going to cut back...

"We've gotta spend some money now to pull us out of this recession. But as soon as we're out of this recession we've gotta get serious about living within our means instead of leaving debt for our children and grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. That's not the responsible way. That's not how folks here in Peoria operate in their own lives and they should expect the government is equally responsible."

[92bDad]

No comment...

[dude1394]

Let's see what kind of hope and change I can do to our economy.....
Wow....sure am glad that at the beginning of what some call a depression...we decide to make it a lot more expensive to do business.

Article Tools Sponsored By
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: February 18, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.

The decision, which most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States’ negotiating position at United Nations climate talks set for December in Copenhagen.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Let's see what kind of hope and change I can do to our economy.....
Wow....sure am glad that at the beginning of what some call a depression...we decide to make it a lot more expensive to do business.

yeah, screw our environment, it might cost us money to keep it clean!

maybe your problem is the failure to understand how the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is investing in a sustainable future. it is not "expensive". it is an investment that will yield positive returns going forward.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

yeah, screw our environment, it might cost us money to keep it clean!

maybe your problem is the failure to understand how the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is investing in a sustainable future. it is not "expensive". it is an investment that will yield positive returns going forward.

Yeah screw the 7% unemployed and growing. Maybe your problem is the failure to understand that you won't be effected by a lack of employment...nice gig if you can get it.

Wonderful time to add additional costs to our economy...

[Mavdog]

the "7% unemployed" have nothing to do with the issue of environmental protection.

as for costs, the favorable tax treatment soften that blow, and our economy can certainly use the investment in new technologies.

really, can't understand why anyone would be against the idea of reducing emissions, what you're saying is that you are a supporter of dirty air getting even more dirty....

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

yeah, screw our environment, it might cost us money to keep it clean!

maybe your problem is the failure to understand how the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is investing in a sustainable future. it is not "expensive". it is an investment that will yield positive returns going forward.

There's a concept called "opportunity cost". You might study that one some day...

[Mavdog]

opportunity costs to what party?

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the "7% unemployed" have nothing to do with the issue of environmental protection.

as for costs, the favorable tax treatment soften that blow, and our economy can certainly use the investment in new technologies.

really, can't understand why anyone would be against the idea of reducing emissions, what you're saying is that you are a supporter of dirty air getting even more dirty....

This who environmental issue is a complete farse!!!

It's a Liberal scare tactic as well as a manipulation trying to create 'Guilt/Shame...very emotional feelings' that nobody can debate against.

At the end of the day, I would like to know how much money has been wasted and is currently being wasted on "Green" issues. 100% of the money being spent on this issue is wasted...just imagine, how much could Green issues bail out certain parts of the economy.

This is just one of those topics that drives me nuts, I basically hate seeing waste...and the environmental movement of today is nothing but a WASTE of money, time, energy, resources, etc...

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the "7% unemployed" have nothing to do with the issue of environmental protection.

as for costs, the favorable tax treatment soften that blow, and our economy can certainly use the investment in new technologies.

really, can't understand why anyone would be against the idea of reducing emissions, what you're saying is that you are a supporter of dirty air getting even more dirty....

I never said the 7% unemployed has anything to do with enviromental protection, only that the increased costs will adversely effect employment. Let's put it this way..the most effective method of cutting back greenhouse gases would be to put a 2.00/tax per gallon of gas. But doing so in this environment would be moronic...that is the the problem with pulling this little stunt now...and make energy MORE expensive is NOT going to stimulate the economy...Sorry..

[Nowitzki4President]

"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." - Nikita Khrushchev

Very, very true. Change is good.

"There is no other definition of socialism valid for us than that of the abolition of the exploitation of man by man." - Ernesto "Che" Guevara

Hopefully one day we won't live in the dismal planet that we do now...



Hopefully no right wingers were scared in the process of this...

[dude1394]

Damn department of energy...Why can't they see how Obama's environmental costs really aren't costs but will create jobs.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicer...ecsummary.html

The potential costs to America from cap-and-trade policies are enormous. The Department of Energy estimates that S. 2191, the Warner-Lieberman cap-and-trade proposal, will increase the cost of coal for power generation by between 161% and 413%. DOE estimates GDP losses (see chart) over the 21-year period they forecast, at between $444 billion and $1.308 trillion, with particular damage to the manufacturing sector. (This gives some hope that organized labor will, in a rare occurrence, oppose Democratic leaders on this issue.) Winegarden estimates that this bill could increase unemployment by 2.7% or about 4 million jobs. In fact, companies are already preparing to avoid increased level and volatility of American energy prices by setting up factories and partnerships in countries which won’t be subject to cap-and-trade restrictions…proving with real-world behavior of producers that no carbon-limiting regulation can succeed if it is not universal.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Damn department of energy...Why can't they see how Obama's environmental costs really aren't costs but will create jobs.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicer...ecsummary.html

is the section of the report you are referring to?

S. 2191 increases the cost of using energy, which reduces real economic output, reduces purchasing power, and lowers aggregate demand for goods and services. The result is that projected real gross domestic product (GDP) generally falls relative to the Reference Case. Adverse economic impacts generally increase over time as higher cost emissions abatement options are required as emissions caps become more stringent while population and economic activity levels continue to grow. Total discounted GDP losses over the 2009 to 2030 time period range from $444 billion (-0.2 percent) to $1,308 billion (-0.6 percent) across the S. 2191 cases (Table ES3). Similarly, the cumulative discounted losses for personal consumption range from $546 billion (-0.2 percent) to $1,425 billion (-0.6 percent). GDP losses in 2030, the last year explicitly modeled in this analysis, range from $27 billion to $163 billion (-0.1 to -0.8 percent) while consumption losses in that year range from $58 billion to $149 billion (-0.4 to -1.1 percent). Economic impacts are largest when it is assumed that key low-emissions technologies including nuclear, fossil with CCS, and various renewables are not developed and deployed in a timeframe consistent with the emissions reduction requirements and international offsets are not available.

gdp losses over a 21 year period as low as 2/10 of a percent? and 6/10 if nothing is "developed and deployed" in response?

my expectation is there will be new developments. that is what america has done successfully, and america will do in response to the change in how we are consuming/using these energy sources. have you lost faith in american ingenuity and innovation?

these numbers make the decision to invest easy. yes to greenhouse gas reduction.

last, this study doesn't discuss the costs of doing nothing, those numbers could be many times those above.

[Murphy3]

So, you're saying Obama's a failure?

[dude1394]

[dude1394]

Dangit...theOne thought he's just slide that one past ya'.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1235...mEditorialPage

President Obama has laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda since LBJ, and now all he has to do is figure out how to pay for it. On Tuesday, he left the impression that we need merely end "tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans," and he promised that households earning less than $250,000 won't see their taxes increased by "one single dime."

This is going to be some trick. Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.

Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and "the wealthiest 2%." Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That's about 7% of all returns; the data aren't broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% -- about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 -- paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.

Note that federal income taxes are already "progressive" with a 35% top marginal rate, and that Mr. Obama is (so far) proposing to raise it only to 39.6%, plus another two percentage points in hidden deduction phase-outs. He'd also raise capital gains and dividend rates, but those both yield far less revenue than the income tax. These combined increases won't come close to raising the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that Mr. Obama is going to need.
The Opinion Journal Widget

But let's not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let's go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.

Fast forward to this year (and 2010) when the Wall Street meltdown and recession are going to mean far few taxpayers earning more than $500,000. Profits are plunging, businesses are cutting or eliminating dividends, hedge funds are rolling up, and, most of all, capital nationwide is on strike. Raising taxes now will thus yield far less revenue than it would have in 2006.

Mr. Obama is of course counting on an economic recovery. And he's also assuming along with the new liberal economic consensus that taxes don't matter to growth or job creation. The truth, though, is that they do. Small- and medium-sized businesses are the nation's primary employers, and lower individual tax rates have induced thousands of them to shift from filing under the corporate tax system to the individual system, often as limited liability companies or Subchapter S corporations. The Tax Foundation calculates that merely restoring the higher, Clinton-era tax rates on the top two brackets would hit 45% to 55% of small-business income, depending on how inclusively "small business" is defined. These owners will find a way to declare less taxable income.

The bottom line is that Mr. Obama is selling the country on a 2% illusion. Unwinding the U.S. commitment in Iraq and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire can't possibly pay for his agenda. Taxes on the not-so-rich will need to rise as well.

On that point, by the way, it's unclear why Mr. Obama thinks his climate-change scheme won't hit all Americans with higher taxes. Selling the right to emit greenhouse gases amounts to a steep new tax on most types of energy and, therefore, on all Americans who use energy. There's a reason that Charlie Rangel's Ways and Means panel, which writes tax law, is holding hearings this week on cap-and-trade regulation.

Mr. Obama is very good at portraying his agenda as nothing more than center-left pragmatism. But pragmatists don't ignore the data. And the reality is that the only way to pay for Mr. Obama's ambitions is to reach ever deeper into the pockets of the American middle class.

[Arne]

inflation is a tax on savers, the poor and the middle class, borrowing from china is a tax without representation on our children and grandchildren.

that's all you need to know in order to see through obama's propaganda.

[92bDad]

At this rate, it will be more profitable financially to lose my job, collect unemployment and welfare!!!

What do I tell my kids? What is the new American Dream????

Finish College, get a good job, get married, have 2.2 kids and earn enough money to raise not only their family, but at least another 2-4 families...Forget spending time with your family, you need to work to raise money for the government...don't worry, the government will take care of your wife and they are there to raise your kids...my grandkids...don't worry son, just buckle down and work...the rest is taken care of.

You still have your freedom, provided you stay in your cubicle and work...produce and ... well since the government knows better, just give your earnings to the government ... they will take care of everything.

The New American Dream...The old Russian Nightmare

[Arne]

Hope and change in the eyes of children:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqDYL4wrLm8