Will Climategate End Cap & Trade?

According to Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, the cap and trade legislation is dead. He believes the recent email scandal has ended the chances for cap and trade to pass in the Senate. He made this bold statement before even more bad news came for cap and trade proponents: the original data used in the global warming studies have been thrown away, so there is no longer a source to validate with.

Sen. Inhofe

While I would love to agree with Sen. Inhofe, I still think the legislation is very much a threat. The IPCC has already responded by saying there is ‘virtually no possibility’ of a few scientists biasing IPCC’s advice.

My gut instinct tells me that the global warming community will be extremely defensive of their work. As evident by the leaked emails, global warming scientists have no problem excluding conflicting data and manipulating data to show increases in temperature that do not exist. Since their plan to ignore scientists with differing views has been exposed, their next tactic is to try and publicly discredit them.

As no suprise, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, does not want an investigation into the contents of the leaked emails, as it “would achieve little”. Pachauri did, however, express his desire for a criminal investigation into how the emails were obtained.

Why Modify Data and Push for Climate Legislation?

There is no doubt that most of the scientists whom have contributed to the IPCC report are sincere and honest. The problem arises, however, that many of their contributions relied on data that Phil Jones from the University of East Anglia provided (which is now known to be biased, based on his leaked emails). The same university has also thrown away the raw data which Jones’ work was based on.

This is a mute point, however. While the scientists may be sincere, the politicians in control are not. Those with power couldn’t care less if the data is valid or not; it’s merely the perception of a crisis that matters. In times of crisis, governments expand and powers grow.

Who would stand to benefit from cap and trade legislation? First off, corporations already in the loop. GE would stand to make billions in profit from “green” initiatives. Not only are they the largest wind turbine generator maker, they are going to profit heavily from the cap and trade credits as possibly the sole “secondary market” trader of these credits. So naturally, their lobbyists are hard at work to pass cap and trade.

Secondly, and more importantly, the government stands to gain more power. And while some people may not view this as a bad thing, it truly is a scary thought. If you watch the video below, you’ll realize that cap and trade is the least effective way to counter global warming. So then why the push to pass it? Power.

Government officials, in their ever persistent struggle for more power, wish to enact legislation that allows them more control over their citizens. In the US, “cap and trade” is that legislation. On the global scale, the United Nations wishes to impose those sanctions and controls on a worldwide scale via the COP15. One way to increase a people’s dependence on government is to limit their production of goods and ability to work, which these measures would do.

So, unfortunately, while the scientific data may be under scrutiny since the emails were leaked, governments’ desire for more power is still strong. And since the driving force behind cap and trade from the beginning was government power and corporate profits, not science, this legislation is still very much a threat.

Buy Health Insurance or Go To Jail

Obamacare: Buy or go to jail

As we now know, one of the mandates under the current health care proposal in Congress is that individuals must have insurance or pay a fine, which will be enforced by the IRS. Guess what happens if you fail or refuse to pay that fine:

“The debate over whether the federal government should require all Americans to carry health insurance is heating up.

The latest spark is a letter that Thomas Barthold, the chief of staff to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, sent Thursday to Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.

Given that the health-care bill written by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus contains a $1,900 fee (or excise tax) for not buying health insurance, Ensign wanted to know what would happen if an American didn’t pay the penalty.

In a handwritten letter, Barthold told Ensign that under an existing provision of the Internal Revenue Code, willful failure to pay a fine can result in being charged with a misdemeanor which could carry a penalty of up to $25,000, or up to a year in jail, or both. The handwritten letter was a follow-up to an answer that Barthold gave Ensign during Thursday’s mark-up of the Baucus bill.”

Buy health insurance under the requirements set forth by government bureaucrats under ObamaCare or go to jail.

Source: United Liberty

Rep. Grayson Grills Fed Attorney!

During yesterday’s hearing on HR 1207, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) grilled Scott Alvarez, General Counsel of the Federal Reserve, over market manipulation by the central bank. Notice his devilish grin as he tears into Alvarez.

UPDATE: Ron Paul Gets Hearing on Fed Audit 9:00 AM TODAY

Hearing to audit the fed tomorrow

UPDATE: September 25, 2009 7:30am CT.

To watch the action live, click here. I really do hope this passes without being added appended to some overall financial regulations bill.

—

On Friday, September 25th the House Financial Services Committee has scheduled a full committee hearing on Ron Paul’s HR.1207 to audit the Federal Reserve. The hearing is slated to begin at 9am eastern time. For details and a link to the (eventual) live streaming video of the hearing check out the committee website.

As with many of these committee hearings the schedule is tentative and right now there are no witnesses listed.

By now we know what the opponents of the bill will argue, but it doesn’t change the fact that the bill has over 290 bipartisan cosponsors and 75% of the American people want a Fed audit.

The conditions are ripe for passing some form of Federal Reserve audit. Rahm Emanuel has been criticized for not wanting to allow our economic “crisis to go to waste”. In turn, Obama has largely been capitalizing on his honeymoon in popularity coupled with the economic crisis to push his agenda through Congress. The health care debate has stifled that strategy for now.

Without the economic crisis I doubt Ron Paul’s Fed audit bill would have more than 290 cosponsors. So, in a way, Ron Paul is not letting this crisis go to waste either. It is a perfect bill for the America we live in today.

It is Ron Paul’s job to convince others that his bill would not allow Congress to interfere with monetary policy. This is the lone argument against his bill and it’s quite a weak argument.

Friday’s hearings mark a major battle in the long term effort to “End the Fed“.

Source: Liberty Maven

ACORN Brings Down the Military-Industrial Complex

Ryan Grim reports that the Defund ACORN Act could end up defunding much, much more:

The congressional legislation intended to defund ACORN, passed with broad bipartisan support, is written so broadly that it applies to “any organization” that has been charged with breaking federal or state election laws, lobbying disclosure laws, campaign finance laws or filing fraudulent paperwork with any federal or state agency. It also applies to any of the employees, contractors or other folks affiliated with a group charged with any of those things….

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) picked up on the legislative overreach and asked the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) to sift through its database to find which contractors might be caught in the ACORN net.

Lockheed Martin and Northrop Gumman both popped up quickly, with 20 fraud cases between them, and the longer list is a Who’s Who of weapons manufacturers and defense contractors.

After this revelation, we’ll see how long this bill stays above the water. My guess, not long.

Source: The Huffington Post

Democrats Not Backing Obama on Patriot Act Extension

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) (WDCpix)

Eight years after it was passed, the USA Patriot Act remains among the most controversial pieces of counterterrorism legislation in the so-called “war on terror.” On December 31 of this year, some of its more controversial provisions will expire, forcing Congress to revisit it and decide whether to reauthorize the expiring provisions, amend them, or re-work the entire law.

The sections set to expire give the government the authority to access business records, operate roving wiretaps and conduct surveillance on “lone wolf” suspects with no known link to foreign governments or terrorist groups. A justice Department official last week told Congress that the Obama administration supports their renewal. Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote to Senator Patrick Leahy (D- Vt.) that the administration would consider stronger civil rights protections “provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important (provisions).”

But at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, it was clear that Democrats don’t uniformly support the White House on that. Some Democrats on the committee were still bitter that some Republicans back in 2001 had pushed aside a bipartisan version of the bill produced by the Judiciary Committee in favor of a version substantially revised and altered by the Rules Committee, led by then-chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.).

“Then-Chairman Dreier under Lord knows whose instructions, substituted that bill for another bill, that we at judiciary had never seen. So we come here today now to consider what we do with those parts that are expiring” and that, according to committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), created problems that the bill he’d approved would have prevented.

Read the entire article at The Washington Independent

Cap and Trade Could Lower GDP by 3.5%

A couple days ago, we posted on how the cap-and-trade bill passed by the House a few months ago will cost families $1,761 more in taxes than the Obama Administration admitted.

Now there is a report that states we may see a reduction of as much as 3.5% reduction in the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2050:

The climate change bill approved by the U.S. House of Representatives would reduce the gross domestic product of the United States by as much as 3.5 percent in 2050, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

The Democratic-controlled House passed landmark legislation in June aimed at slashing industrial pollution that is blamed for global warming. “Reducing the risk of climate change would come at some cost to the economy,” the CBO said in a reported posted on its website on Thursday.

The report concludes that if cap and trade provisions of the bill are implemented, the measure would reduce the gross domestic product by between 1 percent and 3.5 percent below what it otherwise would have been in 2050.

The full CBO report is available from the Congressional Budget Office.

The more and more we learn about how this bill will affect our personal lives and our economy, the more it looks like this bill is dead in the water.

Source:  Reuters

Goverment to Take 100% Control of Student Loans!

More loans, higher tuitions

Legislation passed by the House on Thursday will make the federal government the sole provider of student loans and end private-lender involvment. According to President Obama,

This bill will end the billions upon billions of dollars in unwarranted subsidies that we hand out to banks and financial institutions, and will use that money to guarantee access to low-cost loans.

Unfortunately, lawmakers apparently don’t understand the concept of government subsidies causing higher prices. We see it in the corn industry, we saw it in the housing market, and we’re about to see it in the higher education industry. College tuitions are sure to soar with the government backing all student loans.

Source: Wall Street Journal

Update on the Enumerated Powers Act

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h [From DownsizeDC.org]

The Enumerated Powers Act (HR 450) would require Congress to identify the Constitutional authority for each law it passes. We think this requirement is an important step on the long road to restoring Constitutional limits and the Bill of Rights.

When we last reported to you on August 11 the bill had 48 co-sponsors in the House. Good news! Now it has 51!

Unfortunately, the companion bill in the Senate (S. 1319) is still stuck at 21 co-sponsors, but perhaps we can change that.

We think letters to Congress from DC Downsizers have played a big role in recruiting all of these co-sponsors. We know of no other organization that is pushing this bill at all, let alone as much as we have. Let’s keep pushing.

First, check the lists below to see if one or more members of your Congressional delegation is already co-sponsoring this legislation. Then, use our Educate the Powerful System to write a letter to your delegation, thanking or requesting participation, as the case may be.

Here’s the list of House co-sponsors of HR 450 . . .

Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] — Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] — Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] — Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] — Bishop, Rob [UT-1] — Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] — Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] — Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] — Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] — Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] — Davis, Geoff [KY-4] — Deal, Nathan [GA-9] — Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] — Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] — Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] — Franks, Trent [AZ-2] — Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] — Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] — Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] — Heller, Dean [NV-2] — Herger, Wally [CA-2] — Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] — Hunter, Duncan D. [CA-52] — Johnson, Sam [TX-3] — Kline, John [MN-2] — Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] — Mack, Connie [FL-14] — McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] — McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] — McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] — Miller, Jeff [FL-1] — Moran, Jerry [KS-1] — Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] — Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] — Olson, Pete [TX-22] — Paul, Ron [TX-14] — Poe, Ted [TX-2] — Posey, Bil l [FL-15] — Price, Tom [GA-6] — Roe, David P. [TN-1] — Ryan, Paul [WI-1] — Sessions, Pete [TX-32] — Smith, Lamar [TX-21] — Terry, Lee [NE-2] — Thompson, Glenn [PA-5] — Wamp, Zach [TN-3] — Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] — Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] Tiahrt, Todd [KS-4] Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] Souder, Mark E. [IN-3]

Here’s the list of Senate co-sponsors for S. 1319 . . .

Barrasso, John — Brownback, Sam — Bunning, Jim — Burr, Richard — Chambliss, Saxby — Crapo, Mike 7787 — DeMint, Jim — Ensign, John — Enzi, Michael B. — Graham, Lindsey — Grassley, Chuck — Hutchison, Kay Bailey — Inhofe, James M. — Isakson, Johnny — Kyl, Jon — McCain, John — McConnell, Mitch — Risch, James E. 7787 — Thune, John — Vitter, David — Wicker, Roger F.

Use DownsizeDC.org’s campaign for the Enumerated Powers Act to send your letter to Congress.

My two Senators are already co-sponsors, but my House Representative is not, so here’s what I said in my personal comments:

“I applaud my Senators, McCain and Kyl, for co-sponsoring this bill, and urge my Representative, Ms. Giffords, to join them by co-sponsoring the House version, HR 450. I view support for this bill as evidence that you want to walk-the-talk of your oath to serve, protect, and defend the Constitution.”

You can send your letter to Congress here.

Treasury report: Cap-and-trade to cost $1,761 per family each year

The cap-and-trade bill just got more expensive for families:

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama’s transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: “Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation.”

The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.

This puts the cost of the bill per family very close to the estimation of the Heritage Foundation, which also predicts higher long term costs:

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Perhaps it’s not suprise that Democratic leaders in the Senate are going to put off a vote on this until next year.

Next year is an election year, so it’s very likely that this bill is dead.

Posted using ShareThis