April 09, 2012
NYC Letter: "I'm Not Ready To Die" V
Day 1,171 of CHOPE
Special UK T-L-C National Health Edition.
Not to worry. You're in the loving embrace of the government. Now, sod off and die!
April 6, 2012 (Daily Mail) - When Kenneth Warden was diagnosed with terminal bladder cancer, his hospital consultant sent him home to die, ruling that at 78 he was too old to treat. Even the palliative surgery or chemotherapy that could have eased his distressing symptoms were declared off-limits because of his age.
His distraught daughter Michele Halligan, 51, accepted the sad prognosis but was determined her father would spend his last months in comfort. So she paid for him to seen privately by a second doctor to discover what could be done to ease his symptoms. Ms. Michele Halligan:You could call his recovery amazing. It is certainly a gift. But the fact is that he was written off because of his age. He was left to suffer so much, and so unnecessarily.
... I was not looking for a cure, just a way to give my father some quality of life for the time he had remaining. We went back to the urologist and asked about radiotherapy. I also wanted to know why my father could not have an operation to relieve his urinary symptoms. The doctor said that as my father was 78, these treatments would not be appropriate because he was "too old".
But my father was very fit and muscular. He regularly went running and worked out at the gym. He was also a lifelong rower who held competition records. But all the consultant would say was: "You have to accept that your father is dying".
Sadly, Kenneth’s story is symptomatic of a dreadful truth. According to shocking new research by Macmillan Cancer Support, every year many thousands of older people are routinely denied life-saving NHS treatments because their doctors write them off as too old to treat.
She feels strongly that her father’s case proves that elderly people are still discriminated against by the NHS, and she even reported the first consultant to the General Medical Council. 'I said his actions constituted "pure ageism". But they said he hadn’t acted wrongly as it was a "matter of professional opinion".'
This kind of 'professional opinion' appears to be costing more than 14,000 lives each year, thanks to routine discrimination by doctors who assume older patients are too frail for surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy.
This is according to experts at Macmillan Cancer Support, who warned last week that every day up to 40 elderly cancer sufferers are dying needlessly because they are being denied the best treatments. This is particularly true, it says, for patients over the age of 70.
The charity estimates that if the treatment of older patients matched that on offer in the U.S., as many as 14,000 lives could be saved every year.
Discrimination against the elderly affects not only cancer treatment but goes right across the board, according to another new report. Last week, the respected health research charity, the King’s Fund, warned that prejudice about older people means they often go without treatment for conditions such as depression, and are not even tested for illnesses such as heart disease.
Sarah Palin was right. Rationed health care goes to the, ah, healthy first. Progressives scoffed and argued their superior position of name-calling. There is no effective counterargument to name-calling. It's-it's so crushing.
Fly or die, grampy.
March 11, 2012
NYC Letter: Loser's Corner -- Amanda Clayton
Day 1,143 of CHOPE
Special "I'm Still Struggling" Edition
Last September lucky Amanda Clayton of Lincoln Park, Michigan entered $10 worth of nonwinning instant tickets in the Michigan State Lottery's Instant Replay Contest and went on to win $1 million on its "Make Me Rich!" game show. The single mother of two took her winnings in a reduced lump sum ($700K) instead of an annuity. Withholdings further reduced her payout, but with $500K+ Ms. Clayton still felt sufficiently enriched to buy a second house and a new car. Ms. Clayton was unemployed and on public assistance.
Six months later Ms. Clayton remained unemployed and on public assistance.
March 7, 2012 (TDC) - Clayton won $1 million from the Michigan State Lottery this fall, but she is still collecting and using $200 a month in food assistance from the taxpayers with her Michigan Bridge Card.
"I thought that they would cut me off, but since they didn’t, I thought maybe it was okay because I’m not working," the lottery winner who just purchased a new house and car told Local 4 in Detroit. The station even filmed her shamelessly purchasing goods.
When Local 4 asked if she felt she had a right to the money, Clayton responded, "I mean I kinda do."
Clayton justified the sentiment by explaining that after taking her winnings in a lump sum and having to pay taxes, the total amount was just over half of the initial winnings. Ms. Clayton:I feel that it’s okay because I mean, I have no income and I have bills to pay. I have two houses.
It appears Ms. Clayton never considered the purchase of a second home while unemployed might straiten her. And the prudence of selling or renting out the first house before the purchase of the second escaped her. No, with $500K+ cash in hand Ms. Clayton was ready to buy her new life, while holding onto the benefits of her old life.
March 7, 2012 (TDN) - A Michigan woman who won big in the state lottery but continued to get taxpayer assistance has been cut off from her benefits.
... Clayton might have violated a state law requiring food stamp recipients to report changes to their income and assets within 10 days to the Michigan Department of Human Services.
"The person in question hasn't been eligible for a long time," said Dave Akerly, spokesman for the Michigan Department of Human Services.
A statement issued Wednesday evening from DHS Director Maura Corrigan said Clayton is "now no longer receiving benefits."
"DHS relies on clients being forthcoming about their actual financial status," Corrigan said. "If they are not, and continue to accept benefits, they may face criminal investigation and be required to pay back those benefits."
Legislation pending in the state Senate could cut off windfall lottery winners from tapping the social welfare system. Two bills were initially filed in response to a Bay County man acknowledging he continued to receive food stamps after winning a $2 million lottery prize in 2010.
"Until the bill's passed, apparently it's legal, and people need to leave her alone," Euline Clayton told The Detroit News.
February 8, 2012 (Heritage) - As someone who grew up in inner-city Atlanta, I understand there are times when people need whatever help they can find. The social safety net—in conjunction with generosity from neighborhood groups, churches, charities, and private companies—can help lift Americans out of poverty and toward the path of self-reliance and individual prosperity. However, that "net" should never turn into a "hammock"—and that is what this President and his policies are allowing.
What we see today with our vast social safety net is a growing and frightening dependency on the federal government, which is increasingly replacing our important local and private charitable efforts. ... This annual study by The Heritage Foundation analyzes federal assistance programs for everything from housing, health care, and food stamps to college tuition and retirement assistance. And there are some alarming numbers indeed.
- An estimated one in five Americans now receives aid from the federal government. That translates into more than 67.3 million Americans who rely on federal dollars for their way of life.
- Additionally, the amount the average American receives in federal benefits jumped to $32,748 in 2010; this surpassed the average working American’s disposable personal income of $32,446.
- At the same time, the federal taxpayer base continues to shrink, with nearly half of the U.S. population not paying any federal income taxes.
Is this a vision of President Obama’s doctrine of fairness and economic equality? Our democratic government is at risk when there are more Americans who are wedded to the federal government— either by subsistence or employment check—than federal taxpayers to pay for the rampant spending.
... But I have hope. The essence of the American spirit does not want to be obliged to government for our daily routine. Americans want to fight for their independence and be successful providers for themselves and their families.
We in Congress need to do our part to aid the struggle for more personal responsibility. We need to reduce government spending levels so we are taking less from America’s producers of economic growth. We need to take a long, hard look at these assistance programs, eliminating duplicative efforts and directing aid first to the neediest of our population.
We also have to embolden charities, local groups, and private-sector initiatives to empower individuals through programs that require more “skin in the game.” Far too often, these good Samaritans are pushed aside by government zeal to provide inferior and bureaucratized services. And finally, we need to reform entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security so that they are viable for future generations without bankrupting our country.
Easy come, easy go.
March 06, 2012
NYC Letter: The Wonders Of Communism
Day 1,138 of CHOPE
The Soviet Union was the epitome of Communism. It was the model socialist state that lesser socialist states aspired to. Why? Because, dear jolly, the irreality of Soviet antinomies was the official reality of the state. Scarcity was distributed abundance. Poverty kept your neighbor no richer than you. Paranoia was patriotism. Liberal constitutional guarantees were protected by criminal breaches of the state. Every time the state spoke, miracles occurred. Everyday, miracles everywhere.
But the Soviet Union is no more. Why is that?
[Pause to consider the why of it.] Ah, the Soviet Union fell victim to its very wonders (via Eric Singer at IBD, slightly redacted).
- In the Soviet Union, everyone had a job.
- In spite of the fact that everyone had a job, no one worked.
- In spite of the fact that no one worked, production quotas were always completed.
- In spite of the fact that the production quotas were always met, the stores shelves were always empty.
- In spite of the fact that the store shelves were always empty, everyone had everything.
- In spite of the fact that everybody had everything, everyone stole.
- In spite of the fact that everyone stole, there was enough for everyone.
In the rich Soviet narrative there was always plenty more of enough for everyone. Until there wasn't, which the dazed masses came to learn had been the case for just shy of seventy years.
National impoverishment and personal miserableness were a small price to pay for the vast freedoms bestowed on the Soviet masses, as attested to by no less an authority than Justice Antonin Scalia in testimony before the Senate Committee On The Judiciary:
Every banana republic has a bill of rights. Every president for life has a bill of rights. The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours. I mean that literally. It was much better. We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff.
Of course, they were just words on paper, what our Framers would have called "a parchment guarantee". And the reason is that the real constitution of the Soviet Union—think of the word "constitution"; it does not mean a bill of rights, it means structure. When you say a person has a sound constitution, you mean he has a sound structure. Structure is what our Framers debated that whole summer in Philadelphia, in 1787. They did not talk about a Bill of Rights; that was an afterthought, wasn’t it? The real constitution of the Soviet Union did not prevent the centralization of power in one person or in one party. And when that happens, the game is over. The bill of rights becomes what our Framers would call "a parchment guarantee".
March 02, 2012
NYC Letter: Lies The President Told Me, Part VI Redux -- Deficit Neutral Health Reform
Day 1,134 of CHOPE
"You Always Knew This Was A Lie, Right?" Edition
And here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. (Applause.) I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize.
making a pre-broken pledge on
deficit neutral health reform
REMARKS TO JOINT SESSION
OF CONGRESS ON HEALTH CARE
WASHINGTON September 9, 2009 (White House)
Not even trying to convincingly lie at this point.
WASHINGTON March 2, 2012 (The Hill) - Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) is asking about a spike in the estimated costs of subsidies to help people buy private insurance — a central, and expensive, component of the new healthcare law.
The administration’s budget request this year included $111 billion more for subsidies than its request last year. The difference falls across the same seven-year window. Mr. Camp wrote Friday in a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner:This staggering increase in health insurance exchange subsidy spending cannot be explained by legislative changes or new economic assumptions, and therefore must reflect substantial changes in underlying assumptions regarding the program’s utilization and cost.
Instructive quote interlude.
When one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it.
Reichsminister für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda
January 12, 1941 (Die Zeit ohne Beispiel)
Team Barry sticks to it.
The Treasury Department said the increase is technical and does not reflect any change in how the administration plans to implement the healthcare law.
"The increase is technical", apparently means it will cost more, the why of which is what Mr. Camp writes to ask about. With no "change in how the administration plans to implement the healthcare law", again fails to address the cost. [Pause.] Well, a $111B differential means something has changed and that is at the heart of Mr. Camp's query. What has changed is the real cost has pushed up against the phony cost used to grab headlines and beg votes to pass this junk legislation.
Camp's letter cites Congressional Budget Office scores of two bills that passed since the White House submitted its last budget. Together, the bills were expected to cut the cost of exchange subsidies by about $9 billion, he said, making the White House’s projected increase all the more surprising.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said during a Ways and Means hearing earlier this week that she was unfamiliar with the issue.
Make a big promise, that's CHOPE. Break the promise, that's politics.
February 25, 2012
NYC Letter: The Obama Economy, Part XV -- Gasoline Prices
Day 1,128 of CHOPE
Gas prices are high and rising. Mr. Obama shrugs. Once upon a time he would have asked you to vote him out of office. So too Nancy Pelosi.
SAN FRANCISCO July 7, 2008 (KGO) - Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wrapped up her San Francisco holiday weekend Monday with a blast at President Bush. The topic -- the price of oil. Gasoline has more than doubled since the Bush administration took office she says.
... The speaker blames what she labels the Bush-Cheney big oil agenda, using graphics to point out gasoline prices have more than doubled in the Bush administration.
"This is a scam of the greatest magnitude," says Speaker Pelosi.
... "We can help alleviate shortages by drilling for oil and gas in our own country," says President Bush.
"You know full well if you could drill in the Arctic Refuge it would save two cents 20 years from now," says Speaker Pelosi.
In 2008 Mr. Obama was voted into the White House along with larger Congressional Democrat majorities. When Mr. Obama was sworn in a gallon of gasoline was $1.89 (01/26/09).* Under Mr. Obama's economic stewardship gas prices began climbing: $2.76, 01/20/10, +46% year-on-year increase; $3.163, 01/24/11, +15% YOY; $3.45, 01/23/12, +9% YOY. A gallon of gas currently is $3.652 (02/20/12) a 6% increase on last month. All in all gas prices have risen a whopping 193% since Mr. Obama took office. Now either Mr. Obama owns that or he and Nancy Pelosi were playing you for stupid in 2008. [Pause.] He does. And they were. [Sudden, painful insight.] And they still are!
DEM LEADER PELOSI BLAMES WALL STREET
FOR SPIKE IN GAS PRICES
February 22, 2012 (The Hill)
Just to jump in on the headline, sustained year-on-year increases in gas prices are not a spike. They are a trend, an unabated trend under Mr. Obama.
Oil speculators, not a lack of domestic drilling, are to blame for the nation's rising gas prices, the top House Democrat argued Wednesday.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said unscrupulous Wall Street investors have artificially inflated prices at the pump, which are climbing toward $4 per gallon. Ms. Pelosi:Wall Street profiteering, not oil shortages, is the cause of the price spike. Unfortunately, Republicans have chosen to protect the interests of Wall Street speculators and oil companies instead of the interests of working Americans by obstructing the agencies with the responsibility of enforcing consumer protection laws.
Ms. Pelosi puts her tumbrel before the horse. Speculative trading does not drive supply and demand. Speculative trading forward-prices the disparity between supply and demand. Ms. Pelosi doesn't like today's prices, but to lower the price supply needs to edge out demand.
In Ms. Pelosi's hysteron-proteron economics, ending speculation, that is the forward-pricing mechanism, will magically level out disparities between supply and demand and arrive at a "fair price". When the left espouse a "fair price" what they really want is a fixed price, a nice solid number they can neatly extrapolate into neat static economic forecasts. To see how this works look to the Soviet Union -- except the Soviet Union is no more having "fair priced" itself out of existence.
If America were awash in gasoline, no amount of speculative trading could sustain low-demand high-price gasoline. But America is not awash in gasoline.
These have been the most difficult three years from a policy standpoint that I've ever seen in my career. ... The Obama administration, unfortunately, has threatened this industry at every turn. They've done nothing but restrict access and delay permitting.
president of oil and natural gas producer Swift Energy
HOUSTON February 23, 2012 (IBD/Houston Chronicle)
OP-ED February 16, 2012 (IBD) - During his presidential campaign, Obama admitted he didn't have a problem with sky-high gasoline prices, he just "would have preferred a gradual adjustment."
His choice for energy secretary, Steven Chu, certainly doesn't mind them. Before joining the administration he said that "somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."
... Obama has repeatedly feigned an inability to do anything about oil prices. Last April, he said: "I'm just going to be honest with you. There's not much we can do next week or two weeks from now."
But this simply isn't true.
The country is virtually awash in oil, with as much as 1.4 trillion "recoverable" barrels now available, thanks to new discoveries and advanced drilling technologies, according to the Institute for Energy Research. That's about twice the proved reserves in all of OPEC. But much of it is off-limits due to federal restrictions.
... Whenever Obama has had the chance to encourage production, he's done the opposite. ... The truth is that for Obama, low gas prices are the problem, since they would hamper progress toward his "green" Nirvana, where we all hop on government trains and putter around in government-approved electric cars. It's just that he's smart enough not to say this out loud.
Surely Secretary Chu walked back that Europa-high gas prices wish.
March 3, 2011 (The Hill) - The Energy Department is rebutting GOP claims that 2008 remarks by Steven Chu, who is now secretary of Energy, reveal a White House desire to see drivers pay more at the gas pump.
"Secretary Chu has stated repeatedly that higher gas prices are a threat to the economy and take a harmful toll on America's families," said Energy Department spokeswoman Stephanie Mueller in a statement Tuesday.
There you go, Mr. Chu back in step with America's straitened families. Oh, wait. No.
March 21, 2011 (Heritage) - This weekend, Energy Secretary Steven Chu appeared on Fox News Sunday and host Chris Wallace asked him about his desire in 2008 for Americans to punitively pay more at the pump in order to wean them off of gasoline. Shockingly, Chu did not walk back his comments as he has attempted to do in the past. In fact, he embraced the strategy noting that his focus is to ease the pain felt by his energy policies by forcing automakers to make more fuel-efficient automobiles.
What threat to the economy? What harm to families? Buy a more fuel-efficient car. Problem solved. By "more fuel efficient" Team Barry means, of course, electric.
AMERICANS SAY 'NO' TO ELECTRICS
DESPITE HIGH GAS PRICES
Nearly Six Of 10 Americans - 57% -
Say They Won't Buy An All-Electric Car
No Matter The Price Of Gas
POLL May 25, 2011 (USA Today)
OK. How about Mr. Obama chips in a $10,000 buyer subsidy -- atop the quarter-million dollars per vehicle manufacturing and distribution subsidies -- to smooth down your rich uncle's electric car purchase?
February 21, 2012 (Reason/Rasmussen) - A recent Rasmussen poll finds 58 percent of Americans are opposed to providing $10,000 subsidies to those who buy electric cars. ... Opposition to this policy increases to 65 percent when the total cost of the program ($10 billion dollars) is considered. 73 percent oppose allowing those making over $150,000 a year eligible for this subsidy. This is quite relevant given that General Motors CEO Dan Akerson reports the average Chevy Volt buyer makes $170,000 per year.
One brilliant idea after another. [Pause.] So the plan looks to be to forge ahead with an unpopular national car policy with the fail already baked in -- and blame Republicans whatever the results.
The Republican field, like Mitt Romney, thinks that we just need to remain tethered and dependent on foreign oil because all they would do is more and more drilling, which is a very shortsighted approach and it would do nothing to prevent people who are struggling to put $80 into their gas tanks to be able to make sure that that’s more affordable. And that is another example of how they are economically out of touch.
It's hard to construe how increasing the domestic supply somehow keeps us tethered to the foreign supply. Equally hard to see is how a $10K taxpayer subsidy for the top 7 percent of households helps "people who are struggling to put $80 into their gas tanks to be able to make sure that that’s more affordable."**
Economically in touch with the upper 7%.
* All prices from "Weekly U.S. All Grades All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices" in a spreadsheet provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration here.
** And what does "to prevent people who are struggling to put $80 into their gas tanks to be able to make sure that that's more affordable" mean? We have read the line several times. Strip out the apposition and you have "to prevent people...to be able to make sure that that's more affordable". From here we can parse the subordinate clause several ways, none of which makes much sense. Politics is replete with examples of people stringing out grammar in desperation to hit on a point to be made. Here is a tip for DWS. The trick to discourse is to have a clear idea of what you want to say before attempting to say it. And another. The trick to clear ideas is an unclouded and attentive mind.
February 01, 2012
NYC Letter: OK-By-Me Racism -- Charles Rangel
Day 1,105 of CHOPE
Charles Rangel (D-NY, 15th), argues that government -- federal, state, local -- is an exemplary employer. It rises above discrimination -- for examples, the discriminations of being qualified or competent (and this) or informed (and this) or professional or civil or prudent or accountable or honest (and this and this). Government employment is race and gender friendly, unless you are white and male, which for race hustlers like Mr. Rangel is to be unrehabilitatably racist.
February 1, 2012 (Mediaite) - One of the main tenets of Eric Bolling‘s show Follow the Money is that a free market economy is fairer and more successful than one administered by the goverment.
Bolling opened the floor by asking why the president promotes government jobs. The distrust of the government didn’t surprise the longtime Congressman, but he noted that "a lot of women are involved in these lower income jobs, a lot of minorities," and later explained, "the government doesn’t have the racism and discrimination that the private sector enjoys."
This, to Rangel, means that "a lot of people could to better with the government job," both minorities, women, and the elderly, working in places such as the post office. Bolling asked again to confirm whether he really meant the private sector had discrimination.
"There’s no doubt about it," Rep. Rangel replied. “People don’t like to talk about it because it’s uncomfortable." ... He noted that he was only positing one theory about the success of government employment, that minorities "feel better, that they’re getting a fairer shake, that it’s more fair and balanced than getting an interview in the private sector."
A "fair shake" connotes equal consideration. A "fairer shake" is not fair at all but a better deal. No doubt about that with government employment.
What is behind Mr. Rangel's idiot theory is the progressive dream of everyone working directly for the government as opposed to indirectly through taxation. A government workforce will reliably vote its paycheck returning paymasters to office again and again. [Pause.] Until such time as entrenched paymasters dispense with the formality of the ballot altogether. It's all blue sky from there.
'BIG GOVERNMENT IS US BY ANOTHER NAME':
JESSE JACKSON’S EPIPHANY STATEMENT REVEALS WHY
THE SMALL-GOVERNMENT-ADVOCATING TEA PARTY
IS FALSELY ACCUSED OF RACISM…
DURING HIS RACE-BAITING CIVIL WAR RANT
August 3, 2011 (Blaze)
Alas, the video at the above link has been expunged, but Mr. Jackson's takeaway was that big government is largely a poor and minority enterprise. To restrict its growth or perquisites is to act against the poor and minorities, which is, in Mr. Jackson's world of hype, prima facie racism. The only racially just America is a big government America -- a bigger government America. To achieve racial justice government must grow itself.
When liberals in government become everyone's paymasters, when they have absorbed the last of the free economy, oh-ho, then they will show the boot to keep you on pace with the five-year plan.
The moral imperative of growing government.
January 10, 2012
NYC Letter: The Taxman Cometh -- The 100% Tax Rate
Day 1,084 of CHOPE
In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear...if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.
I repeat: not one single dime.
being perfectly clear as he prepares
to cripple future generations with debt
ADDRESS TO JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS
WASHINGTON February 24th, 2009 (White House)
That was then.
If this is true (and it is):
WASHINGTON January 9, 2012 (USA Today) - The amount of money the federal government owes to its creditors, combined with IOUs to government retirement and other programs, now tops $15.23 trillion. That's roughly equal to the value of all goods and services the U.S. economy produces in one year: $15.17 trillion as of September, the latest estimate. Private projections show the economy likely grew to about $15.3 trillion by December — a level the debt is likely to surpass this month.
And if this is true (it is not):
Our budget will get us, over the next several years, to the point where we can look the American people in the eye and say we're not adding to the debt anymore; we're spending money that we have each year, and then we can work on bringing down our national debt.
OMB director, characterizing the salutary
outcomes of Mr. Obama's 2012 budget*
STATE OF THE UNION INTERVIEW
WASHINGTON February 13, 2011 (CNN)
The government will need to tax everything at 100% to belay the national debt. [Pause for defibrillation.] But not before you re-elect Mr. Obama.
Your fair share of taxes -- 100%.
* The Democrat Senate unanimously voted down Mr. Obama's budget, 97-0.
October 11, 2011
NYC Letter: Campaign Promises Kept -- The Skyrocket
Day 993 of CHOPE
Campaign promises trade on hope over experience. Voters are forever discovering anew that once their candidate is in office, all bets are off. Mr. Obama made a lot of promises and has struggled or failed to keep some big ones -- when he hasn't trashed them outright (and this and this and this and this). So imagine how pleased we are to report on a campaign promise kept.
Let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I've said is that we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.
... Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers.
promising to skyrocket your energy bill
SAN FRANCISCO January 17, 2008 (SFC)
It's been a long hard struggle to inflate your energy bill. But a promise made is a promise kept. Skim the procession of headlines to follow the policy slog.
ENERGY SECRETARY CHU EMBRACES
HIGH GAS PRICES, AGAIN
March 21, 2011 (Heritage)
May 24, 2011 (TDC) - Late Monday, [Darrell Issa (D-CA, 49th), chairman of the House Oversight Committee,] released a scathing report accusing the White House of being complicit in driving up oil prices to push a move to alternative energy sources.
Among other things, the report — "Rising Energy Costs: An Intentional Result of Government Action" — accused the administration of restricting access to domestic energy sources, hindering "fracking" technology and hampering the economic recovery by proposing new taxes on the energy industry.
CONSUMERS' ELECTRIC BILLS LIKELY
TO SPIKE AS COAL PLANTS CLOSE
As Stricter Environmental Regulations Approach,
Some Power Generators Are Choosing To Shutter
Their Coal-Fired Plants.
June 11, 2011 (Chicago Tribune) - Consumers could see their electricity bills jump an estimated 40 to 60 percent in the next few years.
The reason: Pending environmental regulations will make coal-fired generating plants, which produce about half the nation's electricity, more expensive to operate. Many are expected to be shuttered. The increases are expected to begin to appear in 2014.
BLOG June 16, 2011 (Hot Air) - recently unveiled Clean Air Act regulations were advertised by the agency as being expensive, but don’t worry! They’re going to result in two trillion dollars in benefits and an army of new jobs for the "green economy."
Well, it’s certainly hard to argue with that, isn’t it? ... There’s just one little problem with this masterful plan. A recent independent study of the EPA’s cost benefit predictions shows that they are almost entirely vaporware.In "Assessment of Obama Administration’s Cost-Benefit Analysis of Clean Air Act Regulation," economist David Montgomery reveals the very large net regulatory benefits touted by EPA rely on apples to orange comparisons, where the vast majority of the benefits have none of the financial reality that the costs do.
"In its Clean Air Act appraisal, EPA substitutes calculated misdirection for solid analysis," explained NTU Executive Vice President Pete Sepp. "Nearly all of EPA’s promised $2 trillion in benefits from existing regulations stem from feelings rather than fiscal improvements."
At least higher energy costs will generate jobs so we can pay the higher energy costs.
STUDY SHOWS EPA REGS WILL COST,
NOT CREATE, JOBS
BLOG June 20, 2011 (Hot Air)
October 7, 2011 (IER) - The United States has the world’s largest coal resources. In fact we have 50 percent more coal than Russia, the country with the next largest reserves. But coal use in the United States is under assault.
Before becoming President, Barack Obama promised to bankrupt coal companies.
... Currently, EPA is leading the Obama administration’s assault on coal with a number of new regulations. Two of the most important are the "transport rule" and the "toxics rule" (Utility MACT*). Combined, these regulations will systematically reduce access to affordable and reliable energy. According to our report:
- EPA Regulations Will Close At Least 28 GW Of Generating Capacity
28 GW is 8.9 percent of our total coal generating capacity.
- Current Retirements Almost Twice As High As EPA Predicted
- Announced And Projected Retirements Higher Than Worst Case Scenarios
- EPA’s New Regulations Will Hit States Trying To Get Back On Their Feet
Wait there's more! Bonus unintended consequence -- higher energy bill and no energy!
EPA’S RULES MAY FORCE POWER FAILURES
BLOG September 6, 2011 (Hot Air)
A promise kept.
* Maximum achievable control technology.
September 04, 2011
NYC Letter: Democrat Big Ideas For Job Creation
Day 957 of CHOPE
Who says the Democrats are the party of stupid ideas, tired ideas, no ideas?
Ahem. That would be us.
NANCY PELOSI: 'UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST STIMULUSES TO OUR ECONOMY!'
July 1, 2010 (Right Scoop/C-Span)
This makes the latest unemployment report really good news! We only have to wait for the economy to reach, what? 25% unemployment to stimulate that 4% growth of the early -- and late -- Team Barry recovery scenarios. Bring it on!
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air does the autopsy on Nancy Pelosi's brain for which we are grateful. [Pause.] Normally we enjoy a strongly argued position, but rebutting Nancy Pelosi (D-CA, 8th) is like the dream where one sees the door -- it's inches away -- but the floor to be traversed is a neck-deep pool of cold congealed porridge. The door opens on the vista of clear thinking. The porridge is the soft mush of Nancy Pelosi's brain.
Ms. Pelosi is not alone in her thinking.
August 11, 2011 (TRR/Wash Times) - President Obama has lately been pushing a number of policies that he says will create jobs, including extending unemployment benefits. This is puzzling, since new benefits obviously will not create jobs for unemployed people, who after all are the ones who need work. But White House Press Secretary Jay Carney explained Thursday that paying out unemployment checks "is one of the most direct ways to infuse money directly into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren't running a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get. They're not going to save it, they're going to spend it." True, they probably will spend the money, on their mortgages, on food, and other necessary expenses. But Mr. Carney attributed miraculous qualities to these government handouts, saying "every place that, that money is spent has added business and that creates growth and income for businesses that leads them to decisions about jobs, more hiring." By that logic the whole country should go on unemployment.
... It is no wonder why the country is facing such desperate economic times. But at least the White House is happy so many people are out of jobs.
Here's another great Democrat idea. The government gives you a dollar in food stamps. You spend the dollar. Voilà ! You have just magically introduced $1.84 into the economy, creating jobs and boosting the GDP!
August 16, 2011 (Hot Air) - Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack told MSNBC’s Morning Joe that the Obama administration has a jobs program already in place — and it’s food stamps.
Under Mr. Obama, one in seven Americans have come to be depend on food stamps. Once upon a time food stamps, with the best of intentions, were welfare assistance for the poor. Mr. Obama has transformed food stamps for the poor into transfer payments for the middle class.
So here’s the question. If food stamps create jobs, like Vilsack says here, and we’re putting record numbers of Americans on food stamps, then why aren’t we seeing record job creation? If every dollar spent on food stamps creates $1.84 [scil., Mr. Vilsack 's multiplier claim] in production, as Vilsack argues, and the number of food stamp recipients keeps rising, then why haven’t the GDP numbers reflected that fabulous growth?
... The multiplier effect is completely bogus. For one thing, much of the money gets absorbed by the government bureaucracies that manage these programs. Second, as I alluded earlier, the evidence we see all around us shows us that we can’t get economic growth through government welfare programs. If what Vilsack said was true, we’d be better off seizing all income and handing out food stamps.
There are good humanitarian and social reasons for safety-net programs like unemployment insurance and food stamps, but economic growth isn’t one of them. The rise in both are indicators of failing economics.
Of course, federal assistance programs depend on appropriations, i.e., spending. So there can be no cuts to spending, otherwise federal assistance like indefinite unemployment benefits and food stamps for the middle class may be cut back and that would threaten Mr. Obama's fabulous jobs recovery.
Which brings us to the Democrats' really super big idea -- more super big spending! Because some $5T in mixed bag federal stimuli just wasn't enough to do the trick.
September 4, 2011 (Mediaite) - On Meet the Press today, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA, 35th) called for President Obama to take a more forceful approach to a jobs program, and likely made Republicans drop their jaws with the amount of money she argued the United States should invest in such a plan. Ms. Waters:The president must be bold. I agree that he must have a jobs program, he must create jobs. I’m talking about a jobs program of a trillion dollars or more. We’ve got to put Americans to work. That’s the only way to revitalize this economy. When people work, they earn money, they spend that money, and that’s what gets the economy up and going.
Waters insisted any kind of effective jobs plan could not "shrink" to the demands of Republicans or give tax breaks to those in the highest income tax brackets.
Why not double Ms. Waters' spending and make the jobs recovery twice as good!
WASHINGTON September 1, 2011 (The Hill) - Reps. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ, 7th) and Keith Ellison (D-MN, 5th) — the co-chairmen of the Congressional Progressive Caucus — want the president to champion sweeping investments [scil., spending] in the nation's crumbling infrastructure as a way to create jobs and jolt the sluggish economy.
"Crumbling infrastructure"? Didn't they just spend hundreds of billions for "shovel ready" infrastructure projects in the first jobs stimulus?
"With 14 million Americans still looking for work, this is not the time to tinker around the edges," the lawmakers wrote to Obama Thursday. "We must take bold action, and that requires federal emergency jobs legislation."
... Specifically, Grijalva and Ellison are urging Obama to promote a national infrastructure bank, a public-private partnership designed to fund the nation's aging roads, bridges, railways and other vital structures. That proposal, championed by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), is part of the "Make it in America" agenda House Democrats have been pushing this year.
"The country’s infrastructure needs an estimated investment of $2.2 trillion," Grijalva and Ellison wrote. "We should not delay these crucial investments, especially while millions of Americans are out of work. Rebuilding America — without creating expensive new corporate tax loopholes — will further boost our economy and create badly needed jobs."
They really are this stupid. Brag on it:
The problems are the solutions.
September 02, 2010
NYC Letter: The Mailbag
Day 589 of CHOPE
We do not get many comments in the post threads nowadays. Perhaps it is the annoying CAPTCHA, a holdover from the heady days to stymie abusive, but lazy, trolls. Perhaps, blushing reader, you are shy. Perhaps you are wary of public forums. If you are here, it is doubtful you are bereft of opinion.
There is a coterie of readers who correspond with us regularly for freewheeling discussions.
Recently reader Duncan sent along a patch describing Denmark's desperate steps to salvage its own culture from being reshaped by a hostile immigrant welfare state of its own making. (Sweden faces a similar problem.) That liberal Denmark had passed reactionary legislation, which it enforces, elicited this mixed comment from us (slightly amended):
Joseph Schumpeter, in a quote I do not have to hand, said something to the effect that capitalism would not be undone by Marx or competing theories, but by the educated liberal class its very prosperity spawns. Here in America the liberal class in fact is indirectly destroying capitalism by directly destroying the classical liberalism of Western civilization.
It is no accident that Denmark is the first Euro to be disabused of the modern liberal multiculture-cum-welfare model. It is small. The effects of this model have manifested themselves more generally, swiftly, and calamitously in Denmark than, say, France where proportionally the problem is greater but bigger government and more real estate hide the developing disaster.
It says something about the enormity of Mr. Obama's ruinous governance that where it is headed has so early alerted -- in a truly big country -- the middle class to its dangers.
With an assist from JTN of ¡No Pasarán! we fished up the missing quote (quotes as it turned out):
Intellectuals are people who wield the power of the spoken and written word, and one of the touches that distinguishes them from other people who do the same is the absence of direct responsibility for practical affairs.... The critical attitude [arises] no less from the intellectual's situation as an onlooker—in most cases, also an outsider—than from the fact that his main chance of asserting himself lies in his actual or potential nuisance value. (p.147)
Perhaps the most striking feature of the picture is the extent to which the bourgeoisie, besides educating its own enemies, allows itself in turn to be educated by them. It absorbs the slogans of current radicalism and seems quite willing to undergo a process of conversion to a creed hostile to its very existence. Haltingly and grudgingly it concedes in part the implications of that creed. This would be most astonishing and indeed very hard to explain were it not for the fact that the typical bourgeois is rapidly losing faith in his own creed.
This is verified by the very characteristic manner in which particular capitalist interests and bourgeoisie as a whole behave when facing direct attack. They talk and plead—or hire people to do it for them; they snatch at every chance of compromise; they are ever ready to give in; they never put up a fight under the flag of their own ideals and interests—in this country there was no real resistance anywhere against the imposition of crushing financial burdens during the last decade or against labor legislation incompatible with the effective management of industry. ... Means of defense were not entirely lacking and history is full of examples of the success of small groups who, believing in their cause, were resolved to stand by their guns. The only explanation for the meekness we observe is that the bourgeois order no longer makes any sense to the bourgeoisie itself and that, when all is said and nothing is done, it does not really care, (p.161)
Joseph Alois Schumpeter (1883-1950),
Austrian economist and political scientist
Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, 3rd ed.
(New York: Harper & Row, 1962)
Originally published in 1942, Mr. Schumpeter, with eerie prescience, appears to here describe the arrival and misrule of Mr. Obama.
Meanwhile, to further illustrate a public awakening to the dangers of beneficent statism, V de T replied with the clip below.
Off The Liberal Plantation And Dangerous
View video here.
America is perhaps the greatest success story that the world has ever known. Here I am. The grandson of former slaves. I encourage Americans everywhere to run away from economic slavery and run toward the blessings of liberty, guaranteed by our Constitution.
No need to be shy. If the comments thread is too public for you, drop us a line at pavefrance-at-gmail.com.
January 01, 2009
NYC Letter: Prospero Año Nuevo, Algún Día
On January 1, 1959 strongman president Fulgencio Batista fled Cuba, ceding the government to whoever was left standing in the wake of Fidel Castro's victorious 26th of July Movement.
It was the start point for Mr. Castro's transformation of Cuba from a corrupt plutocracy into a brutish thugocracy.
SANTIAGO DE CUBA January 2, 2009 (acn) - Cuban President Raul Castro said Thursday that the fifty years beginning with the revolutionary victory on January 1, 1959, were the most fruitful period in Cuban history.
[Back when entering the capital in victory, Brother] Fidel said that a lot remained to be done and that perhaps things would be more difficult later, added Raul. ... While reflecting on the future, especially on the next five decades, Raul affirmed that they will also be of permanent struggle and that they won’t be easy years, taking into account the current state of the world.
NO TAN FELIZ ANIVERSARIO
50 Years Of Shut Up And Suck It Up
HIALEAH, Florida January 1, 2009 (IHT) - Fifty years ago on Thursday, many Cubans cheered when Fidel Castro seized power in Havana, and even now, the revolution attracts many fans - as evidenced by a Canadian tour agency advertising trips "to celebrate five decades of resilience."
... Here in South Florida, where roughly 850,000 Cubans have settled over the years, repeated waves of painful exile and family separation define the Castro era. The revolution never met their hopeful expectations, the island they love has slipped into decay, and for many, this week's golden anniversary provides little more than a flashback to traumas, old and new.
... But for many, the revolution's 50th anniversary has inspired a period of reflection. Cubans across Florida say they are mourning privately, or trying to forget, and formal commemorations are being kept to a minimum.
The US Coast Guard intercepted 2,864 individuals attempting to cross the Straits of Florida in fiscal year 2006.
August 19, 2007
Europe finds more ways to make people less responsible: Some Italians to get money to lose weight
Everything becomes a reason for entitlements. Every reason is good enough not to rely on one's personal efforts, not to pursue accomplishments by oneself.
What better incentive than money to drop a few pounds?
Gianluca Buonanno, the mayor of Varallo, a town of 7,500 in northern Italy, thinks it might work. The town is offering cash to overweight residents who slim down and more if they keep the weight off.
"We wanted to encourage people to lose weight, and we thought that both the money and the idea of joining a group could be stimulating," Buonanno said last week.
The town's offer is the latest effort by public officials and employers to encourage people to exercise and trim their weight. Participants in the week-old Varallo initiative will be given $67 when they reach their ideal weight. If they don't gain any weight back after five months, they will receive $268.
If they maintain their ideal weight for a year, they will get $670 more. So far, 30 people have signed up, Buonanno said.
Participants must present a medical certificate that they are overweight. They can choose to get help from a dietitian, who helps determine their ideal weight, and a personal trainer.
Buonanno's inspiration? His own need for a diet.
The mayor said the town has set aside about $13,000 for the project. It is looking for sponsors to expand the program.
The prevalence of obesity in Europe has tripled in the past two decades.
Dave Rankhorn, a tourist visiting Rome from Illinois, thought about the idea.
"I have always wanted to lose weight but never had the motivation," he said. If someone told him he'd get paid to lose weight, "I would be there, I would do that," he said.
I guess that's why Michael Moore thinks Europe is so great.
How much time do you think before companies such as McDonald's or Ben & Jerry's are forced to "sponsor" this socialist madness? In the name of the common good, you know, for people can't possibly be deemed responsible for what they choose to eat.
[Hat tip: Janinka]
August 07, 2007
Still a social model
The French Social Model is back too.
Sicko is to be released on Sept. 5, here.
If you're still wondering whether you should give Mooron's new trashumentary two hours of your life, just visit the French Social Model.
December 29, 2006
Because we are too stupid
And we really are to accept this kind of treatment.
How to justify the pay of always more
parasites civil servants? Tell taxpayers who, well, pay for those parasites with the money they earn from being, I guess, stupid, that they can't survive without the State.
BRAIN TWISTER: In Britain, post-Christmas shopping causes a frenzy like the one on our Black Friday. Yet when British customers hit the stores this week, they got a form of help (as yet) unheard of here: Teams of government workers were sent to show consumers how to do bargain-hunting math. A Dec. 27 Reuters report says that Britain's Department of Education and Skills assembled the helpers because 14.9 million U.K. adults may not be numerate enough to figure out the price of an item marked 20% off. In busy shopping areas, the government is also providing 200,000 sales calculators--to help citizens plumb the mysteries of pitches like "buy one, get one half price."
November 04, 2006
Che was a terrorist. Che is dead. Live with it.
I had the time and chance to take part in this before I escaped from France (more on this later).
Che was a murderer. A psychopath. He was no hero. And as we predicted, most of those who wear his t-shirt don't know anything about him.
Check the videos. "Useful idiots" takes all its meaning when you see this.
Thanks to Bureaucrash for sponsoring us with t-shirts.
May 27, 2006
May she one day find what she's looking for
PC in French can mean Politiquement Correct (Politically Correct) but most of the time it refers to the Parti Communiste (Communist Party) - there are no coincidences.
In that case, we could also admit, I guess, that PC stands for Pauvre Conne (silly fool).
May 26, 2006 - Gare Saint-Lazare, Paris
And yes, it's the ATM of a French bank. She was withdrawing cash! Isn't she afraid of being called a filthy capitalist pig?
May 15, 2006
What you're gonna do when they come for you?
More madness from the mad men of Latin America, with the support of a now-notorious, America-hater Frenchman.
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez said at the Vienna "social forum" that he, Evo Morales, and Fidel Castro "would continue being the bad boys of the empire, the axis of evil." Morales and Chavez were both present, as was Cuban vice-president Carlos Lage. Morales claimed that Castro had told him in 2003, "Don't do what I did, do what Hugo Chavez did, defeat imperialism in democracy." Among those president were Spanish communist leaders Gaspar Llamazares and Paco Frutos, and French agitator Jose Bove. Bova passed out coca leaves to those present. Chavez said, "We'll destroy the empire and the people of Abraham Lincoln and Luther King will be free...You've reached your end, Messrs. Pigs," he added, referring to Washington.
March 29, 2006
Why France will sink
And why it is a good thing for the world. Again, let's make France a model for the world. A model not to follow.
Le Figaro-Economie published a GlobalScan survey conducted in 20 countries of current interest. The question was: “Are free enterprise and a market economy the best for the future? 74 percent of Chinese surveyed said yes. In France, only 36 percent agreed. France just won’t swallow capitalism.
March 25, 2006
NYC Letter: What Does Castro Want?
Fidel Castro will always appreciate a thoughtful gift of in-the-wrapper swing-easies.
Here is a nice style.
Just a suggestion.