Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle released the following statement today:
"Media reports tell us that the Obama administration is heavily involved in the current crisis in Egypt. It shouldn't be.
"Personally, my sympathies are with the Egyptian protesters. Our very own Declaration of Independence said that government exists to secure people's rights, and 'whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.'
"However, it would be wrong for me to force all Americans to adopt my point of view and support my choice in this crisis. But that's exactly what the Obama administration is doing, by interfering in the crisis and inevitably taking sides.
"The instances of U.S. foreign meddling over the last hundred years are too numerous to list here. But in almost every case, U.S. intervention has made American taxpayers poorer, and it has usually served to entrench corrupt authoritarian rulers. In the worst cases, like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, military intervention has caused the deaths of many Americans and far more foreigners.
"This includes all types of intervention: military intervention, foreign aid, and 'behind-the-scenes' intervention using diplomacy and espionage.
"Libertarians call for the U.S. government to stop interfering in the Egyptian crisis, and to end foreign aid to all nations, including Egypt.
"American interventionism also gives foreign governments an excuse to copy us. Instead of respecting their neighbors' sovereignty and independence, foreign governments often interfere with each other, and they often use examples of American intervention as a justification.
"Unfortunately, powerful politicians in Washington can't seem to resist the temptation to meddle in foreign countries' affairs. This tendency is made worse by self-serving bureaucracies like the CIA, which rely on foreign meddling to keep their workers employed.
"Our government should leave other nations alone. The future of Egypt is for the Egyptian people to decide, not Washington politicians."
The Libertarian Party platform plank on international affairs states:
"American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups."
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Friday, February 4, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Libertarian chair "sort of" commends Obama's Cuba decision
Mark Hinkle, Chairman of the Libertarian Party, sort of commends President Obama for his decision to just barely ease travel restrictions and restrictions on sending private financial assistance to the people suffering under the socialist government of Cuba.
Hinkle said, "The president has shown less-than-tremendous courage here. I suppose it's a tiny positive step that our government will permit Americans to send $500 to a Cuban every three months. And churches will be allowed to arrange trips to Cuba, as long as they jump through a lot of bureaucratic hoops first.
"However, it's such a small improvement in such an awful policy, that I'm not sure the president really deserves a compliment.
"It's absurd that the U.S. government prohibits travel and trade with Cuba. In addition to being an unjust violation of Americans' rights, it's bone-headed policy. If the goal was to topple the Castro regime, then the policy has been a spectacular failure. The embargo has probably strengthened, not weakened, the Castro dictatorship.
"Libertarians call for unrestricted access to travel to Cuba and complete freedom for Americans to engage in economic activity there.
"Unrestricted access to the world markets will help Cubans lift themselves out of their disastrous socialist economy. Libertarians know that free trade and free travel are a fast-track ticket to prosperity.
"Next time, Mr. President, try to do something a little more impressive."
The Libertarian Party platform says the following on free trade and migration:
3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
Hinkle said, "The president has shown less-than-tremendous courage here. I suppose it's a tiny positive step that our government will permit Americans to send $500 to a Cuban every three months. And churches will be allowed to arrange trips to Cuba, as long as they jump through a lot of bureaucratic hoops first.
"However, it's such a small improvement in such an awful policy, that I'm not sure the president really deserves a compliment.
"It's absurd that the U.S. government prohibits travel and trade with Cuba. In addition to being an unjust violation of Americans' rights, it's bone-headed policy. If the goal was to topple the Castro regime, then the policy has been a spectacular failure. The embargo has probably strengthened, not weakened, the Castro dictatorship.
"Libertarians call for unrestricted access to travel to Cuba and complete freedom for Americans to engage in economic activity there.
"Unrestricted access to the world markets will help Cubans lift themselves out of their disastrous socialist economy. Libertarians know that free trade and free travel are a fast-track ticket to prosperity.
"Next time, Mr. President, try to do something a little more impressive."
The Libertarian Party platform says the following on free trade and migration:
3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Obama Drilling Reversal Jeopardizes Trillions in Economic Opportunity
/PRNewswire/ -- In the wake of an announcement by the administration to reverse its plans to expand offshore oil and gas exploration in the Eastern Gulf and up the Atlantic Coast, LSU finance professor and nationally renowned economist Joseph Mason released the following statement:
"Uncertainty is a major hindrance for economic growth. Yet, uncertainty has been the hallmark of the administration's energy policy over the past seven months. Today's default on its promise of expanded offshore access marks only the latest move by administration officials to saddle our still unstable economy with more uncertainty.
"By imposing a moratorium on deepwater drilling, the administration cost nearly 20,000 Gulf workers their jobs as of September. While the growing tally of jobs lost as a result of its ongoing de facto shallow water drilling ban remains unknown, this much is certain. If the Interior denies U.S. companies the opportunity to buy new offshore drilling leases in 2011, American policymakers will put an astounding amount of economic potential in jeopardy.
"In a 2009 analysis , I determined that America stood to gain $8 trillion in additional GDP, $2.2 trillion in tax revenue over the next 30 years, and 1.2 million new jobs annually by opening access to our offshore resources. Given that those estimates were based on federal inventories of offshore oil and gas reserves that have not been updated for decades, the actual economic benefits are likely much greater. In the same vein, the economic opportunities denied would be much greater too.
"Rather than opening up the pipeline for future economic investment in the Gulf region and other areas with restricted offshore resources, the administration is sealing them off. Washington must steer clear of harmful policies that unnecessarily extend recovery and, instead, focus on efforts which will invite investment, create jobs, and energize our economy."
"Uncertainty is a major hindrance for economic growth. Yet, uncertainty has been the hallmark of the administration's energy policy over the past seven months. Today's default on its promise of expanded offshore access marks only the latest move by administration officials to saddle our still unstable economy with more uncertainty.
"By imposing a moratorium on deepwater drilling, the administration cost nearly 20,000 Gulf workers their jobs as of September. While the growing tally of jobs lost as a result of its ongoing de facto shallow water drilling ban remains unknown, this much is certain. If the Interior denies U.S. companies the opportunity to buy new offshore drilling leases in 2011, American policymakers will put an astounding amount of economic potential in jeopardy.
"In a 2009 analysis , I determined that America stood to gain $8 trillion in additional GDP, $2.2 trillion in tax revenue over the next 30 years, and 1.2 million new jobs annually by opening access to our offshore resources. Given that those estimates were based on federal inventories of offshore oil and gas reserves that have not been updated for decades, the actual economic benefits are likely much greater. In the same vein, the economic opportunities denied would be much greater too.
"Rather than opening up the pipeline for future economic investment in the Gulf region and other areas with restricted offshore resources, the administration is sealing them off. Washington must steer clear of harmful policies that unnecessarily extend recovery and, instead, focus on efforts which will invite investment, create jobs, and energize our economy."
Monday, November 29, 2010
Federal Emergency Unemployment Benefits Set to Expire Unless Congress Acts
Georgians have received more than $2 billion in federal Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits over the last 12 months as part of the emergency UI program. To put that economic impact in context -- $2 billion is greater than the annual payroll for Robins Air Force Base. If Congress does not extend these benefits in December, millions of dollars will immediately stop flowing to Georgians pockets, lowering their purchasing power and impacting local economies across the state.
Congress provides emergency UI benefits in recessions to assist workers during periods of prolonged unemployment after they exhaust state UI benefits. These benefits help workers and families make ends meet when the number of job-searchers greatly out-numbers available jobs. For every 1 job opening nationally there are 5 unemployed workers. The job-population mismatch is especially pronounced in Georgia -- Today, Georgia has fewer jobs than in 2000, yet 20 percent more working age adults.
How would state leaders respond if a company with $2 billion in annual payroll suddenly announced they were eliminating all payroll in 2011? This is the dire reality faced by Georgia workers if federal UI benefits expire. An estimated 90,000 Georgians will lose benefits in December unless Congress acts, according to the National Employment Law Project.
Emergency UI Benefits Typical Until Unemployment Drops to 7.2%
Federal emergency benefits have been available in recessions since the 1950s and historically remain in place until unemployment falls to 7.2 percent or lower. Almost one in ten workers is unemployed today (9.6 percent nationally and 9.9 percent in Georgia), yet these emergency benefits are set to expire. Georgia's unemployment rate will likely stay above 9 percent in 2011, according to GSU Economic Forecasting Center.
Federal UI Benefits Have Helped Workers...And the State Budget
Georgia workers receiving federal UI benefits have contributed an estimated $100 million in income tax revenue over the last 12 months. UI benefits act as wage replacements for unemployed workers as they search for a job, and Georgia treats those benefits like regular wages when it comes to taxes. As the state has struggled with falling revenues and rising need, these tax contributions have added a small boost to revenues.
While the debate about UI extensions should focus on the very real impacts to workers and families, we at the state-level should also consider the impacts on state budget and tax policy. If emergency UI benefits expire and unemployment remains at 9 percent, as expected, will state leaders have to fill an additional $100 million hole in FY 2012 on top of the $1.8 to $2 billion budget shortfall? Will the demand for state services increase as these workers lose benefits -- at the same time revenues remain low? Is the state prepared to meet those additional demands for services?
The expiration of federal UI benefits has consequences for workers, families, and local economies, as well as the state's ability to meet rising needs for services.
Congress provides emergency UI benefits in recessions to assist workers during periods of prolonged unemployment after they exhaust state UI benefits. These benefits help workers and families make ends meet when the number of job-searchers greatly out-numbers available jobs. For every 1 job opening nationally there are 5 unemployed workers. The job-population mismatch is especially pronounced in Georgia -- Today, Georgia has fewer jobs than in 2000, yet 20 percent more working age adults.
How would state leaders respond if a company with $2 billion in annual payroll suddenly announced they were eliminating all payroll in 2011? This is the dire reality faced by Georgia workers if federal UI benefits expire. An estimated 90,000 Georgians will lose benefits in December unless Congress acts, according to the National Employment Law Project.
Emergency UI Benefits Typical Until Unemployment Drops to 7.2%
Federal emergency benefits have been available in recessions since the 1950s and historically remain in place until unemployment falls to 7.2 percent or lower. Almost one in ten workers is unemployed today (9.6 percent nationally and 9.9 percent in Georgia), yet these emergency benefits are set to expire. Georgia's unemployment rate will likely stay above 9 percent in 2011, according to GSU Economic Forecasting Center.
Federal UI Benefits Have Helped Workers...And the State Budget
Georgia workers receiving federal UI benefits have contributed an estimated $100 million in income tax revenue over the last 12 months. UI benefits act as wage replacements for unemployed workers as they search for a job, and Georgia treats those benefits like regular wages when it comes to taxes. As the state has struggled with falling revenues and rising need, these tax contributions have added a small boost to revenues.
While the debate about UI extensions should focus on the very real impacts to workers and families, we at the state-level should also consider the impacts on state budget and tax policy. If emergency UI benefits expire and unemployment remains at 9 percent, as expected, will state leaders have to fill an additional $100 million hole in FY 2012 on top of the $1.8 to $2 billion budget shortfall? Will the demand for state services increase as these workers lose benefits -- at the same time revenues remain low? Is the state prepared to meet those additional demands for services?
The expiration of federal UI benefits has consequences for workers, families, and local economies, as well as the state's ability to meet rising needs for services.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
President Obama Still Doesn't Get It, Says Small Business Advocate
/PRNewswire/ -- A national small business advocate agrees with President Barack Obama when he said a "magic bullet" doesn't exist for solving our current economic woes. However, she is urging the president to understand why businesses are not hiring and holding back on investments. According to Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) President & CEO Karen Kerrigan, perhaps if the President and his economic team get a true grasp of what's holding businesses back, the Administration would depart from its enthusiastic support of legislative and regulatory measures that are working to restrain our free enterprise system and prolong the recession.
"Small business owners feel they are under siege from Washington, and at a moment in time when they are facing the most difficult period in the history of their businesses," said Kerrigan. "Unfortunately, the small business lending bill is not an ample policy solution to leverage the potential of America's small business sector. The concerns and needs of most business owners go much deeper, and this legislation does not address broader issues related to taxes, regulations and excessive spending which threaten to aggravate currently poor economic conditions. At the end of the day, proposed tax hikes along with legislation and regulatory initiatives in the pipeline will drive business costs higher and drain more private capital from our economy. Anti-growth policies have led to low confidence among our nation's entrepreneurs, and it will not get better unless Washington backs off the never-ending stream of proposed tax hikes and intrusive policies that threaten all industries and all businesses," Kerrigan added.
According to Kerrigan, every industry and most businesses are under siege from Washington. Whether its new regulatory initiatives from the Department of Labor that threaten to tie America's workplaces in knots, to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules that will drive energy and business costs higher, to the expanded 1099-MISC reporting requirement from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) included in the new health care law and more, there is no business or workplace activity that the federal government has left untouched from burdensome and costly regulation. And then there is the new health care law, which by now most businesses realize is driving their health insurance costs higher and eventually will snatch away the health plans they currently provide despite promises to the contrary by President Obama.
New and proposed regulations in the telecommunications, energy, health care, and financial services sector only add to the uncertainty and anti-business thrust. To the casual observer and average American, it's quite easy to understand why businesses are not hiring and investment is weak. Yet, according to Kerrigan, our elite and well-educated political leaders simply don't get it.
"At this point, it appears that our economy will stay weak and business activity and hiring will remain anemic until business owners see a massive shift in the political environment," observed Kerrigan. "It seems most business owners are done with this Congress, and they are at least hoping that a divided government next year will bring practical, pro-growth governing policies to Washington," she concluded.
"Small business owners feel they are under siege from Washington, and at a moment in time when they are facing the most difficult period in the history of their businesses," said Kerrigan. "Unfortunately, the small business lending bill is not an ample policy solution to leverage the potential of America's small business sector. The concerns and needs of most business owners go much deeper, and this legislation does not address broader issues related to taxes, regulations and excessive spending which threaten to aggravate currently poor economic conditions. At the end of the day, proposed tax hikes along with legislation and regulatory initiatives in the pipeline will drive business costs higher and drain more private capital from our economy. Anti-growth policies have led to low confidence among our nation's entrepreneurs, and it will not get better unless Washington backs off the never-ending stream of proposed tax hikes and intrusive policies that threaten all industries and all businesses," Kerrigan added.
According to Kerrigan, every industry and most businesses are under siege from Washington. Whether its new regulatory initiatives from the Department of Labor that threaten to tie America's workplaces in knots, to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules that will drive energy and business costs higher, to the expanded 1099-MISC reporting requirement from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) included in the new health care law and more, there is no business or workplace activity that the federal government has left untouched from burdensome and costly regulation. And then there is the new health care law, which by now most businesses realize is driving their health insurance costs higher and eventually will snatch away the health plans they currently provide despite promises to the contrary by President Obama.
New and proposed regulations in the telecommunications, energy, health care, and financial services sector only add to the uncertainty and anti-business thrust. To the casual observer and average American, it's quite easy to understand why businesses are not hiring and investment is weak. Yet, according to Kerrigan, our elite and well-educated political leaders simply don't get it.
"At this point, it appears that our economy will stay weak and business activity and hiring will remain anemic until business owners see a massive shift in the political environment," observed Kerrigan. "It seems most business owners are done with this Congress, and they are at least hoping that a divided government next year will bring practical, pro-growth governing policies to Washington," she concluded.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Obama Administration Facing Critical Decision on Cuba Travel Policy
/PRNewswire/ -- "Time Magazine poses the right question, 'Will the White House Fight to End the Cuba Travel Ban?'" said John McAuliff, founder and executive director of a twenty-five-year-old non-governmental organization, the Fund for Reconciliation and Development.
"The Obama Administration must choose quickly how much to enable travel to Cuba for non-tourist people-to-people purposes. It has obligated itself to respond to Cuba's ongoing release of 'Black Spring' prisoners. Half of those who were still imprisoned since 2004 have already been freed," McAuliff observed.
McAuliff added, "the White House could take a minimalist approach and simply reinstate President Clinton's policy, which required time consuming and costly case-by-case applications to the bureaucratic and politicized judgment of the Office of Foreign Assets Control in the Treasury Department. Or it could implement its pro-dialogue values and grant general licenses to the remaining eleven categories of non-tourist travel, just as it did for the category of Cuban American family visits more than a year ago."
"Under general licenses, travel could be freely organized by schools, cultural institutions, Chambers of Commerce, religious bodies, World Affairs Councils, humanitarian organizations, advocacy groups and other not-for-profit organizations. Tens of thousands of seriously interested Americans can meet their Cuban counterparts and create mutual understanding and trust, needed in both countries," McAuliff argued.
McAuliff urged the Administration to resist pressure from the exile mind-set of five Cuban Americans in the House and Senate. "Polls demonstrate that they no longer represent their own community, much less the two-thirds of Americans who support freedom of travel to Cuba. On Saturday they wrote to the President distorting the clear intent of the law, which gives him complete authority to allow non-tourist travel."
"They opposed even family travel and will denounce any and all reforms, so there is no reason for the White House to be constrained by their misleading statement that they, 'are deeply troubled that such changes would result in economic benefits to the Cuban regime.' At peak in 2003 only 80,000 people-to-people visitors went to Cuba, a drop in the bucket compared to the 2.4 million foreigners in Cuba last year, including 300,000 Cuban Americans."
McAuliff said, "What really troubles the old guard is that personal contact between diverse Cubans and Americans will puncture their isolationist balloon and contribute to reform in both countries, including the end of all U.S. and Cuban travel and trade restrictions."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2012476,00.html?xid=rss-topstor ies#ixzz0xQrh1qvI
"The Obama Administration must choose quickly how much to enable travel to Cuba for non-tourist people-to-people purposes. It has obligated itself to respond to Cuba's ongoing release of 'Black Spring' prisoners. Half of those who were still imprisoned since 2004 have already been freed," McAuliff observed.
McAuliff added, "the White House could take a minimalist approach and simply reinstate President Clinton's policy, which required time consuming and costly case-by-case applications to the bureaucratic and politicized judgment of the Office of Foreign Assets Control in the Treasury Department. Or it could implement its pro-dialogue values and grant general licenses to the remaining eleven categories of non-tourist travel, just as it did for the category of Cuban American family visits more than a year ago."
"Under general licenses, travel could be freely organized by schools, cultural institutions, Chambers of Commerce, religious bodies, World Affairs Councils, humanitarian organizations, advocacy groups and other not-for-profit organizations. Tens of thousands of seriously interested Americans can meet their Cuban counterparts and create mutual understanding and trust, needed in both countries," McAuliff argued.
McAuliff urged the Administration to resist pressure from the exile mind-set of five Cuban Americans in the House and Senate. "Polls demonstrate that they no longer represent their own community, much less the two-thirds of Americans who support freedom of travel to Cuba. On Saturday they wrote to the President distorting the clear intent of the law, which gives him complete authority to allow non-tourist travel."
"They opposed even family travel and will denounce any and all reforms, so there is no reason for the White House to be constrained by their misleading statement that they, 'are deeply troubled that such changes would result in economic benefits to the Cuban regime.' At peak in 2003 only 80,000 people-to-people visitors went to Cuba, a drop in the bucket compared to the 2.4 million foreigners in Cuba last year, including 300,000 Cuban Americans."
McAuliff said, "What really troubles the old guard is that personal contact between diverse Cubans and Americans will puncture their isolationist balloon and contribute to reform in both countries, including the end of all U.S. and Cuban travel and trade restrictions."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2012476,00.html?xid=rss-topstor ies#ixzz0xQrh1qvI
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Liberals Examine Immigration Reform
/PRNewswire/ -- Progressives for Immigration Reform has released a new policy brief: "The Economic Impacts of Mass Immigration into the United States and the Proper Progressive Response." The publication was authored by Philip Cafaro, an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Colorado State University with a long history of progressive political activism. This study examines the impact that uncontrolled immigration has on America's poor and argues that Democrats need to address their plight rather than swelling their ranks by importing less-skilled, low-wage foreign labor. The article reveals that current immigration policies widen income inequalities and concentrate immigration's harms upon those Americans least able to afford them.
Among the article's key findings:
-- Increased immigration has swamped American labor markets with
less-skilled, less-educated workers, driving down wages for
working-class Americans.
-- Government data show that when adjusted for inflation, average wages
in some industries with high numbers of foreign workers are 45% lower
than in 1980.
-- Among the biggest economic losers of current high levels of
immigration are poor Americans, ethnic minorities, and older
immigrants. There is no evidence of a labor shortage at the lower end
of the labor market.
-- Current immigration policies further economic inequality in the United
States.
"In today's economic environment when many Americans are suffering from unemployment, job displacement and stagnant or declining wages, liberals should strive to set immigration at levels that work FOR America's poorest citizens, rather than against them," says Professor Cafaro. "Although the United States is a wealthy nation that can and should do its best to help the world's poor, basic fairness requires that we address the needs of America's poor before increasing the economic and wage competition they already face."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Among the article's key findings:
-- Increased immigration has swamped American labor markets with
less-skilled, less-educated workers, driving down wages for
working-class Americans.
-- Government data show that when adjusted for inflation, average wages
in some industries with high numbers of foreign workers are 45% lower
than in 1980.
-- Among the biggest economic losers of current high levels of
immigration are poor Americans, ethnic minorities, and older
immigrants. There is no evidence of a labor shortage at the lower end
of the labor market.
-- Current immigration policies further economic inequality in the United
States.
"In today's economic environment when many Americans are suffering from unemployment, job displacement and stagnant or declining wages, liberals should strive to set immigration at levels that work FOR America's poorest citizens, rather than against them," says Professor Cafaro. "Although the United States is a wealthy nation that can and should do its best to help the world's poor, basic fairness requires that we address the needs of America's poor before increasing the economic and wage competition they already face."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Americans Favor Carbon Tax Over Cap and Trade, Two-To-One
/PRNewswire/ -- Today, the U.S. Climate Task Force (CTF) and Future 500 released the results of a new survey by Hart Research, which reveals that three out of four Americans favor legislation to significantly cut carbon emissions -- contradicting reports that public support had cooled. Moreover, "Energy And Climate Change Policy: A Survey among American Voters" shows that U.S. voters favor a carbon tax over cap and trade by nearly two-to-one. These findings suggest it's politically feasible for the U.S. Congress to pass a national emissions policy; lawmakers just need to pick the right one.
The survey, which polled over 1,000 registered voters across the country, found a carbon tax outperforms emissions trading systems across the electorate, including voters in every income bracket, each region of the country, and on both sides of the political aisle. Moreover, those who give higher priority to climate issues are even less likely to support cap and trade as the best solution.
"This poll reveals that only two percent of voters hold very positive view of cap and trade -- the system at the core of the current Senate bill," explains Dr. Elaine Kamarck, former senior policy advisor to Vice President Al Gore and current CTF Co-chair. "But it's not too late to salvage the situation. With both the U.N. and the Senate delaying major climate debates until next year, policymakers now have time to make a serious course correction in the emissions debate. And this survey offers Congress -- especially those looking ahead to the 2010 midterm elections -- the necessary guideposts for success."
CTF Chair Dr. Robert J. Shapiro, former U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce and senior advisor to Bill Clinton notes, "Support for a carbon tax-shift has been strong among economists and many environmentalists for a long time, because it sets a stable price for carbon, providing businesses and households the incentives they need to develop and adopt climate friendly fuels and technologies. It also provides accompanying tax cuts for American families. This new survey shows that the same attributes that make this policy appealing to these groups also make it the most popular option for two out of every three average Americans."
"By more than two-to-one, Americans want strong action to protect the climate, and they favor using the tax system to help achieve that," says Bill Shireman, President of Future 500. "We applaud the tremendous progress made to advance climate legislation in the past year. To actually enact required changes into law, Congress will need to improve on the current Boxer-Kerry model, to best meet the climate crisis and unite environmental, business, social justice, and taxpayer interests."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The survey, which polled over 1,000 registered voters across the country, found a carbon tax outperforms emissions trading systems across the electorate, including voters in every income bracket, each region of the country, and on both sides of the political aisle. Moreover, those who give higher priority to climate issues are even less likely to support cap and trade as the best solution.
"This poll reveals that only two percent of voters hold very positive view of cap and trade -- the system at the core of the current Senate bill," explains Dr. Elaine Kamarck, former senior policy advisor to Vice President Al Gore and current CTF Co-chair. "But it's not too late to salvage the situation. With both the U.N. and the Senate delaying major climate debates until next year, policymakers now have time to make a serious course correction in the emissions debate. And this survey offers Congress -- especially those looking ahead to the 2010 midterm elections -- the necessary guideposts for success."
CTF Chair Dr. Robert J. Shapiro, former U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce and senior advisor to Bill Clinton notes, "Support for a carbon tax-shift has been strong among economists and many environmentalists for a long time, because it sets a stable price for carbon, providing businesses and households the incentives they need to develop and adopt climate friendly fuels and technologies. It also provides accompanying tax cuts for American families. This new survey shows that the same attributes that make this policy appealing to these groups also make it the most popular option for two out of every three average Americans."
"By more than two-to-one, Americans want strong action to protect the climate, and they favor using the tax system to help achieve that," says Bill Shireman, President of Future 500. "We applaud the tremendous progress made to advance climate legislation in the past year. To actually enact required changes into law, Congress will need to improve on the current Boxer-Kerry model, to best meet the climate crisis and unite environmental, business, social justice, and taxpayer interests."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, November 19, 2009
AHIP Statement on the Release of Proposed Senate Legislation
/PRNewswire/ -- Karen Ignagni, President and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), released the following statement today on the release of proposed Senate legislation:
"The promise of health care reform is that it will provide all Americans coverage, allow them to keep their coverage if they like it, and bends the cost curve to put the system on a sustainable path. These are the standards by which any reform bill should be judged, and the Senate bill falls short of meeting them. We believe that these issues can be addressed and improved to achieve these goals, and we will continue to work with policymakers toward that end.
"We believe that all Americans, regardless of health status or medical history, should have guaranteed access to affordable coverage. We have proposed guarantee issue coverage with no exclusions for pre-existing conditions in conjunction with a coverage requirement and adequate subsidies for working families. We also have made a commitment to do our part by proposing far-reaching administrative simplification reforms that improve efficiency, reduce costs, and free up time for physicians to focus on patient care. We stand by these commitments, but agree with a wide range of health policy experts that market reforms will not work if there is not an effective coverage requirement.
"This proposal encourages people to wait until they are sick to purchase coverage, which will significantly drive up costs for those who are currently insured. The legislation also imposes rating rules that will raise the cost of coverage for millions of young families in more than 40 states.
"The new health care taxes and fees will raise the cost of coverage for individuals, families, and employers. Health plans will be required to pay a $6.7 billion tax beginning next year for the next 10 years, in addition to 'stabilization' fees of $25 billion in 2014, 2015, and 2016. According to Fortune magazine's analysis of the companies listed under 'Insurance and Managed Care,' earnings in 2008 totaled $8.61 billion with a profit margin of 2.2% -- ranking the industry 35th on the Fortune list.
"This bill will also exacerbate the health care cost shift as health care providers offset reductions in public program reimbursements by charging more to families and employers who have private coverage. The new government plan will cause even more cost-shifting and threaten the employer-based coverage with which Americans are overwhelmingly satisfied.
"The $117 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage will threaten the choices that seniors have across the country and significantly reduce seniors' benefits in many major metropolitan areas.
"Congress is being forced to turn to these financing mechanisms because it has been unwilling to make a commitment to specific strategies and enforceable objectives that will bend the health care cost curve downward."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"The promise of health care reform is that it will provide all Americans coverage, allow them to keep their coverage if they like it, and bends the cost curve to put the system on a sustainable path. These are the standards by which any reform bill should be judged, and the Senate bill falls short of meeting them. We believe that these issues can be addressed and improved to achieve these goals, and we will continue to work with policymakers toward that end.
"We believe that all Americans, regardless of health status or medical history, should have guaranteed access to affordable coverage. We have proposed guarantee issue coverage with no exclusions for pre-existing conditions in conjunction with a coverage requirement and adequate subsidies for working families. We also have made a commitment to do our part by proposing far-reaching administrative simplification reforms that improve efficiency, reduce costs, and free up time for physicians to focus on patient care. We stand by these commitments, but agree with a wide range of health policy experts that market reforms will not work if there is not an effective coverage requirement.
"This proposal encourages people to wait until they are sick to purchase coverage, which will significantly drive up costs for those who are currently insured. The legislation also imposes rating rules that will raise the cost of coverage for millions of young families in more than 40 states.
"The new health care taxes and fees will raise the cost of coverage for individuals, families, and employers. Health plans will be required to pay a $6.7 billion tax beginning next year for the next 10 years, in addition to 'stabilization' fees of $25 billion in 2014, 2015, and 2016. According to Fortune magazine's analysis of the companies listed under 'Insurance and Managed Care,' earnings in 2008 totaled $8.61 billion with a profit margin of 2.2% -- ranking the industry 35th on the Fortune list.
"This bill will also exacerbate the health care cost shift as health care providers offset reductions in public program reimbursements by charging more to families and employers who have private coverage. The new government plan will cause even more cost-shifting and threaten the employer-based coverage with which Americans are overwhelmingly satisfied.
"The $117 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage will threaten the choices that seniors have across the country and significantly reduce seniors' benefits in many major metropolitan areas.
"Congress is being forced to turn to these financing mechanisms because it has been unwilling to make a commitment to specific strategies and enforceable objectives that will bend the health care cost curve downward."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Friday, September 18, 2009
Massive Inflation Has Already Arrived in the U.S.
/PRNewswire/ -- The National Inflation Association today released the following statement to its http://inflation.us/ members:
"On March 5th with the U.S. Dollar Index at a multiyear high of 89, we wrote an article entitled, "The World is Awashed with Dollars" and said, "It's a real shame that those who lost most of their money in the stock market and Real Estate bubbles, and are now finally selling out after these markets have already collapsed, are positioning themselves to get wiped out all over again through massive inflation."
On March 26th we wrote another article entitled, "Don't Be Last Person Out of the Dollar" and said, "They (the politicians in Washington) will soon learn that you can't reinflate a bubble as Americans start to wake up and begin pouring their Dollars into real, hard assets like Gold and Silver."
Since then, the U.S. Dollar Index has fallen practically straight down to a new 52-week low of 76, while gold has risen to a new 18-month high of $1,025.80 per ounce and silver has risen to a new 13-month high of $17.63 per ounce. Meanwhile, several of our gold and silver stock suggestions have gained over 100%.
Ben Bernanke said this week that the recession is "very likely over." Yes, the recession may be over in nominal terms, but massive inflation has just begun and prices of stocks and real estate will continue to plummet when valued in real money, gold and silver. You can't just print your way out of a recession without increasing production. Sure, if you print enough money prices of stocks and real estate will rise when priced in dollars, but that won't mean a thing when it costs $10,000 to fill your refrigerator with food.
We are very happy that Peter Schiff announced on Thursday that he is officially a candidate for U.S. Senate in the State of Connecticut. We are big supporters of Peter Schiff with two of our co-founders each donating $2,400 to his Senate campaign. We are extremely pleased to be hearing from countless NIA members who have also contributed to the campaign. Unfortunately, even if Peter Schiff is elected and is able to help persuade Washington to reverse course immediately, it may still be too late to prevent hyperinflation. Every day that goes by with interest rates at 0%, tremendous damage is being done to our economy that we may never recover from.
China is now beginning to sell yuan-denominated bonds in Hong Kong while encouraging their citizens on state-run television to invest in silver. These moves are quietly positioning China to move away from the dollar as the world's reserve currency. When this day comes, all hell will break loose.
In the weeks ahead, we will be launching a new feature on our web site called NIAnswers. It will be a fully interactive section for you to submit to us your questions about the economy and inflation, and search through previous questions and answers that will be categorized in a database. We need to educate America as to how we will feel the pain of the government's trillions of dollars in wasteful spending so that at the next major tea party protest, we have hundreds of people holding inflation related signs. If Obama's supporters became aware of what happened in Zimbabwe when Robert Mugabe implemented the same policies that Obama and Bernanke are implementing here, they would see the light and jump to our side."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"On March 5th with the U.S. Dollar Index at a multiyear high of 89, we wrote an article entitled, "The World is Awashed with Dollars" and said, "It's a real shame that those who lost most of their money in the stock market and Real Estate bubbles, and are now finally selling out after these markets have already collapsed, are positioning themselves to get wiped out all over again through massive inflation."
On March 26th we wrote another article entitled, "Don't Be Last Person Out of the Dollar" and said, "They (the politicians in Washington) will soon learn that you can't reinflate a bubble as Americans start to wake up and begin pouring their Dollars into real, hard assets like Gold and Silver."
Since then, the U.S. Dollar Index has fallen practically straight down to a new 52-week low of 76, while gold has risen to a new 18-month high of $1,025.80 per ounce and silver has risen to a new 13-month high of $17.63 per ounce. Meanwhile, several of our gold and silver stock suggestions have gained over 100%.
Ben Bernanke said this week that the recession is "very likely over." Yes, the recession may be over in nominal terms, but massive inflation has just begun and prices of stocks and real estate will continue to plummet when valued in real money, gold and silver. You can't just print your way out of a recession without increasing production. Sure, if you print enough money prices of stocks and real estate will rise when priced in dollars, but that won't mean a thing when it costs $10,000 to fill your refrigerator with food.
We are very happy that Peter Schiff announced on Thursday that he is officially a candidate for U.S. Senate in the State of Connecticut. We are big supporters of Peter Schiff with two of our co-founders each donating $2,400 to his Senate campaign. We are extremely pleased to be hearing from countless NIA members who have also contributed to the campaign. Unfortunately, even if Peter Schiff is elected and is able to help persuade Washington to reverse course immediately, it may still be too late to prevent hyperinflation. Every day that goes by with interest rates at 0%, tremendous damage is being done to our economy that we may never recover from.
China is now beginning to sell yuan-denominated bonds in Hong Kong while encouraging their citizens on state-run television to invest in silver. These moves are quietly positioning China to move away from the dollar as the world's reserve currency. When this day comes, all hell will break loose.
In the weeks ahead, we will be launching a new feature on our web site called NIAnswers. It will be a fully interactive section for you to submit to us your questions about the economy and inflation, and search through previous questions and answers that will be categorized in a database. We need to educate America as to how we will feel the pain of the government's trillions of dollars in wasteful spending so that at the next major tea party protest, we have hundreds of people holding inflation related signs. If Obama's supporters became aware of what happened in Zimbabwe when Robert Mugabe implemented the same policies that Obama and Bernanke are implementing here, they would see the light and jump to our side."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
New Report to President and Congress Addresses 'Serious Oversights' in National Health Care Debate
/PRNewswire/ -- A report commissioned by The Physicians Foundation, a national health care organization that represents the interests of physicians, raises new questions about the role of socioeconomic determinants as they relate to access, quality, and cost of medical care in the United States. The report, prepared by a team of noted physicians and economists headed by Richard "Buz" Cooper, MD, Professor of Medicine and Senior Fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, was sent to the President and Congress today in order to contribute to the national health care debate.
The report, entitled "Physicians and their Practices under Health Care Reform," highlights several important concerns that the report's authors believe have been left out of the health care discussion, including: the growing problem of physician shortages, the changes in physicians' practices that will be necessary in a reformed health care system, and the pervasive effects of poverty and other social determinants which impact variation in access, quality and cost of care.
The full report can be viewed at www.physiciansfoundation.org.
"In preparing this report, our goal was to create a realistic, common-sense framework that will assist legislators in crafting policy in ways that address the needs of both doctors and patients and that lead to a stronger and more cost-effective health care system," said Dr. Cooper. "It's clear that without adequate numbers of physicians, the health care system cannot function effectively; without adequate attention to the structure of physician practices, the system cannot function efficiently; and without adequate attention to the pervasive social determinants of health, it cannot function economically."
"We are at a rare moment in history when important decisions are being made that will impact doctors, their patients and the entire health care delivery system for many years to come, if not forever," said Lou Goodman, PhD, President of The Physicians Foundation. "The Physicians Foundation commissioned this report in order to bring new perspectives to the discussions of health care reform. We believe that the report will add richness to the policy discussions as they resume this fall."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The report, entitled "Physicians and their Practices under Health Care Reform," highlights several important concerns that the report's authors believe have been left out of the health care discussion, including: the growing problem of physician shortages, the changes in physicians' practices that will be necessary in a reformed health care system, and the pervasive effects of poverty and other social determinants which impact variation in access, quality and cost of care.
The full report can be viewed at www.physiciansfoundation.org.
"In preparing this report, our goal was to create a realistic, common-sense framework that will assist legislators in crafting policy in ways that address the needs of both doctors and patients and that lead to a stronger and more cost-effective health care system," said Dr. Cooper. "It's clear that without adequate numbers of physicians, the health care system cannot function effectively; without adequate attention to the structure of physician practices, the system cannot function efficiently; and without adequate attention to the pervasive social determinants of health, it cannot function economically."
"We are at a rare moment in history when important decisions are being made that will impact doctors, their patients and the entire health care delivery system for many years to come, if not forever," said Lou Goodman, PhD, President of The Physicians Foundation. "The Physicians Foundation commissioned this report in order to bring new perspectives to the discussions of health care reform. We believe that the report will add richness to the policy discussions as they resume this fall."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Statement of Robert Greenstein, Executive Director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, on the President's 'Pay As You Go' Budget Proposal
/PRNewswire / -- The following is being released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:
President Obama's proposal to require policymakers to fully pay for all new entitlement increases and tax cuts, rather than deficit-finance them, is an important first step to restore fiscal responsibility. Critics charge that the pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, proposal is riddled with loopholes, would be ineffective, or is a gimmick. But they are fundamentally mistaken. In light of obvious political realities, the so-called loopholes actually increase the likelihood that the pay-as-you-go rule would be effective in preventing enactment of new policies that would increase the deficit. Those who support fiscal responsibility should embrace the President's proposal, rather than undercut it by calling for a "pure" pay-as-you-go rule that would be doomed to failure.
The last administration ignored pay-as-you-go discipline. It successfully pushed deficit financing of nearly all of its major initiatives, including the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and 2004 prescription drug legislation. In sharp contrast, the Obama Administration proposes to bar deficit financing for its own top initiatives, like health care reform, even though this will make those initiatives harder to push through Congress. Proponents of fiscal responsibility should applaud the commitment to ensuring that policymakers fully offset the costs of universal health coverage, strengthened college financial aid, efforts to address global warming, and other initiatives.
Some critics complain that the proposal would exempt the costs of extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, alternative minimum tax relief, the current estate tax rules, and current policies that prevent deep cuts in the fees that Medicare pays to doctors from taking effect as scheduled. But, the inclusion of these exemptions strengthens, rather than weakens, prospects that the proposal will start to restore fiscal responsibility.
To be sure, we would much prefer that the President and Congress offset the cost of extending these current policies. But, it has become painfully clear over the past few years that there is no chance that Congress will pay for such extensions and no chance it will allow these policies to expire.
Suppose new statutory PAYGO requirements were applied to these current policies. Congress would unquestionably issue a series of waivers of the PAYGO rules, undermining their credibility within months of enactment and making it much harder to prevent waivers for other legislation to institute new entitlement expansions and tax cuts. Rather than make a transparently phony fiscal responsibility promise that would evaporate whenever 60 Senators support an entitlement or tax cut but don't want to pay for it, we need a PAYGO rule that Congress will adhere to. The Administration's proposal would erect a pay-as-you-go rule that acknowledges the additional costs that everyone knows will be incurred in extending current policies (and everyone knows will not be offset), and makes a commitment to draw the line at new policies that would increase the deficit.
Consider the estate tax, for example. If the Administration proposed a PAYGO rule without exemptions for current policies and Congress needed to waive the rule just to maintain today's estate tax rules in coming years, then Congress surely would enact such a waiver. That would leave no additional statutory barrier to going well beyond today's rules and eviscerating much of the estate tax that remains, and thereby digging the deficit hole even deeper. The sky would be the limit here. In contrast, if a new PAYGO rule draws the line at today's estate rule tax parameters --- so that extending them does not violate the rule but any effort to remove more of the tax does violate it -- then policymakers will have a better chance of holding the line and avoiding still more deficit financing here. As this example illustrates, the Administration's proposal will likely be more effective at maintaining fiscal discipline than an all-encompassing PAYGO rule that applied to extending current popular policies -- and that Congress waived willy-nilly.
An analogy may help here. If a boulder has begun to slide down a hill, standing at the top of the hill and exhorting the boulder to roll back up -- or building a barrier at the top of the hill -- won't do much good. But marching part way down the hill to where the boulder currently sits and erecting a barrier to prevent the boulder from sliding further can be effective.
To be sure, PAYGO rules will not close the daunting budget gaps we face. Policymakers must take other steps to begin addressing them. But erecting an effective barrier to forestall new policies that would make the problem worse is an important first step. The nation's fiscal situation would be far healthier had policymakers adhered to such policies over the past decade. The Obama Administration and the "Blue Dog" coalition of lawmakers (a group of conservative-to-moderate House Democrats), as well as others who support the President's efforts, should be commended, rather than chastised, for pursuing this action.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
President Obama's proposal to require policymakers to fully pay for all new entitlement increases and tax cuts, rather than deficit-finance them, is an important first step to restore fiscal responsibility. Critics charge that the pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, proposal is riddled with loopholes, would be ineffective, or is a gimmick. But they are fundamentally mistaken. In light of obvious political realities, the so-called loopholes actually increase the likelihood that the pay-as-you-go rule would be effective in preventing enactment of new policies that would increase the deficit. Those who support fiscal responsibility should embrace the President's proposal, rather than undercut it by calling for a "pure" pay-as-you-go rule that would be doomed to failure.
The last administration ignored pay-as-you-go discipline. It successfully pushed deficit financing of nearly all of its major initiatives, including the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and 2004 prescription drug legislation. In sharp contrast, the Obama Administration proposes to bar deficit financing for its own top initiatives, like health care reform, even though this will make those initiatives harder to push through Congress. Proponents of fiscal responsibility should applaud the commitment to ensuring that policymakers fully offset the costs of universal health coverage, strengthened college financial aid, efforts to address global warming, and other initiatives.
Some critics complain that the proposal would exempt the costs of extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, alternative minimum tax relief, the current estate tax rules, and current policies that prevent deep cuts in the fees that Medicare pays to doctors from taking effect as scheduled. But, the inclusion of these exemptions strengthens, rather than weakens, prospects that the proposal will start to restore fiscal responsibility.
To be sure, we would much prefer that the President and Congress offset the cost of extending these current policies. But, it has become painfully clear over the past few years that there is no chance that Congress will pay for such extensions and no chance it will allow these policies to expire.
Suppose new statutory PAYGO requirements were applied to these current policies. Congress would unquestionably issue a series of waivers of the PAYGO rules, undermining their credibility within months of enactment and making it much harder to prevent waivers for other legislation to institute new entitlement expansions and tax cuts. Rather than make a transparently phony fiscal responsibility promise that would evaporate whenever 60 Senators support an entitlement or tax cut but don't want to pay for it, we need a PAYGO rule that Congress will adhere to. The Administration's proposal would erect a pay-as-you-go rule that acknowledges the additional costs that everyone knows will be incurred in extending current policies (and everyone knows will not be offset), and makes a commitment to draw the line at new policies that would increase the deficit.
Consider the estate tax, for example. If the Administration proposed a PAYGO rule without exemptions for current policies and Congress needed to waive the rule just to maintain today's estate tax rules in coming years, then Congress surely would enact such a waiver. That would leave no additional statutory barrier to going well beyond today's rules and eviscerating much of the estate tax that remains, and thereby digging the deficit hole even deeper. The sky would be the limit here. In contrast, if a new PAYGO rule draws the line at today's estate rule tax parameters --- so that extending them does not violate the rule but any effort to remove more of the tax does violate it -- then policymakers will have a better chance of holding the line and avoiding still more deficit financing here. As this example illustrates, the Administration's proposal will likely be more effective at maintaining fiscal discipline than an all-encompassing PAYGO rule that applied to extending current popular policies -- and that Congress waived willy-nilly.
An analogy may help here. If a boulder has begun to slide down a hill, standing at the top of the hill and exhorting the boulder to roll back up -- or building a barrier at the top of the hill -- won't do much good. But marching part way down the hill to where the boulder currently sits and erecting a barrier to prevent the boulder from sliding further can be effective.
To be sure, PAYGO rules will not close the daunting budget gaps we face. Policymakers must take other steps to begin addressing them. But erecting an effective barrier to forestall new policies that would make the problem worse is an important first step. The nation's fiscal situation would be far healthier had policymakers adhered to such policies over the past decade. The Obama Administration and the "Blue Dog" coalition of lawmakers (a group of conservative-to-moderate House Democrats), as well as others who support the President's efforts, should be commended, rather than chastised, for pursuing this action.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Bauer Expresses Concern That Sotomayor Will Replace the Rule of Law With Her Feelings
/PRNewswire / -- Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer on Tuesday expressed great concern over President Barack Obama's pick of Sonia Sotomayor given her long history of using her feelings as a judicial guide rather than the rule of law.
The president of American Values made the following statement: "Sotomayor's appointment proves what we already knew--that President Obama is committed to packing our federal courts with activist judges who will make policy according to their 'feelings' rather than the requirements of the Constitution.
"Judge Sotomayor admitted in a panel discussion at Duke University Law School in 2005 that she believes the courts are 'where policy is made.' In a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she suggested justice might be better determined by some races than others, saying, 'I would hope that a wise Latino women with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.'
"In view of these quotes, I urge senators to fully examine Judge Sotomayor's judicial philosophy. The American people deserve to know whether once again we are putting someone on our highest court who thinks her job is to remake America to reflect her leftwing prejudices."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The president of American Values made the following statement: "Sotomayor's appointment proves what we already knew--that President Obama is committed to packing our federal courts with activist judges who will make policy according to their 'feelings' rather than the requirements of the Constitution.
"Judge Sotomayor admitted in a panel discussion at Duke University Law School in 2005 that she believes the courts are 'where policy is made.' In a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she suggested justice might be better determined by some races than others, saying, 'I would hope that a wise Latino women with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.'
"In view of these quotes, I urge senators to fully examine Judge Sotomayor's judicial philosophy. The American people deserve to know whether once again we are putting someone on our highest court who thinks her job is to remake America to reflect her leftwing prejudices."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
ACCCE Statement in Response to White House Carbon Policy Meeting
/PRNewswire/ -- In response to today's meeting at the White House between Hill leaders and President Obama, Joe Lucas, Senior Vice President, Communications for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) released the following statement:
"President Obama, in describing a federal carbon policy, has said, 'if it is too expensive, people won't do it.' We couldn't agree more.
"That is why we believe that as officials at the White House and in Congress continue to work on a federal carbon management bill, their goal needs to be to find a policy that is both effective and affordable.
"ACCCE supports a mandatory federal carbon management program that will achieve emissions reductions, create jobs, preserve fuel diversity as a means of promoting greater energy independence, and ensure access to affordable, reliable electricity for American businesses and consumers. Bringing new advanced technologies to the marketplace and driving down the cost of deploying these technologies will ensure that consumers receive the benefit of reduced emissions and access to affordable energy.
"The current bill being discussed in the House of Representatives does not yet detail how emission allowances will be distributed. Any bill that Congress ultimately adopts needs to provide enough allowances to affected industries to help them transition to a low-carbon economy. Auctioning trillions of dollars in allowances is not the best way to make carbon legislation less expensive, nor will it make the program more environmentally effective.
"ACCCE and its members will continue to engage with Congressional leaders and the Administration in pursuit of a carbon policy that meets America's environmental and economic needs."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"President Obama, in describing a federal carbon policy, has said, 'if it is too expensive, people won't do it.' We couldn't agree more.
"That is why we believe that as officials at the White House and in Congress continue to work on a federal carbon management bill, their goal needs to be to find a policy that is both effective and affordable.
"ACCCE supports a mandatory federal carbon management program that will achieve emissions reductions, create jobs, preserve fuel diversity as a means of promoting greater energy independence, and ensure access to affordable, reliable electricity for American businesses and consumers. Bringing new advanced technologies to the marketplace and driving down the cost of deploying these technologies will ensure that consumers receive the benefit of reduced emissions and access to affordable energy.
"The current bill being discussed in the House of Representatives does not yet detail how emission allowances will be distributed. Any bill that Congress ultimately adopts needs to provide enough allowances to affected industries to help them transition to a low-carbon economy. Auctioning trillions of dollars in allowances is not the best way to make carbon legislation less expensive, nor will it make the program more environmentally effective.
"ACCCE and its members will continue to engage with Congressional leaders and the Administration in pursuit of a carbon policy that meets America's environmental and economic needs."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, May 4, 2009
Zogby/O'Leary Report 100-Days Poll Shows That Taxpayers are More Opposed to President Obama's Policies Than Non-taxpayers
/PRNewswire/ -- During the 2008 presidential campaign, polls showed that President Obama drew enthusiastic support from an often overlooked demographic: Americans who have no federal income tax liability (who total 30 percent of the electorate). Conversely, Americans who pay federal income taxes (70 percent of the electorate) were more skeptical of Obama's policy proposals - particularly on issues that deal with the economy.
Recently, Zogby International and The O'Leary Report conducted a 100-Days Poll (which surveyed 3,937 people who voted in the 2008 presidential election) to revisit these two demographics and gauge their opinions on the Obama Administration's actions and proposals. The results show that non-taxpayers are still more likely to support President Obama's agenda than taxpayers. Interestingly, however, enthusiasm for the President appears to be dwindling among non-taxpayers - even on economic issues.
Taxes & Spending
Q. Thinking about the Tea Party demonstrations that took place on April
15th to protest the growth in taxes and federal government spending, do
you...?
Paid Paid
Federal No Federal
Taxes Taxes
----- -----
Strongly support the beliefs
of the organizers.. 47% 38%
Somewhat support them 11% 15%
Somewhat oppose their beliefs 12% 13%
Strongly oppose them 27% 29%
Not sure 3% 6%
Economy
Q. Which of the following do you think is a better economic system -
A or B?
A: A system in which the public or the state have ownership and
administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
B: A system in which wealth and the means of producing wealth are
privately owned and controlled rather than state owned or controlled
with the state regulating them.
Paid Paid
Federal No Federal
Taxes Taxes
----- -----
Statement A 12% 29%
Statement B 76% 55%
Not sure 12% 16%
Energy
Q. Which course of action should America take with regards to energy
policy?
Paid Paid
Federal No Federal
Taxes Taxes
----- -----
Make energy cheaper by developing all
sources of U.S. energy, including coal,
nuclear power, offshore drilling and
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge 57% 48%
Reduce America's production of fossil
fuels that might cause global warming 38% 46%
Not sure 5% 7%
First Amendment
Q. Senator Durbin recently offered an amendment in the U.S. Senate that
requires the Federal Communications Commission to take actions to
encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership.
Opponents say the move would threaten the breakup of radio networks that
largely carry conservative talk radio shows like Glenn Beck, Rush
Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Do you support or oppose this legislation?
Paid Paid
Federal No Federal
Taxes Taxes
----- -----
Support 36% 47%
Oppose 57% 43%
Not sure 7% 10%
Q. The Federal Communications is entertaining the idea of re-instituting
advisory boards to determine the needs and interests of their communities,
to promote localism and diversity. These boards, appointed by the FCC and
would monitor what is said over the radio and report back if they were
offended by the talk show hosts and their guests. Critics argue that such
a proposal is nothing more than a back door implementation of the Fairness
Doctrine. Do you support or oppose the FCC's efforts to reinstitute
advisory boards?
Paid Paid
Federal No Federal
Taxes Taxes
----- -----
Support 19% 27%
Oppose 69% 58%
Not sure 12% 15%
Abortion
Q. President Obama's health secretary nominee, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is a
supporter of abortion on demand. President Obama indicated that he would
appoint someone who was neutral on the issue, but pro-life forces find
Gov. Sebelius' pro-choice record unacceptable. Do you support or oppose
Gov. Sebelius is a good choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services?
Paid Paid
Federal No Federal
Taxes Taxes
----- -----
Support 44% 52%
Oppose 48% 35%
Not sure 8% 13%
Second Amendment
Q. Do you think new gun laws should be passed or do you think we should
enforce the laws already on the books.
Paid Paid
Federal No Federal
Taxes Taxes
----- -----
New gun laws should be passed 24% 31%
Enforce the laws already on the books 73% 66%
Not sure 4% 4%
Religion
Q. While visiting Turkey recently, President Obama said America is not a
Christian nation. Do agree or disagree that the US is a Christian
nation?
Paid Paid
Federal No Federal
Taxes Taxes
----- -----
Agree 38% 47%
Disagree 54% 47%
Not sure 7% 6%
The O'Leary Report/Zogby poll was conducted April 24-27, surveyed 3,937 voters nationwide, and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 1.6 percentage points. Only voters who voted in the 2008 presidential election were surveyed, and the sample was weighted to reflect the outcome of the 2008 Presidential Election (i.e. 53% Obama voters and 46% McCain voters).
Recently, Zogby International and The O'Leary Report conducted a 100-Days Poll (which surveyed 3,937 people who voted in the 2008 presidential election) to revisit these two demographics and gauge their opinions on the Obama Administration's actions and proposals. The results show that non-taxpayers are still more likely to support President Obama's agenda than taxpayers. Interestingly, however, enthusiasm for the President appears to be dwindling among non-taxpayers - even on economic issues.
Taxes & Spending
Q. Thinking about the Tea Party demonstrations that took place on April
15th to protest the growth in taxes and federal government spending, do
you...?
Paid Paid
Federal No Federal
Taxes Taxes
----- -----
Strongly support the beliefs
of the organizers.. 47% 38%
Somewhat support them 11% 15%
Somewhat oppose their beliefs 12% 13%
Strongly oppose them 27% 29%
Not sure 3% 6%
Economy
Q. Which of the following do you think is a better economic system -
A or B?
A: A system in which the public or the state have ownership and
administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
B: A system in which wealth and the means of producing wealth are
privately owned and controlled rather than state owned or controlled
with the state regulating them.
Paid Paid
Federal No Federal
Taxes Taxes
----- -----
Statement A 12% 29%
Statement B 76% 55%
Not sure 12% 16%
Energy
Q. Which course of action should America take with regards to energy
policy?
Paid Paid
Federal No Federal
Taxes Taxes
----- -----
Make energy cheaper by developing all
sources of U.S. energy, including coal,
nuclear power, offshore drilling and
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge 57% 48%
Reduce America's production of fossil
fuels that might cause global warming 38% 46%
Not sure 5% 7%
First Amendment
Q. Senator Durbin recently offered an amendment in the U.S. Senate that
requires the Federal Communications Commission to take actions to
encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership.
Opponents say the move would threaten the breakup of radio networks that
largely carry conservative talk radio shows like Glenn Beck, Rush
Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Do you support or oppose this legislation?
Paid Paid
Federal No Federal
Taxes Taxes
----- -----
Support 36% 47%
Oppose 57% 43%
Not sure 7% 10%
Q. The Federal Communications is entertaining the idea of re-instituting
advisory boards to determine the needs and interests of their communities,
to promote localism and diversity. These boards, appointed by the FCC and
would monitor what is said over the radio and report back if they were
offended by the talk show hosts and their guests. Critics argue that such
a proposal is nothing more than a back door implementation of the Fairness
Doctrine. Do you support or oppose the FCC's efforts to reinstitute
advisory boards?
Paid Paid
Federal No Federal
Taxes Taxes
----- -----
Support 19% 27%
Oppose 69% 58%
Not sure 12% 15%
Abortion
Q. President Obama's health secretary nominee, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is a
supporter of abortion on demand. President Obama indicated that he would
appoint someone who was neutral on the issue, but pro-life forces find
Gov. Sebelius' pro-choice record unacceptable. Do you support or oppose
Gov. Sebelius is a good choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services?
Paid Paid
Federal No Federal
Taxes Taxes
----- -----
Support 44% 52%
Oppose 48% 35%
Not sure 8% 13%
Second Amendment
Q. Do you think new gun laws should be passed or do you think we should
enforce the laws already on the books.
Paid Paid
Federal No Federal
Taxes Taxes
----- -----
New gun laws should be passed 24% 31%
Enforce the laws already on the books 73% 66%
Not sure 4% 4%
Religion
Q. While visiting Turkey recently, President Obama said America is not a
Christian nation. Do agree or disagree that the US is a Christian
nation?
Paid Paid
Federal No Federal
Taxes Taxes
----- -----
Agree 38% 47%
Disagree 54% 47%
Not sure 7% 6%
The O'Leary Report/Zogby poll was conducted April 24-27, surveyed 3,937 voters nationwide, and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 1.6 percentage points. Only voters who voted in the 2008 presidential election were surveyed, and the sample was weighted to reflect the outcome of the 2008 Presidential Election (i.e. 53% Obama voters and 46% McCain voters).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)