In the wake of the much-discussed release of President Obama's long-form birth certificate, Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle had this to say:
"Instead of wasting so much ink on this birther story, the press should be giving a lot more attention to the many real disasters of the Obama administration. The Libertarian Party recently released a list of '20 Obama problems, 20 Libertarian solutions.'
"Of course, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are only part of the problem equation. The Republicans deserve an equal share of the blame, for their unwillingness to cut military spending or entitlements, their addiction to government programs like farm subsidies, and their big-spending compromise bills of December 2010 and April 2011.
"I wonder if Obama and the Republicans might just be conspiring to keep this birther stuff alive, to distract everyone from all the real problems they're causing. The president might have been worried that the birther talk was about to die down.
"When you consider that we're involved in three foreign wars, our entitlement state is crumbling, we have record-level spending and deficits, unemployment is high, and inflation is growing, the president's birth certificate seems less significant somehow.
"We need to be more focused on the fact that massive debt is driving our government toward bankruptcy -- something Republican birther Donald Trump would know a lot about.
"Nearly two years ago, one of our junior staffers mocked this very issue:
Socialized healthcare is on the horizon. The DHS, NSA, TSA police state is expanding, the Drug War is still being pursued by an arrogant, ignorant government and Obama is expanding the war in Afghanistan! Frankly we have got bigger problems to pursue than blogging endlessly about where the President was born.
"Hopefully Americans will worry less about long-form birth certificates, and more about thousand-page spending bills."
-----
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Thursday, April 28, 2011
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."
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
NPRA Statement on Defeat of Proposition 23 in California
/PRNewswire/ -- Charles T. Drevna, president of NPRA, the National Petrochemical &Refiners Association, today issued the following statement on the defeat of Proposition 23 in California:
"Proposition 23 was defeated because a sophisticated multimillion-dollar misinformation campaign falsely led Californians to believe they were voting to clean their air of pollutants that posed a danger to their health. In fact, Proposition 23 would simply have temporarily postponed drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are made up largely of carbon dioxide, the same substance humans and animals exhale after every breath we take. The postponement would have been in effect only until California's unemployment rate dropped to reasonable levels for a year.
"The defeat of Proposition 23 will hurt families across California by destroying jobs and raising the costs of gasoline, diesel fuel, electricity and more. It is the wrong medicine at the wrong time for California's ailing economy, which suffered from a 12.4 percent unemployment rate in September that left 2.27 million men and women unable to find jobs they so desperately need.
"The severe economic pain and hardship caused by the extreme mandates of Proposition 23 will accomplish absolutely nothing positive in terms of climate change. They will result in the relocation of jobs and businesses from California to other states and other countries, along with the relocation of carbon emissions produced by those businesses and people. Since every state and nation on Earth share the same atmosphere, moving carbon from one location to another will not bring about any reduction in greenhouse gases.
"The victories of Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer in Tuesday's election certainly helped win passage of Proposition 23, since voters who cast ballots for the winning candidates understandably heeded their calls for support of Proposition 23. I would not be surprised to see Californians vote again on this issue in the future, after the full magnitude of the suffering created by AB32 becomes a reality. It's tragic that this economic pain now looming in California's future was not averted with the passage of Proposition 23."
"Proposition 23 was defeated because a sophisticated multimillion-dollar misinformation campaign falsely led Californians to believe they were voting to clean their air of pollutants that posed a danger to their health. In fact, Proposition 23 would simply have temporarily postponed drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are made up largely of carbon dioxide, the same substance humans and animals exhale after every breath we take. The postponement would have been in effect only until California's unemployment rate dropped to reasonable levels for a year.
"The defeat of Proposition 23 will hurt families across California by destroying jobs and raising the costs of gasoline, diesel fuel, electricity and more. It is the wrong medicine at the wrong time for California's ailing economy, which suffered from a 12.4 percent unemployment rate in September that left 2.27 million men and women unable to find jobs they so desperately need.
"The severe economic pain and hardship caused by the extreme mandates of Proposition 23 will accomplish absolutely nothing positive in terms of climate change. They will result in the relocation of jobs and businesses from California to other states and other countries, along with the relocation of carbon emissions produced by those businesses and people. Since every state and nation on Earth share the same atmosphere, moving carbon from one location to another will not bring about any reduction in greenhouse gases.
"The victories of Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer in Tuesday's election certainly helped win passage of Proposition 23, since voters who cast ballots for the winning candidates understandably heeded their calls for support of Proposition 23. I would not be surprised to see Californians vote again on this issue in the future, after the full magnitude of the suffering created by AB32 becomes a reality. It's tragic that this economic pain now looming in California's future was not averted with the passage of Proposition 23."
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.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Opinion: Outside Help for Social Security
Rarely do you see two of our country's most intractable problems - illegal immigration and the solvency of Social Security - lumped together in the same sentence.
I would like to propose an imperfect idea that could address both problems at once. The plan wouldn't have to work that well to be an improvement on the current immigration system, and we know the financing problems of Social Security are dire.
So here goes: We allow immigrant workers to come to the United States to work for up to three years. The cost of a work permit would be that immigrant workers and/or their employers would have to pay Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. Workers would not be able to get benefits from either system even though they paid taxes, thereby lessening the impact of the looming Baby Boomer retirement on both programs.
Some illegal immigrants pay such taxes now and cannot benefit, but routinizing this arrangement would maximize taxes paid and reduce identity theft. Employers would get employees, and workers would get a job that enabled them to return money to their home nation. At the end of three years, they would return home.
I start out with two basic assumptions - that the benefits of illegal immigration accrue mostly to the immigrants and their employers, and that these same benefits outweigh the costs to society as a whole.
If it were the other way around, we would have found a more effective means of stopping illegal immigration. The benefits include the contribution of illegal workers to the economy, perhaps doing jobs that citizens don't want. Costs include health care and other social services, notably schooling that is provided to workers and their children.
The intangible benefits and costs of the cultural diversity inherent with illegal immigration are difficult to estimate, and I doubt if any analysis on such a subjective question would change the views of many people, so I assume they are a wash.
I acknowledge there are many problems with my idea. First, one reason illegal labor is attractive to employers is because they can presumably pay such workers lower wages. Such employers are unlikely to want any change.
Second, lack of health insurance and the related issues of a person receiving care in an emergency room will remain. We would need to develop a catastrophic insurance scheme that could be financed primarily or fully by immigrant workers. (most workers are likely to be young and healthy).
Third, what if they have kids while in the U.S.? Currently, that child is an American citizen, with all the afforded rights. There have been suggestions of changing the Constitution so that children so born would not be citizens. What about children born to parents of mixed status (one parent a citizen, the other not)? This is a tangled issue with many dimensions, and some sort of compromise solution would have to be worked out.
Fourth, this doesn't address the illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. I view the deportation of 12 million people as unrealistic, so some form of amnesty is inevitable.
And, finally, how do we make sure the workers leave the country when their three years are up? The best hope of doing so is transforming a now-illegal labor market into a workable guest worker program that can be monitored.
These problems notwithstanding, the biggest benefit of my idea is that it acknowledges that some employers now see fit to hire illegal immigrants. If they didn't, there wouldn't be an illegal immigration problem. The goal should be to maintain this source of labor if it is truly important to our economy, but to do so in a way that broadens the benefits of now-illegal labor by helping to address the financing problems of Social Security and Medicare.
And if it turned out that persons no longer wanted to come to work under this arrangement, or that employers no longer wanted to hire them because they would be forced to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, then we would have developed a market-based solution to illegal immigration where an interdiction approach has not worked, and seems unrealistic.
By Donald H. Taylor Jr.
Donald H. Taylor Jr. is an associate professor of public policy at Duke who blogs at www.donaldhtaylorjr.blogspot.com
----
I would like to propose an imperfect idea that could address both problems at once. The plan wouldn't have to work that well to be an improvement on the current immigration system, and we know the financing problems of Social Security are dire.
So here goes: We allow immigrant workers to come to the United States to work for up to three years. The cost of a work permit would be that immigrant workers and/or their employers would have to pay Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. Workers would not be able to get benefits from either system even though they paid taxes, thereby lessening the impact of the looming Baby Boomer retirement on both programs.
Some illegal immigrants pay such taxes now and cannot benefit, but routinizing this arrangement would maximize taxes paid and reduce identity theft. Employers would get employees, and workers would get a job that enabled them to return money to their home nation. At the end of three years, they would return home.
I start out with two basic assumptions - that the benefits of illegal immigration accrue mostly to the immigrants and their employers, and that these same benefits outweigh the costs to society as a whole.
If it were the other way around, we would have found a more effective means of stopping illegal immigration. The benefits include the contribution of illegal workers to the economy, perhaps doing jobs that citizens don't want. Costs include health care and other social services, notably schooling that is provided to workers and their children.
The intangible benefits and costs of the cultural diversity inherent with illegal immigration are difficult to estimate, and I doubt if any analysis on such a subjective question would change the views of many people, so I assume they are a wash.
I acknowledge there are many problems with my idea. First, one reason illegal labor is attractive to employers is because they can presumably pay such workers lower wages. Such employers are unlikely to want any change.
Second, lack of health insurance and the related issues of a person receiving care in an emergency room will remain. We would need to develop a catastrophic insurance scheme that could be financed primarily or fully by immigrant workers. (most workers are likely to be young and healthy).
Third, what if they have kids while in the U.S.? Currently, that child is an American citizen, with all the afforded rights. There have been suggestions of changing the Constitution so that children so born would not be citizens. What about children born to parents of mixed status (one parent a citizen, the other not)? This is a tangled issue with many dimensions, and some sort of compromise solution would have to be worked out.
Fourth, this doesn't address the illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. I view the deportation of 12 million people as unrealistic, so some form of amnesty is inevitable.
And, finally, how do we make sure the workers leave the country when their three years are up? The best hope of doing so is transforming a now-illegal labor market into a workable guest worker program that can be monitored.
These problems notwithstanding, the biggest benefit of my idea is that it acknowledges that some employers now see fit to hire illegal immigrants. If they didn't, there wouldn't be an illegal immigration problem. The goal should be to maintain this source of labor if it is truly important to our economy, but to do so in a way that broadens the benefits of now-illegal labor by helping to address the financing problems of Social Security and Medicare.
And if it turned out that persons no longer wanted to come to work under this arrangement, or that employers no longer wanted to hire them because they would be forced to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, then we would have developed a market-based solution to illegal immigration where an interdiction approach has not worked, and seems unrealistic.
By Donald H. Taylor Jr.
Donald H. Taylor Jr. is an associate professor of public policy at Duke who blogs at www.donaldhtaylorjr.blogspot.com
----
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Libertarians oppose record federal spending levels
The White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently released its Mid-Session Review. On reviewing the report, Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle called the report's spending projections "disappointing and troubling."
According to the report, federal spending was 24.7% of GDP in 2009, and is expected to be 24.6% this year, rising to 25.1% in 2011. (All years are fiscal years.)
Hinkle commented, "The federal government is commanding a larger percentage of our economy than it has at any time in American history, except a few years during World War II. Instead of free citizens making our own economic decisions, the federal government is making those decisions for us."
Hinkle added, "At the beginning of the twentieth century, the federal government spent less than five percent of GDP."
The report projects that federal spending will still be over 23% of GDP in the year 2020. "In other words," said Hinkle, "the White House is admitting that its spending will be at record-high levels as far as the eye can see. That's great for special interests who get their money from the federal government, but it's very bad news for the rest of us.
"I'm seeing visions of low economic growth and high dependence on government. Future generations are facing economic hardship instead of prosperity.
"The current crop of politicians in Washington simply don't have what it takes to reverse this damage. Democrats and Republicans have proven decade after decade that they are incapable of doing anything but grow government. In just the last ten years, they have worked together to give us two costly wars, a giant Medicare expansion, and the TARP bailouts, among many other massive new expenses.
"It's time for American voters to start thinking outside the box, and electing Libertarians to office."
According to the report, federal spending was 24.7% of GDP in 2009, and is expected to be 24.6% this year, rising to 25.1% in 2011. (All years are fiscal years.)
Hinkle commented, "The federal government is commanding a larger percentage of our economy than it has at any time in American history, except a few years during World War II. Instead of free citizens making our own economic decisions, the federal government is making those decisions for us."
Hinkle added, "At the beginning of the twentieth century, the federal government spent less than five percent of GDP."
The report projects that federal spending will still be over 23% of GDP in the year 2020. "In other words," said Hinkle, "the White House is admitting that its spending will be at record-high levels as far as the eye can see. That's great for special interests who get their money from the federal government, but it's very bad news for the rest of us.
"I'm seeing visions of low economic growth and high dependence on government. Future generations are facing economic hardship instead of prosperity.
"The current crop of politicians in Washington simply don't have what it takes to reverse this damage. Democrats and Republicans have proven decade after decade that they are incapable of doing anything but grow government. In just the last ten years, they have worked together to give us two costly wars, a giant Medicare expansion, and the TARP bailouts, among many other massive new expenses.
"It's time for American voters to start thinking outside the box, and electing Libertarians to office."
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Americans More Favorable of President's Plans for Health Care, Economy and Foreign Policy after Viewing State of the Union Address
/PRNewswire/ -- Results of a national study among 1,050 self-reported Democrats, Republicans and Independents revealed that favorability for the President's plans for health care, the economy, and foreign policy increased among all political parties after viewing President Obama's State of the Union Address.
HCD Research conducted the study using its mediacurves.com website earlier last evening to obtain Americans' "level of favorability" regarding the president's plans for critical issues including the U.S. economy, health care and foreign policy. To view detailed results go to www.mediacurves.com.
After the speech, President Obama's likeability ratings increased among all parties, with Democrats giving him an average likeability score of 6.2; Republicans giving him an average likeability score of 4.0; and Independents giving him an average likeability score of 5.1. In addition, the percentage of respondents who indicated that they would vote for Barack Obama if he ran for a second term increased among all parties.
HCD Research conducted the study using its mediacurves.com website earlier last evening to obtain Americans' "level of favorability" regarding the president's plans for critical issues including the U.S. economy, health care and foreign policy. To view detailed results go to www.mediacurves.com.
After the speech, President Obama's likeability ratings increased among all parties, with Democrats giving him an average likeability score of 6.2; Republicans giving him an average likeability score of 4.0; and Independents giving him an average likeability score of 5.1. In addition, the percentage of respondents who indicated that they would vote for Barack Obama if he ran for a second term increased among all parties.
Among the findings:
Are you in favor of President Barack Obama's plans for the future on
the following issues?
BEFORE ADDRESS Democrats Republicans Independents
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Health Care 75% 25% 10% 90% 41% 59%
U.S. Economy 80% 20% 13% 87% 45% 55%
Foreign Policy 75% 25% 24% 76% 47% 53%
AFTER ADDRESS Democrats Republicans Independents
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Health Care 83% 17% 18% 82% 47% 53%
U.S. Economy 90% 10% 27% 73% 58% 42%
Foreign Policy 87% 13% 29% 71% 57% 43%
Would you vote for Barack Obama if he ran for a second term as President?
Democrats Republicans Independents
Before After Before After Before After
Yes 77% 86% 9% 14% 43% 52%
No 23% 14% 91% 86% 57% 48%
Please rate President Barack Obama on the following attributes where 1
represents "Not at all strong in this attribute" and 7 represents
"Extremely strong in this attribute."
LIKEABILITY Mean Before Mean After
Democrats 5.9 6.2
Republicans 3.9 4.0
Independents 5.0 5.1
-----
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Poll: Americans - and Millennials - Lack Confidence in Government and Wall Street on Economy
/PRNewswire/ -- A new national poll finds a crisis of confidence on economic issues among Americans -- and younger Americans (those 18-29) -- alike.
Among the key findings, Americans and Millennials:
-- Are not confident in the government's ability to handle the economic
crisis. (59% of Americans; 55% of Millennials)
-- Want a free market approach and oppose greater government regulation
of business. (55% of Americans; 53% of Millennials)
-- Believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. (67% of
Americans; 60% of Millennials)
-- Want the same set of moral standards in business life as in personal
life. (75% of Americans; 66% of Millennials)
-- See business decisions based on greed as morally wrong. (74% of
Americans; 77% of Millennials)
-- Think their careers will be negatively impacted for the long-term by
the current economic situation (55% of Americans under 65 years old;
55% of Millennials).
"A year into the Obama administration, we find that Americans -- and younger Americans -- are having a crisis of confidence," says Carl Anderson, CEO of the Knights of Columbus, the group that commissioned the poll. "People are increasingly pessimistic about the government's ability to handle the economic crisis and a majority believes that increased government regulation will hurt the economy."
Mr. Anderson adds, "At the same time, most Americans are unhappy with the ethical environment in business. They want less greed, and the same core values that govern an executive's personal life to also govern business decisions. In other words, Americans neither want sleight of hand on Wall Street or a heavy hand from Washington, and these attitudes are shared by America's young adults."
The poll was conducted by the Marist Institute for the Knights of Columbus as part of the Moral Compass Project, a series of surveys on the ethical attitudes of Americans.
Survey results are available online at www.kofc.org
-----
www.politicalpotluck.om
Political News You Can Use
Among the key findings, Americans and Millennials:
-- Are not confident in the government's ability to handle the economic
crisis. (59% of Americans; 55% of Millennials)
-- Want a free market approach and oppose greater government regulation
of business. (55% of Americans; 53% of Millennials)
-- Believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. (67% of
Americans; 60% of Millennials)
-- Want the same set of moral standards in business life as in personal
life. (75% of Americans; 66% of Millennials)
-- See business decisions based on greed as morally wrong. (74% of
Americans; 77% of Millennials)
-- Think their careers will be negatively impacted for the long-term by
the current economic situation (55% of Americans under 65 years old;
55% of Millennials).
"A year into the Obama administration, we find that Americans -- and younger Americans -- are having a crisis of confidence," says Carl Anderson, CEO of the Knights of Columbus, the group that commissioned the poll. "People are increasingly pessimistic about the government's ability to handle the economic crisis and a majority believes that increased government regulation will hurt the economy."
Mr. Anderson adds, "At the same time, most Americans are unhappy with the ethical environment in business. They want less greed, and the same core values that govern an executive's personal life to also govern business decisions. In other words, Americans neither want sleight of hand on Wall Street or a heavy hand from Washington, and these attitudes are shared by America's young adults."
The poll was conducted by the Marist Institute for the Knights of Columbus as part of the Moral Compass Project, a series of surveys on the ethical attitudes of Americans.
Survey results are available online at www.kofc.org
-----
www.politicalpotluck.om
Political News You Can Use
Friday, November 6, 2009
Pelosi to House: Let's Destroy More Jobs
/PRNewswire/ -- With the unemployment rate now shockingly high, and perhaps moving higher, a national small business leader warned the U.S. House that advancing the Pelosi health-care bill will lead to further job loss and a deterioration of the small business sector if enacted. According to Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) President & CEO Karen Kerrigan, the economic rebound that Americans are desperately looking for will not happen with job-killing tax hikes and mandates like those included in H.R. 3962. The House is scheduled to vote on the bill on November 7, 2009.
"The Pelosi health bill drains capital from the enterprises that need it most, and imposes taxes and mandates on businesses and individuals that can least afford these new cost burdens. Small firms will be forced to cut jobs, and encouraged to stay below the penalty threshold of the 'play-or-pay' scheme. That means fewer jobs created. To top it off, the legislation will not lower health coverage costs for small business owners. In fact, it will raise health costs. H.R. 3962 is an irrational piece of legislation and we expect every member of the House who claims an allegiance to small business owners to vote against it," said Kerrigan.
It was reported today that the unemployment rate has reached 10.2 percent. Small business owners continue to be gripped by uncertainty because of unstable economic conditions and the fear of policies being debated in Washington that will impose new costs and requirements on their firms.
"The key issues of concern in Tuesday's elections were jobs and the economy. Indeed this 'local issue' is a national one and all U.S. House members must pay attention to their constituents needs. Real people's jobs are on the line with this legislation, as is the survival of countless small businesses," added Kerrigan.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"The Pelosi health bill drains capital from the enterprises that need it most, and imposes taxes and mandates on businesses and individuals that can least afford these new cost burdens. Small firms will be forced to cut jobs, and encouraged to stay below the penalty threshold of the 'play-or-pay' scheme. That means fewer jobs created. To top it off, the legislation will not lower health coverage costs for small business owners. In fact, it will raise health costs. H.R. 3962 is an irrational piece of legislation and we expect every member of the House who claims an allegiance to small business owners to vote against it," said Kerrigan.
It was reported today that the unemployment rate has reached 10.2 percent. Small business owners continue to be gripped by uncertainty because of unstable economic conditions and the fear of policies being debated in Washington that will impose new costs and requirements on their firms.
"The key issues of concern in Tuesday's elections were jobs and the economy. Indeed this 'local issue' is a national one and all U.S. House members must pay attention to their constituents needs. Real people's jobs are on the line with this legislation, as is the survival of countless small businesses," added Kerrigan.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Don Blankenship Op-Ed: 'No Harm from Cap and Trade? You Lie!'
/PRNewswire/ -- In an opinion piece published in The Hill newspaper, Don Blankenship, chairman and CEO of Massey Energy, recently quoted the "You Lie" outburst from Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) to characterize the current debate over cap-and-trade legislation pending in Congress.
"As chairman and CEO of Massey Energy, the nation's fourth-largest coal company, I aim to be as clear as Rep. Wilson relative to the theory of global warming," Blankenship said. "Speaking plainly and clearly is a rarity in politics and business -- particularly among CEOs of publicly traded companies."
Blankenship noted that many corporate executives privately acknowledge that global warming legislation will have a devastating effect on their companies. Yet these executives fear that if they express opposition to legislation like cap-and-trade, they will be subject to additional punitive regulation. Furthermore, Blankenship noted that corporate proponents of cap-and-trade are often motivated by personal gain or a desire to appear sophisticated.
"The truth about global warming alarmists in the business community who say Congress must pass laws immediately to stop the planet from warming is that they are driven more by pursuit of profit than pursuit of science and real atmospheric temperatures," said Blankenship. "These companies lie for profit and at the expense of American families' budgets, American's homeland security, and the quality of the world's air and water."
"You see, they know cap-and-trade will hurt the American economy," continued Blankenship. "That it will cost American jobs. That it will increase our dependency on foreign energy. And yes, they know that it will increase global pollution by moving production to unregulated countries like China. They also know the world is cooling. They know that cap-and-trade won't lower the earth's temperature. To those saying otherwise I say simply, 'You lie.'"
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"As chairman and CEO of Massey Energy, the nation's fourth-largest coal company, I aim to be as clear as Rep. Wilson relative to the theory of global warming," Blankenship said. "Speaking plainly and clearly is a rarity in politics and business -- particularly among CEOs of publicly traded companies."
Blankenship noted that many corporate executives privately acknowledge that global warming legislation will have a devastating effect on their companies. Yet these executives fear that if they express opposition to legislation like cap-and-trade, they will be subject to additional punitive regulation. Furthermore, Blankenship noted that corporate proponents of cap-and-trade are often motivated by personal gain or a desire to appear sophisticated.
"The truth about global warming alarmists in the business community who say Congress must pass laws immediately to stop the planet from warming is that they are driven more by pursuit of profit than pursuit of science and real atmospheric temperatures," said Blankenship. "These companies lie for profit and at the expense of American families' budgets, American's homeland security, and the quality of the world's air and water."
"You see, they know cap-and-trade will hurt the American economy," continued Blankenship. "That it will cost American jobs. That it will increase our dependency on foreign energy. And yes, they know that it will increase global pollution by moving production to unregulated countries like China. They also know the world is cooling. They know that cap-and-trade won't lower the earth's temperature. To those saying otherwise I say simply, 'You lie.'"
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Ethnic Americans Support Federal Stimulus Spending; Most Americans Question Current Impact of Package
/PRNewswire/ -- Ethnic Americans have a far better image of the $787 billion stimulus package than their white counterparts, with 84 percent of African Americans saying it was "a good thing" for the country, while only 45 percent of white adults agree with that statement, according to a recent poll commissioned by New America Media (NAM).
In total, the poll conducted by Bendixen & Associates found that more than two-thirds of Hispanics, African Americans, Asian Americans and Native Americans said the legislation was a "good thing" for their families and communities. And most Americans have a positive outlook about the future. More than three-fifths of adults from all ethnic and racial groups were optimistic that their personal financial situation will improve over the next year.
Nevertheless, most ethnic adults agreed with whites that, as of now, they are not aware of actual benefits from the legislation. These poll results strongly indicate the Obama administration has failed to inform the American public on ways that the stimulus spending may be having a positive impact on families and the national economy.
Moreover, the poll painted a picture of many ethnic Americans struggling to survive in the difficult economic times. More than 60 percent of Hispanics worry about their ability to pay housing expenses; 50 percent of Native Americans worry whether they can afford basic food, medicine and clothing for their families; and more than 30 percent of African Americans and Asian Americans worry about losing their current full-time job.
"Our poll shows the Obama administration has not done a good job of informing Americans about the economic opportunities that currently exist because of the stimulus package," said Sandy Close, executive director of NAM, which represents the interest of more than 2,500 ethnic media outlets.
"Across the country," she said, "the Recovery Act has made billions of dollars available for extended unemployment benefits and health insurance for laid off workers. It has appropriated money for small businesses and arts organizations. It has prevented thousands of teachers from being laid off and kept firehouses from closing. Our poll shows that across the racial and ethnic spectrum most Americans remain unaware of the actual impact on their communities."
In some instances, perceptions towards the stimulus package appear to be shaped by factors well outside of its influence. Two-thirds of Americans say their monthly take-home pay has "stayed the same" or actually "decreased" in the last six months, even though the administration said the stimulus package would cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans.
Overall, approximately half of Hispanics, Asian Americans, whites and Native Americans say that - as of now - the stimulus package has had "no effect" or that it has "made the economy worse." Only African Americans believe the stimulus package "has made the economy better." There are also regional differences regarding the impact on the economy: 48 percent of those polled in the Northeast said the economic stimulus had made the economy better but only 29 percent felt that way in the Midwest.
The poll is based on 1,000 interviews with whites, Hispanics, African Americans, Native Americans and Asian Americans during the last week of August and the first two weeks of September, and has a margin of error of three percent. It is the first poll to measure public attitudes about the stimulus package along racial and ethnic lines, with questions administered in English, Spanish, Korean, Mandarin, Cantonese or Vietnamese depending on the language of preference of the respondent.
The survey also found that:
-- Americans doubt the effectiveness of the direct relief to state
governments to prevent layoffs of teachers, firefighters and police
officers. Large majorities of whites, Hispanics, Asian Americans and
Native Americans say the stimulus package has not had a significant
impact on avoiding dismissals of public employees. Only African
Americans give the legislation credit for having been effective on
this front.
-- Two-fifths of whites and Asian Americans and one-third of Hispanics
said they were aware of newly-created projects, such as construction
at military bases, ports, bridges and tunnels, while only one-fourth
of all Americans are aware of "green jobs" that have been created in
their community during the last six months.
-- Only about one-third of African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans
and Native Americans believe contractors and businesses in their
communities know how to access stimulus dollars.
-- More than four-fifths of all Americans do not know of any small
business that has received a government loan over the last six months.
-- Approximately two-thirds of all respondents say that they are also not
aware of any arts programs, environmental projects, health research
centers or affordable housing programs in their community that have
received stimulus dollars.
-- One-quarter of Hispanics, Asian Americans and Native Americans and
two-fifths of whites and African Americans believe there is still time
for local businesses and community groups to apply for economic
stimulus dollars. The rest either think that most of the money has
already been spent or have no opinion on the matter.
"The good news is that there's still time for all Americans to get help from the Recovery Act," said Ms. Close, noting that less than half of the stimulus funds have been spent so far. "The problem is that across racial and ethnic lines most Americans don't know this. They feel like the stimulus train has left the station and they're still waiting on the platform."
Sergio Bendixen, president of Bendixen & Associates, noted that the poll found that the nation's economy remained under a "black cloud" as the anniversary of the 2008 stock market crash approached. "A majority of whites, Hispanics and Native Americans think that the American economy is off on the wrong track," said Mr. Bendixen. "And only four percent of all Americans say there are a lot of jobs available in their community."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
In total, the poll conducted by Bendixen & Associates found that more than two-thirds of Hispanics, African Americans, Asian Americans and Native Americans said the legislation was a "good thing" for their families and communities. And most Americans have a positive outlook about the future. More than three-fifths of adults from all ethnic and racial groups were optimistic that their personal financial situation will improve over the next year.
Nevertheless, most ethnic adults agreed with whites that, as of now, they are not aware of actual benefits from the legislation. These poll results strongly indicate the Obama administration has failed to inform the American public on ways that the stimulus spending may be having a positive impact on families and the national economy.
Moreover, the poll painted a picture of many ethnic Americans struggling to survive in the difficult economic times. More than 60 percent of Hispanics worry about their ability to pay housing expenses; 50 percent of Native Americans worry whether they can afford basic food, medicine and clothing for their families; and more than 30 percent of African Americans and Asian Americans worry about losing their current full-time job.
"Our poll shows the Obama administration has not done a good job of informing Americans about the economic opportunities that currently exist because of the stimulus package," said Sandy Close, executive director of NAM, which represents the interest of more than 2,500 ethnic media outlets.
"Across the country," she said, "the Recovery Act has made billions of dollars available for extended unemployment benefits and health insurance for laid off workers. It has appropriated money for small businesses and arts organizations. It has prevented thousands of teachers from being laid off and kept firehouses from closing. Our poll shows that across the racial and ethnic spectrum most Americans remain unaware of the actual impact on their communities."
In some instances, perceptions towards the stimulus package appear to be shaped by factors well outside of its influence. Two-thirds of Americans say their monthly take-home pay has "stayed the same" or actually "decreased" in the last six months, even though the administration said the stimulus package would cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans.
Overall, approximately half of Hispanics, Asian Americans, whites and Native Americans say that - as of now - the stimulus package has had "no effect" or that it has "made the economy worse." Only African Americans believe the stimulus package "has made the economy better." There are also regional differences regarding the impact on the economy: 48 percent of those polled in the Northeast said the economic stimulus had made the economy better but only 29 percent felt that way in the Midwest.
The poll is based on 1,000 interviews with whites, Hispanics, African Americans, Native Americans and Asian Americans during the last week of August and the first two weeks of September, and has a margin of error of three percent. It is the first poll to measure public attitudes about the stimulus package along racial and ethnic lines, with questions administered in English, Spanish, Korean, Mandarin, Cantonese or Vietnamese depending on the language of preference of the respondent.
The survey also found that:
-- Americans doubt the effectiveness of the direct relief to state
governments to prevent layoffs of teachers, firefighters and police
officers. Large majorities of whites, Hispanics, Asian Americans and
Native Americans say the stimulus package has not had a significant
impact on avoiding dismissals of public employees. Only African
Americans give the legislation credit for having been effective on
this front.
-- Two-fifths of whites and Asian Americans and one-third of Hispanics
said they were aware of newly-created projects, such as construction
at military bases, ports, bridges and tunnels, while only one-fourth
of all Americans are aware of "green jobs" that have been created in
their community during the last six months.
-- Only about one-third of African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans
and Native Americans believe contractors and businesses in their
communities know how to access stimulus dollars.
-- More than four-fifths of all Americans do not know of any small
business that has received a government loan over the last six months.
-- Approximately two-thirds of all respondents say that they are also not
aware of any arts programs, environmental projects, health research
centers or affordable housing programs in their community that have
received stimulus dollars.
-- One-quarter of Hispanics, Asian Americans and Native Americans and
two-fifths of whites and African Americans believe there is still time
for local businesses and community groups to apply for economic
stimulus dollars. The rest either think that most of the money has
already been spent or have no opinion on the matter.
"The good news is that there's still time for all Americans to get help from the Recovery Act," said Ms. Close, noting that less than half of the stimulus funds have been spent so far. "The problem is that across racial and ethnic lines most Americans don't know this. They feel like the stimulus train has left the station and they're still waiting on the platform."
Sergio Bendixen, president of Bendixen & Associates, noted that the poll found that the nation's economy remained under a "black cloud" as the anniversary of the 2008 stock market crash approached. "A majority of whites, Hispanics and Native Americans think that the American economy is off on the wrong track," said Mr. Bendixen. "And only four percent of all Americans say there are a lot of jobs available in their community."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Democrats in Disarray on Trillion-Dollar "Stimulus" That Isn't Working
Millions of American jobs have been lost in 2009, even though the Administration promised unemployment would not rise past eight percent if the Democrats’ trillion-dollar “stimulus” spending bill became law. But unemployment is now a staggering 9.5 percent, and middle-class families and small businesses are asking: Where are the jobs?
Democrats are all over the map about why their vaunted “stimulus” is not creating the jobs the Administration promised. Vice President Joe Biden said they “misread the economy,” but President Obama said that wasn’t true. President Obama said “there’s nothing he would have done differently” on the “stimulus,” but the Vice President has already admitted that “Some people are being scammed already” by the legislation.
And what about the prospect of a second “stimulus”? Democrats are deeply divided on that question too, as Bloomberg News reports:
“Democrats who control the levers of power in Washington are divided over whether to push for more deficit spending to end the recession and stem job losses, complicating the possibility of a second stimulus bill.”
A story in this morning’s Politico further highlights the deepening Democratic divide on their trillion-dollar “stimulus”:
“President Barack Obama says there’s ‘nothing’ he ‘would have done differently’ about his economic stimulus plan, but one of his top outside economic advisers says the plan was ‘a bit too small.’”
“Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri says the idea of a second stimulus is a ‘non-starter,’ but Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island says it ‘should be on the table.’”
“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says there’s ‘no showing that a second stimulus is needed,’ but House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) says Congress needs to be ‘open to whether we need additional action.’”
“Democrats are all over the map on the stimulus and the possibility of a sequel, and it’s not hard to see why: When it comes to a second stimulus, they may be damned if they do and damned if they don’t.”
“‘Right now, every headline across the board is the stimulus isn’t enough, states are in bankruptcy, states aren’t paying their bills,’ says Wendy Schiller, a Brown University political scientist. ‘This is really deadly for the Democratic Party, because what it suggests is the Democratic Party cannot run the country.’”
The fact is government spending doesn’t create economic growth; small businesses create economic growth. And if the Democrats in charge of Washington want to take another shot at “stimulating” the economy, they should start by scrapping the job-killing health care and energy bills that are being rammed through Congress this summer, and work with House Republicans on better solutions that encourage investment, savings, and job creation. Instead, it appears that Democrats will continue to stubbornly push legislation to raise energy costs on every American, pave the way for a government takeover of health care, ship millions of jobs overseas, and drive our children and grandchildren into even deeper debt. All the while, the American people continue to ask, “Where are the jobs?” They deserve answers – and better solutions.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Democrats are all over the map about why their vaunted “stimulus” is not creating the jobs the Administration promised. Vice President Joe Biden said they “misread the economy,” but President Obama said that wasn’t true. President Obama said “there’s nothing he would have done differently” on the “stimulus,” but the Vice President has already admitted that “Some people are being scammed already” by the legislation.
And what about the prospect of a second “stimulus”? Democrats are deeply divided on that question too, as Bloomberg News reports:
“Democrats who control the levers of power in Washington are divided over whether to push for more deficit spending to end the recession and stem job losses, complicating the possibility of a second stimulus bill.”
A story in this morning’s Politico further highlights the deepening Democratic divide on their trillion-dollar “stimulus”:
“President Barack Obama says there’s ‘nothing’ he ‘would have done differently’ about his economic stimulus plan, but one of his top outside economic advisers says the plan was ‘a bit too small.’”
“Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri says the idea of a second stimulus is a ‘non-starter,’ but Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island says it ‘should be on the table.’”
“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says there’s ‘no showing that a second stimulus is needed,’ but House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) says Congress needs to be ‘open to whether we need additional action.’”
“Democrats are all over the map on the stimulus and the possibility of a sequel, and it’s not hard to see why: When it comes to a second stimulus, they may be damned if they do and damned if they don’t.”
“‘Right now, every headline across the board is the stimulus isn’t enough, states are in bankruptcy, states aren’t paying their bills,’ says Wendy Schiller, a Brown University political scientist. ‘This is really deadly for the Democratic Party, because what it suggests is the Democratic Party cannot run the country.’”
The fact is government spending doesn’t create economic growth; small businesses create economic growth. And if the Democrats in charge of Washington want to take another shot at “stimulating” the economy, they should start by scrapping the job-killing health care and energy bills that are being rammed through Congress this summer, and work with House Republicans on better solutions that encourage investment, savings, and job creation. Instead, it appears that Democrats will continue to stubbornly push legislation to raise energy costs on every American, pave the way for a government takeover of health care, ship millions of jobs overseas, and drive our children and grandchildren into even deeper debt. All the while, the American people continue to ask, “Where are the jobs?” They deserve answers – and better solutions.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Top 10 Facts on Why Speaker Pelosi's National Energy Tax Is a Bad "Deal" for America
Democratic leaders have announced a so-called “deal” to bring House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) national energy tax up for a House vote on Friday. Senior Democrats have already started to tout a number of trivial concessions and compromises that made this “deal” possible. But, the fact is, the consequences of this “deal” are no different from the consequences of the initial legislation introduced by Democrats earlier this year. It still amounts to jobs-killing policy that will increase costs for every American and will further harm our economy and American workers at a time when they can afford it least. Following are the Top 10 Facts about the House Democrats’ so-called “deal” to bring Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax to the House floor later this week:
1. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Impose a National Energy Tax on Every Single American. If you drive a car, buy food or a product manufactured in America, or have the audacity to flip on a light switch, you’ll pay more under Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax. Here’s what Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) had to say about the tax: “Nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax. And it’s a great big one.” And of course, President Obama agrees, saying that electricity rates will “skyrocket” under this scheme.
2. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Cost American Jobs, Shipping Them Overseas to China & India. According to a study by the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax will cost 2.3 to 2.7 million jobs each year, even after the creation of new “green” jobs. It will impose tough new requirements and increased costs on American manufacturers – higher costs that they won’t face overseas, in places like China, India, or Mexico. This will cost American jobs in two ways: either domestic manufacturers will move overseas directly, or American companies in energy-intensive industries will be driven out of business by overseas rivals that undercut their prices. These job losses, and their ripple effects throughout our economy, were excluded from an incomplete analysis recently completed by the Congressional Budget Office. The Brookings Institute recently released a report that confirmed a national energy tax would reduce economic growth, increase costs, and kill jobs.
3. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Cause Electricity Bills to “Skyrocket.” Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax will increase electricity bills for every American and small business. President Obama even admitted that it would cause electricity rates to “necessarily skyrocket.” And Duke Energy, a major utility company that would receive free allowances under the Democrats’ plan, has already requested a rate hike of 13.5 percent in anticipation of the energy tax.
4. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Hurt Family Farmers & Rural America. Rural Americans would be disproportionately impacted by this burdensome, jobs-killing tax. They travel 25 percent farther than urban residents to go to work and run errands. They spend 58 percent more on fuel than urban residents as a percentage of their income. And electricity is far more costly to deliver to rural households than to urban homes across America. The end result: if Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax becomes law, family farmers and rural small businesses will pay much, much more. That’s why an increasing number of rural organizations are opposing this harmful policy.
5. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Not Improve the Environment. Even supporters of the national energy tax concede that unilateral American action will do nothing to improve Earth’s environment unless global competitors like China and India curb their emissions, too. The response from overseas? Don’t hold your breath. According to the Washington Post, “But, after their talk this week, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said China would not agree to reduce its emissions… Spokesman Qin Gang said…“[I]t is natural for China to have some increase in its emissions, so it is not possible for China in that context to accept a binding or compulsory target.’” And according to Xinhua News, Shyam Saran, India’s principal negotiator on climate change, discussed India’s reluctance to capping its greenhouse gas emissions, saying, “[W]e don’t want to announce targets which we have no intention of achieving.”
6. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Cause Gasoline and Diesel Prices to Spike Further. Gasoline prices have spiked in recent weeks, yet Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax will make gasoline and diesel even more expensive for families and small businesses. The Heritage Foundation estimates that it will raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 58 percent. Not only is that troubling to middle-class families trying to make ends meet, but small businesses – such as America’s truck drivers who are responsible for transporting food and other products across the country – are especially vulnerable during an economic recession. In fact, Tommy Hodges, First Vice Chairman of the American Trucking Association, recently warned that Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax on America’s truck drivers will leave America’s truck drivers, exposed to dramatic and sudden fuel price spikes.
7. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Be A Bureaucratic Nightmare. Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax is a bureaucratic nightmare that would create a slew of new government programs overseen by a long and confusing web of government agencies. At the center of this web is the Environmental Protection Agency along with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Commodities Future Trading Commission, the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Treasury, the Department of State, the Forest Service, the Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Geological Society, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Bureau of Land Management – all with a hand in taking and redistributing trillions of dollars from family budgets and workers payrolls.
8. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Send Billions of US Taxpayer Dollars Overseas. In addition to sending American jobs overseas, under Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax, between 2012 and 2019, the United States will send $302 billion in taxpayers’ money directly to foreign countries for international offsets, international tropical deforestation, international adaptation, and international technology transfer. American taxpayers are tired of the bailouts. Why do Washington Democrats want to force them to bankroll another global bailout too?
9. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Raise Food Prices. Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax will drive up costs for gasoline and energy used by farmers and businesses across the country. One of the most troubling results? The cost to produce and transport food will be driven higher than ever. The Heritage Foundation says “The cost of producing everything from wheat to beef will increase. Indeed, the price deflator for private farm inventories goes up over 20 points by 2035. This increase gets quickly translated into much higher food prices for consumers at the grocery stores.” During a severe recession and further job losses, is this really the news small businesses and middle-class families want to hear?
10. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Set the Stage for Another Market Meltdown. Mother Jones recently warned that if Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax “is signed into law, it will generate, almost as an afterthought, a new market for carbon derivatives. That market will be vast, complicated, and dauntingly difficult to monitor. And if Washington doesn’t get the rules right, it will be vulnerable to speculation and manipulation by the very same players who brought us the financial meltdown.” Taxpayers have paid dearly as a result of the financial crisis. Are Democrats setting them up to pay once again?
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
1. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Impose a National Energy Tax on Every Single American. If you drive a car, buy food or a product manufactured in America, or have the audacity to flip on a light switch, you’ll pay more under Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax. Here’s what Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) had to say about the tax: “Nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax. And it’s a great big one.” And of course, President Obama agrees, saying that electricity rates will “skyrocket” under this scheme.
2. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Cost American Jobs, Shipping Them Overseas to China & India. According to a study by the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax will cost 2.3 to 2.7 million jobs each year, even after the creation of new “green” jobs. It will impose tough new requirements and increased costs on American manufacturers – higher costs that they won’t face overseas, in places like China, India, or Mexico. This will cost American jobs in two ways: either domestic manufacturers will move overseas directly, or American companies in energy-intensive industries will be driven out of business by overseas rivals that undercut their prices. These job losses, and their ripple effects throughout our economy, were excluded from an incomplete analysis recently completed by the Congressional Budget Office. The Brookings Institute recently released a report that confirmed a national energy tax would reduce economic growth, increase costs, and kill jobs.
3. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Cause Electricity Bills to “Skyrocket.” Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax will increase electricity bills for every American and small business. President Obama even admitted that it would cause electricity rates to “necessarily skyrocket.” And Duke Energy, a major utility company that would receive free allowances under the Democrats’ plan, has already requested a rate hike of 13.5 percent in anticipation of the energy tax.
4. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Hurt Family Farmers & Rural America. Rural Americans would be disproportionately impacted by this burdensome, jobs-killing tax. They travel 25 percent farther than urban residents to go to work and run errands. They spend 58 percent more on fuel than urban residents as a percentage of their income. And electricity is far more costly to deliver to rural households than to urban homes across America. The end result: if Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax becomes law, family farmers and rural small businesses will pay much, much more. That’s why an increasing number of rural organizations are opposing this harmful policy.
5. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Not Improve the Environment. Even supporters of the national energy tax concede that unilateral American action will do nothing to improve Earth’s environment unless global competitors like China and India curb their emissions, too. The response from overseas? Don’t hold your breath. According to the Washington Post, “But, after their talk this week, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said China would not agree to reduce its emissions… Spokesman Qin Gang said…“[I]t is natural for China to have some increase in its emissions, so it is not possible for China in that context to accept a binding or compulsory target.’” And according to Xinhua News, Shyam Saran, India’s principal negotiator on climate change, discussed India’s reluctance to capping its greenhouse gas emissions, saying, “[W]e don’t want to announce targets which we have no intention of achieving.”
6. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Cause Gasoline and Diesel Prices to Spike Further. Gasoline prices have spiked in recent weeks, yet Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax will make gasoline and diesel even more expensive for families and small businesses. The Heritage Foundation estimates that it will raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 58 percent. Not only is that troubling to middle-class families trying to make ends meet, but small businesses – such as America’s truck drivers who are responsible for transporting food and other products across the country – are especially vulnerable during an economic recession. In fact, Tommy Hodges, First Vice Chairman of the American Trucking Association, recently warned that Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax on America’s truck drivers will leave America’s truck drivers, exposed to dramatic and sudden fuel price spikes.
7. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Be A Bureaucratic Nightmare. Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax is a bureaucratic nightmare that would create a slew of new government programs overseen by a long and confusing web of government agencies. At the center of this web is the Environmental Protection Agency along with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Commodities Future Trading Commission, the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Treasury, the Department of State, the Forest Service, the Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Geological Society, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Bureau of Land Management – all with a hand in taking and redistributing trillions of dollars from family budgets and workers payrolls.
8. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Send Billions of US Taxpayer Dollars Overseas. In addition to sending American jobs overseas, under Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax, between 2012 and 2019, the United States will send $302 billion in taxpayers’ money directly to foreign countries for international offsets, international tropical deforestation, international adaptation, and international technology transfer. American taxpayers are tired of the bailouts. Why do Washington Democrats want to force them to bankroll another global bailout too?
9. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Raise Food Prices. Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax will drive up costs for gasoline and energy used by farmers and businesses across the country. One of the most troubling results? The cost to produce and transport food will be driven higher than ever. The Heritage Foundation says “The cost of producing everything from wheat to beef will increase. Indeed, the price deflator for private farm inventories goes up over 20 points by 2035. This increase gets quickly translated into much higher food prices for consumers at the grocery stores.” During a severe recession and further job losses, is this really the news small businesses and middle-class families want to hear?
10. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Set the Stage for Another Market Meltdown. Mother Jones recently warned that if Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax “is signed into law, it will generate, almost as an afterthought, a new market for carbon derivatives. That market will be vast, complicated, and dauntingly difficult to monitor. And if Washington doesn’t get the rules right, it will be vulnerable to speculation and manipulation by the very same players who brought us the financial meltdown.” Taxpayers have paid dearly as a result of the financial crisis. Are Democrats setting them up to pay once again?
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)