Garden State Patriot

Economist Larry Kudlow has an excellent article on the damaging economic policies being set forth by Obama. This article is essential so I am posting the full text here.

Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget.

He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.

That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.

Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years.

This is nearly double the government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this statist-planning approach.

Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts. [emphasis added]

And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama’s cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less.

The tax hikes will generate lower growth and fewer revenues. Yes, the economy will recover. But Obama’s rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. That’s one of the messages of the falling stock market.

Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. House Republicans, fortunately, are 90 days sober, as they are putting up a valiant fight to stop the big-government onslaught and move the GOP back to first principles.

Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters — especially hedge-fund types who voted for “change” — are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner.

There is a growing sense of buyer’s remorse.

Well then, do conservatives dare say: We told you so?

Via Gateway Pundit, in just one month the Democrats and Barack Obama have TRIPLED the nation’s deficit.

For all the complaining about Bush era spending, the new administration has already spent more than the entire Iraq War.

And they are..not…done!!

Obama also wants $634B for a health care reserve fund (read: socializing healthcare). And Bank Bailout II which could be as much as $750B! Then there’s the cap and trade debacle that will just cripple this economy by causing energy costs to skyrocket.

This is no longer Bush’s mess. The deficit and debt being racked up by Obama and the Democrats is now THEIR MESS.

Of course, we all know where this is leading to. Taxes that will inevitably go through the roof. Obama wants us to believe that he can do this by letting the Bush tax cuts expire and just taxing the ‘rich’ who make over $250k. But even the ‘rich’ won’t be able to subsidize all of this. An article today in the Wall Street Journal, which I highly recommend reading, explains:

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

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

Bottom line: the money isn’t there and the middle class will have to eventually bear the burden.  There’s no way around it.

It’s only taken a month and this Congress and Administration are already the most reckless and irresponsible we’ve ever seen.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

It’s been almost 30 years since the big screen flop Xanadu polluted theaters across America. Well fast-forward some 29 years and another Xanadu is causing pollution. This time it’s right in Jerseyans very own Meadowlands where the Xanadu shopping center - scheduled to open this coming summer – has been found to be quite contaminated.

Of course, that would be bad enough in and of itself but there’s more. Guess who is going to have to foot the bill for the cleanup? You guessed it – the already strapped New Jersey taxpayer.

Reacting to a story in today’s Bergen Record that more dangerous materials were discovered at the Xanadu construction site in East Rutherford, Assemblyman John Rooney (R – Bergen ) criticized the fact that taxpayers will be required to pick up the anticipated cleanup cost, estimated at over $6 million.  The recent discoveries were detailed in a report by a project engineer who stated that the contamination at the site is widespread and will remain a concern even after the shopping center opens this summer. The report also indicates that a plan for addressing the problem is being formulated by project engineers; however, it will not be submitted for the state’s approval until after the opening of the center. 

“It is more than troubling that evidence of leaking drums and contaminated bodies of water are still being discovered at Xanadu,” stated Rooney.  “It is even worse that the cost of cleaning up the site is going to be north of $6 million and paid for by the public.  Once again, New Jersey ’s taxpayers are shouldering the burden for an expense that should be the developer’s responsibility.  The state is dealing with its own toxic fiscal crisis and cannot afford to pick up the tab for a problem that should have been discovered long before now.”

The engineering report also details that the water below the development contains elevated levels of cancer-causing organic compounds as well contamination in the soil surrounding Xanadu’s foundation.  While the project’s developers and sports authority officials maintain that the site was fully investigated prior to the commencement of construction, the report from the Elmwood Park-based engineering firm indicated that the initial study failed to detect “significant” contamination at the site, which included the presence of underground fuel tanks and pools of oily refuse. Up until 1970, Alpha Oil Refining occupied the property in question.  

“Given the history of the Meadowlands, it is disconcerting that a more thorough analysis wasn’t undertaken to address the remediation necessary from the outset of the development,” continued Rooney. “The state should be investigating what happened to Alpha Oil Refining and seeking restitution for the contamination, or from their successor.  Beyond Alpha Oil, the state should examine who else operated on the site and determine whether they, too, are culpable for polluting the property.

“Just as disturbing is the news that an action plan to remedy the issue will not be submitted until after the shopping center opens.  That is a prime example of putting the cart before the horse.

“Who will take responsibility if further evidence is discovered that people’s health is at risk if they shopped at Xanadu?  This report tells me that the taxpayers and Xanadu patrons are certainly taking one on the chin.”

There’s a joke in here somewhere but I can’t seem to come up with one. Perhaps my readers can come up with something.

Here is my latest post from Conservatives with Attitude!

Looks like our future ‘carbon footprints’ will be outlined in ice and snow. Al Gore will not be happy. From Pravda.ru:

The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.

Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.

Additionally, the report takes head on Global Warming theory:

During the 1970s the famous American astronomer Carl Sagan and other scientists began promoting the theory that ‘greenhouse gasses’ such as carbon dioxide, or CO2, produced by human industries could lead to catastrophic global warming. Since the 1970s the theory of ‘anthropogenic global warming’ (AGW) has gradually become accepted as fact by most of the academic establishment, and their acceptance of AGW has inspired a global movement to encourage governments to make pivotal changes to prevent the worsening of AGW.

The central piece of evidence that is cited in support of the AGW theory is the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph which was presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.” The ‘hockey stick’ graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures which began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07. However, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures.

The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years — evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.

So, here we have more evidence that the Global Warming alarmists are simply wrong. The Earth has never been stagnant in terms of climate. It is ever-changing. The idea that we are responsible in any way for these changes, or that we can do anything about it, is ridiculous.

Yet, I’m sure the Global Warming zealots like Al Gore will march on with their radical agenda. An agenda that limits our freedom and damages our economy with things like grass mileage standards on lawnmowers, ‘cow taxes’ on farmers and restrictive, overbearing greenhouse-gas emission standards. And, unfortunately, they’re bound to get their way with this Congress and Barack Obama running things.

CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers is yet another expert in the cimate field who didn’t get Al Gore’s memo that the debate over global warming is over. Among the interesting tidbits from Mr. Myers is this comment which throws some, err, cold water on the man-made global warming myth:

CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate and the Vegas snowstorm didn’t impact his opinion. Myers, an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist, explained on CNN’s Dec. 18 “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that the whole idea is arrogant and mankind was in danger of dying from other natural events more so than global warming.

“You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.”

Myers went on…

“But this is like, you know you said – in your career – my career has been 22 years long,” Myers said. “That’s a good career in TV, but talking about climate – it’s like having a car for three days and saying, ‘This is a great car.’ Well, yeah – it was for three days, but maybe in days five, six and seven it won’t be so good. And that’s what we’re doing here.”

“We have 100 years worth of data, not millions of years that the world’s been around,” Myers continued.

Another expert who appeared with Myers on the Dobbs show, Dr. Jay Lehr, put things into a more historical perspective.

“If we go back really, in recorded human history, in the 13th Century, we were probably 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now and it was a very prosperous time for mankind,” Lehr said. “If go back to the Revolutionary War 300 years ago, it was very, very cold. We’ve been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period and now we’re back into a cooling cycle.”

Lehr suggested the earth is presently entering a cooling cycle – a result of nature, not man. 

“The last 10 years have been quite cool,” Lehr continued. “And right now, I think we’re going into cooling rather than warming and that should be a much greater concern for humankind. But, all we can do is adapt. It is the sun that does it, not man.”

Whoa?! Did you get that? The SUN actually is the cause of all this? Imagine that!

Well, once again we have dissent regarding the global warming hoax among reasonable voices in the field. Yet, Al Gore and his minions are pushing to have us spend trillions of dollars we don’t have to ‘fix’ a problem that doesn’t exist. What’s worse is we have a Congress and President-elect prepared to follow him.

By the way, there were also several interesting links at the end of the linked article also worth checking out.

• Global Warming Censored: How The Major Networks Silence Debate On Climate Change
• Fire and Ice: Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming
• Climate of Bias

If you’re sitting around worried about the economy, bailouts or losing your job, no need to worry any more. The sky is indeed falling. The end is in fact near. Pretty soon we will all just be ingredients in an environmental beef stew. 

Don’t believe me? Well Obama and Al Gore say so – and the AP ran a story on it – so it must be true.  

“The time for delay is over; the time for denial is over,” he [Obama] said on Tuesday after meeting with former Vice President Al Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming. “We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now that this is a matter of urgency and national security and it has to be dealt with in a serious way.”

Gore goes on…

“We need to start in January making significant changes,” Gore said in a recent telephone interview with The Associated Press. “This year coming up is the most important opportunity the world has ever had to make progress in really solving the climate crisis.”

Scientists are increasingly anxious, talking more often and more urgently about exceeding “tipping points.”

“We’re out of time,” Stanford University biologist Terry Root said. “Things are going extinct.”

Scientists are increasingly anxious? Well, apparently only those in Gore’s circle of friends because apparently these credible scientists must all be frauds (Hat tip to Conservatives with Attitude!).

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

But what is the global warming alarmists’ solution to stopping this pending environmental catastrophe, you might ask?

Obama is stacking his Cabinet and inner circle with advocates who have pushed for deep mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas pollution and even with government officials who have achieved results at the local level.

The President-elect has said that one of the first things he will do when he gets to Washington is grant California and other states permission to control car tailpipe emissions, something the Bush administration denied.

And though congressional action may take time, the incoming Congress will be more inclined to act on global warming. In the House, liberal California Democrat Henry Waxman’s unseating of Michigan Rep. John Dingell – a staunch defender of Detroit automakers – as head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee was a sign that global warming will be on the fast track.

Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., vowed to push two global warming bills starting in January: one to promote energy efficiency as an economic stimulus and the other to create a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from utilities. “The time is now,” she wrote in a Dec. 8 letter to Obama.

Sounds reasonable, right? It’s the least we can do you might think. Just stop spewing so much of that bad old CO2 stuff – you know that pesky gas that comes from things like trees and plants - into the air and everything will be just dandy. And I’m sure it won’t affect our economy much, right?

Well, wrong.

Most econometric studies agree that restricting greenhouse-gas emissions would slow our already sluggish economy.

A study by the National Association of Manufacturers projected that emissions caps similar to those rejected earlier this year by the U.S. Senate calling for a 63-percent cut in emissions by 2050, would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by up to $269 billion and cost 850,000 jobs by 2014.

The Heritage Foundation estimated such restrictions would result in cumulative GDP losses of up to $4.8 trillion and employment losses of more than 500,000 a year by 2030.

Other studies suggest smaller economic costs: Duke University’s Nicholas Institute estimates a GDP loss of $245 billion by 2030 while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates a GDP drop of $238 billion to $983 billion.

Sharp emissions restrictions would also push the costs of energy and other consumer products higher. According to a study conducted by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the restrictions could raise gasoline prices 29 percent, electricity prices 55 percent and natural-gas prices 15 percent by 2015.

Further…

And it appears that all this economic pain would be an utterly meaningless gesture. Patrick Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, who is now with the Cato Institute, says reducing U.S. emissions 63 percent would prevent a mere 0.013 degrees Celsius in warming. With emissions from China, India and other developing nations growing at breakneck speed, even this modest benefit would be completely erased.

In the meantime, there’s just one other little thing. Temeratures are actually starting to cool.

Mother Nature, of course, is oblivious to the federal government’s machinations. Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it’s thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.

Yes, you see cooling actually means warming. Got that?

Well, I don’t know about you but I think I won’t be suckered in by all this fear-mongering and global warming hot air. I’d much prefer that we let Mother Nature do her thing and not interfere – and not have politicians sticking their hands in our pockets and lowering our standard of living all in the name of some made-up environmental crisis.

Governor Corzine appears to be doing one thing right. Via the Energy Master Plan, the Governor recognizes the need for increasing the state’s supply of energy resources to meet future demand (which is expected to increase some 30% by 2030). As such, the Governor has green-lighted 3 natural gas projects off New Jersey’s coast which will be implemented by Liberty Natural Gas (LNG).

Unfortunately, this common sense step for addressing our energy needs has been met with criticism from the environmentalist group Clean Ocean Action (COA). COA opposes the project on every level. In essence, there is no acceptance of a balance between environmental concerns and the need to produce the energy we need for our economy and our quality of life. Moreover, there is no acceptance that we need short-term answers (such as harvesting natural gas and oil off our shores) until long-term solutions (such as solar energy) become more feasible. This closed-mindedness is what renders environmental groups like COA extreme (not to mention somehow being to the left of the quite liberal Corzine).

COA’s primary criticisms of the project include claims of:

• Safety concerns
• Harm of the environment (the group claims we’d witness an increase in our carbon footprint of 40%)
• Significant damage to marine ecosystems
• Being a potential threat to coastal economies
• Increased dependence on foreign energy
• Increased energy costs through global price wars

However, in looking at the LNG website – as well as researching the Pickens Plan website – I find these criticisms to be either overstated, if not altogether inaccurate. For example:

• Safety is a top priority for LNG and all energy companies are subject to strict regulations in this area. The industry has a record of safety with no major accidents for some 45 years.
• LNG contends that impact on the ecosystem is minimal.
• Natural gas will gradually be replacing oil for our transportation energy needs and is a cleaner alternative to oil and coal. The Pickens Plan points out that the “Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach recently announced that 16,800 old diesel trucks will be replaced, and half of the new vehicles will run on alternatives such as natural gas.” Thus, turning to natural gas, and away from oil, actually is better for the environment.

With respect to COA’s economic arguments, their logic defies the laws of supply and demand. Earlier this year, when oil prices were skyrocketing and the push for drilling was intense, liberals and environmentalists also claimed that increasing supply would have little impact on price. However, these claims were debunked by numerous economists, including Harvard Professor Martin Feldstein and Kevin Hasset, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

Additionally, one would expect if America began harvesting more of its natural gas resources, not only would it steer us in the direction of energy independence, but it likely would allow us to potentially export this product and benefit our economy. Not to mention the project will also create jobs.

In sum, this shows just how the extreme environmentalist movement is harming America. The green movement eschews all common sense interim approaches to supplying the nation with its energy needs. Environmental concerns entirely trump economic concerns that affect the quality of life for all Americans.

For more on this, check out both the LNG and Pickens Plan websites.

PLEASE SIGN THE AFP PETITION!

EPA Moves To Regulate Our Entire Way Of Life

The EPA is asking for public comments on its intention to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, something the Act was never designed to do.  We need your voice to be heard.

Over the past year, AFP has been warning you about global warming alarmism and the environmental political correctness that it has spawned.  One of the greatest dangers this alarmism presents is the continued rise of unelected bureaucrats and their attempts to grab power from the people.  The proposed regulation by the EPA is a clear example of the regulations this panic will produce.

After the Senate rejected a plan to regulate greenhouse gases, the EPA decided to go ahead and do it anyway.  The extent of their plan is truly terrifying.  If this proposal becomes law, 33 programs within the EPA would be empowered to, among other things:

•    Impose Grass Mileage Standards for Home Lawnmowers
•    Put Speed Limiters on the Commercial Trucking Fleet
•    List Large Single-Family Homes as Carbon-Polluters
•    Require Carbon Permits for Retail, Restaurant, Hotel and School Construction

Click here to read AFP’s Talking Points

We need your help to tell the EPA this is unacceptable.  Environmentalists will be stuffing the comment box with their opinion; we need you to make your voice heard.

The UN has proven to be an inept and corrupt organization which gives voice to anti-Semitic, anti-Israel nations – making it all the more surpring a Jewish member of Congress seems to love it so. Further, the UN impedes America’s efforts to promote freedom in the world and is impotent when it comes to addressing serious issues, as it proved in addressing the Iraq situation in 2003, and currently in addressing the Iranian nuclear issue. It is a bureacratic nigtmare that wastes American taxpayer money. Despite this poor UN record, Congressman Steve Rothman appears to still be a true believer.

Recently, the Congressman provided responses to the 2008 Congressional Candidate Questionnaire on U.S. – UN Relationship. Among his responses:

• The Congressman agrees that working with the U.N. is a “cost-effective means for furthering U.S. national security interests.” This despite the fact that the U.S. spends over a billion dollars a year subsidizing the organization, accounting for roughly 25% of the U.N.’s operating costs, and is behind in paying its dues. 
• He supports an increased UN role in Iraq and “responsible and prompt withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as soon as possible.” So, somehow the Congressman thinks having the UN take over for a mission he feels isn’t worth it is OK – and that somehow a UN presence will be better for Iraqis than a US presence. What he bases this on one would like to know. It’d also be nice to hear the word “victory” come out of the Congressman’s mouth, particularly when victory is very much within our grasp right now.
• Unsurpisingly, Rothman also supports the “development of a new international agreement for addressing climate change under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change” (aka The Kyoto Protocol). Essentially, the Congressman is promoting the Cap and Trade (err, Cap and Tax) scheme which will damage the US economy by putting burdensome environmental regulations on US businesses. This could be particularly damaging given the current economic problems facing the nation. In short, this approach is seriously misguided (See here and here for starters).
• Congressman Rothman also endorses the UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which “include eight concrete objectives for achievement by 2015: [including] cutting poverty in half…” Perhaps, the Congressman needs a reminder of the lessons of Somalia. As long as many people love under corrupt governments, then there will be extreme poverty in parts of the world. No amount of money will change that. The only answer is to promote freedom as much as we possibly can.

I’m sure the Congressman isn’t alone in his thinking. Under an Obama Administration, I’m sure we will see US sovereignty continue to be lost in the name of globalism. Such an approach surely won’t make America safer nor more prosperous. We would be far better off leaving the UN and forming a group of Democratic nations dedicated to spreading Democratic ideals. That would be real change Americans could believe in.

Barack Obama claims that saving the auto industry is a top economic priority, but in reality it is a top POLITICAL priority for Democrats. Big labor unions are one of, if not the top, Democrat special interest groups and if the Big 3 auto companies were to file for Chapter 11 it would break the backs of the union and probably cost the Democrats a huge voting bloc.

The reality is the unions have gained too much power and leverage of the auto industry, with outrageous contract demands and benefits packages. Along with strict environmental regulations, such as CAFE standards, the auto industry is being suffocated. This is why they can’t compete with the likes of Honda and Toyota.

So, this is one industry that needs no bailout. In fact, we’ll all be better off if they file for bankruptcy and start anew. Unfortunately, Obama, Reid and Pelosi will be doing all they can to take care of their special interests. So much for being the party of the ‘little guy’ eh.

For more, check out these posts on the auto industry bailout.

• UAW Campaign to Destroy Auto-Industry to be Aided by Obama
• Why Are Dems Palling Around With Big Business
• Via Michelle Malkin: E-mail from an auto industry worker, More reader mail on bailout-mania