Heritage Morning Bell - Cap and Tax

Cap And Trade’s Mandates And Subsidies Are Wrong
Following major defeats at the ballot box on Tuesday, the left’s legislative agenda suffered another huge setback yesterday when once wavering Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME) all signed a letter supporting Sen. George Voinovich’s (R-OH) demand that the Environmental Protection Agency provide a thorough analysis of how the Kerry-Boxer cap and trade legislation will impact the U.S. economy. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) had been pressing for swift passage of her cap and tax legislation, but conservatives on the Environment and Public Works Committee thwarted her efforts by boycotting a vote on the legislation Tuesday.

An EPA analysis on the economic costs of cap and trade is no small issue. If Tuesday’s elections proved anything, it is that jobs and economic growth are the top concern on Americans’ minds. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has found that cap and tax legislation would cost the average family-of-four almost $3,000 per year, cause 2.5 million net job losses by 2035, and a produce a cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) loss of $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035. The EPA has issued preliminary reports reaching different conclusions; including an October 23 report on Kerry-Boxer that found it would only cost the average American family $80 to $111 dollars per year.

There are many fundamental problems with that EPA report, none more glaring than their fanciful assumption that nuclear power generation will nearly double in the next 25 years. This is the equivalent of about 100 additional nuclear power plants. The reality is that in the past 30 years, not one new nuclear power plant has been licensed. More importantly, the Kerry-Boxer approach to reviving the nuclear energy relies on the same failed policies that have crippled the U.S. nuclear energy for the past 30 years. Heritage fellows Jack Spencer and Nick Loris explain:

Washington has a role to play in reducing financial barriers, but not by funding projects with taxpayer dollars. The regulatory costs and uncertainty posed by the federal bureaucracy represent significant risk to the success of the nuclear industry, just as regulatory uncertainty significantly affected the timing and budget of past nuclear plant construction. Indeed, this risk and uncertainty results in the higher prices that are most often used to justify government subsidies for nuclear projects. Efforts to reduce that risk by reforming the most obvious areas, such as the regulatory process and waste management, are nowhere to be found in the bill.

Instead, the bill attempts to reduce the financial risk caused by regulatory delays and technological development by expanding the federal government’s responsibility — and authority — on the technical side. It promotes government intervention into areas that are either unnecessary or that should reside solely in the private sector. For example, the Boxer-Kerry bill creates a research and development program to assess plant aging, improve plant performance, engineer safer fuels, and lower overall costs. These are all areas currently being addressed by the private sector and already supported by public institutions and funds.

Instead of handing out more government subsidies to compensate for increased government regulation, Congress should be heading in the exact opposite direction. What the nuclear industry really needs is an end to market distorting loan guarantees, a streamlined permit process for new plants and reactor designs, market reforms for nuclear waste management, and the ability to recycle spent fuel. America can create thousands of new jobs through an expansion of the energy sector. But just as with oil, coal, and natural gas, the less government intervention in the market, the better.

Missles of October Deja Vu?

My cynical paranoid conspiracy nature is in full blown red alert. The scenarios that could be extrapolated from this event are just scary. Bad stuff. REALLY bad stuff.

FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN
Deja vu! Russians arming Cuba's military
Plans include sensitive electronic eavesdropping station 90 miles from U.S.

"We inspected the condition of this equipment, and outlined the measures to be taken to maintain the defense capability of this country," Makarov said. "I think a lot of work needs to be done in this respect, and I hope we will be able to accomplish this task."

Makarov pointed out that during the Soviet era, the Russians delivered considerable military equipment to Cuba. After all these years, he said, most of the weaponry has become obsolete and needs repair.

Then in August 2008 Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin declared that Russia needed to rebuild its links to the Cuban island.

He was careful not to say that Russia was establishing bases in Cuba, even though Moscow apparently intends to use the Caribbean island as a potential refueling stop for its nuclear-capable bombers and for ports of call for its warships.

Then Russian Air Force chief Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev in March 2009 had made it clear that Cuba, as well as Venezuela, could be used to base Russia's strategic bombers, although the Kremlin was quick to add at the time that such a development was "hypothetical."

"We need to reestablish positions on Cuba and in other countries," Putin said.
The moves have been developing for some time. In December 2008 a group of Russian warships, headed by the destroyer Admiral Chabanenko, visited.

And In 2007, Putin began to focus on Cuba in response to the Bush administration's plans to install a permanent missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. He said that such action was analogous to the time in 1962 when the then-Soviet Union deployed rockets on Cuba and provoked the Cuban missile crisis.

Atlas Shrugs

More On Sarah from Pam
The more evil succeeds and overwhelms our foreign and domestic policy, our culture, our discourse and the very social fabric of our lives, the clearer it becomes that Palin is the antidote, the answer to fighting this morally bankrupt sewer in which we find ourselves during the Obama Administration. Pam Geller

When Sarah Palin gets the nomination in 2012, I hope she has the good sense to pick Pam Geller as her campaign press spokesperson, and then when she wins the election, Ms. Geller can be the press secratary. I miss the class acts we had with Tony Snow and Dana Perino and Ms Geller would definitely be a class act.

Her speech embodied what a great American sounds like, and what a President ought to sound like. Palin made no apologies. She said nothing like Obama's inane drone of "America's best days are behind us." No tearing down of our nation. Obama ranks on us; Palin raises us up and speaks of national pride.

First and foremost, she thanked our brave men and women defending this great nation and ripped the media, warning: "You represent what could and should be respected, honest profession that could and should be a cornerstone of our democracy. Democracy depends on you, and that is why, that's why our troops are willing to die for you. So, how about, in honor of the American soldier, you quit makin' things up?"

She briefly outlined her plans for real energy independence -- American resources for Americans -- speaking of commercializing our clean natural gas (AGIA) as the first private sector energy project in the history of America. Palin believes (and rightly so) that the pressing issue of our time is energy independence.

"There is," she said, "an inherent link between energy and prosperity...We will prove you can be pro-development and pro-environment because no one loves their clean air, and their land, and their wildlife more than an Alaskan. We will protect it!"

She invoked America's pioneering spirit. She urged us to resist enslavement to big central government: "Be wary of accepting government largess."

Sarah Palin embodies what an American is. She is what Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin envisioned when they carved out the American idea. Anyone who wants write her off, proceed at your own risk. The more evil succeeds and overwhelms our foreign and domestic policy, our culture, our discourse and the very social fabric of our lives, the clearer it becomes that Palin is the antidote, the answer to fighting this morally bankrupt sewer in which we find ourselves during the Obama Administration.

The low state of the world is a fact, but so are great Americans who will fight tooth and nail to stop what Obama is doing to America.

Clear thinking Americans see what is happening. America is being tested in a way she never has been before. The President has in every decision reinforced the impression that he is a radical, even a communist/Islamist: the usurpation of the Constitution, the bankrupting of our nation, the illegal grab of private wealth, the infiltration of Islamic supremacism, the abandonment of our allies, the weakening of our military.

It's stunning.

Sarah Palin sees it, too. Smart, sharp, patriotic, she best represents the majority of Americans. Not Obama's shills in the press, not the chattering elites and the Beltway insiders, but Americans.

Read it all and feel good.
Download Atlaska on KBYR 28July09

Lets Be Clear On Gov Palin

The ONLY people referring to her as a "quitter" are the ones employed by corporate media. The grassroots activists in the conservative movement, (yours truly included), could not be more tickled if we had feathers. (Notice how well I cleaned that up?)

Sarah Palin made what I believe is a career path decision after insuring that the transition of power in Alaska was as smooth as possible. She did everything exactly right.

Her "full-court press" analogy was a reference to the insidious and pernicious encroachment of our rights by a government that has been given free reign to pass any legislation, take down any private corporation, set wage levels for private jobs and stifle economic freedom and self-determination. She has decided she's in a position to help combat that situation and she's right.

Sarah Palin has a knowledge of energy recovery and production. Alaska has more oil and NG than we could use in 2 centuries. She knows where it is. She knows how to get it.

She is the governor of a state whose shoreline is still considered the front-lines of our National Security. The AK-ANG is on-duty 24/7/365 due to the state's proximity to Russia. The Alaska governor gets security briefings I doubt Joe Biden has clearance for.

Sarah Palin scares the hell out of the elites in this country because they know she is what you see. There are no pretensions, no illusions (or delusions) of grandeur, no sense of entitlement. She will do what is best for her family, which is by extension, what is best for my family, which by further extension, is what is best for the country.

She scares the hell out of some of the young people because they see their mother.

Sarah Palin, IMAO, is now the defacto head of the grassroots wing of the conservative movement.

Disclaimer: The above is the sole opinion of a NASCAR watching, gun-owning, pick-up truck driving, camo-wearing, Crown Royal drinking, heterosexual, former Marine male.
No one says you have to agree.

Lt Col Allen West on Cap and Trade

Re-posted with permission. If yo have family or friends in Florida, please encourage them to support this man.

An officer and a gentleman

Lt Col Allen West's Facebook page
His Twitter page

West Slams “Cap and Tax” Legislation
Calls on Klein to Support Energy IndependenceRepublican Congressional candidate Allen West (R-FL 22) called the upcoming vote on the so-called climate change legislation, “just another example of a bloated government program that will not address our nation’s energy problems”. West also called on Democratic incumbent Ron Klein to support legislation that will address our country’s need for energy independence.

The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote Friday on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. This bill is aimed at addressing climate change that contains a cap-and-trade program, commonly referred to as a National Energy Tax.

“The Pelosi-Klein approach to our nation’s energy needs will do nothing but increase energy costs and raise taxes in this tough economy,” West said. “This will be a key issue in my race against Ron Klein next year.”

West noted that the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that under this bill gasoline prices could increase by as much as 77 cents per gallon. Other estimates say every American family will be over $3000 in higher taxes.

“We need legislation that will make America energy independent by cutting regulations that are inhibiting the development of all new sources of energy. That means everything from drilling for more oil to clean coal to alternative forms of energy“

I’m an avid scuba diver. I’m for protecting our environment. But this bill will not move us forward in the right direction.“Take nuclear energy. Klein and Democrats say they are for more nuclear energy. But this bill does nothing to reduce the red tape involved in building new nuclear plants. Just last week a new nuclear plant was announced in southern Ohio. But the experts all say it will be a decade before any energy will be produced there. That’s ridiculous.”

West went on to describe the difference between himself and Ron Klein. “Ron Klein continually votes for the expansion of government that adversely affects everyday Americans, programs that have not worked in the past and will not work in the future. I’m for a program that uses the full spectrum of energy resources—plans that will provide energy independence for America and protect our citizens from higher taxes and huge increases in energy costs.”

Military Families United Issues Report on Ohbaby

America's leading military family advocacy organization has released President Obama's 100-day National Security Report Card, evaluating the administration's policy decisions in a number of key areas.

The grades were not so glowing in a report card issued by Military Families United (MFU), which evaluated Obama and his defense team on Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, veterans, defense policies, and military family issues. Commander Kirk Lippold (USN-Ret.), the senior military fellow for MFU, says while Obama scored Bs on Iraq and Afghanistan, he received an F for his actions involving Guantanamo Bay.

"I think that the decision to close Guantanamo Bay by an arbitrary date with no plans in place, no policy established, and no idea about what you're going to do with those detainees, clearly is nothing more than a political model," he contends. "And our nation's security cannot be driven by politics."

Obama, according to Lippold, needs to be closely watched. "I would say that overall his performance has been average. And quite frankly, he bears a lot of watching," he adds. "You have to, again, look at what he does -- not what he eloquently says he's going to do. Keep an eye on him because if you don't, he will try to fly things under the radar and do things in the dark of night."

Lippold says Obama received C grades in the areas of veterans and defense policy, but only a D on handling issues related to military families.

Biden Wrong Then

From Family Security Matters:

....Sarah Palin's views on some key national issues remains a mystery. For example, there is the issue of illegal immigration. I spent hours searching without success for any writings or statements about illegal immigration. As best as I can tell, none exist. Should we therefore assume that her position on the issue is identical to that of McCain - who has generally been a strong supporter of open borders? People who follow this issue very closely have no idea about Palin's views on the issue, and given McCain's past collaboration with Teddy Kennedy in support of mass amnesty, the mystery is troubling.

But by far the biggest issue about Palin will be foreign policy. Get ready for an onslaught of news reports on the major networks and articles in the Washington Post and New York Times comparing her unflatteringly with Biden - articles that will tout at great length his foreign-policy experience. The point of the pieces will be: "Sure, Obama is an ingenue who got Iraq completely wrong. And yes, he has only been paying attention to the stuff for a few years, but he has a lot of smart advisors around him. And even though he has a lot less experience than John McCain when it comes to foreign policy, Obama's inexperience is compensated for by the fact that Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has 35 years of foreign policy experience, while Palin has none."

This could gain traction for the Democrats unless Palin in the coming weeks begins to give interviews explaining her own worldview (think about a very compressed version of what former California Gov. Ronald Reagan did between 1975 and 1979) and contrasts it with Obama- Biden on so many of the foreign policy issues he has addressed during his Senate career, Joe Biden has simply been on the wrong side of history. In 1972, for example, he was elected to the Senate at age 29, running as an anti-war candidate, as John McCain's time in the Hanoi Hilton was about to end. Biden should be asked about his opposition to the war and what happened after the United States was defeated in the spring of 1975 - including the horrific sagas of the "Boat People" and Cambodian genocide. Perhaps Mr. Biden could talk about his advocacy of President Carter's SALT II Treaty and his opposition to the Reagan defense buildup of the 1980s that helped win the Cold War: Mr. Biden was tireless in working against it, and he also opposed President Reagan's efforts to fight communism in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Biden also fought tooth and nail against the 1991 Gulf War that drove Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Although he voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2002, Biden has spent much of the past five years or so mobilizing opposition to what the United States has been doing in Iraq, including the very successful surge. He has been a strong advocate of dialogue with Iran. And he has opposed efforts to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to ensure that the United States can eavesdrop on foreign terrorists operating outside the United States without obtaining warrants beforehand.

The bottom line is that much of Biden's experience consists of pursuing policies that have undermined U.S. strength in the world. If McCain and Palin are unable or unwilling to make this case, Biden will continue to have a free pass when it comes to foreign policy. And he will try to use it to pound Sarah Palin (and McCain's hopes of winning the election) right into the ground.

Barack Obama’s Record of Poor Judgment

Once again, the folks at Family Security Matters have nailed it.

As an extreme liberal, Mr. Obama's priority is to weaken national security, not strengthen it. He wants face-to-face meetings with America's enemies but won't meet with Chris Wallace on the Fox News Network. He has pledged to withdraw troops fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq and would allow homosexuals in the military. That's his idea of enhancing national security.

Gregory D. Lee

Barack Obama and his supporters are fond of citing his opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq as an example of his superior judgment over his rival John McCain. To me, it's just the opposite, and illustrates how poorly Mr. Obama, as commander-in-chief, would handle national security matters.

Saddam Hussein ignored 16 United Nations resolutions demanding UN inspectors'
unfettered access of his facilities to locate and dismantle weapons of mass destruction. After a protracted cat-and-mouse game, Saddam finally kicked inspectors out and thumbed his nose at the world. How many more resolutions would Mr. Obama like to have seen before forcing Saddam's compliance? If you don't comply with our next resolution and let our inspectors back in the country, we're going to be really, really mad. We mean it this time, Mr. Saddam. At what point does the UN finally protect its credibility and enforce the provisions of its resolutions? Is Mr. Obama suggesting that finally enforcing the resolutions is an example of poor judgment.

And don't tell me President Bush manipulated intelligence and lied to Congress and the American people to justify military action because that is simply ludicrous. Such a lie would have required the complicity and cover up of the entire intelligence communities of the U.S., Great Britain, White House staffers and the U.S. military. Doesn't it stand to reason that at least one person from those organizations would have the integrity and moral fiber to blow the whistle on such a conspiracy?

U.S. and European intelligence agencies concluded that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and that he was most likely conducting covert operations to acquire nuclear weapons. That's pretty scary, especially in a post-9/11 world, since Saddam had a history of attacking his neighbors and using chemical weapons against his own people in northern Iraq. There was every reason to believe he had WMDs at his disposal and would use them against his enemies, namely the United States. President Bush's decisive action was required to not only protect the nation, but also maintain the U.N.'s flimsy credibility.