Archive for the ‘climate’ Category

U.N. ‘Climate Change’ Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions to Form New World Economy

March 27, 2009

Here is why you might think more about a president of the United States that favors a stronger UN and even a world government along with new “climate change” rules, regulations and spending….  We pay: they play….

Don’t forget this is the same UN whose leader called the U.S. a “deadbeat” nation a few short weeks ago:

From March 12: “

Speaking at a monthly briefing with reporters this morning, United Nations Secretary-General (SG) Ban Ki-Moon acknowledged that he referred to the United States as a “deadbeat” donor during a meeting yesterday with members of Congress. A Republican on the House Foreign Relations Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen was clearly irked telling reporters later that the United States contributes “a whole lot of taxpaper dollars to the UN and doesn’t deserve to be called a deadbeat.”

“My point was simply that the United Nations needs the full support of the United States, ” Ban Ki-moon responded at the press conference today. “The United States is our largest contributor, and it is hard to follow up with few funds for growing peacekeeping missions and other activities.”

http://talkradionews.com/2009/03/uns-ba
n-ki-moon-questioned-on-deadbeat-comm
ent-on-united-states-arrears-of-over-1-billion/

********************

 A United Nations document on “climate change” that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

By George Russell
Fox News

Those and other results are blandly discussed in a discretely worded United Nations “information note” on potential consequences of the measures that industrialized countries will likely have to take to implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an “effective framework” for dealing with global warming.

The 16-page note, obtained by FOX News, will be distributed to participants at a mammoth negotiating session that starts on March 29 in Bonn, Germany, the first of three sessions intended to hammer out the actual commitments involved in the new deal.

In the stultifying language that is normal for important U.N. conclaves, the negotiators are known as the “Ad Hoc Working Group On Further Commitments For Annex I Parties Under the Kyoto Protocol.” Yet the consequences of their negotiations, if enacted, would be nothing short of world-changing.

Read the rest:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2933,510937,00.html

Advertisements

Obama Talks About “Making Hard Choices,” But Budget Is “Have It All Now”

March 26, 2009

Do not, as some ungracious pastors do,
Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven;
Whiles, like a puff’d and reckless libertine,
Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads,
And recks not his own rede.
Hamlet, I, iii, 51-55

Standing before millions of cheering admirers on January 20, the newly christened President Obama decried “our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.” This idea — that our nation has suffered because we have punted for too long on difficult decisions — was a key theme during Obama’s campaign, and it has been repeated with the frequency of a corporate ad jingle in the early days of his presidency.

By Philip Klein
American Spectator

At last month’s White House Fiscal Responsibility Summit, Obama declared that, “In the coming years, we’ll be forced to make more tough choices, and do much more to address our long-term challenges.” He reiterated this point during Tuesday night’s primetime press conference.

“What I’ve said here in Washington is that we’ve got to make some tough choices,” Obama said. “We got to make some tough budgetary choices.”

Obama is correct in his diagnosis. The central failure of the Bush era was the belief that we can do everything we want — cut taxes, expand military and homeland security spending, fight two wars, give prescription drugs to senior citizens, increase federal funding for education and energy — and do it all without facing any long-term costs. It was a philosophy that was also reflected in Americans who bought houses that they couldn’t afford and financial institutions that issued loans on borrowed money at an unsustainable pace.

The $1.3 trillion deficit and the weakened economy that Obama is all too eager to remind us he inherited has been the direct result of a stubborn refusal to accept necessary tradeoffs and face the reality that we can’t have everything that we want.

Unfortunately, while he fancies himself a courageous leader, Obama’s budget does not reflect hard choices. He is telling the American people that we can spend trillions of dollars on an economic stimulus package, a housing bailout, and multiple financial bailouts without experiencing inflation or requiring broad tax increases. He is insisting that we can save money by providing health care for every American, that we can accomplish this without rationing care, and that the quality of medical treatment will improve. He is promising that we can save money by throwing more federal dollars into energy and that we can increase federal spending on education while cutting taxes on 95 percent of Americans.

The White House has not offered actual numbers to back up Obama’s claims about this utopian fiscal future, and the only numbers we do have undercut his points entirely.

Last week, the Congressional Budget Office released an analysis of his budget, and it found that his policies would more than double the public debt to $17.3 trillion by 2019, equal to a staggering 82.4 percent of the economy.

While Obama’s budget is named, “A New Era of Responsibility,” when questioned about his deficit claims, his first instinct is to point fingers. During Tuesday’s press conference, he snapped, “as I recall I’m inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit.” This may be true, but since taking over, Obama has already increased the projected 2009 deficit to $1.8 trillion, according to the CBO. As comedian Jackie Mason quipped recently, “If I inherited a fire, does that mean I have to make the fire bigger and worse?”

Obama also reiterated his claim that he will cut the deficit in half within five years. It’s true that according to projections, the deficit will drop during that time period, but this argument is a red herring.

Given that the annual deficit will be jacked up to $1.8 trillion in 2009, cutting it in half within five years is no landmark achievement, because the deficits are expected to shrink naturally assuming the economy recovers. In fact, if we were simply to follow current laws, the CBO estimates that the cumulative deficits for 2010 to 2019 would be $4.4 trillion, or less than half the $9.3 trillion that would result from Obama’s budget. Also, while the deficit does decrease in 2011 and 2012, it starts to grow again the following year.

On the campaign trail last June, Obama declared that the Bush administration was “the most fiscally irresponsible administration in history.” At the time he made that statement, Bush’s record deficit was $413 billion in 2004. Yet according to the CBO, if Obama’s budget gets passed, the deficit will never be lower than $658 billion during his time in office should he serve two terms.

During Tuesday’s press conference, Obama argued that part of the reason that the CBO’s data is worse than the White House projections is that the CBO assumes a lower rate of economic growth. But even looking at the rosier estimates, the Obama administration still projects the public debt exploding from $8.4 trillion in 2009 to $15.4 trillion by 2019.

Related:
The Great Give Away of Taxpayer Money By Bigger and Bigger Government

Brawl over Obama budget brews in Congress

March 24, 2009

Barack Obama is preparing for one of the toughest fights of his young presidency as Congress begins work on a budget that may trim his spending plans but back his healthcare, energy and education proposals.

By Richard Cowan
Reuters

Obama will meet fellow Democrats in the Senate on Wednesday to try to shore up support for a budget blueprint that likely would increase the deficit more than initially estimated by the White House — it was forecast at $1.4 trillion for next year.

 

The House Budget Committee will begin a marathon session on Wednesday to write its version of the budget plan, followed a day later by the Senate Budget Committee’s unveiling of its budget plan for fiscal 2010 and the four subsequent years.

 

Republicans say Obama’s budget plan expands government and raises taxes on the rich and small businesses at a time when the country is mired in a deep recession. Obama, for his part, is trying to keep fiscally-conservative Democrats on board.

 

Democrats, who control Congress, are looking for ways to shave some of the spending requests in a bid to persuade enough fiscally-moderate members of their party to support a $3.55 trillion budget next year.

 

“I’m hopeful we can have a majority of the House and Senate support” a budget plan, said a cautious-sounding House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

 

Democrats, said Senator Patty Murray of Washington, a senior member of the Senate Budget Committee, want to “put the middle class first and bring the country out of the recession.”

 

To do that, Murray told reporters, Congress must invest more in education, healthcare and alternative energy to create jobs, while shoring up domestic programs that she said were largely ignored in the eight years of the Bush administration.

 

“Now is not the time to sit back and criticize,” Murray said in a open warning to Republicans.

Read the rest:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/id
USTRE52G3OX20090324?feedType=RSS&feedN
ame=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Obama Spending, Tax Plans Likely Out The Window As CBO Predicts Much More Debt

March 20, 2009

President Barack Obama‘s budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year over the next decade, according to the latest congressional estimates, significantly worse than predicted by the White House just last month.

The Congressional Budget Office figures, obtained by The Associated Press Friday, predict Obama’s budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That’s $2.3 trillion worse than the White House predicted in its budget.

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer

Worst of all, CBO says the deficit under Obama’s policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable. By the end of the decade, the deficit would exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product, a dangerously high level.

The latest figures, even worse than expected by top Democrats, throw a major monkey wrench into efforts to enact Obama’s budget, which promises universal health care for all and higher spending for domestic programs like education and research into renewable energy.

Barack Obama
Getty Images

The dismal deficit figures, if they prove to be accurate, inevitably raise the prospect that Obama and his allies controlling Congress would have to consider raising taxes after the recession ends or paring back his agenda.

Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/a
p_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget

“Look Beyond the Smoke Screen”
Michelle Malkin
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/2
0/look-beyond-the-bogus-bonus-smokescreen/

Bush Defiecit not nearly this large: Related:
http://liberaledu.wordpress.com/2009/03/20
/first-signs-that-obama-economy-is-dangerou
sly-close-to-sinking-the-us/

Obama the centrist, pragmatic problem-solver is gone: now liberal spendathon, no accountability

March 19, 2009

Obama is pursuing a traditional liberal agenda…. support of the $787 billion stimulus bill, his $3.6 trillion budget proposal, his tax proposals, his health care proposals, his environmental proposals, his flexibility on earmarks …. Where did my old Bro Go?

Now we have a liberal president, a teflon president, a telegenic president and a telepromter president.

And we are about to have a confiscatory 90 percent tax president and congress.

Never mind that the AIG bonuses were legal, protected by the “stimulus” written by this congress and signed by this president.  Ooops.  We goofed so you’ll pay.  The consequences are all yours: please excuse the president, congress, Treasury and Fed…..

A bait and switch president….

Welcome to the New America.

News at eleven followed by Jay Leno and Barack on the National Barack Channel….

Obama, Pelosi: Anything to Win

Obama, Congress, Treasury, Fed: Shameful Mismanagement of Your Money, Recovery

 Did Obama White House Fuel AIG Bonus Mess To Enact Tougher Rules With Public Support, “Outrage”?

Fed to pump another $1 trillion into U.S. economy “from thin air”

******************

By Byron York
The Examiner

In September 2008, during the first debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, McCain said his Democratic opponent had “the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate — it’s hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left.”

The “most liberal” critique was a staple of Republican talking points. And it had some basis in fact: A survey by the nonpartisan National Journal found Obama’s record in 2007, the year he began running for president, “the most liberal in the Senate.”

Obama rejected the charge.  “This is all old politics,” he said in February 2008. “Those old categories don’t work, and they’re preventing us from solving the problems that the American people want us to solve.”

From that, the image of Obama as a centrist, pragmatic problem-solver was born. It was an image that would last through the campaign, and through the election, and all the way until Inauguration Day.

But now, after nearly two months of the Obama administration, more and more voters are wondering: Is the Barack Obama they voted for the same Barack Obama who now occupies the Oval Office?

Early signs — Obama’s support of the $787 billion stimulus bill, his $3.6 trillion budget proposal, his tax proposals, his health care proposals, his environmental proposals, his flexibility on earmarks — suggest that Obama does, in fact, fit into those “old categories” he once rejected.

Obama is pursuing a traditional liberal agenda. If he continues to walk that path, the question will become why anyone ever believed he would do otherwise.

Well, for one, he was a great candidate, and McCain was not. Beyond that, though, Obama was what political strategists call an “aspirational candidate.” He represented something that voters aspired to be: Part of an America that was good enough, and far enough removed from its racial past, to elect a strong candidate who was also an African-American.

The feeling touched liberals and conservatives alike. On the right, conservatives who opposed Obama still expressed happiness that he was a serious contender.  A few went beyond that, giving rise to the much-discussed “Obamacon” phenomenon.

“Having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will surely understand that traditional-left politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves,” wrote Christopher Buckley, son of conservative icon William F. Buckley, when he endorsed Obama in October.

Just a few weeks of the Obama administration caused Buckley to wonder if he had judged Obama correctly. Another admirer, the New York Times columnist David Brooks, wrote this month of having been forced “to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was.”

They’re not alone. Right now, Americans who feel a creeping sense of buyer’s remorse about Obama are still in the minority; his job approval rating is still high, and his personal approval rating is higher.

But Obama knows what might come. Back in early 2008, when he found himself in trouble over his 20-year relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama said plaintively, “I may not know him as well as I thought.” Now, Obama’s fear is that voters might be thinking the same thing.

Related:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/
03/19/first-they-came-for-aig-bonuses/

Expect Obama To Trash Bipartisan Pledge and Railroad His Budget Through Congress “Rubber Stamp”

March 18, 2009

Even with a huge majority of Democrats in the House and an ample edge in the Senate, Barack Obama is expected to take no chances on anything stopping his spending train.

The legislative and deliberation shortcut is called “budget reconciliation”…..

By using this trick,Obama can be assured he’ll get his hands on a lot more money than he might if he went through normal congressional procedure….

President Obama urged more speed just yesterday for his next budget: a $3.6 trillion beheamouth.  “Budget reconciliation” would allow him to get exactly what he wants.  So watch this develop: AIG is a distraction.  The AIG bonuses ate less than 0.1 % of the AIG bailout…..

That doesn’t include all the health care money Obama wants by a long shot:
Health care overhaul may cost another $1.5 trillion or more

Obama’s budget doesn’t yet fully address the climate change measures he wants: Cha-ching:
 Obama climate plan could cost $2 trillion

The stimulus — which no “lawmaker” has admitted to reading before it was passed, was a lesson in why we need congress to deliberate and not rubber stamp spending bills.

But the president naturally wants more spending, less deliberation and more rubber stamping — which will get him his goals and reelection….

By John E. Carey
Peace and Freedom

Obama’s Real Problem: He Still Wants Toxic Acid Bank Bailout $750B, Budget of $3.6 Trillion, and More

*********************

By Lori Montgomery
The Washington Post

Senior members of the Obama administration are pressing lawmakers to use a shortcut to drive the president’s signature initiatives on health care and energy through Congress without Republican votes, a move that many lawmakers say would fly in the face of President Obama’s pledge to restore bipartisanship to Washington.

Republicans are howling about the proposal to expand health coverage and tax greenhouse gas emissions without their input, warning that it could irrevocably damage relations with the new president.

“That would be the Chicago approach to governing: Strong-arm it through,” said  Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who briefly considered joining the Obama administration as commerce secretary. “You’re talking about the exact opposite of bipartisan. You’re talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River.”

The shortcut, known as “budget reconciliation,” would allow Obama’s health and energy proposals to be rolled into a bill that cannot be filibustered, meaning Democrats could push it through the Senate with 51 votes, instead of the usual 60. Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both used the tactic to win deficit-reduction packages, while George W. Bush used it to push through his signature tax cuts.

Administration officials say they have not made a final decision about whether to use the maneuver. But White House budget director Peter R. Orszag said yesterday that it is “premature to be taking it off the table.” Meanwhile, key administration officials, including White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, are pushing for reconciliation instructions in the budget proposal that Democrats are scheduled to unveil next week, congressional sources said.

Read the rest:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-d
yn/content/article/2009/03/17/AR
2009031703798.html?hpid=topnews

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03
/18/hey-how-about-spending-anot
her-2-trillion/

Some Dems Want Brake in Obama Plans, Spending

March 18, 2009

Barack Obama’s Big Bang Theory of Governance is starting to face its first big test among the new president’s fellow Democrats.

At the White House Tuesday morning, Obama began the day with a sharp push-back against the idea that his uncommonly ambitious agenda on health care, energy and other initiatives is too much, too soon.

By Ben Smith
Politico

As Obama’s remarks echoed on Capitol Hill, it soon became clear that the skeptics are not just Republicans.

There is rising doubt among Democrats — particularly moderates already concerned about the big costs and deficits called for in Obama’s budget — that either Obama or Washington have enough bandwidth this year to stimulate the economy, overhaul the failed financial sector and move on to a far-reaching domestic agenda.

“From the standpoint of the Congress, there’s only so much that we can absorb and do at one time,” Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, told POLITICO Tuesday. “To maintain a schedule like the one we’ve got at this moment, throughout the year, I don’t know if it will be healthy.”

Read the rest:
http://www.politico.com/news/sto
ries/0309/20150.html

Obama: Look the other way but spend more faster

March 18, 2009

Yesterday during the AIG flap he was all about being Irish.  Next he”ll be talking with Jay Leno — instead of asking Chris Dodd and Tim Geithner hard questions.

The president is the master of slight of hand — but he needs a teleprompter to do it because he plans every move and every word.

Since the “stimulus,” which was pushed through congress so fast many “lawmakers” admitted they hadn’t time to read it, we’ve had a mountain of news telling us speedy lawmaking is often really bad lawmaking.

The stimulus money isn’t even out the door and the media is lowering expectations.

Mexico has threatened to open a trade war because of a line in the stimulus, union hiring will mean far fewer jobs than we were promised, and lay-offs continue.

Obama Dead Wrong On Stimulus, Caterpillar Company Jobs, Recovery

 Obama: Mexico Tests His Free Trade Talk

 Stimulus: Way Fewer Jobs Than You Thought

The Obama Administration and the congress look like the gang that can’t shoot straight.

But the president himself, despite yelling fire in a financial bonfire, is mostly telling us to allow the government to spend more and more and look the other way.

During the stimulus debate in congress, which lasted about 10 minutes and did not include hearings or anyone reading the actual legislation — the president campaigned in Indiana (and got all his facts wrong) and in Florida.

The AIG mess is an example of government going too fast.  But that’s a small matter in dollar measures but a big matter in measuring our view of confidence, competenace and credibility: in government and in Obama himself.

Obama: Here’s Why Geithner Has To Go: Credibility, Confidence, Competance

Yet President Obama urged more speed just yesterday for his next budget: a $3.6 trillion beheamouth.

And, although the president said he wouldn’t think of fixing everything, he did say, “The cost of our health care is too high to ignore. The dependence on oil is too dangerous to ignore. Our education deficit is growing too wide to ignore.”  Don’t forget education.  And on and on.

We must have money for energy, education, health care and climate but, sorry, we are short on defense and veterans and other things….

And the economy has yet to rebound and might need more speedy stimulus.

Hmmmm.

“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes,” Thomas Jefferson reportedly said.

Some Dems Want Brake in Obama Plans, Spending

Obama Plans to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment
.
Trade Barriers Could Threaten Global Economy
.
 Obama climate plan could cost $2 trillion
.
National debt hits record $11 trillion
.
Health care overhaul may cost another $1.5 trillion or more
.
Gates readies big cuts in weapons

President Rolls Out Budget, March 17, 2009:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co
ntent/article/2009/03/17/AR20090317
01150.html?wprss=rss_nation

Obama said yesterday: “This budget does not raise the taxes of any family making less than $250,000 a year by a single dime.” 

Unless the cap and trade rules and other energy costs, food costs and other costs of living can be considered caused by the governemnt and thus the same as taxes to everyone….

Obama said the country “can’t go back to a bubble economy, an economy based on reckless spending and spending beyond our means.”

Like this is not reckless and spending beyond our means?

As Biden likes to say: “Give me a fu%$#ing break.”

http://newsboytom.wordpress.com/200
9/03/18/stimulus-support-slipping/

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/
18/obama-flees-to-leno-next-stop-da
nce-party-ii-with-degeneres/

Obama climate plan could cost $2 trillion

March 18, 2009

President Obama’s climate plan could cost industry close to $2 trillion, nearly three times the White House’s initial estimate of the so-called “cap-and-trade” legislation, according to Senate staffers who were briefed by the White House.


The Washington Post

A top economic aide to Mr. Obama told a group of Senate staffers last month that the president’s climate-change plan would surely raise more than the $646 billion over eight years the White House had estimated publicly, according to multiple a number of staffers who attended the briefing Feb. 26.

“We all looked at each other like, ‘Wow, that’s a big number,'” said a top Republican staffer who attended the meeting along with between 50 and 60 other Democratic and Republican congressional aides.

The plan seeks to reduce pollution by setting a limit on carbon emissions and allowing businesses and groups to buy allowances, although exact details have not been released.

At the meeting, Jason Furman, a top Obama staffer, estimated that the president’s cap-and-trade program could cost up to three times as much as the administration’s early estimate of $646 billion over eight years. A study of an earlier cap-and-trade bill co-sponsored by Mr. Obama when he was a senator estimated the cost could top $366 billion a year by 2015.

A White House official did not confirm the large estimate, saying only that Obama aides previously had noted that the $646 billion estimate was “conservative.”

“Any revenues in excess of the estimate would be rebated to vulnerable consumers, communities and businesses,” the official said.

The Obama administration has proposed using the majority of the money generated from a cap-and-trade plan to pay for its middle-class tax cuts, while using about $120 billion to invest in renewable-energy projects.

Mr. Obama and congressional Democratic leaders have made passing a climate-change bill a top priority. But Republican leaders and moderate to conservative Democrats have cautioned against levying increased fees on businesses while the economy is still faltering.

Read the rest:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/
2009/mar/18/obama-climate-plan-cou
ld-cost-2-trillion/

EU leaders focus on climate deal

December 12, 2008

European Union leaders are said to be close to a compromise agreement in Brussels on how to achieve ambitious targets to fight global warming.

They are trying to agree a mechanism to cut EU carbon emissions by 20% by 2020.

Environmental groups have reacted angrily, criticising EU proposals on emissions trading which have emerged.

BBC

Scientists say carbon dioxide emissions need to be cut by 25-40% by 2020 for there to be a reasonable chance of avoiding dangerous climate change.

The impact of the financial crisis is undermining the EU’s long-term goal to build a new, low carbon economy.

BBC environmental analyst Roger Harrabin says the repercussions will make it much harder for the EU to achieve the 30% emissions cut it has promised if the rest of the world agrees to the new UN climate deal next year.

Read the rest:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7778787.stm