The Violent Tea Party Fallacy

Michelle Malkin nails it:

How the Left Fakes the Hate: A Primer

If you can’t stand the heat, manufacture a hate-crime epidemic.

After years of covering racial hoaxes on college campuses and victim sob stories in the public arena, I’ve encountered countless opportunists who live by that demented mindset. At best, the fakers are desperately seeking 15 minutes of infamy. At worst, their aim is the criminalization of political dissent.

Upon decimating the deliberative process to hand President Obama a health-care “reform” victory, unpopular Beltway Democrats and their media water-carriers now claim there’s a tea-party epidemic of racism, harassment, and violence against them.

On Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a tepid, obligatory statement against smearing all conservatives as national-security threats. But her lieutenants had already emptied their tar buckets. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Chris Van Hollen accused Republican leaders of “stoking the flames.” Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn accused the GOP of “aiding and abetting” what he called “terrorism.”

Yet, the claims that tea-party activists shouted “nigger” at black House Democrats remain uncorroborated. The coffin reportedly left outside Missouri Democratic congressman Russ Carnahan’s home was used in a prayer vigil by pro-life activists in St. Louis who were protesting the phony Demcare abortion-funding ban in Obama’s deal-cutting executive order. Videotape of a supposed intentional-spitting incident targeting Missouri Democratic congressman Emanuel Cleaver at the Capitol shows no such thing. Cleaver himself backed off the claim a few days later. He described his heckler to the Washington Post in more passive terms as “the man who allowed his saliva to hit my face.” Slovenliness equals terrorism!

The FBI is now investigating the most serious allegation — that tea-party activists in Virginia are somehow responsible for a cut gas line at the home of Democratic representative Tom Perriello’s brother. But instead of waiting for the outcome of that probe, liberal pundits have enshrined the claim as conclusive evidence of the tea-party reign of terror.

Need more reasons to treat the latest Democratic hysteria with a grain of salt the size of their gargantuan health-care bill? Remember:

In November 2009, Kentucky census worker Bill Sparkman was found dead in a secluded rural cemetery with the word “Fed” scrawled on his chest and a rope around his neck. The Atlantic Monthly, the Huffington Post, and liberal media hosts stampeded over themselves to blame Fox News, conservative blogs, Republicans, and right-wing radio. Federal, state, and local authorities discovered that Sparkman had killed himself and deliberately concocted a hate-crime hoax as part of an insurance scam to benefit his surviving son.

In mid-October 2008, news outlets from the Scranton Times-Tribune to ABC News to the Associated Press and MSNBC reported that someone at a Sarah Palin rally shouted “kill him” when Obama’s name was mentioned. In fact, the Secret Service (which was at the event in full force) couldn’t find a single person to corroborate the story — other than the local reporter for the Scranton Times-Tribune who made an international incident out of the claim. Agent Bill Slavoski “said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers, and not one heard the comment,” the paper reported in a red-faced follow-up. Maybe the shouter is hiding with Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman’s real killer.

In late October 2008, a gaggle of liberal blogs spread the rumor that a Republican supporter of vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s had shouted that Obama was “a nigger” during a campaign rally in Iowa. Video and firsthand accounts showed that the protester did not shout “he’s a nigger,” but “he’s a redistributor.” A lefty activist at the “progressive” Daily Kos blog confirmed the truth — but to this day, the crisis-manufacturing smear stands uncorrected and unretracted across the Internet.

In September 2009, supporters of Colorado Democratic congressman John Salazar falsely accused a town-hall protester of hurling a death threat at the congressman. Liberal blogs again disseminated the angry-tea-party-mob narrative. A week later, the local press quietly reported that Grand Junction police had investigated the incident — and determined the claim was “unfounded.” A police spokeswoman revealed that “people who witnessed the interaction between the man who made the complaint and the suspect confirmed they never heard any direct threats made regarding Congressman Salazar.” Witnesses included a Grand Junction cop “in close proximity when the interaction took place.”

In late August 2009, as lawmakers faced citizen revolts at health-care town halls nationwide, the Colorado Democratic party decried a vandalism attack at its Denver headquarters. A hammer-wielding thug smashed eleven windows and caused $11,000 in property damage. The perpetrator, Maurice Schwenkler, turned out to be a far-left nutball/transgender activist/single-payer anarchist who had worked for an SEIU-tied 527 group and canvassed for a Democratic candidate. Nevertheless, Colorado Democratic party chair Pat Waak continued to blame “people opposed to health care” for the attack.

Then, as now, being a Democratic party official means never having to say you’re sorry for smearing conservative dissent.

To add to that list we have a Congressional district office in Cincinnati that supposedly had a rock thrown through the window. The media portrayed this as another attack by the out of control tea partiers. The only problem, the office is on the 30th floor and the window was intact.

This is all about painting the opponents of the president in a negative light. When the facts aren't there, they simply make things up. President Obama and his minions in the mainstream media don't want to talk about how they passed a health care bill over the opposition of a majority of Americans. So they fabricate tales of out of control tea partiers for the likes of Ann Curry to grill John McCain about instead of talking about what's in the health care legislation that was just railroaded through Congress.

The truth is that it's much more likely that a tea partier will be a victim of violence than the perpetrator.

Ken Gladney was beaten by a goon squad of SEIU union members and required hospitalization.

A gentleman in California had a finger bitten off by a angry moveon.org sympathiser.

And now we can add Nevada to the list. Sarah Palin was supposed to be at the event. I don't know if her bus was the one that was hit.

Harry Reid Supporters Egg Tea Party Express Buses in Route

Supporters of Senator Harry Reid have just thrown eggs at the Tea Party Express bus caravan - striking at least one of the three buses (the red Tea Party Express bus) with multiple eggs.

About 35 Reid supporters had lined Highway 95 in front of the Nugget Casino in Searchlight where they were attempting a counter-demonstration the tens of thousands of tea party supporters who are gathering for the "Showdown in Searchlight."

Notice the disparity in numbers, 35 against tens of thousands. The American people are not going to forget who voted for the federal takeover of our health care system. The Democrats that deluded themselves into thinking that voting for this monstrosity was good politics are in for a rude awakening.

How Many Doctors Will Go This Route?

March 23, 2010

My Dear Patient,

As you must know, Congress has just passed extensive legislation governing health care delivery and insurance systems. Whether you agree with what it does or not, we are all now subject to this law and its sweeping changes.

I have always conducted my medical practice with my patient’s best interests as my first priority. Although not legally obliged to do so, I have routinely provided you with a receipt that has all the codes necessary to bill your own health insurance company for any reimbursement to which you are entitled. Until now, that insurance company was a free enterprise despite the fact that it was heavily regulated by state and federal laws. Now the situation is quite different. Through the new law’s mandates, regulatory powers and reform, health insurance is and will be largely a government activity which will have an ever larger jurisdiction over how doctors practice, make clinical judgments and are paid.

The new law provides for about 150 new government agencies, many of which are designed to be ‘oversight’ bureaucracies which will have the right to decide what medical care is legal to provide through insurance. Among other things, they will have the right to review my medical care of you and read your medical record. Now, as soon as you submit our economic transaction to your insurance company for reimbursement, you have involved me in these regulations and put me in the jurisdiction of government for my activities, decisions and behavior as your doctor.

No one can have two masters. Either I can serve you as my patient or I can serve the government. Either I can continue to make your welfare and health my only concern, including the protection of your privacy and medical records, or I can abide by ever-increasing amounts of government regulations and dictates to my decisions. I can’t do both. I choose to continue to follow my conscience and practice medicine to serve you.

For this reason, I am responding to the situation created by this new law by exercising my right not to participate in any health insurance program. I will still provide you with the same medical services that I always have, but the interaction will be exclusively and privately between you and me. This means that I will provide you only with a receipt for the services you have paid for, but without the additional information that is required to submit your receipt for reimbursement to your health insurance company. That is the only way I can make sure there will be no conflict between following the law and serving you. Because the law is now in effect, so must these changes be to my practice.

Sincerely,

Linda Johnston, MD

How many of you were aware that your medical history would be mandatorily shared with federal bureaucrats?

How many knew that the bill calls for hiring 17,500 more IRS agents to enforce compliance?

President Obama responded to efforts to repeal this monstrosity with a condescending "Go For it". I'm beginning to think it may not be as impossible as I once thought. So, let's take his advice and go for it. Now that the line seperating government and our health care no longer exists, in a way we're just following our doctor's advice.

Now They Come Clean

Whenever conservatives would say that the federal takeover of health care was about control and power, the Dems screamed that we were lying to the people. Now, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) admits as much. Funny how this didn't come out before the vote.



Nancy Pelosi insisted that they needed to pass the bill in order to see what's in it. We're beginning to find out and it's as ugly as many feared.

As noted in several places, the new health-care bill has already made the cost of employees more expensive and taken away capital that could otherwise have been used to hire workers.

Farm-equipment manufacturer John Deere "said it expects its expenses to rise by around $150 million on an after-tax basis, mainly in the second quarter, as a result of the legislation."

Verizon "told employees in an email Tuesday that Verizon's costs will go up in the near term, pinpointing a tax-subsidy reduction for retiree health benefits."

Heavy-equipment manufacturer Caterpillar "said that its first-quarter earnings will be hit with a $100 million after-tax charge under tax law changes attached to the new health care reform legislation."

AK Steele Holding Corp., "the third largest U.S. steelmaker by sales, said it will record a non-cash charge of about $31 million resulting from the health-care overhaul signed into law by President Barack Obama. The charge will be recorded in the first quarter of 2010."

Valero Energy "will take a $15 million to $20 million charge to second-quarter earnings for the same reason."

Medical-device maker Medtronic "warned that new taxes on its products could force it to lay off a thousand workers."

AT&T Inc. said it plans to take a non-cash charge of about $1 billion in the first quarter following the passage of the health-care reform bill earlier this week, according to a filing submitted by the company Friday. The telecommunication giant will also evaluate changes to its health care benefits for employees and retirees.

Remember when President Obama promised that if you liked your health care plan you could keep it? Tell that to the folks at AT&T or the folks at Medtronic in Chelmsford who are about to lose their health care plans, because they're going to lose their jobs.

The Deem and Pass Abomination

Artwork by Jim Geraghty

We grew up with idealistic visions of democracy and our Republic thanks to the good folks at Schoolhouse Rock. Who knew in 30 short years would we become a Banana Republic. From the NY Post:

Dems' 'deem' scheme
Last Updated: 2:34 AM, March 17, 2010

Posted: 2:12 AM, March 17, 2010

Nancy Pelosi is a coward, a bully and a hypocrite -- and Barack Obama is hiding behind her skirts.

So what does that make him?

Pelosi obviously can't find enough votes in her own party for ObamaCare, so the House speaker is preparing to approve the president's health-care bill by legislative legerdemain -- that is, by not voting on it.

And to hell with the Constitution.

Not to mention President Obama's long-abandoned vow that the health-care-reform process would be "completely open and transparent."

Indeed, Pelosi has just the opposite in mind: She intends to employ an arcane bit of backroom alchemy known as "deem and pass," in which the House would vote on a few less-controversial fixes to the Senate's health-care bill.

Then, under terms of a special rule, such passage would automatically mean that the House "deems" that the entire bill has been approved.

Say what?

Well, Pelosi says, "no one wants to vote for the Senate bill."

No kidding.

If they did, it would have become law long ago -- and now midterm congressional elections are rapidly approaching.

This would seem to be a pretty good argument for scrapping the bill and starting all over again.

Au contraire.

Instead, Pelosi plans to stand the Constitution on its head and ram through legislation that the American people overwhelmingly oppose -- and that even members of the president's own party in Congress don't want.

But what makes this even more outrageous is that Pelosi and New York Rep. Louise Slaughter, who proposed the idea, know full well just how wrong it is.

Because five years ago, they and a number of Democratic colleagues joined in a lawsuit charging that the use of "deem and pass" by the Republicans was unconstitutional.

True, they lost that case, but on procedural grounds -- the courts never ruled on the constitutionality of "deem and pass." And the Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that each house must pass the exact same text of a bill before it becomes law.

Anyway, "deem and pass" has been used in the past only for routine, non-controversial issues.

Using it to radically overhaul the nation's entire health-care system -- one-sixth of the economy -- would be a thumb in the eye to the fundamental principles governing the United States of America.

In practical terms, it most certainly would lead directly to years of litigation over its legality. How that would reduce health-care costs and help the uninsured is a mystery.

Moreover, if the ploy is successful, it won't be the last time it's employed. Not by a long shot.

Stumping for ObamaCare in Ohio on Monday, the president declared: "I don't know about the politics, but I know what's the right thing to do."

Tearing a hole in the Constitution is the "right thing to do"?

No, it's not.

Even a reliably Democrat supporting paper like The Washington Post has a editorial titled "Deem This". Robert Gibbs doesn't believe the American people care about "process". He should ask Senator Brown (R-MA) what he makes of that theory. I'm fairly positive that Sen. Brown would tell him that if it weren't for the "Cornhusker Kickback" used to buy Ben Nelson's vote, he wouldn't be the junior senator from MA. Nancy Pelosi, with the backing of President Obama will see for herself how much the American people care about the process if she decides to shred the Constitution by going the "deem and pass" route. If the Democrats pass a government takeover of health care in this manner, I doubt you'll need more than your fingers and toes to count the Democratic caucus in the House next January.

The Swedish Model

Just as politicians like President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are trying to push our economy in the statist European direction. Countries that have tried it like Sweden are trying to claw their way back to a market economy. The European welfare state is failing, just look at Greece as exhibit A. We simply can't afford to make the mistake of adopting a failed economic model in the name of "social justice".

Nancy says: HC Reform Will Release Your Inner Artist

This week will be full of speculation on whether or not Speaker Pelosi has the votes to nationalize the American health care system. If one were inclined to read tea leaves, her appearance on Rachel Maddow's show would indicate she probably has the votes she needs. Then again, it could mean that because she has a tendency to put her foot in her mouth, President Obama is keeping her on a short leash. Reading tea leaves is tricky and Nancy is cagey. After all, how much damage can she do to the cause if she only appears on shows with hosts who are in the tank? If the media gives this statement the light of day it deserves, the answer is plenty.

"Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance."

Evidently, Speaker Pelosi thinks we should all quit our jobs and pursue our until now impossible dreams of opening up a puppet theatre or writng the next great anti-American novel. You see, in her mind, a mime act on Haight-Ashbury taking on the evil, racist tea partiers is a worthier profession than owning your own business and actually producing something worthwhile. Not to mention, paying your own way through life.

In Speaker Pelosi's world, health care reform is not only good for the body, it is good for the soul. If it takes the "Slaughter Solution" to get us there so be it. Progressives have always considered the Constitution to be a hindrance in giving the rubes the government they desperately need, but are too stupid to realize, so it's best to shred it now, once and for all. Nirvana awaits. The massive deficits and unsustainable debt this reform will create are things only shabby capitalists worry about and we're all artists now.

Those of us who have been fighting the government takeover of our health care have just been looking at it all wrong. This isn't about Obama/Pelosi/Reid ignoring the will of the people and telling us to "bend over and take it". It's about our leaders' in their divine wisdom knowing what's truly best for us and the colonoscopy they are about to administer to our rights is our opportunity to become performance artists. Leave it to San Fran Nan to frame it perfectly.

The "Slaughter solution"

This was written by one of our nation's finest and is must reading as far as I'm concerned.

This We Will Defend
"Slaughter Strategy" Is An Affront To The Constitution
By Steve Schippert | March 11, 2010
Lose sight of what you are defending and defense isn't all that important, is it?

This simple reminder compels us to shift focus for the moment from our combative enemies and onto that which we defend. We do not engage in such rigorous defense - in its many forms - simply to preserve soil or borders or lives. We engage in rigorous defense of ideas. Ideas embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. We do not defend simply the shores and borders and people of America. We defend - rigorously - so much more than that. We defend what it means to be American. We defend what it is that inspires so many countless others to risk life, limb and treasure to get to America even still.

And, to put it plainly, there is tyranny afoot and it must be confronted and defeated with confidence, determination and passion. The confrontation is not about health care or any other piece of legislation. It is not about politicians, politics or parties.

The confrontation is about process. The confrontation is about fidelity to the Constitution.

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter says she is "prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill." She continued, explaining how House passage of a separate bill containing "changes" to the Senate version would lead House leadership to "deem" the actual Senate HealthCare Bill passed - without a direct vote.

This is not simply tyrannical in nature, it is absolute political cowardice.

Whether any American likes or dislikes any bill - any bill - none of us are governed under a Constitution nor any Congress within a Constitution that affords for an individual in an elected body to "deem" anything. We elected you, for better or worse, to vote on legislation, whether we like the specific outcome or not. There is a process within both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

The notion of anyone "deeming" anything "passed" without going through the actual voting process of real passage is the kind of governance seen in Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Bashar Assad's Syria or Castro's Cuba.

Few things in this lifetime have inspired such furious rage as this brazen attempt to undermine the legislative process as set forth within the Constitution of the United States.

In 1985, I swore an oath. It was not an oath to defend soil, borders or even lives. It was to defend something vastly more important than any of them, revered as they are. I swore the following:

"I, Steve Schippert, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

That oath stands honored - and, frankly, more thoroughly understood and respected - to this day, long after my 8 years of active duty service as a United States Marine.

Nowhere under that oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States is it stated or implied to include defending the right of any individual in an elected Congressional body to have the power, through assumption or parliamentary "rules changes," to "deem" anything passed without the majority consent (through votes) of the full elected body of Congress.

I understand, House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, that this may be lost on you.

Understand that it is not lost on me. Understand that it is especially not lost on veterans who view the Constitution as something more than an artifact and a museum piece.

Understand that the blood spilled and lives lost on historic battlefields here and on distant shores abroad were not sacrificed in order that an individual in government might acquire the power to deem fundamental changes to America's systems or society. Blood, treasure and lives have been sacrificed standing against precisely that, which is an affront to the concept of "consent of the governed" and individual Liberty.

"Deem" a single thing as "passed" and I and many others will go broke and into bankruptcy driving you and those who stand with you out of our House of Representatives in order to preserve and restore fidelity to the Constitution within our own government.

Discount this at your peril. For it should not be lost upon you or others that men who have sworn (and likewise performed) that the Constitution of the United States is worth more than any of our individual lives would likewise also hold that it is worth more than our mere monetary treasure, be it modest or great.

A wise man once warned a foreign enemy that "there is a price we will not pay and there is a line you must not cross." Ms. Slaughter, you and those who stand with you are standing on that line.

No man, no bill, no law, no program, no amount of treasure is worth more than the Constitution of the United States of America. We swore to defend this, not simply soil or to merely fight wars when so ordered.

I, Steve Schippert, do solemnly swear that I still support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I still bear true faith and allegiance to the same. So help me God.

And I am not alone. I am, in fact, in the majority of Americans - not in opposition to the legal passage of a Health Care bill that I do not agree with. But rather in opposition to an individual in any elected body with the assumed or altered power to "deem" any legislation passed without proper vote as proscribed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

Our Constitution does not afford for the legislating of tyranny, nor for "rules changes" to affect the same.

This we will defend.

Lose sight of what you are defending and defense isn't all that important, is it?

Tierney's Choice

The insurance companies with their perennial double-digit rate hikes are easy to loathe. Which is why President Obama on his latest barnstorming effort to save his health care bill has torn into them with such gusto. When you look beyond the president's rhetoric, the picture isn't nearly as clear as he would make it seem. The combined profits last year of the 10 largest of those "evil" health insurers was $8.3 billion, giving them an average profit margin of 2.5%. This is hardly the makings of modern day robber barons. So, if the insurance companies aren't making huge profits where does all the money from those outrageously expensive premiums go? The biggest drivers of rate hikes are: demographics,government mandated coverage and defensive medicine.

The Baby Boomers, even the ones with Peter Pan issues are beginning to retire. It's pretty simple to understand that the older a person gets, the more medical services they will require. As our country's largest age cohort, this represents a large increase in costs. The other major culprit in driving costs up is the sad fact that nearly a third and growing of our fellow citizens would qualify as contestants on the Biggest Loser. With America's expanding waistline come greater medical costs for diabetes, high blood-pressure, heart disease etc.

Nationwide, state legislatures at the behest of lobbyists have mandated services that must be included in all health care coverage. In MA the list is as long as your arm and includes expensive procedures like in-vitro fertilization and drug and alchohol rehab. Most will never need these services, but we are required to pay for them, making insurance more expensive than it needs to be. Just imagine how expensive it would be to insure your car if your policy had to cover oil changes, tune-ups, tires etc.

In America, doctors spend $26 billion annually on medical liability premiums, with the rates increasing roughly 12% a year. To protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits they order tests and give referrals that aren't medically necessary. This defensive medicine costs in excess of $100 billion every year. The MA Medical Society released a study in which 83% of MA physicians admitted to the practice. Frankly, I'm surprised it wasn't higher.

The bill that Congressman Tierney will be asked to vote on addresses none of these issues.

It does cut Medicare by half a trillion dollars which the Conressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates will cause 20% of our nation's hospitals to go bankrupt.

As Democratic Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) admitted, the bill won't rein in rising health care premiums. You can bet he didn't make this confession out of the goodness of his heart. The CBO estimates that rates will increase by 8% a year for those with employer based coverage an 10-13% for those in the individual market.

The New England Journal of Medicine just released a study with this gem:

"nearly one third of physicians responding to the survey indicated that they will want to leave medical practice after health reform is implemented."

The ranks of primary-care doctors would be decimated as 46% indicated they would leave. An overwhelming 63% of doctors want the government to take a more gradual approach.

At $2.5 trillion over 10 years this bill is simply too expensive and does too much harm to our medical infrastructure.

As bad as the provisions of this bill are for the medical community it is also a terrible deal for the middle class. It does provide subsidies to help pay for insurance, but they are a devil's bargain. These subsidies penalize marriage, work and investment. Many Americans will find themselves in a situation where it will cost them more to accept a promotion because their new income won't equal the lost subsidy. This is the same formula used in welfare that has been so detrimental to the poor in this country. The government promises and provides benefits that will disappear if you try to better your lot in life.

So Rep. Tierney it's time to choose. The voters of your district, in an election that was largely a referendum on the government takeover of health care gave Scott Brown 60% support. You need to decide if you represent the people of the sixth district or the special interests: trial lawyers, big labor,left-wing pressure groups like moveon.org. The people are watching.

How Low Will They Go?

The Dems in the House are preparing to change the rules so they can "deem" the Senate healthcare bill passed without ever voting for it.

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. "Once the CBO gives us the score we'll spring right on it," she said. . . .

House members are concerned the Senate could fail to approve the corrections bill, making them nervous about passing the Senate bill with its much-maligned sweetheart deals for certain states.
"We're well beyond that," Pelosi said Tuesday, though she did not clarify.

It is even theoretically legal, although it stinks to high heaven.

Unlike in the Senate, where individual Senators have broad discretion to steer debate and introduce amendments, the legislative process in the House is rigidly governed by the Rules Committee. This limits the Republicans' options in fighting a self-executing rule for Obamacare. As one Republican House staffer put it to me today, “the Rules Committee can do just about anything if they can get the votes to pass the rule.”

This is an exercise in raw political power. Is it any wonder that a recent Rasmussen poll showed that only 21% of American voters consider the federal government to have the consent of the governed?

$7 a gallon gas?

Fuel Taxes Must Rise, Harvard Researchers Say
By SINDYA N. BHANOO
To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.

To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving would simply have to increase, according to a report released Thursday by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. The research also appears in the March edition of the journal Energy Policy.

The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010.

In their study, the researchers devised several combinations of steps that United States policymakers might take in trying to address the heat-trapping emissions by the nation’s transportation sector, which consumes 70 percent of the oil used in the United States.

Most of their models assumed an economy-wide carbon dioxide tax starting at $30 a ton in 2010 and escalating to $60 a ton in 2030. In some cases researchers also factored in tax credits for electric and hybrid vehicles, taxes on fuel or both.

In the modeling, it turned out that issuing tax credits could backfire, while taxes on fuel proved beneficial.

“Tax credits don’t address how much people use their cars,” said Ross Morrow, one of the report’s authors. “In reverse, they can make people drive more.”

Dr. Morrow, formerly a fellow at the Belfer Center, is a professor of mechanical engineering and economics at Iowa State University

Researchers said that vehicle miles traveled will increase by more than 30 percent between 2010 and 2030 unless policymakers increase fuel taxes.

[From Andy R.: March 4, 7:58 a.m. | Update ] Rush Limbaugh weighed in on this post yesterday, as some may have surmised given the spike in comments, and the tenor of many. Some important points were raised by his audience, including a listener calling from his car in Nebraska to say how a gas tax would unfairly burden workers in sprawling states with no public transportation options. I’ll be posting more from the research team on some of this.

Since the research was done by a team from Harvard and published in the NY Times it is doubtful that the study was funded by those "evil oil companies" that are intent on pillaging the planet and wrecking the environment of "mother earth".

EPA administrator Lisa Jackson is intent on exercising her court appointed authority to regulate the economy:

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said Wednesday that an effort in Congress to stop the agency from regulating pollution linked to climate change would be an “enormous step backward for science” if successful.

Testifying before a Senate Appropriations panel, Lisa Jackson defended EPA’s finding that carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare by contributing to global warming.

That “endangerment” finding requires EPA to regulate emissions under the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, Jackson said.

“The science behind climate change is settled,” Jackson said during testimony Wednesday morning before the Senate Appropriations Interior, Environment and Related Agencies subcommittee hearing on EPA’s 2011 budget request.

“Multiple lines of scientific inquiry” and the consensus of climate scientists hold that climate change is happening and humans are the cause, Jackson said.

Fom her statements it would appear that Lisa Jackson has been without internet access since last November. That "consensus" she speaks of is in tatters. Even the UN has ordered a independent review of the science after all the errors in the IPCC report were exposed. Errors, which incidently, all favored the theory that climate change was being driven by human activity. The fact is that satellite data shows that there has been no appreciable warming in the Earth's atmosphere since 1979. Humans have burned a lot of fossil fuels since that time, it's curious that all that CO2 hasn't had a measurably significant impact.

You can bet that Ms. Jackson's regulations will have an immediate impact on the living standards of every American. I think even the very wealthy will feel the pinch of $7 gas. After all, if gas is going up to $7 what will jetfuel cost? Those Gulfstreams have pretty big gas tanks.

Taxpayer Abuse

It reads like a dream order for a wild frat party: Maker's Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey's Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey … and Corona beer.

But that single receipt makes up just part of the more than $101,000 taxpayers paid for "in-flight services" – including food and liquor, for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trips on Air Force jets over the last two years. That's almost $1,000 per week.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, show Pelosi incurred expenses of some $2.1 million for her use of Air Force jets for travel over that time.

Nancy Pelosi sure knows how to party on the taxpayers' dime. Didn't she promise to make ethics and good government cornerstones of her Speakership? Besides, the woman is loaded, she can certainly afford to pay for her own booze. She's the only member of Congress abusing the office right? Wrong:

When lawmakers travel overseas on official business they are given up to $250 a day in taxpayer funds to cover meals and expenses. Congressional rules say they must return any leftover cash to the government.

They usually don't.

According to interviews with 20 current and former members of Congress, lawmakers use the excess cash for shopping or to defray spouses' travel expenses. Sometimes they give it away; sometimes they pocket it. Many lawmakers said they didn't know the rules demand repayment.

"If that was the policy, you could never get many members traveling," said Rep. Solomon Ortiz, a Texas Democrat. Mr. Ortiz said he had never returned any money.

"There's a tacit understanding that if lawmakers don't spend the money, they get to keep it," said Rep. Sue Kelly, a New York Republican who was defeated in 2006.

I'm happy to hear she's no longer a member of the House. It's attitudes like hers that caused Republicans' to lose the confidence of the people and hence their majorities in the House and Senate. The 2006 exit polls showed voters more concerned with corruption(Abramoff) and scandal(Foley) than the war in Iraq.

Lawmakers who said they sometimes keep excess funds said the amounts were small. "I won't deny that sometimes I have a little left, but it's not much—maybe 80, 90, or 100 dollars," said Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D., N.C.).

That's more money than I have in my wallet right now. The amount of money the good Congressman is dismissing is just about a weeks' worth of groceries for me.

The winner for obliviousness comes from a guy who was impeached as a judge, so he became a Congressman:

Mr. Hastings (D-FL) said he sometimes used the extra taxpayer money to buy gifts, meals or drinks for military pilots, security officials and interpreters who travel with him. On a trip earlier this year to the Middle East, Mr. Hastings gave $100 to an Iraqi refugee, he said.

"I'm a generous spirit and a courteous spirit," Mr. Hastings said. "I stand accused."

True generosity would be to use your own money, not whatever you have left over of your taxpayer provided per diem.

As for House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel. He just got slapped on the wrist by the House ethics committee, but with the steadfast support of Speaker Pelosi he is in no danger of losing his gavel.

Enter Charlie Rangel, chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Allegedly unbeknownst to him, he had the misfortune to have his Caribbean vacations paid for by corporations. After an admonishment by the House’s ethics committee, Rangel lamented that this was just his rotten luck, undone by unscrupulous staffers conniving to get him free beach time on Antigua and St. Maarten.

He also in his long Congressional career managed to amass $500,000.00 in two checking accounts which he never bothered to disclose in his mandated financial reports.

To members of Congress this is small potatoes and a perk of doing the people's business. Well, in the early 90's it turned out that many members of Congress were bouncing checks left and right and thought nothing of it. Balancing a checkbook, in their minds was something only the little people needed to worry about. Well, the little people showed up at the polls and bounced many of those self-important bozos right out of office. It's high time to clean the whole rotten lot out. We need people in office who are interested serving the public, not fleecing it.

The Oracle Of Omaha Speaks

But will President Obama listen? He did refer to Mr. Buffett as one of the wise men whose counsel he would seek on important matters of state. Considering how many campaign promises have been cast aside, one shouldn't be surprised when this one is ignored as well. After all, the president has a country to remake in the image of Greece.

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett advised President Barack Obama on Monday to scrap the health care bill and start over.

and

In an interview with CNBC, Buffett said the current bill does not focus on controlling costs, which he sees as the central problem that must be addressed to reform the system.

finally

"If it was a choice today between plan A, which is what we've got, or plan B, what is in front of - the Senate bill, I would vote for the Senate bill," Buffett said. "But I would much rather see a plan C that really attacks costs. And I think that's what the American public wants to see. I mean, the American public is not behind this bill. And we need the American public behind the bill, because it's going to have to do some tough things."

Of course the White House will probably trumpet this as "Buffett endorses Senate Bill". It sounds like the exact message Republicans were trying to get across to the president at last Thursday's health care summit. Which party is supposed to represent the "reality based community" again?

Classic

Considering how much grief Joe Wilson (R-SC) received for his simple and true "you lie"; it's a wonder this fellow made it out of the room alive. The Europeans don't have our free speech protections after all. Just ask Geert Wilders of the Netherlands whose life is threatened by Islamists on one hand and his freedom by the government on the other. Yet, this is the system that Obama/Pelosi/Reid want to bring to America in the name of fairness.