America, You Asked For It!

Political News and Commentary from the Right

Scientist: Global Warming Claims a Lot of Hype

by Phil Brennan at Newsmax.com
7/3/2009

Lawmakers who described the alleged effects of global warming are spreading a lot of “eye wash,” a top climate scientist says.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax, S. Fred Singer, a renowned climatologist and professor of environmental sciences emeritus at the University of Virginia, discussed the background behind the recent open letter to Congress he and six other scientists sent to members of the House and Senate.

In the letter, the scientists cited a letter sent by the Woods Hole Research Center, which exhorted Congress to act quickly to avoid a global disaster due to alleged global warming.

Singer said the Woods Hole group “put on a sort of scary exaggerated kind of letter to Congress ahead of the vote in the House in an obvious attempt to stampede them into voting for the Waxman-Markey [cap and trade environmental] bill.

More

July 6, 2009 Posted by | Energy, Environment | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Death by Obamanomics?

by Irwin M. Stelzer in The Weekly Standard

Death by a thousand cuts. Or in the case of the efficiency of the U.S. economy, by at least four: energy policy, health care policy, trade union resurgence, and fiscal madness.

Start with energy. The world is awash in it. The wind blows and the sun shines, at least some times and somewhere. Oil and gas wells gush, and substantial oil- and gas-rich areas have never even been explored. Coal abounds. Nuclear power can be had at a cost. So why has Barack Obama made energy policy one of his three top priorities — education and health care are the other two — in a country in which inexpensive energy has produced the world’s most productive agriculture, a population capable of navigating America’s huge spaces in air-conditioned comfort, and permitted the substitution of energy-plus-brain-power for back-breaking labor?

One problem is that oil is largely in the hands of very bad actors. Still another is that almost all sources of energy have significant impacts on the environment: solar panels consume acres of space; wind machines are considered eye sores by those who can spot them; oil, natural gas and coal emit CO2, responsible for claims that the globe is warming; nuclear power generates long-lived and dangerous waste.

Some of these problems are soluble, although not without cost. Domestic producers of natural gas tout their product as a substitute for petrol in trucks, busses and other vehicles. Progress is apparently being made in developing cars and trucks that run on at least partly on batteries. The efficiency of vehicles is being increased, albeit in response to inefficient government edicts rather than to more efficient price signals. Never mind that the infrastructure for these various gasoline substitutes has not been developed, and that the cost of these technologies exceeds that of the gasoline-fuelled internal combustion engine by a good margin. They must be listed in the possible column. That’s the good news.

More

June 29, 2009 Posted by | Economy, Obama | , , , , , | Leave a comment

House passes huge middle-class tax hike

By a 219-212 vote, eight Republicans and 211 Democrats, passed today what Democrats titled “Cap & Trade.”  According to The Heritage Foundation, HR 2454 will cost a family of four $2979 per year by taxing energy consumption, increased production costs that will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, and adverse economic impacts such as lost jobs and lower GDP.  Though concerned citizens jammed the switchboards of their representatives yesterday to fight against what is really the Democrats’ new “Energy Tax,” our elitist elected officials ignored their constituents’ pleas and protests to push through this huge tax increase that will surely cripple an already ailing economy.

Though President Obama campaigned on the promise of a middle class tax cut, he’s a principal backer of this economy-killing tax.  The Wall Street Journal points out that the 95% of Americans the President promised a tax cut will be the hardest hit by this latest Democratic plan to seize a bigger portion of our paychecks.  Forget for a minute that what Obama calls a tax cut doesn’t deserve that moniker.  The President claims what he dubs a tax cut will save American households only $500-$1000–nowhere even close to the costs those Americans will incur if HR 2454 passes the Senate and is signed into law.

What the President and his Democratic allies are perpetrating is a huge con job on the American people.  They hand you somewhere between $500 and $1000, while picking your pocket for $3000–smiling and laughing all the while.  That’s the worst part.

Heritage notes that “Climatologist Chip Knappenberger crunched the numbers and found that even the strictest version of Waxman-Markey would reduce projected global temperatures by just 0.044ºC by 2050.”  Less than one degree if the Democrats got everything they want and it all works the way they claim.  Both of which are doubtful. 

Less than one degree!  How much of the polar ice cap will that save?  How many heat related illnesses and deaths will that avoid?

The fact is, there will be virtually no change to the effects of global warming and Obama and his Democratic pals in Congress know it.  This entire bill is a ruse they’ve created for one purpose and one purpose only–to raise taxes.  It’s one big con and we, the American people, are the marks.

Contact your Senators, and keep contacting them to make sure this bill dies in the Senate.  We cannot afford the Democrats’ tax increase, regardless what name they give it.

June 27, 2009 Posted by | Environment, Taxes | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Tell your Rep. “We can’t afford Dems’ ENERGY TAX!”

from ARRA News Service

Action Alert: Friday, the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (the “Cap and Trade Energy Bill”) that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by giving the federal government the power to limit the amount of oil, gasoline, coal, and other fossil fuels used by American utilities and industry. This is a bill that could fundamentally alter the American economy, dramatically affect the climate, and have huge implications for our national security. But, right now no one knows what’s in the bill or how it came to be.

Let your Representatives know that we can’t afford the Democrat’s Energy Tax!  You can find links to contact your representatives on the right side of this page.

June 25, 2009 Posted by | Energy, Environment | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Feds want to raise gas prices NOW!


Digg!

Remember when gas was $4+ a gallon?  Of course you do, it was only a couple of months ago.  Weren’t you relieved as the price plummeted? 

Well don’t spend the extra money in your checking account just yet.

It seems federal bureaucrats are excited about the recent crash in gas prices as well, only they’re not excited for the same reasons you are.  Apparently, they think this is the perfect opportunity to raise the gas tax.  And not just a little, they want to seize an extra 10 cents on every gallon of gas you buy, and 12 to 15 cents on every gallon of diesel sold.  At today’s prices, that’s will result in a 7% increase in the cost of a gallon of gas and 5% on a gallon of diesel.

According to the Federal Highway Administration, Americans are driving less and buying more fuel efficient vehicles.  Of course your employees (that’s right, they work for you) consider these bad habits because they result in less of your money ending up in Uncle Sam’s coffers.  

If Americans are driving less, that means there’s less wear and tear on the highways which naturally reduces the costs of maintaining those roads.  One of the primary methods of increasing fuel efficiency is to reduce the weight of the vehicle, so if more Americans are driving fuel efficient vehicles, that should also translate to lower maintenance costs on highways.  The shrinking economy reduces demand for goods hauled by heavy trucks, so you can also figure there’s less tonnage rolling across the country’s roads.  Again, leading to reduced wear and tear and reducing the costs of upkeep on the highways.

But that means we have the perfect storm going on in the country that should be saving the government money to maintain roads.  Why then are they demanding more of our money to pay less for road maintenance?

Because they can’t pass up an opportunity to dig into your wallet–plain and simple.

Last month, the US Department of Transportation said Americans drove 100 billion fewer miles over the past year, resulting in ~$3 billion less in gas taxes collected.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a mathematician to figure out that’s 3 cents per mile. 

But, the fed tax on gasoline is currently 18.4 cents per gallon.  Let’s be conservative and say the average fuel consumption for cars on the road was 10 mpg.  That means gas taxes collected were less than 2 cents per mile so the cost to the government from fewer passenger vehicle miles driven couldn’t possibly be the 3 cents the DOT is claiming.

Okay, you might be thinking “What about big trucks?”  The fed tax on a gallon of diesel is 24.4 cents per gallon.  Now, it just so happens that I drove a truck for about 5 years so I can tell you 6 mpg is a pretty safe, conservative estimate for the average fuel consumption of big trucks on the road today.  So that means 18-wheelers are paying a little more than 4 cents per mile driven in federal fuel taxes.  So maybe the DOT’s figures are accurate and the 100 billion fewer miles driven really is costing the feds $3 billion in lost revenue–if trucks are responsible for the bulk of the reduced miles traveled on American highways.

Here’s the problem with that theory.  A truck weighing 80,000 pounds is certainly going to do more damage to a road than a car weighing 3,000.  If we take the DOT numbers at face value, then we can assume there’s far less wear and tear due to the disproportionate reduction in heavy truck traffic.  In other words, the DOT shouldn’t need more money.

Finally, with the US economy in a prolonged recession that could still worsen before we see better times, this is no time to be confiscating more of American’s money.  This proposed tax increase will further dampen demand for goods, which will further reduce traffic on our highways and create even more of a reduction in fuel tax revenue.

This is just another example of overpaid bureaucrats seizing an opportunity to confiscate more of your money!


Digg!

January 2, 2009 Posted by | Energy | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama’s Energy Sec. Wants Gasoline Price Increase of 300%

by All-American Blogger

Gasoline where I am is back down to $1.49 a gallon.  The national average right now is about $1.65 a gallon. 

Energy Secretary Appointee Steven Chu

Energy Secretary Appointee Steven Chu

The Eco-Marxists aren’t happy with the price of gasoline being low.  If you remember during the primaries, even Barack Obama said the price wasn’t bad, it just rose too fast.

To the green mafia, the price of gasoline should be so high that people can’t drive to work and have to rely on public transportation.  And if the market won’t keep the price high, government will.

Steven Chu is Obama’s nominee for Energy Secretary.  Here’s what he thinks about gas prices:

…(Read full article)


Just when we thought we were getting a little relief, here comes Obama’s change–change right back to where things were a few weeks ago!

Although I don’t think Chu will get his longed for tax increases with the economy in this shape, just remember they’re on his mind.  We’ll be fighting this battle eventually.

December 19, 2008 Posted by | Cabinet | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Obama’s Undemocratic Plan to Tax Everything You Do and Send the Money to Kuwaiti Millionaires

from The Foundry

Despite the 5,800 miles between them, events yesterday in Poznan, Poland, and Sacramento, Calif., shed a frightening light on the direction President-elect Barack Obama’s administration wants to take our country on energy policy. First in Poznan, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) promised delegates at an international climate conference that “Congress and the president-elect are committed to movement on mandatory goals as rapidly as possible.” According to Obama’s transition website, the preferred enforcement mechanism for these mandatory goals would be a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions, which any honest economist will tell you is really just a energy tax dressed up in drag. Meanwhile, in Sacramento, the unelected California Air Resources Board approved “the nation’s most sweeping plan to reduce global warming by curbing emissions.” Like Obama’s plan, California’s plan features “an elaborate cap-and-trade program” at its core.

What makes California’s cap-and-trade plan so scary is that voters never had, and never will have, an opportunity to debate and vote on its implementation. The plan is being implemented entirely through the administrative process. None of the members of California board have ever had to, or ever will, face the voters. They are appointed by the governor.

…(Read full article)

December 12, 2008 Posted by | Environment | , , , , , | 2 Comments

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.