This Pretty Much Says It All

For those of you who don't remember, the 1970's were the period of our "malaise" so entitled by President Jimmy Carter. As the purple haze of the 1960's cleared, the 70's brought about a series of self-righteous political leftists who gained power in the face of an economic catastrophe. That crisis was engendered by the failure to support an existing monarchy in Iran, which created an oil shortage in the United States. There was odd/even rationing. There were lines. And there were political meltdowns that resonate even up until today.

In spite of the dire warnings from the Left, American did recover and move past the deer in the headlights inactivity of the liberal agenda. At that time scientists were warning of the impending new Ice Age. They also said it was immoral to marry and have children, which in turn led to a generation of DINK's whose only needs were to spend money on themselves. This type of economic navel gazing is what created the Entitled Generation that feels it is owed the good things in life just because it exists. Do you not wonder why so many Boomer generation celebrities eschewed marriage which in turn created a fashionable acceptance of living together over marriage as an institution?

At any rate, do read this column. It is very wise. and I am sure the writer will be on an enemies list soon and forbidden to write such things.

Environmental Power Grab: When Is a Tax Not a Tax?

"...Many business leaders argue - as did President Bush - that the Clean Air Act is ill suited to deal with climate change and that regulating carbon dioxide would hamstring economic growth...

"It will require a huge cascade of (new clean air) permits" and halt a wide array of projects, from building coal plants to highway construction, including many at the heart of President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan, said Bill Kovacs, a vice president for environmental and technology issues at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. . . .

An internal EPA planning document that surfaced recently suggests the agency would like to have a final endangerment finding by mid-April. But officials have made clear actual regulations are unlikely to come immediately and involve a lengthy process with public comment.

Gibbs, when asked about the EPA document Monday, emphasized that "the president has made quite clear" that he prefers to have the climate issue addressed by Congress as part of a broad, mandatory limit on heat-trapping emissions...."Full story here

On the surface the declaration by the EPA that CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas responsible for pollution seems like an innocuous statement. I mean we have heard it over and over and the debate has straggled on for years. But this time around, it has serious economic implications. By using this measure to control the production by factories or generating plant, the government through the EPA is putting us on notice that they intend to either exact payment in kind-which are basically more taxes, or that they will ration production through limiting supply to power. And this is just another clear case of the EPA trying to do political things through legislative fiat.

First of all, this will negatively impact manufacturing by adding surcharges or penalties for those entities seen as CO2 creators. That means that most gas and coal power generation facilities would see surcharges on top of those already levied by governments at the local, state and federal levels. Have you looked at your phone bill or energy bill lately? While you may pay a base rate for the actual service, there are charges upon charges added on to that final amount. So while it may not be an actual tax, it has the same effect of diminishing your ability to prosper in this American society.

Secondly, this will have serious impacts on the part of the nation that has extremely hot summers. Those regions naturally produce high CO2 amounts because of the heat. While those of us in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and other warm climates would love to control this, must of it has to do with weather-which despite the best efforts of environmental groups, we do not control. Likewise those of us along the border must also contend with Mexico. Traditional farmers annually burn off winter remains in the fields to create a more fertile field for spring planting. Clouds of smoke will cross into the United States and there is nothing we can do about it. But we deal with the smoke and the resulting higher ozone days. Those count against us with the EPA and bring down heavier sanctions and actions. Unless the feds are willing to tell Mexico to knock it off, how can we fall into compliance even under the best of circumstances?

Third, this is an economic power grab. Already this administration has shown that it is more than willing to grab control of industries. They have done so with banking, and have even shown umbrage that the banks that have managed to staunch their bleeding red ink want to pay back the TARP loans. They now virtually control two of the Big Three automakers going so far as to pick and choose who will lead them. And now they seek to control Big Oil. Please don't think that this isn't carefully planned. As I wrote earlier, economists realize that every economic downturn was the results of a precipitous rise in oil prices. At some point I think it behooves us to ask who is controlling the price and if they are doing so to effect economic havoc and to virtually control the political destiny of the United States.

If you look at this president and who has economically supported his candidacy, it's a very troubling scene. We have an outsider billionaire who has made money on the fall of Wall Street by betting against us. This same man is also the funding for Moveon.org and last year's winner in the election. While I am not much of a conspiracy nut, I know that all history is "cause and effect". So while the media has narrowed its message, I have to ask for what cause. Why is the media currently so obviously biased toward policies that are socialist? Why has the news pipeline narrowed to the point that some news which is non-news makes headlines and other more critical news is buried? When you looked at newspapers headlines on April 16th, why did some newspapers feature the Tea Party Rallies and why did other bury them in the business section? Is there a fear that more people are concerned about this administration's policies than the media wants to believe and therefore they are self-censoring any message contrary to the popular view? Isn't that in total opposition to the idea of a free press and free speech? And what of the "Fairness" bill wherein a sponsor is married to a man who is a producer for liberal radio talk shows? Why isn't the media talking about these things? What do they have to gain-or to lose?

If you find these trends troubling, you are not alone. That was the message of the Tax Day Tea Parties. The power grab cited above is but the tip of a very large menacing iceberg. It is going to require people getting out of the comfort zone and daring to talk to others about what is happening and why. The current president has said he won't raise taxes. But a surcharge, a fee, a penalty charge are all money coming out of your pockets and when the government takes money it doesn't always get spent where it needs to go. Instead of a PBS style liberalism, we are in the early stages of a major attempt to subvert the Constitution. There is something going on here, and I am not sure that it is for our own good.

You Could Be a Global Warming Victim....

In yet another attempt to expand the list of victims from outside the norm sources, the Feds are now teaming up with the Greens to allow folks to press lawsuits against the federal government-yes, that our taxes at risk-if they see themselves as "victims" of Global Warming. So I guess if I get a really bad sunburn, or if my housepaint peels off or if my eyes water on an especially hot day, I can file. But here's a twist I just thought of, what if I claim to be a victim of Global Warming because the price of gas with added taxes makes it impossible for me to work? I think we should all aim for that type of claim....

"...Self-proclaimed victims of global warming or those who "expect to suffer" from it - from beachfront property owners to asthmatics - for the first time would be able to sue the federal government or private businesses over greenhouse gas emissions under a little-noticed provision slipped into the House climate bill.

Environmentalists say the measure was narrowly crafted to give citizens the unusual standing to sue the U.S. government as a way to force action on curbing emissions. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sees a new cottage industry for lawyers.

"You could be spawning lawsuits at almost any place [climate-change modeling] computers place at harm's risk," said Bill Kovacs, energy lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The bill was written by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, and Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat. Both lawmakers declined repeated requests for comment..."

PS. Doesn't it make you a teenzie bit suspicious when the writers of a bill refuse to discuss it? What other surprises will we find? And will we find that some of Waxman's California celebrity supporters are first in line for assistance?

Full article HERE

Borrowers and Lenders: The Fight

Suppose you lent someone some money. You would want it paid back- the sooner, the better, right? So if your creditor turned around and said they now had the money to pay you back much sooner than anticipated, you would be pleased. But that's not the way it works with Team Obama. Several banks have managed to adjust and survive. They want to return the money given them in TARP loans. You would think this was a sign of positive economic activity, but wait. Team Obama doesn't WANT the money back. In fact they so much don't want it back that they are imposing over the top surcharges if the banks return the money too soon.

One has to ask WHY? As a taxpayer, I want this money back in government coffers ASAP. So here's the catch, the TARP funds were never, ever about the money. They were about CONTROL. Team Obama wants to control the banking industry just as they are now nearly controlling the automotive industry. They want to say who gets the money, who doesn't and they want to know that they can impact through penalties, taxes and surcharges, the cost of doing business. This will affect the amount of money businesses can use, or the loans they can float. As we have already seen, the lack of ready access money has a dampering effect on economic growth. By putting what amounts to a VAT on loans-because banks will not absorb these added costs, they will tack them onto loans as fees-this effectively diminishes profit. That means less expansion, fewer jobs created and little room for research and development-both costly chunks of innovative manufacturing in the 21st century.

But don't take my word for it...Read this

"...President Obama emerged from a meeting with his senior economic advisers on Friday to say “what you’re starting to see is glimmers of hope across the economy.” But there were also signs of growing tensions between the White House and the nation’s banks over the next phase of the financial rescue.

Some of the healthier banks want to pay back their bailout loans to avoid executive pay and other restrictions that come with the money. But the banks are balking at the hefty premium they agreed to pay when they took the money.

Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, and two other executives of large banks raised the issue with Mr. Obama and the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, at a meeting two weeks ago.

“This is a source of considerable consternation,” said Camden R. Fine, who attended the White House meeting as president of the Independent Community Bankers, a trade group of 5,000 mostly smaller institutions, many of which are complaining about the repayment requirements.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration wants weaker banks to move more quickly to relieve their balance sheets of the toxic assets, the home loans and mortgage bonds that nobody wants to buy right now. But the banks are resisting because they would have to book big losses.

Finally, there is increasing anxiety in the industry that the administration could use the stress tests of the 19 biggest banks, due to be completed in the next three weeks, to insist on management changes, just as it did with General Motors when officials forced the resignation of its chief executive after examining that company’s books..."