More Marxist Style Politics

BP paid workers $12-per-hour to show up for Obama visit, be props for the photo ops
By: Mark Tapscott

Has it really come to this? Yahoo News' Brett Michael Dykes reports that BP paid busloads of temporary cleanup workers to show up as stage props for President Obama's visit to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill cleanup operations on Grand Isle.

Dykes quoted Jefferson Parish councilman Chris Roberts who said "the overnight contingent of workers was there mainly to furnish a Potemkin-style backdrop for the event — while also making it appear that BP was firmly in command of spill cleanup efforts. New Orleans NBC affiliate WDSU reports that the workers were paid $12 an hour and came mostly from neighboring Terrebonne and Lafourche parishes."

For more, go here.

Obama was enjoying a bit of a recovery in the presidential approval numbers earlier in the week, after hitting the lowest point of his presidency. You think BP also paid those four percentage points to show up for the president in the latest Rasmussen polling?

HT: Examiner contributor Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.com.

Read more at the Washington Examiner:

Heritage Morning Bell - Wacky/Marxist Bill

The Transparent Costs of Cap and Trade

On June 26th of this year, the House of Representatives narrowly passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. More commonly known as the Waxman-Markey bill (named after bill sponsors Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA), the 1,427-page bill tries to control global temperatures by creating a “cap” on greenhouse gas emissions, and then hoping that greenhouse emitters would “trade” emissions permits meet the cap. Under the scheme, the government would issue fewer allowances each year, causing the cost of the permits to rise. The cost of these allowances is a tax, and under Waxman-Markey, the tax would rise each year. As with any tax, it will ultimately be passed on to consumers in the form of higher energy and product prices.

On August 6th, the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis released a report detailing the economic costs of the Waxman-Markey. Since energy is the lifeblood of the American economy, 85 percent of which comes from CO2-emitting fossil fuels, the Waxman-Markey bill’s arbitrary and severe restrictions on the current energy supply and infrastructure will not only have direct impact on consumers’ budgets through higher electric bills and gasoline prices, but also cause unnecessary inefficiencies at virtually every stage of production. CDA estimates that Waxman-Markey legislation would cost the average family-of-four almost $3,000 per year, cause 2.5 million net job losses by 2035, and a produce a cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) loss of $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035.

Surely our study did not produce the results Waxman and Markey expected. Earlier this month Reps. Waxman and Markey sent us, and a number of other institutions, a letter asking us to answer 33 methodological questions about the analytical techniques used in our study. We were delighted by Waxman and Markey’s letter since it is just the kind of thoughtful investigative work our lawmakers should do more often. For example, they asked if our model took into account an increase in private sector investments in research and development that would be sparked by the legislation and a new carbon market. Answer: It did. Our model incorporates both short and long-run responses to higher energy prices.

Waxman also asked if our model quantified any benefits of avoided climate change. Answer: It didn’t. Because according to estimates based on IPCC data, the Waxman-Markey bill would only impact global temperatures by .044 degrees C (about .09 degrees F) by 2050. There simply are no economic benefits from such a minuscule impact.

Waxman-Markey did not send their questions to some notable organizations that have conducted analysis of their bill like the Congressional Budget Office and the Brooking Institution. After we requested they do so, we have since received word that Waxman and Markey sent the same letter to the CBO. They had previously included the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Energy Information Administration (EIA), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), CRA International, the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), and the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC).

In the interests of an honest and transparent debate about the costs of cap and trade the Heritage Foundation has devoted a space on our website, www.heritage.org, where we have posted our answers in their entirety. We have formally invited the other organizations who were asked these questions to allow us to post their responses as well, in the interest of full transparency.

Let’s hope the Waxman-Markey questionnaire signals that a serious debate can now take place. American families deserve to be kept fully apprised of how Congress intends to act, and how those actions will most likely affect their pocketbooks, their jobs, and their lives.

AFP Update on Cap and Trade

Last week we had an unbelievably tight, down-to-the-wire fight in the U.S. House of Representatives over the massive Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade energy tax bill, the largest tax hike in American history and an unprecedented intrusion of the federal government into our economy and our lives.

Thank you so much for everything you did to give the side of economic sanity a fighting chance. Your calls and emails made a huge difference, and AFP members like you were clearly one of the driving forces last week.

We weren’t quiet able to win in the House (see how they voted here), but we’re confident that if we can keep educating and mobilizing regular common-sense Americans, we can beat this disastrous bill in the Senate.
Here are few reasons to be hopeful:

* Just two states, California (32) and New York (25) provided more than a quarter of the 219 total yes votes

* Democrats in several key targeted Senate states voted majority no, including Indiana (3 of 5), Arkansas (2 of 3), and West Virginia (2 of 2)

* Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota, both statewide elected Democrats, vote no

Unfortunately, we also learned that the White House is willing to do anything to get this bill passed, including misleading and intimidating members. That means the Senate fight will be right down to the wire, and pressure from back home will be the only way to stop this from passing.

We also know the stakes, in the President’s own words:"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."There is no time to waste, so I’m asking you to please click here to send a strong message to your Senators to oppose this outrageous cap-and-trade bill.

Thanks for everything you do to make AFP great.

Phil Kerpen

Director of Policy

www.AmericansforProsperity.org

Dhimmicrats Intentionally Sabotage American Economic Independence

Family Security Matters

....the Obama administration has installed an “energy team” that is completely opposed to the development of any energy resources in America, from offshore and ANWR oil to coal mining or the construction of coal-fired plants to generate electricity. Coal currently produces 50% of the nation’s electricity.

Steven Chu, the Secretary of Energy, is on record saying, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

It is $8 a gallon there.

Oil producing nations such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, along with Venezuela, will grow rich while Americans will be faced with high costs for gasoline, motor and heating oil, and everything else that depends on oil such as asphalt or even Vaseline.

Meanwhile, oil producers in America, large and small, will take a financial beating. If you don’t like living in a modern, advanced and industrialized society, you will favor this. If you think Americans consume too much, drive too much, and deserve to be punished for it, you will favor this.

Recently, Barry Russell, the president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, released a statement in which he said, “President Obama delivered a devastating blow to the American oil and natural gas industry by proposing an astonishing $30 billion tax increase (as part of his FY 2010 budget) on American energy producers, most of whom are small businesses.”

“Ninety percent of the oil and natural gas wells developed in the United States are done by small, independent businesses – not so called ‘Big Oil’ – so tax increases hurt these companies most.” It also, of course, hurts any prospect for the discovery and production of new sources of oil and natural gas in America.

Promote the General Welfare

The dhimmicrats and the chosen one, (may be paeace be upon him), are deliberately sabotaging the efforts of middle class Americans to achieve the American Dream. Economic independence is the cornerstone of success. It's what makes this country different from all others. We are in the unique position of having the freedom to make our own decisions about how to best achieve economic independence.

It is the duty and responsibility of the government to provide and maintain an environment conducive to the average citizen's efforts towards that goal. Thats what "promote the general welfare" means.

Any action which impedes or inhibits the ability of the average citizen to achieve economic independence is un-Constitutional and anyone who votes for such action is in violation of their oath of office and should be impeached and removed from office.

Trickle Down Voodoo Economics Dhimmicrat Style

A message for the thickheaded, dimwitted, perniciously anal dhimmis:

This nation runs on petroleum; whether it's gasoline for autos, diesel for trucks, or LPG for busses and foklifts, petroleum is the life-blood of America. No one has proposed a workable, economically viable replacement for petroleum, yet.

I'm sure that some day, we'll all be running around in hyper drive powered by water, but until the person who will invent that comes along, we're pretty much stuck with petroleum.

Thats the voodoo.

Here's the trickle down...the more we have to pay for petroleum, the more we have to pay for everything else. The more it costs us to go shopping, the less shopping we do, the less shopping we do, the less manufacturing, the less manufacturing, the less jobs, the less jobs, the more unemployed.

You see how this works?

Now get off your collective asses, get us some domestic oil and cut the crap.

The only thing wrong with our economy is the price of gasoline at the pump, and that is your fault.

You can fix it.

So fix it.

Foreign Policy Experience?

GPOUSA Dr. Thomas Sowell

Now that the Democrats have recovered from the shock of Governor Sarah Palin's nomination as the Republican's candidate for vice president, they have suddenly discovered that her lack of experience in general-- and foreign policy experience in particular-- is a terrible danger in someone just a heartbeat away from being President of the United States.

For those who are satisfied with talking points, there is no need to go any further. But, for those who still consider substance relevant, this is an incredible argument coming from those whose presidential candidate has even less experience in public office than Sarah Palin, and none in foreign policy.

Moreover, if Senator Barack Obama is elected, he will not be a heartbeat away from the presidency, his would be the heartbeat of the president-- and he would be the one making foreign policy.

But the big talking point is that the Democrats' vice-presidential nominee, Senator Joe Biden, has years of foreign policy experience as a member, and now chairman, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

That all depends on what the definition of "experience" is.

The fact that Senator Joe Biden has for years listened to all sorts of people testify on all sorts of foreign policy issues tells us nothing about how well he understood the issues.

Out of the four presidential and vice-presidential candidates this year, only Governor Palin has had to make executive decisions and live with the consequences.

As for Senator Obama, his various pronouncements on foreign policy have been as immature as they have been presumptuous.

He talked publicly about taking military action against Pakistan, one of our few Islamic allies and a nation with nuclear weapons.

Barack Obama's first response to the Russian invasion of Georgia was to urge "all sides" to negotiate a cease-fire and take their issues to the United Nations. That is standard liberal talk, which even Obama had second thoughts about, after Senator John McCain gave a more grown-up response.

We should all have second thoughts about what is, and is not, foreign policy "experience."

Sarah America

GOPUSA Larry Kudlow:

The No. 1 economic issue this election is gasoline prices at the pump. The tax-hike effect of surging oil on global markets that has translated to a huge spike at your local gas station has drained the economy of its vitality. It has damaged consumer purchasing power, made it tougher to pay mortgages on time, worsened the credit crunch, raised the inflation rate, undermined corporate profits and thrown stocks into the first bear market in five years.
Of course, with all the political hoopla from the Denver Democrats, it's easy to forget the populist revolt against high gas prices at the pump. Sen. Obama never mentioned skyrocketing pump prices or their devastating economic impact on ordinary working-class folks. But this is the energy election. It will determine our future peace and prosperity. And Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has the energy answer: Our abundant country can produce more energy at lower cost if government gets out of the way.
Coming from the natural-resource rich state of Alaska, Palin is an experienced energy expert. She knows more about the economics of energy than Sens. McCain, Obama or Biden. And in this year of the oil-shock economy, Palin's role will be absolutely crucial.

"Obama is way off-base on all that. I think those politicians who don't understand that we need more domestic supply of energy flowing into our hungry markets (are) living in la-la land. And we're in a world of hurt if their agenda continues to be to lock up these safe, secure domestic supplies of energy."

That's what Palin told me in a CNBC interview in late June. I call it drill, drill, drill. But in fact it's a full-throated America-first energy policy that will create millions of high-paying jobs with complete government deregulation and decontrol of the full menu of energy sources: oil, natural gas, nuclear, clean coal, shale and the alternative fuels of wind, solar and cellulosic.
Why aren't all the candidates talking like Palin? How can this great country put its future growth and prosperity in the hands of enemies like Tsar Vladimir Putin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez. Well, get ready for Sarah America to take on the fight against all comers.