Happy Memorial Day to all. Again, as you go about your Memorial Day activities, spare a thought for those who gave everything for our freedom, and those who continue to do so at home and abroad.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Memorial Day
Happy Memorial Day to all. Again, as you go about your Memorial Day activities, spare a thought for those who gave everything for our freedom, and those who continue to do so at home and abroad.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
A Needed Change in EPA Motives - A Guest Article
Instead of ripping off borrowing this weeks Global Warming post, I have a Guest Article. This weekend Ryan H. emailed me and asked if he could post a guest article here. I do not know Ryan, but I like his style, and his post saved me from having to search for a post about green tyranny. I will not postulate why Ryan does not have a blog of his own, but I am not above capitalizing on helping a fellow writer. I am sure Ryan would like feedback, so please leave all suggestions in the comments, and I will make sure Ryan gets it. So without further adieu..........
Alright, a little more adieu:
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the original author. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of Right Wing Extreme, the RWE Staff, (RWE's alternate personalities) and/or any/all contributors to this site (there are no other contributors except for the previously mentioned alternate personalities).
Republican Party representatives on a committee for energy have put the EPA under fire this week, questioning them on future power regulations. This is yet another assault by the Republican Party who has revealed the EPA as a megalomaniacal organization that is out dated in the current year.
The regulations placed on the power sector are being brought to light as the next primary issue for debate, and have previously attacked the EPA budget, restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, and the Clean Air Act. What’s the relation of all three? Stagnant revenue and employment growth largely related to those relying on power plants and factories.
Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma has been a proprietor of EPA criticisms on their restrictions and the impacts they have caused. Inhofe said "I think everyone is aware of the huge cost to the American taxpayer on these huge bills that the Democrats are trying to push through, but they're not as aware of the cost of over-regulation. These regulations are the EPA, having to do with industrial boilers, having to do with ozone requirements, the endangerment finding. They would lose hundreds of thousands of jobs, and the cost is just tremendous. We cannot be globally competitive as long as we have over-regulation in America." Inhofe definitely does make a strong argument, pointing out the amount of regulations and problems the EPA have imposed on business leaders.”
Even the federal budget agreement was yet another failure by the EPA in recent months. The EPA had their budget slashed by 16% in the agreement, although not to any of the larger programs in question. The agency has spent a large part of 2010 and 2011 defending some seemingly useless regulations. The fight they have engaged to keep taxes up on costly regulations and restrictions has averted a lot of the attention from programs that directly affect health in the United States like asbestos removal and water contamination, preventing illnesses like leukemia, and mesothelioma, a deadly cancer directly related to asbestos exposure. Reallocation of resources towards these programs instead of restrictions with financial interests in mind would greatly help the EPA return to its original purpose.
Granted, support of the Clean Air Act and attempting to reduce the chances of global warming is one thing, but the continual support of stifling greenhouse gas emissions seems to be more motivated by money than with improving the health of Americans. These restrictions allow the EPA to enforce cap and trade taxes on the industries leaders, forcing them to pay out colossal amounts of money while the regulations themselves have a very minute impact on actual health issues.
As the EPA seems bent on keeping the course in regards to costly regulations, they have frequently discussed the “sensibility” of these rules. It can be expected for the [R]epublicans to continue to restrict the agency and it can be assumed that even more cuts are to follow in the coming years.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Joke of the Week
A little silver-haired lady calls her neighbor and says, "Please come over here and help me. I have a killer jigsaw puzzle, and I can't figure out how to get started." Her neighbor asks, "What is it supposed to be when it's finished?"
The little silver haired lady says, "According to the picture on the box, it's a rooster."
Her neighbor decides to go over and help with the puzzle.
She lets him in and shows him where she has the puzzle spread all over the table.
He studies the pieces for a moment, then looks at the box, then turns to her and says,
"First of all, no matter what we do, we're not going to be able to assemble these pieces into anything resembling a rooster."
He takes her hand and says, "Secondly, I want you to relax. Let's have a nice cup of tea, and then," he said with a deep sigh...........
"Let's put all the Corn Flakes back in the box."
GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES
The little silver haired lady says, "According to the picture on the box, it's a rooster."
Her neighbor decides to go over and help with the puzzle.
She lets him in and shows him where she has the puzzle spread all over the table.
He studies the pieces for a moment, then looks at the box, then turns to her and says,
"First of all, no matter what we do, we're not going to be able to assemble these pieces into anything resembling a rooster."
He takes her hand and says, "Secondly, I want you to relax. Let's have a nice cup of tea, and then," he said with a deep sigh...........
"Let's put all the Corn Flakes back in the box."
Monday, May 2, 2011
Adios Douchebag (And another one gone, and another one gone. Another one bites the dust )
I love waking up to good news. A big round of applause to The Navy Seals, the CIA and even to The President for a job well done. My only regret is that The President treated this scum's carcass with dignity befitting a human, rather than the animal Bin Laden clearly was. Personally I do not think I would have just dumped him out to sea. I would have put that slime's head on a pike outside the White House where I could see my trophy from the windows of the Oval Office, and the American People could see it as well. I would also have sewed up the rest of the offal, read that as the rest of the asshole's body, in a pig's carcass after having a Marine piss on it and jam a pork chop up the ass. Then, just to make my point to all the other wanna-be terrorists, I would have aired the festivities on all the news channels, as well as on a constant repeating loop, complete with laugh track, on the White House Blog. I know it is supposed to be shameful to glory in the death of another, but I just do not have it in me to feel bad about it. Adios fucker! Justice is served, if a bit quickly for my preference. By the way, the weather where you are going is always HOT. Sun block recommendation, SPF 1,000,000.
-----UPDATE-----
Yes, I know the picture is a fake, but it still makes my point.Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Global Warming Wednesday
This week's post was brought to my attention by Climate Depot, but was originally posted by the staff at CTV News.
EurekAlert withdraws climate change paper
EurekAlert withdraws climate change paper
A study warning that the planet would warm by 2.4C by 2020, creating deadly consequences for the global food supply, is being debunked as false and impossible.
The study came from a little-known, non-profit group based in Argentina, called the Universal Ecological Fund. An embargoed copy of the study appeared on Eurekalert!, a news service operated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that's followed by many journalists.
The study was picked up by a number of international news organizations Tuesday. But it appears the study's claims were erroneous.
The AAAS says that after receiving complaints that the study's conclusions were impossible, it has removed all references to the study from its website.
"EurekAlert! deeply regrets the accidental posting of an erroneous news release on 18 January 2011," the news service wrote in a notice to journalists who subscribe to the service.
"The news release was swiftly removed from EurekAlert!, and staff are taking steps to set the record straight with all reporters who had seen it."
EurekAlert! notes that it is a non-profit news service that relies on staff members to determine the eligibility of up to 100 news release submissions. These staff proofread submissions for typographical or common-sense errors.
"But we rely mostly on the submitting organization to ensure the veracity of the scientific content of the news release; we try to exclude unreliable information providers on the front-end of our screening process," the notice says.
"…We deeply regret that the system failed yesterday, and we appreciate the help we received from reporters who are now setting the record straight."
The correction came after The Guardian newspaper in the U.K. published a reaction piece to the study. The paper said it had interviewed climate scientists who told them that rapid global warming at the rates projected by the study was impossible.
"2.4 C by 2020 (which is 1.4C in the next 10 years – something like six to seven times the projected rate of warming) has no basis in fact," NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt told the newspaper in an email.
According to The Guardian, the study's lead author Liliana Hisas, who is the UEF's executive director, erred by overlooking how the oceans, which absorb heat, will compensate for global warming by delaying the effects of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere.
Hisas said she stands by her report's findings, which have been endorsed by Nobel Prize-winning Argentine climate scientist, Osvaldo Canziani.
She said the UEF did not intend to withdraw the report.
"We are just going to go ahead with it. I don't have a choice now," she told The Guardian.
"The scientist I have been working with checked everything and according to him it's not wrong."
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Global Warming Wednesday
This week's exposure of the Global Warming "BIG LIE" come to us from a blogger going by the handle of hauntingthelibrary and his[her?] eponymous blog. This site should be required reading for any and all the [enviro]mental deficients you come across.
Scientist: Farming Causes Obesity, Mental Illness, Overpopulation and Global Warming – Says Eugenics “Inevitable”
Scientist: Farming Causes Obesity, Mental Illness, Overpopulation and Global Warming – Says Eugenics “Inevitable”
In an article that makes you roll your eyes and wonder “where do they find these people?” the BBC interviews Dr Spencer Wells, explorer-in-residence at the National Geographic Society and in charge of their Genographic project, about his new book Pandora’s Seed
Dr Wells tells them about the claims he makes in the book:
In the book, I talk about global warming and overpopulation. I trace a lot of these issues back in time to the dawn of the Neolithic. This was a period when humanity made a sea change in its culture. We settled down and started growing our own food.
Wow! That’s a pretty big claim to make – that late stone age man caused global warming and overpopulation by inventing farming! But the invention of farming is a good thing, right?
Wrong, says Dr Wells. People were worse off with farming, becoming more malnourished. Which leads one to ask, well why did they keep farming then, if it was such a disaster for humanity? Dr Wells has the answer for that as well: they had to invent farming because of climate change:
It turns out the reason we became agriculturalists is that we were backed into a corner – a climatological corner. At the end of the last Ice Age, things were warming up, population densities at some locations increased significantly. And some people started to settle down.
And then, Say Dr Wells, the climate switched again and got colder, forcing people out of the lands they had previously settled:
we had too many people moving on the land at the time, and they couldn’t support themselves as hunter-gatherers so they had to develop an innovation. And that innovation was agriculture.
So let’s summarize: Dr Wells is arguing that agriculture caused climate change and overpopulation. Okay. He argues that agriculture wasn’t a step forward for mankind but a step backwards from hunter-gather living. Okay. But what does he think gave rise to agriculture? Climate change and overpopulation. Brilliant! What a great argument.
Pick your jaw up off the floor, though, because Dr Wells has more great ideas for humanity. Asked what he thinks about the invention of farming – the ‘neolithic revolution’ – he pins a whole host of ills on it, but then goes on to reveal some of the concluding thoughts of his book:
PR: So what in your view are the main costs of the Neolithic revolution?
SW: Diabetes, obesity, mental illness, climate change. I talk a little in the book about genetic engineering – re-engineering ourselves and eugenics. It’s the fact that we now have the tools to choose the genes for the next generation. People will start to make decisions on that basis – what they want their children to look like genetically.
Okay, now you’re getting scary Dr Wells. Eugenics to help decide what our children will look like? And what sort of aspects will this include?
There is a company in California that early last year announced that it was going to test not only for medically relevant conditions but also hair colour, eye colour and genes which pre-dispose to lower or higher IQ.
Sounds horrific if you ask me. But Dr Wells thinks that managing the genetics of the human population may be essential, we may need to manage the population for the common good:
PR: Then, do you think genetic engineering of humans is inevitable? Are we now into management rather than prevention?
SW: I think it is inevitable. I think it is something we have always done. I liken it to those simple decisions about growing crops and manipulating the genes of the crops to make them more efficient – produce more calories – that was done during the Neolithic.
Did you spot the beautiful circularity of the argument there? Eugenics, Dr Wells informs us, may be forced upon by circumstances. What circumstances might those be? The interview doesn’t specify exactly, but surely it’s a safe bet to say that global warming and overpopulation are among those circumstances.
Interestingly, in his interview with National Geographic, Dr Wells discusses another future for us he’d like to see, based on a new “mythos” that would be focussed on us wanting less, very much as tribal people in Africa (apparently) do:
Q:You mentioned tribes in Africa wanting less, needing less, focused on a quest for meaning, not consumption. Do you think this sensibility could creep into our society?
A: Yes. That’s the reason I entitled the final chapter of the book “Toward a New Mythos.” The term refers to accepted wisdom, what’s been passed down through the generations from your ancestors, including somewhat mystical explanations for why things are. In contrast, logos is hardheaded logic we use to solve problems. And I think a lot of people sense that we’ve lost too much mythos in the modern world. I argue in the book that we do need to make room at the table for mythos.
National Geographic. Growing Pains.
Or maybe we could just genetically engineer people to want less, learn to love the new “mythos” and accept “mystical explanations” for the way things are?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
RWE's Thoughts on the SOTU Speech
Hopefully we all tuned in to watch the State of the Union Address. I know that I hurried home to do so, what kind of political blogger would I be if I did not? If you missed it, I have included it for your viewing pleasure.
Initial Thoughts:
Here are some initial thoughts on The President's first (technically) State of the Union address itself. Besides being long, it is hard for me to stomach more than a sound bite's worth of air time from the current President, it was a well delivered, prepared (well what did you expect) address to the Congress, and the nation, if somewhat naive. It was good to see that TOTUS is doing well, and helping out "The Big Guy." Honestly I do not blame any President, even this one, for using a teleprompter for this sort of speech, though with this President, it is of course ubiquitous and cliche..
I clocked the speech at approximately sixty-eight minutes, but the YouTube above has it listed as sixty-three minutes ten seconds. Since that video is more accurate than my mere approximation, and being C-Span, it had a time stamp on the screen that says the speech started five minutes later than I thought it did. This is likely far more accurate than my mere estimation. Having said that, I counted that Congress stopped to applaud seventy-three times. While this is more dignified than the "You Lie" debacle, which I am still torn on, and definitely better than the Democrats booing of President Bush, I think it is a bit much. Do we really need an applause stop, on average, every fifty point five seconds? Really? It was fun to watch them all jump up and down in unison, especially the Democrats, like the heat underneath their seats was suddenly turned up to high. Additionally, The President used the term, "Win the Future," the speech's theme, eight times for an average of once every seven minutes fifty-three seconds.
I do have one more gripe. The President was ready to give his speech, and the inconsiderate crowd would not shut-up and stop their applause. He asked them to have a seat, and yet they still applauded. Finally he said thank you like he was very perturbed. I wish that he would have done something similar during the Arizona Memorial. Would it have been so hard to remind the crowd that they were at a memorial to honor the fallen and wounded rather than a pep-rally to feed his own ego?
Other than these stats and gripes, I did not find this speech to be particularly informative on the subject. I mean the point is right in the name, "State of the Union." How hard is that? Despite this being, "A different kind of speech," I would have much preferred a frank report on our strengths and weaknesses, rather than a pep talk. I thought that is what The President's weekly address was for, but silly me. On a side note, did anyone else notice that Dingy Harry looked like a deer in the headlights and that at first The President looked so smug? That look was quickly wiped off of hi face. Now on to the speech.
The President's Speech had, it seems to me, six main themes.
Togetherness:
The President said, "[C]an we work together tomorrow?" and that legislation could only move forward with bipartisan support. Like during the lame duck session and the CommieCare debate Mr. President? Personally I think he was laying the groundwork for the opposition to take the blame along side his Democrats when their socialist pogroms blow up the faces of the American people as they inevitably will, as we have already seen from the ones they force-fed us plebes. I think that we have had all the togetherness and bipartisanship we can handle, especially in light of how The President, The former Speaker and The Senate Majority leaders led us with that method before. Their idea of bipartisanship is to do as we are told and like it. It is hard not to empathize with their frustration at our outrage over their high-handed methods, especially when they are only doing it for our own good. Personally I do not want any compromise with the socialist left. Hells bells, grid-lock means they can not force any more bad legislation on us. In fact the more roadblocks to Congress getting anything done, the better.
Economy and Budget:
These two points I have placed together as one because they are inexorably linked. The President said we were making economic progress? Really...Since When? Unemployment is still officially over nine percent, with the actual number being somewhere north of fifteen percent. It is difficult to believe that the economy is healing when the man on the street is homeless and unemployed.
The President suggested several ideas to fix our economy. For brevity's sake (I know, too late.) I will list them here then comment. Fix the tax code, review business regulations and remove the roadblocks to a sound economy, balance the budget, five year freeze on domestic spending, defense cuts, foreign spending cuts, downsize and consolidate government, tax the rich and a promise to veto any bill containing earmarks.
So let us review. Budget cuts and earmark vetoes: Since when has any President, especially this one, not found a spending bill the did not like? Fix the tax code for citizens and corporations and taxing the rich: They already pay most of the taxes actually paid in this country, and half of our citizens either pay nothing or get money they do not deserve back. Personally I recommend we find a percentage of the national income that will pay for the essential needs of government and tax that on every citizen, no loop-holes, no deductions and no nonsense. That would cut the IRS down in size, always a worthy goal. As for balancing the budget, that will only work if we include a debt payment, kind of like your debt payments as part of that budget. A five year freeze on domestic spending and the down-sizing of government are great ideas, but the government workers unions, which The President is way to beholden too, will never allow that, so there is another empty promise. Defense cuts sound good, but only if they are smart cuts. Cutting our next generation weapon systems, especially in the face of the ChiComm military build-up is probably not the best place to start. Cut foreign spending, bye-bye Israel. The President wants to fix social security, but without entitlement cuts, to shore up other entitlement programs, there just is not enough money, and it was made clear that entitlement cuts are not in the offing. As for reviewing business regulations and removing those that are roadblocks, please start with the EPA, your back door Crap and Tax Bill and the back door Net Neutrality.
With all these cuts, The President wants to, "Invest in America." He says that Russia, and others, are spending far more on infrastructure than we are. Dollars are not progress Mr. President. The others are building their infrastructure, we already have most of ours and simply need to maintain and improve it. A far smaller expense, but you would have us break the bank to keep up with the Jonse's. I do like the idea of the high speed rail, if it can be done economically, but I found it disturbing that he joked about the outrageous security measures taken by his administration by way of the TSA. All and all The President shows us why he can not get us out of the economic morass we find ourselves in, as if government ever could, and that is because he, and the members of his administration, know nothing about the economy. Maybe if they had spent more time working in the economy, as opposed to only learning about it, they might have a better chance, but as it stands, it is doubtful.
Environment/Energy Policy:
Green jobs and green r&d look good on paper, but our government's track record show this to be an exercise in throwing money down the rabbit hole. It would not be so bad if it was only a start-up boost to infant technology, but history shows that the subsidies will go on for green tech long after the technology has matured and proven itself a waste of money, but that is no reason to stop throwing good money after bad. Further he proposes pulling the oil company subsidies. That would be great, but you know who will be the ones making up that shortfall, though I hope we can find a way to stop giving them money without them passing the buck to us the consumers. Additionally The President proposed eighty percent of our energy come from clean sources. This is a great idea, if it pencils out better than the ethanol and wind subsidies. We must get nuclear power going in this country in a big way, I truly believe it is our only hope to getting off of fossil fuels.
Education:
With all of this administrations experience in the world of education, one would suspect they would understand it better, but alas that is a pipe-dream on my part. The President wants college for all, but many jobs are better server by a technical education rather than a sheep skin were all you learn is how to drink, how great and misunderstood Marx was and why all of the world's problems are Americas fault. The only way to fix education in an affordable manner is not to pussy-foot around the Teachers Union, but to tell them that the free ride stops NOW! Either get with the program and we will work together to find an equitable solution, of bugger off and we will hire new teachers more amenable to that equitable solution. I do have to give him kudos for almost sounding conservative on family values and calling for a better class of heroes than sports players.
Health Care:
The President invited Congress to not revisit the fights of the past by repealing CommieCare. While there are a few things in that abortion of a bill that should be retained, it is disingenuous to say you are willing to work with the opposition to fix the problems when you already showed, clearly, that you are not when it first came up. I do love that he realizes that We The People have him far enough over the barrel to finally talk about tort reform. I do not care how we get it, it is badly needed, and CommieCare must go the way of the Dodo.
Wars/National Security:
The President is still pushing for a path to citizenship when he said we had to bring the illegal aliens out of the shadows. He said we can not afford to rid ourselves of the best and brightest of this group. Rather I would ask how can we afford to not expel a known criminal class. This is not to say that they are drug dealers or something of the like, but just by being here they are criminals, and they are stealing the sweet air of freedom from American Citizens and other legal visitors to our shores. There was also a surprising nod to reality when he actually said the words, "Al Qaeda" and "terrorist." I almost wet myself in surprise, but it was quickly dispelled when he later referred to both groups as "extremists" beyond the one nod. I was also expecting a mention of time-line for withdrawal in the Afghan war, and i was not disappointed. Lastly in this topic the President mentioned the importance of missile defense, which I found odd seeing as how he has done everything in his power to gut the concept. All of this proved, to me at least, that he has as much knowledge about defense as he does in economics, so that should make one ponder hard come election time.
Misc.:
A passing nod was given to Don't Ask, Don't Tell with this comment, "No American will be forbidden from serving the nation they love because of who they love." I will reserve comment on this topic for a later post as I have strong opinions about DADT that deserve a post all of heir own. I did like the salmon joke, but was disturbed, highly, by his suggestion that congress disclose every meeting with lobby members. That to me is like getting a fox to guard the hen house considering the Secret Service would no turn over his visitor logs.
Closing thoughts:
This speech was a lot of bad, sprinkled with a little good, and much rhetoric and promises that I have no confidence The President will stand behind given his track record. To sum it up, we have a very photogenic Amateur-In-Chief in the White House, but as my daddy used to say, "Boy he sure talks purdy don he?"
Initial Thoughts:
Here are some initial thoughts on The President's first (technically) State of the Union address itself. Besides being long, it is hard for me to stomach more than a sound bite's worth of air time from the current President, it was a well delivered, prepared (well what did you expect) address to the Congress, and the nation, if somewhat naive. It was good to see that TOTUS is doing well, and helping out "The Big Guy." Honestly I do not blame any President, even this one, for using a teleprompter for this sort of speech, though with this President, it is of course ubiquitous and cliche..
I clocked the speech at approximately sixty-eight minutes, but the YouTube above has it listed as sixty-three minutes ten seconds. Since that video is more accurate than my mere approximation, and being C-Span, it had a time stamp on the screen that says the speech started five minutes later than I thought it did. This is likely far more accurate than my mere estimation. Having said that, I counted that Congress stopped to applaud seventy-three times. While this is more dignified than the "You Lie" debacle, which I am still torn on, and definitely better than the Democrats booing of President Bush, I think it is a bit much. Do we really need an applause stop, on average, every fifty point five seconds? Really? It was fun to watch them all jump up and down in unison, especially the Democrats, like the heat underneath their seats was suddenly turned up to high. Additionally, The President used the term, "Win the Future," the speech's theme, eight times for an average of once every seven minutes fifty-three seconds.
I do have one more gripe. The President was ready to give his speech, and the inconsiderate crowd would not shut-up and stop their applause. He asked them to have a seat, and yet they still applauded. Finally he said thank you like he was very perturbed. I wish that he would have done something similar during the Arizona Memorial. Would it have been so hard to remind the crowd that they were at a memorial to honor the fallen and wounded rather than a pep-rally to feed his own ego?
Other than these stats and gripes, I did not find this speech to be particularly informative on the subject. I mean the point is right in the name, "State of the Union." How hard is that? Despite this being, "A different kind of speech," I would have much preferred a frank report on our strengths and weaknesses, rather than a pep talk. I thought that is what The President's weekly address was for, but silly me. On a side note, did anyone else notice that Dingy Harry looked like a deer in the headlights and that at first The President looked so smug? That look was quickly wiped off of hi face. Now on to the speech.
The President's Speech had, it seems to me, six main themes.
Togetherness:
The President said, "[C]an we work together tomorrow?" and that legislation could only move forward with bipartisan support. Like during the lame duck session and the CommieCare debate Mr. President? Personally I think he was laying the groundwork for the opposition to take the blame along side his Democrats when their socialist pogroms blow up the faces of the American people as they inevitably will, as we have already seen from the ones they force-fed us plebes. I think that we have had all the togetherness and bipartisanship we can handle, especially in light of how The President, The former Speaker and The Senate Majority leaders led us with that method before. Their idea of bipartisanship is to do as we are told and like it. It is hard not to empathize with their frustration at our outrage over their high-handed methods, especially when they are only doing it for our own good. Personally I do not want any compromise with the socialist left. Hells bells, grid-lock means they can not force any more bad legislation on us. In fact the more roadblocks to Congress getting anything done, the better.
Economy and Budget:
These two points I have placed together as one because they are inexorably linked. The President said we were making economic progress? Really...Since When? Unemployment is still officially over nine percent, with the actual number being somewhere north of fifteen percent. It is difficult to believe that the economy is healing when the man on the street is homeless and unemployed.
The President suggested several ideas to fix our economy. For brevity's sake (I know, too late.) I will list them here then comment. Fix the tax code, review business regulations and remove the roadblocks to a sound economy, balance the budget, five year freeze on domestic spending, defense cuts, foreign spending cuts, downsize and consolidate government, tax the rich and a promise to veto any bill containing earmarks.
So let us review. Budget cuts and earmark vetoes: Since when has any President, especially this one, not found a spending bill the did not like? Fix the tax code for citizens and corporations and taxing the rich: They already pay most of the taxes actually paid in this country, and half of our citizens either pay nothing or get money they do not deserve back. Personally I recommend we find a percentage of the national income that will pay for the essential needs of government and tax that on every citizen, no loop-holes, no deductions and no nonsense. That would cut the IRS down in size, always a worthy goal. As for balancing the budget, that will only work if we include a debt payment, kind of like your debt payments as part of that budget. A five year freeze on domestic spending and the down-sizing of government are great ideas, but the government workers unions, which The President is way to beholden too, will never allow that, so there is another empty promise. Defense cuts sound good, but only if they are smart cuts. Cutting our next generation weapon systems, especially in the face of the ChiComm military build-up is probably not the best place to start. Cut foreign spending, bye-bye Israel. The President wants to fix social security, but without entitlement cuts, to shore up other entitlement programs, there just is not enough money, and it was made clear that entitlement cuts are not in the offing. As for reviewing business regulations and removing those that are roadblocks, please start with the EPA, your back door Crap and Tax Bill and the back door Net Neutrality.
With all these cuts, The President wants to, "Invest in America." He says that Russia, and others, are spending far more on infrastructure than we are. Dollars are not progress Mr. President. The others are building their infrastructure, we already have most of ours and simply need to maintain and improve it. A far smaller expense, but you would have us break the bank to keep up with the Jonse's. I do like the idea of the high speed rail, if it can be done economically, but I found it disturbing that he joked about the outrageous security measures taken by his administration by way of the TSA. All and all The President shows us why he can not get us out of the economic morass we find ourselves in, as if government ever could, and that is because he, and the members of his administration, know nothing about the economy. Maybe if they had spent more time working in the economy, as opposed to only learning about it, they might have a better chance, but as it stands, it is doubtful.
Environment/Energy Policy:
Green jobs and green r&d look good on paper, but our government's track record show this to be an exercise in throwing money down the rabbit hole. It would not be so bad if it was only a start-up boost to infant technology, but history shows that the subsidies will go on for green tech long after the technology has matured and proven itself a waste of money, but that is no reason to stop throwing good money after bad. Further he proposes pulling the oil company subsidies. That would be great, but you know who will be the ones making up that shortfall, though I hope we can find a way to stop giving them money without them passing the buck to us the consumers. Additionally The President proposed eighty percent of our energy come from clean sources. This is a great idea, if it pencils out better than the ethanol and wind subsidies. We must get nuclear power going in this country in a big way, I truly believe it is our only hope to getting off of fossil fuels.
Education:
With all of this administrations experience in the world of education, one would suspect they would understand it better, but alas that is a pipe-dream on my part. The President wants college for all, but many jobs are better server by a technical education rather than a sheep skin were all you learn is how to drink, how great and misunderstood Marx was and why all of the world's problems are Americas fault. The only way to fix education in an affordable manner is not to pussy-foot around the Teachers Union, but to tell them that the free ride stops NOW! Either get with the program and we will work together to find an equitable solution, of bugger off and we will hire new teachers more amenable to that equitable solution. I do have to give him kudos for almost sounding conservative on family values and calling for a better class of heroes than sports players.
Health Care:
The President invited Congress to not revisit the fights of the past by repealing CommieCare. While there are a few things in that abortion of a bill that should be retained, it is disingenuous to say you are willing to work with the opposition to fix the problems when you already showed, clearly, that you are not when it first came up. I do love that he realizes that We The People have him far enough over the barrel to finally talk about tort reform. I do not care how we get it, it is badly needed, and CommieCare must go the way of the Dodo.
Wars/National Security:
The President is still pushing for a path to citizenship when he said we had to bring the illegal aliens out of the shadows. He said we can not afford to rid ourselves of the best and brightest of this group. Rather I would ask how can we afford to not expel a known criminal class. This is not to say that they are drug dealers or something of the like, but just by being here they are criminals, and they are stealing the sweet air of freedom from American Citizens and other legal visitors to our shores. There was also a surprising nod to reality when he actually said the words, "Al Qaeda" and "terrorist." I almost wet myself in surprise, but it was quickly dispelled when he later referred to both groups as "extremists" beyond the one nod. I was also expecting a mention of time-line for withdrawal in the Afghan war, and i was not disappointed. Lastly in this topic the President mentioned the importance of missile defense, which I found odd seeing as how he has done everything in his power to gut the concept. All of this proved, to me at least, that he has as much knowledge about defense as he does in economics, so that should make one ponder hard come election time.
Misc.:
A passing nod was given to Don't Ask, Don't Tell with this comment, "No American will be forbidden from serving the nation they love because of who they love." I will reserve comment on this topic for a later post as I have strong opinions about DADT that deserve a post all of heir own. I did like the salmon joke, but was disturbed, highly, by his suggestion that congress disclose every meeting with lobby members. That to me is like getting a fox to guard the hen house considering the Secret Service would no turn over his visitor logs.
Closing thoughts:
This speech was a lot of bad, sprinkled with a little good, and much rhetoric and promises that I have no confidence The President will stand behind given his track record. To sum it up, we have a very photogenic Amateur-In-Chief in the White House, but as my daddy used to say, "Boy he sure talks purdy don he?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
