Showing posts with label Pelosi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pelosi. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Best. Drudge. Headline. Ever.

Put some ice on that, Harry. It's gonna leave a mark.

After that (rhetorical) beat-down, I think "Stretch" Pelosi is gonna need another face-lift.

Yesterday economist John Lott summarized the borderline criminal behavior by the Obama Democrats.

• The new $26 billion Democrat "jobs bill" has nothing to do with jobs, it is designed to fund the teachers' unions

• $16 billion of the $26 billion goes to public teachers (and several billions go to subsidizing other public sector workers). $87 billion of last year's $862 billion stimulus also went to public school teachers' mandatory wage increases as well as more hiring of public teachers

• Between 1.0% and 1.5% percent of teachers' salaries goes directly to union dues. That means at least $160 million of money borrowed from the taxpayers' is going directly to teachers' unions

• And, to complete the circle, the teachers' unions are directly funding Democrat campaigns so they can keep the cash faucet turned on

The money culled from this "jobs bill" is stolen from you, the taxpayer, and given to Democrat politicians. They would like to retain power so that they can steal more money from you in the future.

Teachers' unions not budging on wage freezes

Furthermore, teachers' unions are refusing wage freezes even on planned increases in the future. In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie (R) asked that teachers contribute 1.5% of their salaries to help pay for their benefits and agree to a one-year wage freeze. The union bosses refused.

Why are taxpayers rewarding this behavior?

One other point to consider: teachers are compensated based upon the negotiations between school boards and teachers' unions at the local level. Some areas have done a good job in these negotiations and are much healthier than other communities.

Why are taxpayers in responsible cities and towns subsidizing the failed policies of irresponsible locales?

In short, the Democrats' "jobs bill" is designed to funnel $100 million into their own campaign funds through the teachers' unions.

Remember in November.


Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Bell, California set to default on its debt due to tragic unicorn shortage and $800K/year city officials, but mostly $800K/year city officials

You can't make this s*** up.

California City With $800,000 City Manager May Default On Debt, Warns S&P


When the government of Bell, Calif was outed for paying exorbitant salaries, the mayor said his $800,000 city manager was worth it: "Our city is one of the best in the area. That is the result of the city manager. It's not because I say it. It's because my community says it."

But things weren't actually going that well in the LA suburb. S&P just cut the city's bond rating to junk on warnings of an inability to pay debts due Nov. 1.

Bloomberg (the news service, not the idiot mayor) has the gory details.

S&P lowered Bell’s general-obligation and pension bond ratings to BB, two levels below investment grade, from A-, and put it on a watchlist for potential further downgrade. The credit-rating company cited the resignations of top city officers amid a scandal over how much they were paid, and media reports about the decline in value of property financed with municipal debt in 2007 as reasons for the downgrade.

“The lack of good information is creating some uncertainty,” S&P analyst Sussan Corson said in a telephone interview. “There could be some stress on the city, and we think that the rating action is justified.”

...On Nov. 1, the California community is scheduled to pay the so-called bullet maturity on $35 million of taxable lease- revenue bonds sold in 2007 by its Public Financing Authority in a private placement. The principal must be repaid when bullet maturity loans fall due... ...Bell has fallen behind on its payments on the bonds, which are owned by Dexia SA, the Paris- and Brussels-based bank, said Ulrike Pommee, a spokeswoman. The bank entered into an agreement with the city in June aimed at resolving the issue, she said in an e-mail yesterday.

The runner-up headline for this post was The Genius of Democrat Governance, Chapter Ninety Gajillion.

These city officials make Charlie Rangel look honest.


Monday, August 09, 2010

AFL-CIO's Trumka: Democrats Will Pass Card Check. Even In a Lame-Duck Session. Even If it Kills Them. So to Speak.

ShopFloor scoops the world.

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, was on the CSPAN “Newsmakers” show this morning. Asked whether the Employee Free Choice Act will be considered in Congress this year, Trumka said: “I think you’ll see the Employee Free Choice Act come up again. I think you’ll see it probably before the end of the year.”

Before the elections or in a lameduck session? Trumka: “Either one.”

The reason the Employee Free Choice Act has not passed Congress is because 40 Senate Republicans have blocked it, he said.

Oh, pshaw, Trumka. The reason EFCA has not passed is because the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to what the bill would do, opponents have made an effective case that “card check” and forced unionization are antithetical to democratic principles and economic growth. The legislation is extraordinarily unpopular, which is why key Senate Democrats joined Republicans in preventing the bill’s consideration on the floor this Congress.

If it were popular, the President would have already signed the Employee Free Choice Act into law instead of planning to put its provisions into effect through Executive Orders, presidential nominations, and regulatory enactments. (See Shopfloor post, “If EFCA Won’t Pass the Senate, We’ll Turn to Federal Labor Boards.

Trumka also continued pounding the table for more federal stimulus spending, dismissing concerns about the federal deficit, saying we have a jobs crisis in this country, not a deficit crisis. (UPDATE, 10:58 a.m.: Here’s the exact quote: “We have a job crisis right now, we don’t have a debt crisis right now. The only thing that can possibly make this recession, and this recovery from not stalling and going back into recession is if government continues to do some stimulus spending. And unfortunately, the states aren’t in a position to do that, so it’s going to take aid from the federal government.”)

Yes, by all means, let's force Americans into unions whether they like it or not.

Because unions have been so successful for California, GM and Chrysler.


In Limited Government We Trust

"Greece would not have fallen had it obeyed Polybius in everything, and when Greece did meet disaster, its only help came from him" Pausanias, 8.37.2, Inscription on the Temple of Despoina near Arakesion.

In Book VI of his Histories, the ancient Greek historian Polybius described three basic forms of government, each categorized by the number of those in power. He listed monarchy (rule by the one); aristocracy (rule by the few); and democracy (rule by the many). Polybius described, over time, how each type of government would gradually decline into their various corrupted forms of tyranny, oligarchy and mob rule, respectively. His aim was to illustrate the inherent fallibility of man as exemplified by the truism Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Polybius believed that Republican Rome had designed a new form of government that could help check this inevitable decline. Rome combined all three forms of government -- monarchy (its elected executives, called consuls); aristocracy (the Senate); and democracy (the popular assemblies). In this mixed form of government, each branch would check the corrupting ambitions and power of the others.

Aristotle and Cicero were among those who praised the construction of a "mixed constitution" and the innovative idea to separate powers within a government.

The French nobleman and legal expert Charles-Louis de Secondat, the Baron de Montesquieu, studied the rise and fall of the Roman Republic. He believed that a properly designed government, in order to prevent tyranny, would require three branches of government. He wrote, "If it is to provide its citizens with the greatest possible liberty, a government must have certain features. First, since 'constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it … it is necessary from the very nature of things that power should be a check to power' . This is achieved through the separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of government... [to prevent any one] from acting tyrannically."

The British philosopher John Locke was also keenly interested in a design for government that would prevent its descent into tyranny. In the late 17th century, Locke argued that monarchs had no "divine right" to rule; instead, he asserted that the source of power lay in the people. Furthermore, he stated that humans were born into this world with certain natural and "inalienable" rights including to "life, liberty and property". Locke believed that government could not grant these rights because they were God-given; therefore, no government could take them away or withhold them from the people.

Thomas Jefferson used Locke's concepts as the foundation of the Declaration of Independence. He proclaimed the government's duty to protect the sacred attributes of the individual: "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form..."

"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

As well, America's Founding Fathers repeatedly cited Baron de Montesquieu's seminal Spirit of the Laws and its emphasis on checks and balances within government. As James Madison wrote, "the oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the celebrated Montesquieu."

The Constitution was carefully designed -- based upon thousands of years of bloody experience -- to construct a federalist system of government. It divided powers not only between the three branches of government, but also between the federal government and the states. The Constitution reserved almost all powers to the states, or to the people, and enumerated a very limited set of responsibilities to which the federal government was constrained.

We conservatives are originalists: if the Constitution's meaning is not interpreted as the framers intended, if it can be altered at will, then what protects any law from arbitrary interpretation, from the capricious whims of the ill-intentioned?

If the Constitution is "living and breathing", an amorphous guidebook of suggestions that may freely be interpreted based upon current events, trends, whims or biases, what then are the limits on the federal government? And if the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, what protects the individuals from the encroachment of government intrusion into every aspect of individuals' lives?

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution strictly limits the power of the Federal Government. It states, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. In the Founders' view, state and local governments were free to experiment -- to serve as "laboratories" in the words of Justice Louis Brandeis -- in areas prohibited to the federal government. In the 1980's, for example, Oregon's successful welfare reform efforts became the models for subsequent actions by other states.

When the federal government ignores and breaches the Tenth Amendment, it represents an illegal diminution of representative government at the state and local levels.

The once-powerful states, which created the federal government by ratifying the Constitution, have become -- in the words of Mark Levin -- "administrative appendages of the federal government." The states are subject to ever-increasing federal regulation, strangled by dictates from agencies old and new, and held hostage through billions in federal tax dollars. Levin asks, "Does anyone believe that the states would have originally ratified the Constitution had they known this would be their fate?"

The path the modern federal government is on today was accurately described by Stuart Chase in 1942. He wrote that the agenda of the Fabian Socialists -- who had launched a counter-revolution against America's founding -- was to create an authoritarian, centralized government. The agenda of the Fabian Socialists include:

• Strong, centralized government
• Government-controlled banking, credit and securities exchange (TARP, etc.)
• Government control over employment (the "Employee Free Choice Act" to speed unionization of the workplace)
• Unemployment insurance, old age pensions (lengthy unemployment benefits, Social Security)
• Universal medical care, food and housing programs (socialized medicine, food stamps, HUD)
• Access to unlimited government borrowing (massive deficits)
• A managed monetary system (an opaque Federal Reserve)
• Government control over foreign trade (China tire tariffs)
• Government control over natural energy sources, transportation and agricultural production (drilling prohibitions, Cap-and-Trade)
• Government regulation of labor (the Wagner Act, monopolistic power of trade unions)
• Heavy progressive taxation.

This indeed describes "the road we are traveling"; the direction accelerated by the branches of government controlled by modern Democrats. The Fabian Socialist counter-revolution began in earnest in the U.S. in 1933 with the imposition of the "Welfare State" and has been steadily progressing since. It confiscates ever more taxes, consolidates ever more power, while bankrupting program after program. And always -- always -- the federal government proclaims its need for more money and more power, promising that if only it can levy one more tax, enforce one more regulation, it will be able to solve all of mankind's woes.

The Greek historian Thucydides observed that “The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage.” And in writing about the calamitous Peloponnesian War that engulfed and ultimately destroyed his society, he added that, "Few things are brought to a successful issue by impetuous desire, but most by calm and prudent forethought."

History teaches us that the decline of a society and the demise of a government comes with the institutionalization of corruption and a wanton disregard for the written law. Such is our situation today, wherein the states have become puppets of an all-powerful federal government that confiscates more and more private property while exerting increasing control over every aspect of our lives.

If we are to protect our society from despotism and decline, whose counsel should we then cherish? Should we abide by thousands of years of experience and the wisdom of history's greatest philosophers -- Polybius, Aristotle, Montesquieu, Locke, Jefferson, Adams and Madison among them? Men who understood the nature of a government's despotic decline and sought to construct a system to counter it?

Or should we disregard their guidance and follow instead the Fabian Socialists? Should we heed Cass Sunstein, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama? Should we follow the direction of a few lawless bureaucrats that intentionally ignore their oaths of office? Who believe not in what the founders believed but instead in the infallibility of an authoritarian, centralized government?

The greatest bulwark against tyranny in America has always been the Constitution, which instantiates our carefully designed system of private property, God-given individual liberties and free enterprise.

If we are to protect our society from despotism and Fabian decline, whose counsel should we then cherish? I contend that we must fight the socialist counter-revolution using every political weapon possible. We must return our country to the rule of law as defined by our founders and codified in the Constitution. Anything less condemns our descendants to the fate that Thucydides described.


Saturday, August 07, 2010

'Smith, get a motorcade to take me over to Bethesda Country Club. I grow tired of the people's incessant complaints about unemployment.'

Tyler Durden once again lifts the veil on the real economy and finds the true unemployment (U-3) rate is roughly 14.7%.

The first chart below demonstrates the LFP [Labor Force Participation] rate, which a derivative of the chart we presented earlier, has now plunged to the lowest level in over 25 years, or 64.6% (gotta go back to December 1984 for the first time this was passed). So we decided to "normalize" the LFP by keeping it at the peak achieved at the turn of millennium, or December 1999, when it hit a peak of 67.1%. Now as everyone knows the US population has been soaring since then, and with the cost of living increasing ever more with each day, and as more and more family members are forced to join the work pool, it makes sense that in a normal economy, the LFP should continue rising instead of declining. We thus kept it constant at the 67.1% level (instead of doing the conservative thing and pushing it higher along the trendline), and ran the unemployment numbers through, assuming this part of the jobless equation was constant. To our surprise, we found that the U-3 rate (not the U-6), which today was supposed to be 9.5%, in fact turns out to be 13.0% as of July: an all time record save for the 13.6% recorded in December 2009. And if instead we use the trendline number of a 68.5% LFP rate, the unemployment rate today would be 14.7%. In retrospect we sympathize with Christina Romer's decision to get the hell out of Dodge... Reported and adjusted labor force participation rate:


Running these numbers through the actual unemplyment calculation, reveals the following: while assuming a declining LFP rate we obviously get the 9.5% unemployment rate, assuming a peak 67.1% LFP results in a 13.0% unemployment rate. And if the labor force participation rate were to grow according to trendline, the jobless rate in the US today would have been reported at 14.7%, just about where the U-6 was reported, but based on an entirely different methodology.


Pity the geniuses who work in legacy media haven't figured out that (a) this kind of story is newsworthy; and (b) it sells papers.

Because the logical follow-up question is: when will these jamokes figure out that the economic damage is intentional?


Maine's Free-Spending RINOs Love Running Up the National Debt

Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, the twin "moderate" Republican Senators from Maine, have accumulated a troubling and inconsistent track record when it comes to upholding the Constitution. Their latest move: voting to confirm Elena Kagan when they know full well that the new justice is a political operative appointed with a single mission. Her job is to uphold the constitutionality of ObamaCare, the most intrusive federal over-reach in American history.

Snowe and Collins held the crucial swing votes for the Orwellian 'DISCLOSE Act', a blatant attempt by Democrats to squelch free speech. Thankfully, they voted the right way, but only after high drama (likely involving billions in bribes earmarks) in the upper chamber.

While Maine contributes only $6 billion annually to federal coffers, Snowe and Collins exhibit no qualms in spending the rest of the country's money. Or, rather, many subsequent generations' money, which will have to be repaid with interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state

Federal tax revenue (2007)

Rank State Gross collections (2007) Population (2007) Revenue per capita
44 Maine $6,289,216,000 1,317,207 $4,774.66

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/olympia_snowe.htm
  • Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending.(Jul 2009)
  • Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (May 2009)
  • Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Feb 2009)
  • Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
  • Voted YES on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program. (Aug 2009)
  • Voted YES on Congressional pay raise. (Jul 2009)
Missing is the latest state bailout bill.

This is how Collins and Snowe maintain their power. They play footsy with Democrats in order to spend more and more of the taxpayers' money -- Collins is directly responsible for $377 million in pork over the last couple of years; Snowe is at $368 million.

This is why "moderate" Republicans must be primaried and defeated. The country is bankrupt. It can't afford any of this garbage. Yet Snowe and Collins -- vote after vote -- flirt with the radical leftists who control the Democrat Party. That's the same Democrat Party which appears to have launched a Kamikaze attack on the entire U.S. financial system.

The welfare state is dead. And, despite their high positions, Collins and Snowe appear to be the last so-called Republicans in the country to have received the memo.


Hat tip: K.

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

The 5 Scariest Jobs Charts of August

Excerpted from The Business Insider's comprehensive view.

5. The small business hiring situation: deplorable.

4. The number of government workers -- despite the catastrophic debt at every level of government -- continues to explode upward.

3. The average weekly hours for those employed in manufacturing continues to drop.

2. The average length of unemployment continues to increase -- and is now at almost 9 months.

1. The number of Americans unemployed for at least half a year continues to skyrocket with no end in sight.

So I would encourage you to send this article -- along with a thank you note -- to each person you know who voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

Californians: flush twice to ensure all Democrats are washed clean from the public trough

For your consideration, a delightful compendium of Democrat leadership in action.

CA Democrats Unveil New Budget Using Standard One-Page Playbook: Tax Hikes


An outline of the Democrats' plan had been circulating for several days before its official release on Tuesday afternoon and as expected it included tax proposals worth about $4.5 billion. The revenue would come from an oil severance tax, delaying corporate tax breaks and income tax increases paired with a reduced sales tax.

This approach, which even a fifth-grader would rightly judge as destructive, will drive additional businesses and residents out of the state as surely as Michael Moore eats dinner. On the bright side, however, L.A. is headed into the crapper even faster than the state itself.

L.A. pensions may consume a third of city’s general fund by 2015.


The cost of retirement benefits for Los Angeles city employees will grow by $800 million over the next five years, dramatically eroding the amount of money available for public services to taxpayers, according to a report issued Tuesday.

In a bleak assessment delivered to members of the City Council, City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana said pensions and health benefits for current and future retirees would jump from $1.4 billion next year to at least $2.2 billion in 2015.

In all seriousness, however, there is a little bit of good news for taxpayers: it appears they'll get to find out what their public sector betters are making.

It's true: the peons aren't allowed to know the salaries of most public workers in Cali.

Heh! It caused a mini-firestorm when one city released its public payroll data. One can only imagine what will happen if the whole state complies with the State Controller. When do the lawsuits with various reasons for why they can't do it begin? 5, ...4, ...3 - I have a feeling, it won't be too long. If the people pay the salaries, why shouldn't they have a right to know what they are? Sounds reasonable to me.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- California's controller is ordering all cities and counties to start reporting the salaries of elected officials and public employees... Controller John Chiang said Tuesday he will post the information on his website beginning in November.

The directive comes after revelations that the Southern California city of Bell paid three of its top administrators a total of $1.6 million a year. Part-time City Council members were paid nearly $100,000 a year.

Currently, local governments must report only general figures about revenue and expenditures to the state controller's office.

Crazy talk. Citizens need to shut up, pay more taxes, and stop asking questions. The rulers rule, and the peons ... uhm, get peed on.


Tuesday, August 03, 2010

The 10 Wackiest 'Stimulus' Scams

Please consider the following boondoggles, selected from the Coburn report issued earlier today (PDF). Each was chosen from projects funded by the $862 billion "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act", which -- by itself -- helped push the national debt 23 percent higher.

10. Coordinating Traffic Lights (Sebring, FL) - $1.1 million

The Florida Energy and Climate Commission, created by Governor Charlie Crist (Crist), blew more than a million bucks so that city officials wouldn't be inconvenienced by 14 traffic lights.

9. 'Low-income' housing at $300K apiece (Rochester, NY) - $3.3 million

One of north Rochester’s poorest and most crime-ridden neighborhoods just got a pricey upgrade. Your grandchildrens' money bought 23 new homes in 'El Camino Estates' at an average cost of $300K. Average median value in the neighborhood? $50K. Don't question the Democrats, peons. They know what they're doing. So shut up and pay your taxes.

8. iPods for one high school (Salt Lake City, UT) - $1 million

“About 1,600 students at Kearns High School in Utah will get iPod Touches next school year, thanks to a federal stimulus 'Enhancing Education Through Technology' grant" (that name was selected over 'F***ing Taxpayers Thoroughly' branding). They will use the devices during class, take them home after school, and according to one student, get to keep them if they graduate on-time. “I think that will be the coolest thing ever,” said a student. “I think that might be a little initiative for those who are thinking of not graduating to graduate, kind of a going-away present... [T]eachers will be trained to use the iPods to engage students so their attention doesn’t wander."

7. Study: Will a Soda Tax Stimulate Health? (Chicago, IL) - $521K

The Obama administration has repeatedly considered taxing soda and other sugary drinks. Finally, your grandchildren's money will be spent studying the relationship between taxes and obesity..

6. 'Museum' with less than 50 visitors a year (Raleigh, NC) - $250K

What is the best way to simultaneously preserve an insect collection, promote a haiku contest and produce bug baseball cards? Simple. A grant to the North Carolina State University Insect Museum. The museum boasts being an “internationally recognized resource for the study of insects and mites in North Carolina, the Southeastern United States, and, in several insect groups, the world.” The museum, which has “virtually no public presence” (it gets about 44 visitors a year), will also use the money for outreach efforts. It also hosts the annual Hexapod Haiku Challenge every March on its blog.

5. Liquor business gets big bucks (Colorado) - $5 million

Colorado liquor distilleries, breweries and wineries are getting $5 million in stimulus-backed business loans. According to the Colorado Recovery Act website, some of the alcohol-related recipients include $1.1 million for Stranahan’s Colorado Whiskey. The store, which claims to be the first whiskey distiller in the state, describes its whiskey this way: "It’s not often you can bottle up the Rockies, or cup your
hands in a mountain stream."

4. Commerce Dept. Makeover and Door Shift (Washington, DC) - $183 million

The Hoover building in Washington has been rehabbed at a cost of nearly $1 billion over the last decade. It houses approximately 3,500 federal employees at the Department of Commerce, the White House Visitor Center, and the National Aquarium. The money will be used renovating unused office space for temporarily rotating groups of up to 400 Commerce employees at a time and ripping out
walls to install 16 miles of insulation. And moving a door to the aquarium.

3. Snow-making equipment and chair lifts (Mt. Snow, Vermont) - $25 million

Mt. Snow will use the stimulus dollars to replace two chairlifts, construct a 120-million-gallon storage pond for snowmaking, and install additional snowmaking fan guns. "Mount Snow was pursuing the chairlift renovations when they learned that government stimulus funds were available for ski area capital improvements."

2. Fake News Videos Pitching ObamaCare (NYC, New York) - $25 million

What do you do when a key government program is unpopular with the general public? In the case of the stimulus, you sign a multi-million dollar contract with a public relations firm previously embroiled in controversy. For some time, the administration’s push for health information technology systems has faced significant public resistance because of privacy concerns. In response, the Department of Health and Human Services spent $25.8 million on a contract with Ketchum Inc. to help win over public opinion. Ketchum was criticized before, however, on other governmental work. The reason? Producing fake TV news stories for government agencies.

1. Restoring a 'national park' that's almost 100% underwater (FL) - $13 million

Visitors to Key West, Florida with enough time and money can explore one of the National Park Service’s less convenient destinations: Dry Tortugas National Park. Located 70 miles offshore, the park is almost entirely underwater and accessible only by airplane or private boat. Despite its relative inaccessibility, the park will get $13,304,484 in repairs for its barely above-water attraction, Fort Jefferson. Those willing to take the 4 1/2 hour round-trip ferry ride aboard the Yankee Freedom II have to pay as much as $165 per person, but will discover that only 40 of the park’s 65,000 acres are dry land.

By the way, isn't a vast, unaccountable, centralized government awesome? Democrats are so very careful with your money, it's almost like they're spending their own dough.


Monday, August 02, 2010

Judge rules Virgina's challenge of DemCare can proceed; measured response of White House includes toddler-style temper tantrum

Federal District Judge Henry Hudson ruled earlier today that Virginia's challenge of DemCare's 'individual mandate' can proceed, rejecting the Obama administration's claims that the states' lawsuits are 'frivolous'.

...the district court ruled that Virginia has standing to challenge the federal individual mandate provision, not primarily because it was acting its “parens patriae” capacity to prevent general harm to its citizens, but because it was acting to protect its own sovereign interest in enacting a state provision that conflicts with the federal statutory scheme...

...On the merits, we are surprised the judge took as much space to conclude that Virginia stated a valid cause of action, namely, that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority with the individual mandate... The only question is whether Virginia stated a legal cause of action (or legal theory) that is cognizable in law.  Virginia certainly has at least a valid substantive theory to challenge the law, because someone with standing is always able to challenge the constitutionality of a statute on the ground that Congress has no constitutional authority to enact it, QED.  Indeed, we think Virginia ultimately should win on the merits, but it is even easier to show that the correct form of the argument was set forth in the complaint.  Nevertheless, unless the district court’s jurisdictional rulings are overturned, Judge Hudson’s discussion of the constitutional issues is somewhat instructive.  It shows he is not hostile or dismissive of Virginia’s claims, which is surely good for liberty.

The Obama administration responded with the kind of maturity that we've come to expect from the likes of David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs (or, as they're referred to in the White House, The Puppetmasters™).

Since the enactment of health reform legislation in March, several state Attorneys General have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Having failed in the legislative arena, opponents of reform are now turning to the courts in an attempt to overturn the work of the democratically elected branches of government. [Ed: Does the phrase 'budget reconciliation' ring a bell?]

...The Affordable Care Act falls well within Congress’s power to regulate under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause... [As does Congress' power to regulate your shower-head flow, toilet tank size, light bulbs, automobile engine type, and other personal aspects of your life -- like the Founders intended!]

...That’s why a number of groups representing breast cancer patients, children’s health advocates, people with disabilities, small businesses and others filed an amicus brief in support of the Affordable Care Act, citing evidence in seven states that “preexisting conditions provisions, absent a minimum coverage provision, are a failed experiment. At best, they result in premium increases. At worst, they can cause the total collapse of a state’s individual insurance market.” [Glad the Democrats never resort to the politics of fear!]

This administration is flat-out dishonest.

Cancer survival rates are higher in the U.S. than in any other country in the world. By far. And 75% of all medical and pharmaceutical innovation on the planet comes from our "broken" system.

At some point, the judiciary in this country -- even some of the more left-leaning judges -- are going to have had enough of Democrat whining, attempted intimidation and -- well, I'm too polite to say what I really think.

Suffice it to say that somewhere Hugo Chavez is beaming.


'This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow...'

"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." -- Barack Obama, 3 June 2008

In the late nineties, members of the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were tasked with assessing the scientific validity of the Kyoto Protocol.

The Protocol was an international emissions reduction treaty which required signatories to cut overall greenhouse gas emissions.

The IPCC subsequently produced the Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry.

The report found that "carbon offsets" and "carbon trading" were viable ways to barter the right to pollute, because they would fund new forestry initiatives.

But one critical detail was never disclosed in the report.

That is: members of the IPCC, such as Pedro Moura-Costa (above) and Gareth Philips, had major conflicts-of-interest. They owned, created and/or worked for businesses -- such as Ecosecurities and SGS Forestry -- that would directly profit from the report's conclusions.

In fact, the IPCC panel members' companies were positioned to earn millions of dollars from the report. But the mainstream media did not report these conflicts and instead piled on the "global warming" and "carbon offset" bandwagons.

The carbon offset market quickly exploded. And, just as quickly, it became the subject of rampant allegations of fraud.

In 2009 the market was estimated to be $100 billion; it was so rife with questionable trading that the United Nations suspended the world's largest auditor of 'clean-energy' projects.

Put simply, a wide range of respected scientists, environmentalists, researchers, agriculturalists, and activists believe that carbon offsets are a "scam", "fantasy", "fiction", "nonsense", "fraudulent" and worse. And they've been saying so since 2000, though to read the daily fish-wrap you wouldn't know it.

The World Rainforest Movement, for example, investigated these bizarre financial ties and concluded that the IPCC report must "...be shelved due to their clear conflict of interest and a new report instigated which will be free of the taint of intellectual corruption."

To demonstrate the fraudulence of the carbon offset market, one need only request quotes from various carbon offset sellers. The price for offseting a flight from London to Toronto and back?
  • $85: from Climate Care (UK), which says 6 tons of CO2 must be offset.
  • $60: Carbon Neutral (UK), which says 4.3 tons of CO2 must be offset.
  • $195: Climate Friendly (Australia) asserts that 11.63 tons of CO2 must be offset.
  • $180: Green Seat (Netherlands) says 8.68 tons of CO2 must be offset.
Executive Summary: they're all making it up as they go along.

Whether you believe the world is warming or cooling, there is no arguing Democrats want more expensive energy for American citizens.

All that said, the real problem — and the reason Pelosi really does deserve blame — is that Democrats’ political goal of reducing carbon emissions continues to trump their populist rhetoric on gasoline prices. The two stances are impossible to reconcile. Try as they might to blame oil companies for the pain Americans feel at the pump, the Democrats want higher prices for gasoline — and for all forms of energy that emit carbon. Economic barriers against CO2 emissions are a requirement for environmental progress in the Democrats’ view, and this is the entire purpose of the carbon cap-and-trade system... to create economic disincentives for emitting CO2.

Because of the falsity of its premise, cap-and-trade is intended to do one thing: allow Democrats to control industrial policy.

It all comes back to carbon offsets, which represent the currency for the "global warming" scam promoted by the UN's IPCC and the Democrat Statists in Washington.

Whether it's through unelected bureaucrats at the EPA, outright cap-and-trade, or John Kerry's 'compromise' climate plan, the economic toll on Americans will be devastating. Even in the latter case, estimated GDP losses of $2.1 trillion and consumer electricity price increases of up to 42% are estimated in less than two decades' time.

Democrats want to control your life. Your health. Your private property. And they don't care what kind of scam they use to justify it.

Remember in November.


Linked by: Michelle Malkin. Thanks!