The contents are based on Fact and Truth. Challenges are invited.
The day’s top political news:
AP Turns Heads by Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book 'Fact Check'-- Corrupted journalism in full bloom again
Reviewing books and holding public figures accountable is at the core of good journalism, but the Associated Press' treatment of Palin's book seems an unprecedented move at the wire service…suggesting political bigotry is at work again.
The AP claims Palin misstated her record with regard to travel expenses and taxpayer-funded bailouts, using statements widely reported elsewhere. But it also speculated into Palin's motives for writing "Going Rogue: An American Life," stating as fact that the book "has all the characteristics of a pre-campaign manifesto." Palin quickly hit back on a Facebook post titled "Really? Still Making Things Up?"
AP failed to check Obama’s book which many now contend was ghost written by unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers. AP contributes to “honest journalism” having become an oxymoron.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/ap-turns-heads-devoting-reporters-palin-book-fact-check/
Obama: Too much debt could fuel double-dip recession
President Barack Obama gave his sternest warning yet about the need to contain rising U.S. deficits, saying on Wednesday that if government debt were to pile up too much, it could lead to a double-dip recession.
With the U.S. unemployment rate at 10.2 percent, Obama told Fox News his administration faces a delicate balance of trying to boost the economy and spur job creation while putting the economy on a path toward long-term deficit reduction.
Yet Obama’s “people” even murmur about yet another massive “stimulus” scam and promote health care take over schemes that would cause debt to skyrocket.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN188108620091118
Senate to Put Off Climate Bill Until Spring
Senate Democratic leaders say they will put off debate on a big “climate-change bill” – co called – until spring, in a sign of weakening political will to tackle a long-term environmental issue at a time of high unemployment and economic uncertainty.
This would force Democrats to find themselves moving to impose a huge new tax on ALL Americans and send prices skyrocketing – just months before having to face voters in the 2010 election.
Legislation on health care, overhauling financial markets and job creation will be considered before the Senate takes up a measure to cap emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to climate change, Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday. Disguising Cap and Trade legislation as “climate” matters is a dishonest attempt to hide the truth about its being an incredible tax increase.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125850693443052993.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories
Opinion:
Desperation of liberals being put on display again and again of late
With dominating numbers in both houses of Congress along with control of the White House, liberals emerged from the 2008 elections salivating over a potential for imposing a far left agenda on America.
Their reach was way too far for too many normal Americans and within two months of Obama’s inauguration, a massive grass root movement arose in opposition. The tea party protest was a major and historic event and liberals did all they could to deny, ignore, and insult it, hoping it would go away. It didn’t. Liberals termed it “Astroturf” – suggesting it was a phony effort – not really “grass root”. They badly misjudged it. They continue in denial.
When members of Congress came home in June, they were ambushed by angry voters. Hapless Congressional Blue Dog Democrat, Alan Boyd, was an early victim and had to sneak out a back door to escape voters angered and outraged at his vote in for the Cap and Trade scam – a liberal plan that would substantially raise prices and cost all families over $3000 a year in additional taxation.
We hear this morning that Democrats in the Senate have decided to delay the Cap and Trade debate until at least next Spring, That delay may doom the bill entirely. Few Democrat Senators facing re-election challenges, will want to vote for such a massive tax increase only months before having to face voters.
Cap and Trade may well be defeated. This parallels reports that extremist commitments regarding “climate change” expected result from an international conference in Copenhagen, will no longer be attempted. All-in-all we seem to be witnessing a white flag of surrender from those trying to push the Al Gore’s notorious myths about man-made climate change..
Perhaps the most flagrant example of growing liberal desperation is an Associated Press conspiracy to undercut Sarah Palin’s book. The AP has assigned eleven reporters to focus their efforts in “fact checking” Palin’s book -- an undisguised scheme to put it under a cloud of distrust. A dishonest effort by the AP – but what else is new?
No other book has attracted anywhere near the attention the AP is focusing on its attempt to destroy Palin’s book and, through that, her personal credibility.
Sarah Palin terrifies liberal politicians. Evidence of that is unmistakable.
Of course, no such attention was focused on Obama’s books – despite growing suspicions that they were actually ghost written by William Ayers, the domestic terrorist who bombed federal buildings in DC. (Ayer’s Weather Underground conspiracy caused the death of at least one police officer.)
No wonder Obama lied about their association, denying any close affiliation and describing Ayers as ”just some guy in the neighborhood”. Revealed truth showed a close friendship, a working relationship on the books, and that Michelle and Ayer’s wife – also a major domestic terrorist – worked together.
Of course, there are many things about Obama’s early life and his life prior to becoming a US Senator that Obama shows a frantic and desperate need to hide, distort, or about which he downright lies. The burden is Obama’s.
Janet Napolitano, the sponsor of an earlier memo declaring Americans – especially veterans – who oppose Obama’s positions on key political issues as being terror suspects, tried to slip onto the table, another scheme to grant illegal immigrants amnesty. The last amnesty attempt was shouted down and defeated by grass roots America. Napolitano says she senses a change in attitudes on the issue. Reaction to her announcement suggests she is as tone deaf on issues as most other liberals.
Amnesty for illegals is hardly an issue Democrat incumbents on Capitol Hill want to find in their Christmas stockings. Any action would be impossible before Spring – a time in which most incumbents will be deeply involved in next November’s election – with some facing challenges from within their own party primaries. Except in very liberal venues – amnesty for illegals is unlikely to be a positive issue for Democrats.
There are other clear indicators of forced liberal retreat on issues. Today’s political situation is 180 degrees out of phase with that of only a year ago. Liberals badly misjudged American political sentiments, confusing rejection of the Bush Administration and Republicans in general with a shift toward acceptance of liberal policies.
Liberals were wrong in their presumptions and misread the American mind. Care must be taken by conservatives to avoid repeating the liberal mistake.
Expect liberal desperation to be met with new political tactics. The ACLU, the NEA and SEIU massive unions, and Obama’s own ACORN, are politically savvy and have proven to be effective in pushing extreme far left ideas.
Special care must be taken where SEIU is concerned since it’s provided evidence of a willingness to resort to violence. Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department winks at such clearly illegal activities. Red flags are waving and warnings clear that when their backs are to the wall, NOTHING is out of the question for liberal politicians.
After all, this is an administration created and crafted by participants in the Chicago Democrat machine. History shows that such groups have few limitations when their power is challenged or when it is actually threatened.
Buddy
Some top blogs
1.
HEARTBEAT OF AMERICA
Broad Spread of Americans Rejects Obama’s Decision to Try Terrorists at War in Civilian Courts
“Now here are some questions about Khalid Sheik Mohammed who may be responsible for planning the 9/11 attacks and who is now in custody at a U.S. military prison in another country: If you had to choose, would you rather see Khalid Sheik Mohammed brought to trial in a criminal court run by the civilian judicial system, or would you rather see him tried by a military court run by the U.S. armed forces?”
34% Brought to trial in a criminal court run by the civilian judicial system
64% Tried by a military court run by the U.S. armed forces
2% No opinion
2.
CONGRESSMAN BACHUS: "WE MUST END AIG-STYLE BAILOUTS"
WASHINGTON – Congressman Spencer Bachus (AL-6) said a federal watchdog report on the AIG bailout shows why the government should never again ask taxpayers to save failing firms.
Bachus, Ranking Member on the House Financial Services Committee, commented on a report by the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) that detailed how some AIG partners received “backdoor bailouts” while other counterparties and taxpayers were left holding the bag. Bachus first raised the issue in March when he questioned Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at a committee hearing.
Bachus is the author of financial reform legislation that would end government bailouts. He issued the following statement on the report.
"This report paints a devastating picture of a Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) that was ill-prepared to deal with the problems at AIG, and failed to fight for what was in the best interest of the taxpayers.
"Even more troubling is the fact that the FRBNY, then under the leadership of Tim Geithner, failed to receive any voluntary concessions by using a strategy that was doomed to fail. What resulted was nothing more than a backdoor bailout of AIG's largest counterparties, both foreign and domestic, at the expense of taxpayers.
"While the Democrats are seeking to codify AIG-style bailouts, the SIGTARP's report confirms that Americans deserve better. That is why Republicans have proposed a solution that protects taxpayers and ends the bailouts. By directing all failed non-banks to an enhanced bankruptcy proceeding, Republicans are ensuring that taxpayers will never again be asked to pay for mistakes on Wall Street."
NOTE: Ranking Member Spencer Bachus sent this letter to Chairman Barney Frank on March 25, 2009 urging Committee hearings to examine the disparity among AIG’s counterparty payments.
Bachus also questioned Secretary Tim Geithner during a Committee hearing on March 24, 2009 on whether the FRBNY attempted to obtain “haircuts” from counterparties. During the exchange Geithner informs Bachus that the FRBNY explored “every possible means to reduce the drain on their [AIG’s] resources.” However, the SIGTARP audit report concludes that the New York Fed’s policy decisions “came with a cost – they led directly to a negotiating strategy with the counterparties that even then-FRBNY President Geithner acknowledged had little likelihood of success.”
BACHUS: I'm talking about the foreign banks, Goldman Sachs. They were paid 100 cents on the dollar, were they not?
GEITHNER: Again, that was the purpose and result of
BACHUS: Well, I'm talking about -- I'm just saying, they were paid 100 percent of what they were owed. Is that.
GEITHNER: AIG was able to meet its commitments, and met its commitments.
BACHUS: At 100 percent.
GEITHNER: It fully met its obligations, yes.
BACHUS: Sure. Fully met its obligations.
GEITHNER: Yes.
BACHUS: Well, my question to you -- and I'm not -- was there any discussion over a haircut or a 95 percent -- taking 95 percent or 90 percent as full payment?
GEITHNER: We explored at that time every possible means to reduce the drain on their resources.
BACHUS: Well.
GEITHNER: Including what you referred to. But again, because we have no legal mechanism in place for dealing with this, like we deal with the banks, we did not have the ability to selectively impose losses on their counterparties.
BACHUS: You were 80 percent owners.
Even though in the exchange above Secretary Geithner attempts to justify the FRBNY’s actions, the SIGTARP’s audit concludes that the FRBNY’s weak negotiating strategy “made the possibility of obtaining concessions from those counterparties extremely remote” despite both the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department using leverage elsewhere to force some institutions to accept billions in capital injections, force Bank of America and Merrill Lynch to merge, and force the creditors of GM and Chrysler to take “substantial concessions.”
3.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/how-a-free-society-could-solve-global-warming/?utm_source=The+Freeman&utm_campaign=f2f938e9c9-In_brief_11-09-2009&utm_medium=email#
How a Free Society Would Solve Global Warming
The Advantages of Unfettered Markets Offer the Best Way to Manage Climate Change
Gene Callahan
The phrase“global warming” has been around for quite some time, but in the past year it has captured the spotlight as never before. One can’t turn on the radio or open a newspaper without facing ads from “green” corporations, or hearing the latest way to reduce one’s “carbon footprint.” With even prominent Republicans (such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and George W. Bush) on board, it seems all but inevitable that major governments around the world will enact new policies to combat this ostensible threat—and to cripple economic growth in the process.
Thus far the typical libertarian response to the growing clamor has been to challenge the science behind it. Now it really is the scientific consensus that global warming occurred during the twentieth century. What is not so obvious is that (1) humans caused this warming and (2) this warming is necessarily bad.
Although it is interesting to explore the question of whether science has been perverted in the cause of environmentalism, there is a danger for libertarians in pinning their entire case on this strategy.
After all, every serious student of science knows that when it comes to empirical claims, we never achieve certainty. For example, even if today one thinks that there are insurmountable problems facing the theory of manmade global warming, one still must accept the possibility that new evidence or theoretical advances could indicate that the environmentalists are perfectly right. Another possibility is that there is some other, similar disaster lurking unsuspected.
For these reasons, I believe it is crucial to accept provisionally, for the sake of argument, the scientific claims behind the case for manmade global warming. In the present article I will demonstrate that it still would not follow that the taxes and other regulations typically proposed by greens are the best way to address the problem. Just as the free market is still the optimal economic arrangement, regardless of how many citizens are angels or devils, so too does the free market outperform government intervention, regardless of the fragility of Earth’s ecosystems.
When trying to determine if the free market is to blame for possibly dangerous carbon emissions, a logical starting point is to list the numerous ways that government policies encourage the very activities that Al Gore and his friends want us to curtail.
The U.S. government has subsidized many activities that burn carbon: it has seized land through eminent domain to build highways, funded rural electrification projects, and fought wars to ensure Americans’ access to oil. After World War II it played a key role in the mass exodus of the middle class from urban centers to the suburbs, chiefly through encouraging mortgage lending.
Every American schoolchild has heard of the bold transcontinental railroad (finished with great ceremony at Promontory Summit, Utah) promoted by the federal government. Historian Burt Folsom explains that due to the construction contracts, the incentive was to lay as much track as possible between points A and B—hardly an approach to economize on carbon emissions from the wood- and coal-burning locomotives.
For a more recent example, consider John F. Kennedy’s visionary moon shot. I’m no engineer, but I’ve seen the takeoffs of the Apollo spacecraft and think it’s quite likely that the free market’s use of those resources would have involved far lower CO2 emissions. While myriad government policies have thus encouraged carbon emissions, at the same time the government has restricted activities that would have reduced them. For example, there would probably be far more reliance on nuclear power were it not for the overblown regulations of this energy source. For a different example, imagine the reduction in emissions if the government would merely allow market-clearing pricing for the nation’s major roads, thereby eliminating traffic jams! The pollution from vehicles in major urban areas could be drastically cut overnight if the government set tolls to whatever the market could bear—or better yet, sold bridges and highways to private owners.
Of course, there is no way to determine just what the energy landscape in America would look like if these interventions had not occurred. Yet it is entirely possible that on net, with a freer market economy, in the past we would have burned less fossil fuel and today we would be more energy efficient.
Even if it were true that reliance on the free-enterprise system makes it difficult to curtail activities that contribute to global warming, still the undeniable advantages of unfettered markets would allow humans to deal with climate change more easily. For example, the financial industry, by creating new securities and derivative markets, could crystallize the “dispersed knowledge” that many different experts held in order to coordinate and mobilize mankind’s total response to global warming. For instance, weather futures can serve to spread the risk of bad weather beyond the local area affected.
Perhaps there could arise a market betting on the areas most likely to be permanently flooded. That may seem ghoulish, but by betting on their own area, inhabitants could offset the cost of relocating should the flooding occur.
Creative entrepreneurs, left free to innovate, will generate a wealth of alternative energy sources. (State intervention, of course, tends to stifle innovations that threaten the continued dominance of currently powerful special interests, such as oil companies—for example, the state of North Carolina recently fined Bob Teixeira for running his car on soybean oil.)
Private insurers have a strong incentive to assess the potential effects of global warming without bias in order to price their policies optimally—if they overestimate the risk, they will lose business to lower-priced rivals; if they are too sanguine about the dangers, they will lose money once the claims start rolling in.
Individuals finding their homes or businesses threatened by rising sea levels will find it easier to relocate to the extent that unfettered markets have made them wealthier. Industrial manufacturers, as long as they are held liable for the negative environmental effects of their production processes—a traditional common-law liability from which state policies intended to “promote industry” have often sought to shield manufacturers—will strive to develop technologies that minimize the environmental impact of their activities without sacrificing efficiency.
Government interventions and “five-year plans,” even when they are sincere attempts to protect the environment rather than disguised schemes to benefit some powerful lobby, lack the profit incentive and are protected from the competitive pressures that drive private actors to seek an optimal cost-benefit tradeoff.
If the situation truly becomes dire, it will be free-market capitalism that allows humans to develop techniques for sucking massive amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere, and to colonize the oceans and outer space. Beyond these futuristic possibilities, the obvious responses to global warming—such as more houses with AC, sturdier sea walls, and better equipment to evacuate flooded regions—are again only feasible when the free market is unleashed.
It is the poorest people and nations that stand to suffer the most if the worst-case scenario for global warming is realized, and the only reliable way to alleviate their poverty, and thus help protect them from those effects, is the free market.
Can the Market Meet the Threat Head-On?
In the first section I summarized some of the ways governments inadvertently contribute to the very activities that allegedly cause dangerous global warming; in the second I sketched some of the ways that free markets allow humans to better adapt to climate change. However, I haven’t really tackled the problem directly. Am I conceding that with a worldwide problem the market—which is just dandy for one-on-one interactions—can’t match the concerted “will of the people” working through their elected representatives for a common solution?
Of course not. Even when economic transactions generate so-called negative externalities (activities that shower harms on third parties), I still contend that the free market is the best institution for identifying and reducing the problems.
One way negative externalities can be addressed without turning to state coercion is public censure of individuals or groups widely perceived to be flouting core moral principles or trampling the common good, even if their actions are not technically illegal. Large, private companies and prominent, wealthy individuals are generally quite sensitive to public pressure campaigns.
To cite just one recent, significant example, Temple Grandin, a notable advocate for the humane treatment of livestock, asserts that McDonald’s is the world leader in improving slaughterhouse conditions. While many executives at the fast-food giant genuinely may be concerned with the welfare of cattle, pigs, and chickens, undoubtedly a strong element of self-interest is also at work here, as the company realizes that corporate image affects consumers’ buying decisions.
But that self-interest does not negate the laudable outcome of the pressure McDonald’s has applied to its suppliers to meet the stringent standards it has set for animal-handling facilities. Similarly, to the degree that the broad public regards manmade global warming as a serious problem, companies will strive to be seen as “good corporate citizens” that are addressing the matter. And this isn’t ivory-tower speculation on my part—I can see the “green friendly” ads.
Critics of libertarianism sometimes denigrate it as a political program of “market fundamentalism” that, if put into practice, would reduce all human values to the price they can fetch as mere commodities. But that is a caricature of the social arrangements advocated by any sensible libertarian. The great figures of classical-liberal and libertarian thought have always recognized the vital contributions that nonmarket institutions, such as churches, families, charities, social clubs, communities of scholars and their students, art foundations, conservation groups, neighborhood associations, and youth athletic leagues, make to the healthy functioning of a free society. What libertarians offer as an alternative to statism is not a social order that judges every human interaction solely on a miserly calculation of profit or loss, but a society in which every desirable form of voluntary association is allowed to flourish, free from coercive interference by the state.
Customary Law
Besides the samples listed above, most libertarians recognize private or customary law as another important, nonmarket source of social order. A historical case in point is the Anglo-American common-law tradition in which legal norms evolved spontaneously from the customs of the people to whom it applied, rather than through legislation and state planning deliberately aimed at achieving some “public good.”
The many centuries during which the common law sustained civic order in the face of inevitable divergences between individual citizens’ own interests demonstrate that a successful legal order does not inevitably require state sponsorship. The common law has shown itself to be fully capable of dealing with a number of issues that, while not exhibiting the worldwide scope of global warming, are still similar to our present concern in arising from the cumulative effects of many individual actions, each of which, regarded in isolation, appears to be unproblematic and not subject to legal sanction.
For instance, the salmon-fishing streams of Scotland are a valuable natural resource, and the communities along them have developed quite successful institutions for ensuring the value of the streams is maintained, including private policing and legal penalties for overfishing and for polluting the water.
The many cases in which voluntary solutions to problems of collective choice have worked pose an empirical embarrassment for those who argue that “public goods” must be provided by the government. Most advocates of compulsory solutions to pollution abatement, for example, would assert that voluntary efforts will be vitiated by “free riding.” If individuals are not forced to contribute their fair share toward addressing these problems, this argument runs, each person rationally will hold back and hope others will pay for the proposed solution, since any free riders would gain the benefits (such as clean air) anyway.
Since almost no one likes to be “the sucker,” it follows that the amount of resources devoted to the provision of the public good will fall woefully shy of the total that would be available if each person gave the amount he’d be willing to give if only he could count on everyone else pitching in equally. The sole solution that can be imagined is for the members of a society to create a “social contract” by which they are forced to pay for pollution abatement.
However, Anthony de Jasay notes in his book The State that this argument is severely flawed.
If people cannot solve public-goods problems through voluntary cooperation, how can they rely on politicians’ promises to do so? There is no external authority to enforce those promises. There is only public opinion, the same thing that would enforce voluntary solutions. Moreover, government is itself a “public good” in the sense that free riders benefit from the efforts of those who try to get the government to produce public goods such as clean air.
Is Temperature a Public Good?
Another consideration is that the earth’s temperature isn’t such a public good after all. That is, certain people really do have more at stake, particularly if the warming is moderate. For example, if Manhattan became submerged because of rising sea levels, that calamity would not affect every human being equally. The residents of Manhattan and the owners of its skyscrapers would be hurt far more than people living in inland China. Because all the various potential dangers of global warming affect particular people more intensively than others, it is these groups that (in a free market) would have the incentive to reduce CO2 concentrations. For example, if rising sea levels would cause $10 trillion in damage to a comparatively small group of wealthy individuals, that’s a huge “pie” that the wealthy can offer others to motivate them to reduce emissions.
Despite my optimism about the potential to deal with environmental problems through voluntary means, I don’t wish to be misunderstood: If the official global-warming story is true, it presents a serious problem that humanity will find difficult to solve through voluntary means. But this isn’t a strike against voluntarism—of course a difficult problem will be difficult to solve! By the very same token, the government doesn’t do a terrible job at collecting stray dogs, because that’s a very simple task. When it comes to harder assignments, such as stopping terrorism or reducing teen pregnancy, the government’s record is quite a bit worse.
The very features of the official global-warming scenario that hamper purely private solutions would apply equally to government efforts. For example, even if the U.S. government passed draconian measures at home, that alone wouldn’t be enough if China and India don’t follow suit. And just as private companies in a free market may have an incentive to pollute if they can get away with it, so the state, under the influence of special-interest groups and run by leaders always tempted to ignore the public good in favor of increasing their own power and wealth, can have incentives to allow more pollution than is optimal. (It should be clear the “best” amount of pollution is not zero, because even using fire to cook generates some pollutants, and I doubt that anyone but the most misanthropic, fanatical nature worshippers want to reverse all of the last 40,000 years of human progress.)
As in all debates over public versus private choice, it’s inappropriate to measure a realistic free-market response to global warming against an idealized government program. We must try to envision what real people would do if their property rights were respected and compare that scenario with the probable outcome of actual politicians in today’s world being given a blank check in the name of saving the earth.
Government programs don’t ameliorate world poverty or sickness, and no libertarian would deny that these are serious problems. So even if manmade global warming is a real threat, why should we expect governments to get it right on this issue?
4.
The Democrats’ Job-Killing Agenda Must Cease
Washington, D.C. – Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) issued the following statement in response to the October employment data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics this morning.
“From a takeover of health care to a national energy tax to the bureaucratic boondoggle they call a stimulus package, the major items on the Democrats’ agenda share a two common themes,” said Chairman Price. “They hand more control to the federal government and they decrease American prosperity. The monthly unemployment numbers clearly show how tough these times are for Americans trying to make a living. With unemployment now at 10.2 percent, the last thing this country needs is more of the Democrats’ job-killing agenda. 190,000 more Americans lost their jobs last month.
Meanwhile, the White House continues to tout patently false data for jobs ‘saved or created’ by their so-called stimulus package. Day after day, we get more news highlighting the fact that their claims are little more than fantasy.
“In the real world, Americans are still hurting and reminded daily that government spending does not create economic growth. Instead we can and should be providing the proper incentives to help spur and energize economic recovery. By putting more money into the pocket of those who earn it, rather than punishing productivity, American prosperity can flourish. It’s high time this Congress stopped pursuing a job-killing agenda and focus on proven ways to revitalize our national entrepreneurial spirit.”
Comments