Playing Politics With The Stimulus

This one probably won’t surprise you. The Mercatus Center at George Mason University just issued a study showing where $157 billion in stimulus dollars went. In an unbelievable “coincidence,” the report found that Democratic congressional districts received 1.8 % more money than GOP districts. Democratic congressional districts averaged 152 awards, while GOP districts averaged only 94. Incredibly, the study found that unemployment levels and median income had no impact on whether or not an area received money.

Here’s the bottom line: The $787 billion legislation was not an economic stimulus bill, it was a Democrat stimulus bill. Money has been used to essentially reward those areas of the country that vote “the right way.” And not one investigative reporter was able to put two and two together to discover this misuse of your tax money.

After nearly a year of ignoring congressional conservatives, President Obama invited them to a White House meeting yesterday to work on a job creation bill. But, alas, Obama just couldn’t control himself at the private meeting. He accused Republicans of rooting against an economic recovery and warned them to stop “frightening” the American people.

Republican leaders were in no mood to be lectured by our socialist president. Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) accused Obama of pushing a “job-killing agenda,” and told him the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to regulate carbon dioxide was ludicrous. (More on that here.) House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-IN) accused the Obama Administration of not “getting it,” and said, “We can’t borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy.”

How ironic that President Obama blew up his own meeting. He couldn’t control his extreme partisanship even in a meeting intended to find common ground on creating jobs. It was another reminder that his promise to bring the country together and seek bi-partisanship has been replaced with “slash and burn” ideology that attempts to smear conservatives as enemies of all humanity and decency. If only he were this tough on Ahmadinejad and other world tyrants!

Why It Matters

Earlier this week, the Obama Administration announced that it would unilaterally regulate carbon emissions unless Congress adopted a cap and trade scheme. I’ve devoted a lot of space in this report to explaining the tremendous implications of cap and trade, but you could summarize it this way: a cap on our prosperity that trades our liberty for a radical ideology. Tuesday, the White House made clear what that ideology is – Soviet-style socialism.

Responding to the EPA’s announcement that it would begin regulating carbon, a top White House official issued a blunt threat to our elected representatives: “If you [Congress] don’t pass this legislation [cap and trade], then … the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area. And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”

That statement is a declaration of war against working families and America’s free-market economy. The White House is telling Congress to pick its poison – cap and trade or command-and-control. That’s extortion, but that’s the “Chicago way,” isn’t it? And when did White House officials start using phrases like “command-and-control”? I thought command-and-control economies died with the Soviet Union.

This threat gives you some idea of just how devastating cap and trade is for the economy. The White House is unintentionally admitting, “We know cap and trade is bad. But the EPA regulations would be really, really bad.” The administration is playing a game of chicken with the economy in the middle of a severe recession.

There is a way out of this – rein in the bureaucracy and reduce the size and scope of government. Congress can amend the Clean Air Act to strip the EPA of authority over carbon emissions. That would be the most logical thing to do. Sadly, many liberal politicians are ideologically biased against common sense and fundamental economics. (If you needed any more evidence of the radical ideology behind climate change, a leader of the Chinese delegation in Copenhagen just announced that population control “fits right into the picture.”)

So, what’s the alternative? Clint Eastwood’s famous line comes to mind: “Go ahead, make my day.” Pollster Scott Rasmussen found that just 24% of American adults felt the EPA should act unilaterally to regulate carbon emissions. Conservatives ought to call Obama’s bluff: They should fight cap and trade tooth and nail, and dare Obama to destroy the economy with his command-and-control ideology. Ulysses S. Grant said, “I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.” Perhaps it’s time to test that method.

In recent reports, I’ve focused on the economic realities of cap and trade. But today I want to zero in on the radical ideology behind it. I’ve mentioned it before, but it is worth repeating as it underscores the tremendous consequences of elections and informed voting.

Writing at Forbes.com, Joel Kotkin discusses the disturbing “de-development” agenda behind cap and trade. Cloaked in noble notions of saving the planet from global warming, cap and trade is economic suicide, which is why China and India won’t agree to it. (So why should we?) The goal is to destroy capitalism and bring America to its knees. Here’s an excerpt from Kotkin’s column:

“To deal with this looming crisis, Holdren in the 1977 book Ecoscience (co-authored with Anne and Paul Ehrlich) developed the notion of ‘de-development.’ …The only way to close ‘the prosperity gap’ was to lower the living standards of what he labeled ‘over-developed’ nations. [That’s us!] …

“So who benefits…? Hegemony-seeking communist capitalists in China might fancy seeing America and the West decline to the point that they can no longer compete or fund their militaries. A weakened European Union or U.S. also won’t be able provide a model of a more democratic version of capitalism to counter China’s ultra-authoritarian version. …De-industrialization means the West falls back while emerging economies grow…”

In case you don’t know, the “Holdren” Kotkin refers to above is Dr. John P. Holdren, President Obama’s science czar. Let me connect the dots again: We have a president who has vowed to bankrupt the coal industry, an energy secretary who wants $8.00 a gallon gas and a science czar who wants to “de-develop” the United States (and who has also advocated forced abortions and sterilizations).

Energy is the lifeblood of America’s economy, our national security and your standard of living. Few issues could so negatively effect our country’s future and our children’s futures as cap and trade, and that’s why it matters.

Sarah Palin’s book is a best seller in this country, but I can guarantee that the best seller in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Iran will be a report written and posted online by the Transportation Security Administration. The TSA report outlined the inside secrets about our airport screening and security procedures. I can just see the terrorists lining up at the local jihadist book store in Tehran.

The information posted is incredible, including: “examples of identification documents that screeners accept, including congressional, federal air marshal and CIA ID cards; and it explains that diplomatic pouches and certain foreign dignitaries with law enforcement escorts are not subjected to any screening at all. It said certain methods of verifying identification documents aren’t used on all travelers during peak travel crushes.”

If someone in the private sector posted a company’s trade secrets online, they would be fired in minutes, no questions asked. But the fact that no government official likely will be fired for this breach of security perfectly demonstrates the futility of granting the government more responsibility and power. I can’t wait to find my health records posted online when ObamaCare goes into effect!

S.O.S. – Stop Obama’s Spending!

I could write ten pages today on the errors of President Obama’s economic address yesterday at the liberal Brookings Institution. But I know your time is valuable, so I’ll limit myself to just two points.

First, the president attacked the Bush Administration yet again. To borrow a phrase from the Left, it’s time to move on. You’re in charge now – the buck stops with you, Mr. President. But it was also very odd to watch President Obama attack a program he voted for (TARP) and in doing so condemn many of the officials in his administration who were responsible for that program.

His Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, was president of the New York Federal Reserve and played a key role in the formulation of TARP, as did Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who Obama just nominated for a second term. If Obama thinks so poorly of the program, how much sense does it make to keep these guys around?

Second, his policies aren’t helping. The stimulus spending has been a failure – at least in meeting Obama’s stated goals to create millions of jobs and keep unemployment at 8%. Undaunted, Obama is doubling down on that bad bet – using TARP money to finance another stimulus spending bill.

There is some logic to a government’s deficit spending in bad economic times. But that assumes the government will rein in spending when things improve. This administration shows no sign of reining things in. In fact, Obama said yesterday that his plan is to “spend our way out of this recession.” And he’s hitting the accelerator.

New debt figures were released yesterday. During Obama’s first year in office, the United States government ran a $1.4 trillion deficit. At the rate things are going now, our annual deficit in Obama’s second year could exceed $1.7 trillion. This level of spending is unsustainable, and it’s just not possible to raise taxes high enough to support it. But that won’t stop the liberals from trying, and their planned tax hikes will destroy the economy.

Last night, the United States Senate voted 54-to-45 to kill an amendment by Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT). The Nelson/Hatch amendment would have prohibited taxpayer dollars from subsidizing abortions in ObamaCare. This vote virtually guarantees that the socialized medicine scheme will use your hard-earned money to pay for the destruction of innocent life. This vote comes in spite of the fact that two polls last month conducted by the liberal media found that 61% of the American people oppose taxpayer-funding of abortion.

It is also being reported that Senate Democrats have reached a breakthrough on the public option. According to various reports, the deal involves expanding Medicare to include uninsured individuals 55 years old or older, some combination of private and non-profit health insurance options as well as a public option trigger. There are several problems with this approach, including that Democrats are proposing to expand Medicare while cutting half a trillion dollars from its budget.

He Said What?!

Al Arabiya reports that Iranian “president” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is claiming that the West, and the United States in particular, is preventing the coming of the Islamic messiah, known as the “hidden imam.” Here is Ahmadinejad’s statement: “They have devised all these plans to prevent the coming of the Hidden Imam because they know that the Iranian nation is the one that will prepare the grounds for his coming and will be the supporters of his rule.”

Before you dismiss Ahmadinejad’s statement as the rantings of a madman, it is vital to understand the context. In Ahmadinejad’s Shiite fundamentalist mind, it is his job to prepare the world for the coming of the hidden imam through an apocalyptic confrontation with the enemies of Islam (that’s us). If he believes we are preventing the coming of the Islamic messiah, then anything he does to hasten that coming is justified. That could mean unleashing a new wave of terrorist attacks around the world or even developing and using a nuclear weapon against America or Israel.

As bizarre as Ahmadinejad’s statement is, what is even stranger is the continued insistence of the Obama Administration on negotiating with this lunatic as if he were behaving rationally. He is not. There is nothing we can offer that would dissuade him from pursuing Armageddon. With each passing day, our delay in confronting this growing threat makes us less safe.

Why It Matters

My friends, it is difficult to overstate the profound impact of the Obama Administration’s decision to regulate carbon emissions. This move could have a devastating effect on our standard of living. Yesterday, I noted how environmental regulations in Germany have led to electricity prices that are three times higher than ours and $8.00 a gallon gas. It’s hard to imagine that any politician would think that is a good idea, but that’s exactly what the Left has done in Germany, and that’s exactly what it wants to do here.

Barack Obama said his cap and trade program would bankrupt the coal industry. Well, America gets half of its electricity from coal. (Once Obama bankrupts the coal companies, will they be eligible for a government bailout like GM?) And I suppose it is just a coincidence that President Obama’s Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, advocated for European-style gasoline taxes just last year, telling the Wall Street Journal in September 2008, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” If higher electricity prices and more pain at the pump aren’t enough, how do you feel about paying twice as much for food?

In June, Robert Zubrin of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies wrote an excellent article on the impact of cap and trade to America’s agriculture industry. Here’s an excerpt:

“If you tax carbon, you tax fertilizer and pesticides. If you tax these things, you tax food, and by no small amount. A $15/ton CO2 tax would increase fertilizer production costs directly by about $60/ton, with the cap-and-trade bill’s increased transport costs inflating the burden still more. That’s enough to make many farmers use less fertilizer, and less fertilizer means less food.

“To get a sense of what it would mean for farmers to abandon fertilizer, … go to the supermarket and compare the price of the ‘organic’ produce, grown without chemical fertilizer, to the regular produce, which… typically costs less than half as much. It is one thing for wealthy organic food buffs to voluntarily pay such high prices for their food — that is their right. But to impose such costs for basic groceries on everyone else, and particularly the poor, as part of a largely symbolic effort to try to change the weather, is self-indulgent in the extreme.”

Liberals just can’t contain themselves. When they start losing a debate, they resort to epithets. Yesterday, Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid went to the Senate floor and denounced opponents of socialized medicine by comparing them to defenders of slavery and opponents of civil rights. Reid said:

“Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.’ …When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”

[For those who don't understand why Reid is way off on his statement: Republicans today aren't saying "slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough." They're saying "start over"!  There's a BIG difference.  Republicans want change in health care too (and they've made propositions for the past X years including this year), but not the change that Liberals are forcing down our throats.]

Media reaction so far has been subdued, and that’s not surprising – there’s a different standard for liberal politicians. You’ll no doubt recall that leftwing pundits lectured the town hall protestors this summer for their incivility for daring to question the wisdom of government-run healthcare. Yet they are silent when liberal leaders display their own incivility and contempt for the American people. Sadly, this is nothing new for Harry Reid. This summer he called the town hall protesters “evil mongers.”

Our liberal elites just can’t imagine why anyone would oppose socialism. What’s not to love about government bureaucrats denying needed surgeries, arthritis medication and cancer treatments?