Big Dogs House

Climate Bill Grows Government Power

Jul 6, 2009 Political

The massive climate bill that passed the House is a monster that gives the federal government even more power and allows it to be more intrusive in our lives. This bill, that passed even though NOT ONE member read the 1200 pages, is the government’s reaction to a trace gas called CO2. The environmental wackos and other assorted tree huggers (trees need CO2) are pushing for passage of this so that Obama can sign it into law.

This is another bill that needs to be rejected. It gives government a huge amount of power. The bill allows government to redistribute wealth, requires builders to meet California standards, and will require homeowners to make their houses compliant with the requirements of the bill before they can sell. If your house is not up to the California standard you will be required to get it that way before you can sell. This bill will also cost us jobs:

An analysis of the legislation by scholars at the Heritage Foundation think tank estimated that U.S. unemployment will increase by nearly 2 million — including over 52,000 Michigan jobs lost — in 2012, the first year of the program.

In addition, the assessment estimates a loss of $9.4 trillion in U.S. Gross Domestic Product by 2035.

~And it will have little effect on the climate;

While the bill does not specify the impact of its carbon dioxide cap-and-trade elements on the earth’s temperatures, John Christy — a climate scientist who once led the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment — told me the bill’s effects would, at best, reduce our planet’s average warmth by an undistinguishable[sic] two tenths of one degree.

John Christy who once led the UN’s IPCC (the thing climate alarmists always point to as a consensus) is saying it will have an effect of dropping the temperature 0.2 degrees. It won’t be cheap, it will cost us lots of jobs and it will not work.

That is Obama and his administration in a nutshell. From stimulus to health care to cap and trade, the results are all the same. More government and fewer results.

Share on Facebook

Tags: california, cap and trade, climate, homeowners, job losses

California’s Problems Foreshadow Life Under Obamacare

Jul 6, 2009 Political

Kevin Hassett at Bloomberg has an interesting article up describing the financial mess in California and how the state’s issuance of IOUs will kill “Obamanomics.” The article says that California politicians offered too many easy government solutions to the masses in order to get elected and now they cannot pay for those easy solutions.

The state is sending out IOUs to those owed money (with the exception of certain protected groups). Imagine what would happen if you sent the state an IOU for your taxes…

Hassett says the debacle in California will certainly sink Obama’s health care ambitions:

The California morass has Democrats in Washington trembling. The reason is simple. If Obama’s health-care plan passes, then we may well end up paying for it with federal slips of paper worth less than California’s. Obama has bet everything on passing health care this year. The publicity surrounding the California debt fiasco almost assures his resounding defeat.

As the article points out, California got into this mess over time by spending too much. The amount California spent is a drop in the bucket compared to what Obama is spending.

Health care, Social Security, Medicare, tax refunds (if anyone ever gets one with increased taxes), and all kinds of other things will come with IOUs. Don’t worry granny, we’ll get you your check as soon as we can. Hope you stocked up on cat food.

The nearly one trillion dollars spent on the stimulus is money we had to borrow and we got no stimulation from the expense. Some will argue it means we need to spend more. That is the kind of moronic thinking that gave us the Great Depression.

Obama care will cost more than the stimulus and we don’t have money to pay for it.

Instead of IOUs for money (which many will undoubtedly get) we could be seeing IOUs for CAT scans, cancer treatment, flu shots or any number of things. We might have to start waiting 6 months for an MRI like the do in Canada (unless you are an animal, then you get it immediately).

California is a small version of the US and what is happening there will certainly happen at the federal level. Wouldn’t it be nice if it were that state that put an end to Obama care?

We have no money now and are still digging the hole. By the time Obama is done we will be through to the other side of the world.

Share on Facebook

Tags: california, health care, iou, Obama

Personal Responsibility- What’s That?

May 20, 2009 Political

Movie history was made this week, as the Governator was slapped down regarding the ballot measures that would have allowed the California Budget to be “reduced” from a staggering 21.5 billion dollar deficit to a mere 15+ billion dollar deficit. Okay- this is where it gets a little strange, because if I have a -21 dollars in my pocket, I can just SAY I have a -15 dollars in my pocket. It’s all the same NOTHING that I have (or not, depending on whether you are Democrat or Republican, I guess) in my pocket. It’s all a shell game, performed unconvincingly by the politicians, first in California, and soon to come to a Capital Dome near you.

The measures, which would have prolonged tax increases, capped state spending, earmarked money for education and involved the state in a complex borrowing scheme against its lottery, were rejected by roughly 60 percent of those who voted. The failure of the measures, combined with falling revenues since the state passed its budget, leaves California with a $21 billion new hole to fill, while foreclosure rates and unemployment remain vexing problems here.
The Pols take non- money, and make more of the non- money to pay for these programs they want so desperately. It is no longer a question of whether the program is even worthy or not. There is just no money to pay for it, or any others either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/us/20vote.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

When regular folks run low on money, we all have to tighten our belts, but not so the politicians, as we can see. This continues a long and shameful tradition of “borrowing” from every source of money, including the Social Security program, which was never very robust, earning only around 1.5% per year as it was. Now, however, there is no money. Let me say this again.

THERE IS NO MONEY. All of this spending, all this stimulus, all this tarp money is just an illusion that the present government, as have all the past governments dearly wanted you to believe in.

Money has only so much buying power as the government’s word guarantees- and this one is writing checks with his mouth that noone can cash. That’s unfortunate, but true.

The Chinese, who had been buying our bonds, have ceased doing so, and Barama has been trying to get lines of credit at the nearest branch of Saudi Arabia with little luck.

I’ve got an idea- stop every new program, look at all other programs to see whose we can safely cut, and by the way, rescind all of those raises Congress hasn’t earned. Congressional employees are OUR employees, and I know I didn’t okay a raise- did you?

No new “green” programs until we know of a system that works- it’s way too expensive to go charging off in a direction that holds no true promise.

Health care needs to remain private, but I agree that access and affordability are key to the whole process. Cutting costs has to happen for the Insurance Industry, but one thing that needs to change is our habits. Use the insurance for when you need it not just for any old bruise or sprain- that is a part of the rise in costs. The insurance companies need to begin charging real world prices, and the most onerous part of the whole process, paperwork, needs to end.

I know that there will be those who will say that the government needs to regulate health care, but there is nothing government does well, and I wouldn’t expect them to begin now. If government governs best when it governs least, as Thomas Jefferson once said, government health care should be the smallest component of the whole process, and the least intrusive. If government could smooth the process, well and good, but government doesn’t do smooth very well. This would be a new dance for them.

I know Barama has all these really great ideas he wants to try out, but now is not the time to do this, and yet he goes right on ahead, oblivious to the fact that he is holding monoply money, for all the guaranteed value it really has right now.

Only when we institute fiscal responsibility, will we be truly able to do things socially that might or might not need to be done.

I have an idea- Why don’t ALL members of Congress- both parties, and the President too- turn their pockets inside out, just so that reminds them just how broke we really are.

Perhaps then they will get the picture.

Share on Facebook

Tags: bankrupt, california, china, health care

Why Can States Delay Your Refunds?

Feb 16, 2009 Political

First it was the state of California and now it is Kansas. These states are issuing IOUs for taxpayer refunds because they are out of money. A refund means that the taxpayer paid too much in and if that is the case why does the state not have the money? It is quite simple to answer. The states spend the money when it comes in and they have little regard for the budgetary process.

It is interesting to note that states with problems are run by Democrats either as the governor or as a majority in the legislature or both as in the state of Maryland whose fiscal mismanagement has led the politicians to depend on pork from the stimulus bill to avoid laying off employees.

Yes, the governor of California is a registered Republican and that is as far as he goes. He is a RINO and the state is run by Democrats who turn a blind eye to illegal immigration and tax residents and businesses so heavily that they pack up and leave. California is on the verge of financial collapse and it is mostly due to unsound fiscal policy and burdensome taxation.

I want to know what gives the state the right to delay paying you YOUR money? If you owe taxes they want them right away. Delay in paying your fair share will result in penalties and interest. Will these states pay penalties and interest to the people who are owed money?

Interestingly, a report from July 2008 discussed states with looming financial problems and several were noted as being financially strong:

States where the housing market is in a slump also are facing severe financial challenges, including California, Delaware, Florida and Massachusetts. To address the issue, many states have reduced their current-year revenue forecasts, in some cases several times.

However, says National Conference of State Legislatures Executive Director William “Bill” Pound, energy producing states appear to have a strong fiscal situation and a good outlook for fiscal year 2009.

This, Pound says, is the case for states like Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, Louisiana and Texas — though those states have no personal income tax or corporate income tax. San Antonio Business Journal

Several things come into play. The states doing well are energy producers. In addition, they have no personal or corporate income tax. States without energy production facilities would still benefit if they reduced personal and corporate taxes. Texas has done well for quite some time and a recent report indicates that even though the state feels the economic distress it is doing well because of sound fiscal policy.

States like Kansas and California would do well to pay attention. Imagine how well California could be doing if it allowed offshore drilling for the abundance of oil under its property. It would also do the state well to reduce taxes on its citizens and the businesses that remain there. Tax cuts always increase revenue. If the revenue is not spent recklessly then the result is good. Unfortunately, most politicians have not grasped that concept.

The federal government would have done well to follow the model of Texas and the others. Instead of canceling the oil exploration and drilling leases the feds should have gone ahead with it. That industry would produce plenty of jobs and it would help the economy. The stimulus should have included a reduction in the corporate tax rate. I think it should have been suspended for a year and then brought back to half of what it is now.

This would have stimulated the economy. However, the goal of the bill was not so much to stimulate the economy as it was to put special projects into place and to pay off political supporters. Very little in the bill will stimulate and certainly not nearly as much as cutting taxes and increasing domestic energy exploration and production.

Just ask Texas.

Share on Facebook

Tags: california, fiscal, kansas, liberals, refunds, states, taxes, texas

What Did Democrats Say About The Constitution?

Jan 27, 2009 Political

For the last eight years Democrats have told us time and again that George Bush shredded the Constitution. They complained about the warrantless wiretaps of overseas calls that involved Americans and said it was a violation of Constitutional rights. I pointed out several court cases where the courts concluded it was an inherent right of the president and that Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter had done the same thing. That did not stop the liberals from screaming about the Constitution. The courts recently upheld the inherent right of the president.

The funny thing about all this is that Democrats will ignore the Constitution. HR 45 is a gun control bill that infringes upon the rights of gun owners and those who want to own guns. The left routinely looks for ways to limit or remove guns from society and take them from law abiding citizens in direct violation of the Second Amendment.

It is the left who shouts “separation of church and state” when they want to remove some item of religion from the public (usually Christian items) but the Constitution contains no such words and specifically states that Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. The Democrats like to find things in the Constitution even if they do not exist. Abortion and separation of church and state are not in that document.

Funny though, the Constitution does put Congress in charge of interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) but that is one that Barack Obama has taken away from them and given to the states (more specifically California). I like the way Democrats cried that George Bush usurped his authority and that he involved himself in legislative business and assumed too much power for the executive when Obama removed the Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce which is clearly a legislative function.

Barack Obama will grant the waiver allowing California to set its own tailpipe emission standards. Other states will follow suit but California had requested the waiver. This act removes the regulation of interstate commerce (with regard to automobile emissions) from Congress and, at the present, gives it to California.

Putting aside the fact that the auto industry is in bad shape and will be further burdened by this, it still causes other problems. Automobiles are made in different states in the country. Automakers will not make different models because it would be more costly than making all cars so that they conform to California’s standard.

Barack Obama has given California the power to set fuel efficiency and tailpipe emission standards for the country. Whatever California sets, automakers will have to meet and that means the rest of us will have to live with what California sets. Suppose another state gets a waiver and sets a different standard?

This is going to cause a mess and it is because Obama took it upon himself to give a Congressional duty to a state. The uninformed say this is a state issue and belongs in the states but the Constitution is clear on whose responsibility it is to regulate interstate commerce and it is not the individual states. There is no doubt that since cars are made in various states and then shipped to others that this is a matter of interstate commerce.

It is interesting how Obama will give this up as a state right but things that are absiolutely state’s rights issues such as abortion are regulated at the federal level.

This whole situation will end up as one big mess and it will further drive our auto industry into the ground. We have the same issue with gasoline. There are dozens of different blends for different regions of the nation and making so many different kinds is one of the things that drives up the cost and causes problems when a refinery is off line. Allowing states to define the tailpipe emissions of vehicles will cause even more problems.

Democrats claimed that George Bush shredded the Constitution. It looks like the Democrats are not doing a very good job of following it themselves. And to think, Obama was supposed to be a Constitutional lawyer and professor.

Of course, the Constitution Obama follows and is an expert on has a different name…

Source:
My Way News

Share on Facebook

Tags: california, constitution, emissions, Obama, tailpipe standards