Blog @ MoreWhat.com

A perfect example of why the global warming crowd is misguided. Forget the disputes about who is right or wrong on the idea of AGW or whatever it is called now. Seeking solutions to issues, real or imagined, through the government, aka politicians, is never a wise choice.

The title of the piece below from The Hill also muddies the water. It is not a matter of ‘consumers’ seeking changes to the laughable ‘climate change bill’ rather it is a battle between special interests. Lobbyists in the form of manufacturing or industrial interests are facing off with interests who claim to champion consumers.

The public at large or the real consumer, is largely unaware of the specifics in legislation of any kind not to mention the global warming variety. This is a classic case of be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

Not unlike the issue of healthcare reform, the climate change legislation is subject to the business as usual in Washington that one politician after another said was going to change. Not the least of which was the current President. The power brokers in Washington, lobbyists included, still have the last word on legislation. If you go to that trough seeking change you will be subjected to the pecking order which renders no proposal, worthy or otherwise, exempt from producing an outcome not of your choosing.

Consider groups like AARP only involve themselves in this type of action to increase or maintain their membership. Could it be that win or lose so-called consumer groups benefit from these matters by saying they fought for their members? And are the majority of their members even paying attention? Or are they simply delegating their responsibility to someone else as when or if they step up to the ballot box on election day?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Consumers seek climate bill changes
By Jim Snyder
Posted: 07/22/09 06:31 PM [ET]

Consumer groups, including the powerful seniors’ lobby AARP, say House climate change legislation does not do enough to protect households from skyrocketing electric bills or to prevent power companies from reaping windfall profits.

They want the Senate to add more explicit language that requires local utilities to pass along the revenues from the sale of the free emission allowances distributed by the federal government to residential consumers.

Pelosi Statement on June Job Numbers
07/02/2009

Washington, D.C. — Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement on unemployment numbers for June issued today by the Department of Labor.

“Today’s unemployment numbers are another reminder of the years of failure to invest in making Americans the most highly educated and innovative workforce in the world—and years of delay on affordable health care and the clean energy jobs and industries that will sustain our economy for years to come. In full partnership with President Obama, Congress must continue to strengthen and transform America’s economic foundation and improve our competitiveness, and we must do so in a fiscally responsible way.

“We took the first critical step by passing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act earlier this year. Economists tell us unemployment numbers would be worse without the Recovery Act, but that is no consolation for the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs. Last week, the House passed a comprehensive energy solution that will create millions of clean energy jobs, and we will reform our health care system to lower costs for America’s families and businesses.

“This is a time for bold, bipartisan action because Americans who are losing their jobs, homes and health care cannot afford to wait.”

Once again Speaker Pelosi you are wrong. Unemployment numbers are not a reminder of anything about the quality of the American workforce. There has been no failure to invest in education. The cost of education continues to rise and this nation spends more and more each year for less and less in terms of results. American students compared to their global counterparts continue to flat line or decline while the cost per student continues to rise and be financed by the American taxpayer.

Years of delay on affordable healthcare has nothing to do with unemployment either. But it does have something to do with politics and interfering with free market solutions that would make the industry competitive. Medicare, Medicaid and the countless additions beyond the initial intentions for coverage including illegal immigrants and any other mandated requirements have led to out of control spending by government on healthcare. You drive up costs by requiring insurance companies to include your mandates. The only jobs you create are cottage industries that only serve to increase adminstrative costs which account for a third of what we spend on health. And you have enough Obama audacity to demand we reform the healthcare you are desperately trying to destroy.

Clean energy jobs and industries are just a few examples of this decade’s popular political terms designed to provide an excuse for more government interference in the private sector. Industries do not become viable or remain viable by government mandate. You cannot will something to happen by government decree and expect it to be successful. If a product or service is brought to market and has a worthwhile benefit consumers will pay for it. It will succeed or fail on its own merits not because you decide it is something we should do.

Out of control spending was started during the last Bush administration and Obama is quite satisfied to continue with it. There is a rumor that the White House wants to initiate a second stimulus. The first one is not working and you want to start another. Please explain how that is intelligent?

You and President Obama continue to make statements about transparency and accountability. An example of how little there is can be found in your own press release presented here. You make claims but offer no evidence. Just like Obama keeps spawning new websites which claim to offer transparency and accountability yet no details are offered in evidence. Little charts and tables with categories and associated dollar amounts are useless. What you need to show is how much money was given to whom and what were the results specifically. In other words, show me the checks, who signed them, what they paid for and, for instance, how many jobs were created. But just telling us how many jobs were created does nothing. We need proof. Good luck with that.

As a parting note, the claim at the end of your press release that we cannot wait is political-speak for do it now, don’t think about it. Only fools accept those terms. And the evidence related to the claims made by this post’s author will be offered when Speaker Pelosi presents her evidence. Fair is fair.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The community organizer who is friends with the domestic terrorist William Ayers, hate monger Jeremiah Wright and hires friends from the most corrupt political machine (Illinois) has the audacity of something other than hope to reference the founding fathers and call on the public to support his agenda that is anything but American.

Like mutually exclusive terms President Obama insults the meaning of this nation’s Independence Day when he tries to connect the principles of the founding with his socialist agenda. Those who have dismissed the idea that his agenda is socialist overlook nationalizing private industry, spending and government expansion with the intent of complete government control that will render this great country into nothing more than a banana republic.

Addressing our dependence on foreign energy by taxing all we use rather than a transition approach that draws on our own fossil fuel resources until alternatives become viable in a free market is counter to American ideals which rely on the innovation of a free people. Expecting the public to buy into a universal or socialized, government-run healthcare system rather than encouraging free market solutions also runs counter to American ideals. With these two examples only God may know what the Obama agenda has planned for education, immigration and the remainder of his ideas for transforming the United States into another socialist country like some in the EU and others in this hemisphere.

And then we have the impotent GOP. Based on the report below the Senator who lost an election to the community organizer was chosen to give the opposition party response to ObamaGov. While we can all debate whether or not it would have been wise to have a united response from the US regarding turmoil in Iran the larger issues of our own nation under the leadership of Barack Obama seems more to the point or at least an issue of primary importance. We can do little to help others if we cannot help ourselves and the GOP response appears to be a continuance of Republicans being lost in the wilderness.

Will someone please find a way to encourage this nation’s leaders to remove their collective heads from their collective hind quarters and return sensible government to a young nation which just observed its 233rd birthday.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Pres. Barack Obama

On U.S. Independence Day, President Barack Obama is calling on Americans to remember the spirit of the nation’s founders, and to embrace his domestic initiatives. Republican Senator John McCain, meanwhile, wants stronger U.S. language against Iran’s violent crackdown on protesters.

President Obama, in his weekly address, asks Americans to remember the sacrifices and achievements of the men who voted for independence 233 years ago.

“We are called to remember how unlikely it was that our American experiment would succeed at all; that a small band of patriots would declare independence from a powerful empire; and that they would form, in the new world, what the old world had never known - a government of, by and for the people,” he said.

In July, 1776, the representatives of 13 British colonies in America, gathered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, voted to declare independence from Britain and formed a new nation. At the same time, colonists in hastily-organized and poorly-financed militias battled the British Army for several years, until London officially recognized U.S. independence.

Mr. Obama called on Americans to recall those patriots’ spirit and support his plans to reform the U.S. education, health care and energy policies.

“We are not a people who fear the future,” he said. “We are a people who make it. And on this July 4th, we need to summon that spirit once more. We need to summon the same spirit that inhabited Independence Hall 233 years ago today.”

The president is celebrating Independence Day with a traditional barbecue and fireworks on the White House lawn, with 1,200 military families invited to attend. He is also celebrating his daughter Malia’s eleventh birthday. Mr. Obama leaves late Sunday for a week-long trip to Russia, Italy and Ghana.

Sen. John McCain (file photo)

In the weekly Republican Party message, Senator John McCain of Arizona is also paying tribute to the nation’s founding fathers, who he says “stood up to a powerful oppressor and claimed their natural right to liberty.”

McCain is also invoking the patriots’ spirit as he calls on the Obama administration to speak out more forcefully in support of the anti-government protesters in Iran.

“They did not ask us to arm them or come to their assistance with anything other than public declarations of solidarity and public denunciations of the tyrants who oppress them. We have a moral obligation to do so,” he said.

Senator McCain is rejecting earlier White House claims that a more vocal response by Washington would have supported the Iranian government’s claims of U.S. interference.

“Do they really believe Iranians do not know why they are protesting, and who is oppressing them? Do they think Iranians whose votes were discarded, whose voices have been ignored, whose lives have been threatened by the regime they wish to be rid of, will think America has put them in that position?” he said.

U.S. Independence Day is traditionally celebrated with picnics, parades, concerts, fireworks displays, and readings of the Declaration of Independence.

The current President of the United States has expressed shall we say, disappointment, that the GOP is the party of ‘no’ and resists everything and that news sources like Fox rarely have anything positive to say about him.  It is not uncommon for liberals who call in to conservative talk radio to admonish the host for not giving Barack Obama a chance.  The following news report excerpt is representative of the kind of stories about Mr Obama’s agenda which understandably generate negative comments.  How can anyone promote such agenda items which demonstrate appalling stupidity?

Obama Announces New Energy Conservation Steps

“I know light bulbs may not seem sexy,” Mr. Obama said. “But this simple action holds enormous promise because seven percent of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and our businesses.”

The president says the savings will be striking.

“Between 2012 and 2042, these new standards will save consumers up to $4 billion a year,” he said.

In his own words, seven percent of our expenditures for electricity are attributed to lighting.  Therefore the most we could save, assuming we abandoned lighting all together, which we  would not, is seven percent of what we spend.  Not sexy Mr President?  It is not even remotely sexy nor practical.  And if you divide the President’s estimate on savings to consumers for the compact ripoff by the number of households in the US it means less than 10 cents per day per household.  The additional cost of the ‘new’ lamps and questionable life expectancy could easily turn that minuscule saving into a net loss.  If you consider his words on savings and that his usage estimate includes businesses as well as residential use the savings are invisible.

additional data source: US QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

This sort of government action is absolutely brain dead.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Critics say it’s unnecessary and costly. Perfect. Some worry about nukes. Perfect. It could lead to solving the world’s energy problems. Perfect. The Sun is an example of fusion. The Sun is a star. There are lots of stars. They operate for a long time with no utility bill or stoppin’ at the pump. Nature. Perfect. How humans operate within it….. not so perfect.

Maybe those who oppose such things could withhold their criticism long enough to allow the seeds of innovation to grow. So many seem to want things to be perfect but are reluctant to let perfect happen. Perfect.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The world’s strongest laser - powerful enough to create conditions as hot as inside the Sun - was unveiled Friday in the western U.S. state of California for an audience of politicians and scientists.

The stadium-sized National Ignition Facility actually houses 192 lasers that all point towards a tiny blob of hydrogen.

When the lasers shoot, scientists expect the hydrogen will fuse into helium, a chemical reaction like what makes stars burn and nuclear bombs explode.

The project began in 1997 and cost the federal government an estimated $3.5 billion. The government says it will allow scientists to study in a lab what happens in a nuclear explosion. They say it will help scientists assess the safety of the aging U.S. nuclear arsenal.

But critics say the laser is unnecessary and costly. Some also worry it could help develop new nuclear weapons.

Proponents of the giant laser say there is another possible benefit. They say they hope to create a fusion reaction called “fusion ignition.” This reaction could create huge amounts of electricity.

Scientists suggest such reactions could lead to a new green energy source, and eliminate the current dependence on fossil fuels.

California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger hailed the laser as a breakthrough for his state. The unveiling was attended by around 3,500 people.

Scientists say they plan to begin experimenting with fusion ignition by next year.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP and AP.

(Video below provided for perspective)

Among a long list of other witnesses providing testimony on The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 at a hearing by the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on Energy and the Environment (whew!) are Newt Gingrich and Al Gore. Mr Gore’s prepared remarks are available on the House website and the linked text below will retrieve it for you. The excerpt below is representative of Mr Gore’s position on this issue. It expresses eminent crisis and his assertion we must act on it now. He has held this opinion for a long time.

By Repowering America with a transition to a clean energy economy and ending our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels, which is the common thread running through all three of these crises, this bill will simultaneously address the climate crisis, the economic crisis, and the national security threats that stem from our dependence on foreign oil.

We cannot afford to wait any longer for this transition. Each day that we continue with the status quo sees more of our fellow Americans struggling to provide for their families. Each day we continue on our current path, America loses more of its competitive edge. And each day we wait, we increase the risk that we will leave our children and grandchildren an irreparably damaged planet.

While Mr Gore expects you to believe his opinion is conclusive his own words, like Rep Lowey in another post on this blog, betray him. His first argument supporting his opinion in the prepared remarks states, ‘the entire Arctic ice cap may totally disappear in summer in as little as five years if nothing is done to curb emissions of greenhouse gas pollution.’ It would be more convincing if Mr Gore’s phrasing here used the word ‘will’ rather than ‘may.’ It underscores that even Mr Gore cannot be certain of his own view.

In another argument presented regarding the salmon population Mr Gore uses the phrase ‘Researchers are now working to determine the cause….’ While he states the dire consequences of not acting right now on this subtopic he admits the cause is not currently known. To be fair, Mr Gore makes other statements and draws other conclusions that would have to be researched to respond to in this post. And that is beyond the scope of this post by virtue of the time required to perform the task. The point is without dissecting every word in his prepared remarks Mr Gore regularly states all the facts are not available yet urges we act this very minute. And they wonder why so many reject his opinion.

A link is provided below from the subcommittee’s webpage on this hearing. It includes a witness list, an announcement that the hearing will be broadcast today on CSPAN and other links and information.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, Day 4

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Thrilla in Vanilla: Gore vs. Gingrich in Global Warming ‘Showdown’? 

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

A resolution dated April 22, 2009 sponsored by Rep Nita Lowey (D-NY) and at the time of this writing co-sponsored by no one was presented at The Hill dot com’s Congress Blog by its author. Dismissing those who do not share her view on global warming as ‘deniers’ Lowey injects plenty of insulting rhetoric but appears to expect anyone reading her post (which is crossposted at HuffPo) to take her claim on faith. Lowey claims the evidence for global warming caused by humans is ‘conclusive’. But of course no details or links are provided to make her case.

The First Step is Admitting You Have a Problem (Rep. Nita Lowey)
April 22nd, 2009

In the past month, the House Minority Leader called the idea that carbon dioxide - a greenhouse gas and known carcinogen - is dangerous “almost comical,” and members of his party suggested that the planet is actually cooling and “carbon-starved” and invited a global warming denier as a public witness to a Congressional hearing on the topic.

As anyone with experience with recovery knows, the first step in addressing a crisis is to admit that you have a problem. Unfortunately, these displays and others make it increasingly clear that, despite conclusive scientific evidence on the existence of global warming and the human role, some elected officials refuse to take Step 1.
As Congress begins the process of legislating to protect humans and ecosystems from the effects of global warming, I believe we need a “temperature check.”

It is interesting that Rep Nita Lowey makes the statements above with such conviction. Yet the resolution she authored and introduced in Congress April 22nd in stark contrast has no such confidence. She offers seven ‘whereas’ statements which list her arguments supporting that human activity causes global warming. But twice she is only mildly hinting that such is the case with two statements. ‘Recognizing that the climate system of the Earth is warming and that most of the increase in global average temperatures is very likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas emissions.’ And ‘Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives– (1) recognizes that the climate system of the Earth is warming and that most of the increase in global average temperatures is very likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas emissions; and (2) recognizes legislation is needed to mitigate risks humans and ecosystems face from a warming climate system.’

Seven details in an effort to support her claim that we are causing global warming followed by two statements in her conclusion that this is ‘very likely’ rather than something reflecting she is convinced by her own argument. Maybe she missed arguments to the contrary or in her zeal to support her political party dismissed everyone that disagrees as a ‘denier’. There was an article in the Politico which offered the following last November.

Scientists urge caution on global warming
By: Erika Lovley
November 25, 2008 04:48 AM EST

Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.

There are scientists on both sides of this issue. Another excerpt from the same article points out one example.

Armed with statistics from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climate Data Center, D’Aleo reported in the 2009 Old Farmer’s Almanac that the U.S. annual mean temperature has fluctuated for decades and has only risen 0.21 degrees since 1930 — which he says is caused by fluctuating solar activity levels and ocean temperatures, not carbon emissions.

The article also stated ‘most’ scientific bodies support the notion of global warming and our involvement in it. Organizations may not reflect the opinion of everyone connected to their organizations. But over 30,000 scientists who signed the Petition Project since 1998 make an even stronger case than global warming or cooling. They have objected to the idea that the debate is over and the science is done. That presents an intelligent and reasonable conclusion. Science has always been about continuing the pursuit and regularly challenging theories and discoveries. Galileo risked his life for that pursuit as did others. Some people take science seriously. Here’s a snapshot of what the project and the signers are ‘about’.

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

In contrast to that and published in 1992 the Union of Concerned Scientists which boasts 250,000 members including scientists and ordinary citizens offered their National Call to Action on Global Warming which proposes essentially taking all sorts of steps to eliminate human causes of global warming. For an organization that gives at least some impression of being science related they have a troubling list of organizations supporting their position. That list may have a political agenda or at least be characterized as special interest. Or another way of putting it is lobbyists. Decide for yourself, here’s the list.

Organizations Endorsing the National Call to Action on Global Warming:

1Sky * ACORN * Alliance for Climate Protection * Audubon * Catholic Healthcare West * Center for International Environmental Law * Ceres * Clean Water Action * Climate Law and Policy Project * Climate Protection Campaign * Climate Solutions * Defenders of Wildlife * Democracia USA * Earthjustice * Eco-Equity * Ecology Center * Energize America * Energy Action Coalition * Environment America * Environment and Energy Study Institute * Environment Northeast * Environmental Law and Policy Center * Green for All * Greenpeace * Health Professionals for Clean Air * Hip Hop Caucus * ICLEI USA * Insitute for Agriculture and Trade Policy * Interfaith Power and Light * International Forum on Globalization * Kyoto USA * League of Conservation Voters * League of Women Voters * League of Young Voters * Massachusetts Climate Action Network * National Hispanic Environmental Council * National Teach-In on Global Warming Solutions * National Wildlife Federation * Oceana * Oxfam * Physicians for Social Responsibility * Progressive Future * Public Citizen * Religious Witness for the Earth * Rock the Vote * SEED Coalition * Sierra Club * Southern Alliance for Clean Energy * Teleosis Institute * The Humane Society of the United States * The Student Public Interest Research Groups * The Wilderness Society * Union of Concerned Scientists

This post does not suggest global warming does or does not exist. It does not even suggest whether humans are or are not responsible in whole or in part. But this is what it does suggest. Those who dismiss opposing viewpoints are ignoring scientific method. Just because you may want the argument resolved or that it would be expedient does not gurantee the science will support it or be available now.

As stated earlier in this post, Lowey is not even convinced it is real. That is why pursuing legislation based on the SWAG method is ridiculous. Check your politics and special interest agendas at the door. Causing panic to rush to legislation is a very good sign the proposal is flawed. That is what the science should help you avoid. Listen to the more than 30,000 scientists telling you the answer is not here yet.

Stanford Matthews
Morewhat.com

With Congress not in session there has been less reason or urgency to monitor House and Senate websites. A casual pass by several of the usual suspects is responsible for the following small tidbit. Most of the quotes and the post itself are from March of this year. But it is still relevant. Read it with the caveat that members of political parties do not promote bipartisanship from a position of strength. The news media and blogs are filled with stories about the GOP fall from grace in abandoning longstanding conservative principles even if the effort was never unanimous. And to a lesser degree the question is always present on how long it will take the Democratic party majority to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

To repeat , no members of political parties promote bipartisanship from a position of strength. This means the White House and Congress being filled almost exclusively by members of both parties are aware of their own peril. Polls show it. Public outrage shows it. And even some of the politicians themselves show it. That is one reason this post with an item from the Republican Senate leadership website is presented.

Anyone who is concerned about the future of our country has cause to worry.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Budget Chairman And 14 Senate Dems Decry Fast-Tracking Energy Tax, Health Care Reforms But Take No Responsibility For Removing The Option

SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND) ON FAST TRACKING SWEEPING REFORMS: “I would just say I am going to argue strenuously against it in conference committee. The Senator asked me what will be the result. I don’t know. Am I going to be able to prevail in the conference committee on this matter? I don’t know.” (Sen. Conrad, Congressional Record, S.3957, 3/30/09)

SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND): “I have said publicly and privately what I believe. I don’t believe reconciliation was ever intended for the purpose of writing this kind of substantive reform legislation such as health care reform, such as climate change.” (Sen. Conrad, Congressional Record, S.3957, 3/30/09)

SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D-WV): “I was one of the authors of the legislation that created the budget ‘reconciliation’ process in 1974, and I am certain that putting health-care reform and climate change legislation on a freight train through Congress is an outrage that must be resisted.” (“The End Of Bipartisanship For Obama’s Big Initiatives?” The Washington Post, 3/22/09)

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “‘Reconciliation tends to be partisan,’ Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus said. ‘It’s not a good idea.’” (“Dems Resistant To Using Reconciliation For Climate Bill,” Congress Daily AM, 3/11/09)

SEN. BEN NELSON (D-NE): “That’s a deal-breaker.” (“Obama Budget Set for Debate Next Week in U.S. House and Senate,” Bloomberg, 03/27/09)

SEN. BYRON DORGAN (D-ND): “It unnecessarily short circuits Congress’ ability to more fully debate this complex and multi-faceted public policy issue.” (Letter To Sens. Conrad & Gregg, 3/13/09)

SEN. TOM CARPER (D-DE): “And Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) warned Monday that Democrats could do ‘serious damage to our bipartisan effort’ if they start talking ‘in earnest about putting [health care reform] in reconciliation.’” (“GOP Warns About Budget Hardball,” Politico, 3/24/09)

SEN. RON WYDEN (D-OR): “[W]e want to do it by bringing Democrats and Republicans together and making the issue of reconciliation on the issue of health care reform irrelevant.” (Sen. Wyden, Congressional Record, S.3972, 3/30/09)

SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-AK): Q: “Will you commit to supporting efforts to bring up important legislation under budget reconciliation rules even if other moderate Democrats try to stop that?” SEN. BEGICH:
“I’ll tell you, Rachel, the answer is probably no.” (MSNBC, 3/19/09)

SEN. MARK PRYOR (D-AR): “I really do hope we follow the regular order around here.” (“Democrats Mull End-Run For Obama,” The Washington Times, 3/17/09)

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV): “If you go for budget reconciliation, you’re basically going for a bill that goes nowhere.” (“Bipartisan Senate Group Makes Health-Care Progress,” TIME, 3/13/09)

RECONCILIATION LETTER SIGNED BY:

SENS. ROBERT BYRD (D-WV), EVAN BAYH (D-IN), ROBERT CASEY (D-PA), MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA), CARL LEVIN (D-MI), BLANCHE LINCOLN (D-AR), BEN NELSON (D-NE), & MARK PRYOR (D-AR)

“Using this procedure would circumvent normal Senate practice and would be inconsistent with the Administration’s stated goals of bipartisanship, cooperation, and openness.”
(Letter To Sens. Conrad & Gregg, 3/12/09)

###
SENATE REPUBLICAN COMMUNICATIONS CENTER

There’s something to be said for this. So go ahead, say it.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Besides the thumping given to Ariana Huffington by George F Will on ABC’s This Week (Sunday April 5, 2009) another column by Will ‘drives’ home the point that government meddling in the private sector or attempting to force the public to do what it doesn’t want to do is as ‘feckless’ as other liberal dreams held by those like the HuffPo Queen. (referring to harmony as being inevitable from the roundtable discussion)

Public isn’t buying into auto policy
By George Will
Washington Post Writers Group
Sunday, April 05, 2009

The stunning shift in consumer preferences that should make the White House’s freshly minted auto experts feel vulnerable has been reported under headlines such as “Like a Rock: Hybrid Car Sales Plummet” (Wall Street Journal, Dec. 9) and “Hybrid Car Sales Go from 60 to 0 at Breakneck Speed” (Los Angeles Times, March 17). Absent $4 gasoline, customers do not want the vehicles the politicians want them to want, even with manufacturers now offering large rebates and other incentives. The two best-selling vehicles in America this year are large pickup trucks. (click here to read the rest)

Through Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton and Bush (43) nothing has been done to address the initial ‘heads up’ that oil is vulnerable or that other energy policy and use could benefit from having more options. Beyond the common criticism or debates on who is to blame or why alternatives have not been pursued effectively is the stubborn reality of bringing a product or service or commodity to market. It must be economically viable to succeed.

Just like peace on earth and goddwill toward men, it’s a nice sentiment but won’t happen until enough people want it. The same goes for alternative fuels, hybrids, electric cars or, to borrow a pet phrase from Obama, ‘a host of’ other issues.

Government rarely considers that the millions of people in this or other countries have millions of varying needs and problems to solve on a daily basis. And that government actions and their one size fits all mentality fails to impress. What’s worse is that whatever meddling politicians choose to be interested in is always paid for by the people that do not want it.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

That 2014 is the current deadline for phasing out conventional incandescent lamps in the US makes a recent chronology appear eerie or at least a spectacular coincidence.

A few days ago I read a post at Right Truth regarding Debbie’s experience with the dreaded CFL, or compact fluorescent lamps, that are to replace the conventional incandescent variety. Several times I postponed purchasing replacement lamps determining I could wait until at least the next one to expire met its fate.

After reading the post at Right Truth, go figure, an incandescent lamp in my house failed that evening. I said as much in a comment on Debbie’s blog. As it sits now, related to that I had decided to offer some posts promoting George Will’s columns after reading one entitled ‘The Toxic Assets We Elected.’ You’ll understand why I am offering the suggestion to read another George Will column today when you read the excerpt below.

Okay, it’s another timely, skillful, refreshing contribution from an accomplished individual worth reading. But it has the added value of fitting the uncanny chronology described earlier.

Climate Change’s Dim Bulbs
Written by George F. Will, Washington Post
Thursday, 02 April 2009

The story recounted some Americans’ misadventures with the new light bulbs that almost all Americans — all but those who are filling their closets with supplies of today’s incandescent bulbs — will have to use after the phaseout of today’s bulbs in 2014. (You missed that provision of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007?)

A San Francisco — naturally — couple emerged from Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” incandescent with desire to think globally and act locally, in their home. So they replaced their incandescent bulbs with the compact fluorescents that Congress says must soon be ubiquitous. “Instead of having a satisfying green moment, however,” the Times reported, “they wound up coping with a mess.”

And some want the same people who brought you global warming to manage your healthcare. Now that’s scary.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama and crew had a plan to hit the Sunday morning talk shows and continue to pitch their agenda. Tim Geithner was on NBC’s Meet the Press and ABC’s This Week. There is no ‘hope’ that anything will ‘change’ about the approach of the White House or the Obama administration’s agenda.

One clip had a wall streeter saying when Geithner talked about his plan the first time they hated it. Now they love it. Why wouldn’t they? Private investment in toxic assets has the upside guranteed and the downside protected by the American taxpayer at an advertised rate of 7% for the private sector versus 93% for the taxpayer.

Geithner on This Week once again spoke of his desire for redistributing wealth as shown on this site bofore with his call for more broadly shared gains in future economic growth. While the Obama administration and Mr Geithner have done nothing more than stay on message and gain approval from the Wall Street they demonize by handing them a bailout for the bailout with the taxpayer assuming all the risk the plan to increase the role of government and redistribute wealth continues.

Mr Geithner also pointed out that expanding government’s role in education as well as dominating energy, healthcare and spending like mad on infrastructure for ‘make work’ jobs is still the primary goal of their ’stimulus’. There is nothing stimulating about it.

The anti-climatic appearance of Senator John McCain on Meet the Press after Geithner only served to provide comic relief as his words are still the same also. ‘Reach across the aisle’ and ‘compromise’ while keeping the borders as loose as ever. Okay Senator, you got two things right. The surge worked in Iraq and you supported it early compared to many others. You said the fundamentals of the economy were strong during the campaign and got hammered for it. Obama and crew are essentially using the same rhetoric and not being criticized much for it. Wonderful. And you were right to point out that Obama has gone back on his word about campaign promises like eliminating earmarks. To repeat, nothing has changed.

Obama and crew are buying favor with the same people they claim got us into this mess. And they are using your money to do it. If you see that as the hope and change promoted by Barry and friends and like it, you are definitely off your meds.

One more time, nothing has changed.

The roundtable on This Week featured George Will, Cokie Roberts, Matthew Dowd and Paul Krugman. Krugman of course maintains the Geitherner (Obama) plan is seriously flawed. And he has the credentials to render his opinion worth noting and something more than political opposition.

The rest of the panel provided a reasoned discussion the details of which you may or may not agree. If you are interested in those details it is suggested you view the program on Sundays. Transcripts appeared not to be available at the time of this posting.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Tesla unveils world’s first mass-produced, highway-capable EV
Model S sedan has anticipated base price of $49,900, up to 300-mile range and 45-minute QuickCharge capability

March 26, 2009

HAWTHORNE, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE) —Tesla Motors is now taking orders for the Model S, an all electric family sedan that carries seven people and travels 300 miles per charge.

The Model S, which carries its charger onboard, can be recharged from any 120V, 240V or 480V outlet, with the latter taking only 45 minutes. By recharging their car while they stop for a meal, drivers can go from LA to New York in approximately the same time as a gasoline car. Moreover, the floor-mounted battery pack is designed to be changed out in less time than it takes to fill a gas tank, allowing for the possibility of battery-pack swap stations.

The floor-mounted powertrain also results in unparalleled cargo room and versatility, as the volume under the front hood becomes a second trunk. Combining that with a four-bar linkage hatchback rear trunk and flat folding rear seats, the Model S can accommodate a 50-inch television, mountain bike *and* surfboard simultaneously. This packaging efficiency gives the Model S more trunk space than any other sedan on the market and more than most SUVs.

“Model S doesn’t compromise on performance, efficiency or utility — it’s truly the only car you need,” said Tesla CEO, Chairman and Product Architect Elon Musk. “Tesla is relentlessly driving down the cost of electric vehicle technology, and this is just the first of many mainstream cars we’re developing.”

Tesla expects to start Model S production in late 2011. The company believes it is close to receiving $350 million in federal loans to build the Model S assembly plant in California from the Dept of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program.

Building on Proven Technology

Tesla is the only production automaker already selling highway-capable EVs in North America or Europe. With 0-60 mph in 3.9 seconds, the Roadster outperforms almost all sports cars in its class yet is six times as energy efficient as gas guzzlers and delivers 244 miles per charge. Tesla has delivered nearly 300 Roadsters, and nearly 1,000 more customers are on the wait list.

Teslas do not require routine oil changes, and they have far fewer moving (and breakable) parts than internal combustion engine vehicles. They qualify for federal and state tax credits, rebates, sales tax exemptions, free parking, commuter-lane passes and other perks. Model S costs roughly $5 to drive 230 miles – a bargain even if gasoline were $1 per gallon.

The anticipated base price of the Model S is $49,900 after a federal tax credit of $7,500. The company has not released options pricing. Three battery pack choices will offer a range of 160, 230 or 300 miles per charge.

“Model S costs half as much as a Roadster, and it’s a better value than much cheaper cars,” Musk said. “The ownership cost of Model S, if you were to lease and then account for the much lower cost of electricity vs. gasoline at a likely future cost of $4 per gallon, is similar to a gasoline car with a sticker price of about $35,000. I’m positive this car will be the preferred choice of savvy consumers.”

The standard Model S does 0-60 mph in under six seconds and will have an electronically limited top speed of 130 mph, with sport versions expected to achieve 0-60 mph acceleration well below five seconds. A single-speed gearbox delivers effortless acceleration and responsive handling. A 17-inch touchscreen with in-car 3G connectivity allows passengers to listen to Pandora Radio or consult Google Maps, or check their state of charge remotely from their iPhone or laptop.

Tesla is taking reservations online and at showrooms in California. Tesla will open a store in Chicago this spring and plans to open stores in London, New York, Miami, Seattle, Washington DC and Munich later this year.

About Tesla Motors

San Carlos, Calif.-based Tesla Motors Inc. designs and manufactures electric vehicles with exceptional design, performance and efficiency, while conforming to all North American and European safety, environmental and durability standards. The Roadster, which has a 0-to-60 mph acceleration of 3.9 seconds and a base price of $101,500 after a federal tax credit, is the only highway-capable production EV for sale in North America and Europe. Tesla expects to begin producing the Model S sedan in late 2011. Details and photos are available at www.teslamotors.com.

CONTACT:

Rachel Konrad
Tesla Motors, Inc.
+1 (650) 701-2664
rachel@teslamotors.com

The second reporter called on by President Obama in his 3/24 press conference was entirely lame and appears to be a White House ploy to waste time rehashing the Obama claim that their plan for bailouts will impose sanctions on recipients and transparency and accountability no one has seen with the first half of TARP. The reporter asked if anyone would be asked to sacrifice and mentioned that those acting irresponsibly were ‘cushioned’ from the consequences of their actions by the bailout programs.

Several actions have been the focus of many reports discussing irresponsible acitivity by those looking for bailouts. Wall Street packaged bad subprime loans as worthy investments. Some borrowers speculated on the bubble or lied on their loan docs or accepted a loan for more house than they could afford. Countries all around the world, hence the term global crisis, were as greedy as the rest for buying up CDO’s and other instruments as fast as they could. There is plenty of blame to go around on who acted improperly.

President Obama used this second question from reporter number two as an aid to once again push his argument that has failed more than once already. Blame the prvious administration. Remind whoever will listen that the problem started before he got here. Long term economic growth is his message for deficits that will go out for years and his interest in expanding government including meddling in health care, energy and education more than it already does. The only jobs that may be created are temporary make-work jobs funded by taxpayer dollars.

The only difference in his argument this time is avoiding the punchdrunk laughter suggested in the 60 Minutes fiasco which Mr Chuckles could not hold back when discussing effects of the economic crisis. And we did not have to shake our heads due to another joke in poor taste like the one on Leno’s program. Nothing has changed. Hope and change have been turning to ‘ backlash.’ In past rebuttals to his budget ideas Mr Obama stated that those criticizing his plan had not produced their own. That is not true. The GOP produced a plan more heavily layered with tax cuts and provisions to create more jobs than Mr Obama’s. Yet they were closed out of discussions on the matter by the party in the majority.

Much of what Mr Obama has promised is nowhere to be found. People trying to make contact with his ‘open government’ have been ignored or contacted with irrelevant form letters. Lobbyists are still in the White House and elsewhere in the administration. Earmarks and pork barrel spending still rule the day. Changes to the government have tightened information not loosened it. Disclosure, transparency and oversight are not improved and could be argued to be worse than before. To keep pounding the same message after you have been rebuked numerous times says nothing for one’s leadership skills. All the talk of vetting and having discussions seemed to miss the mark on unveiling an agenda that could have been well received. Not unlike so many failed nominations the President’s agenda appears DOA.

A related item that seems worthy of repeating comes from the 60 Minutes interview when Steve Kroft asked the President if there is a limit to what we can spend? The President replied that we can spend as long as we can borrow the money. The fact that this question and answer were not major headlines throughtout this country rather than the punchdrunk laughter story or the bad joke on Leno is as troubling as Obama’s answer.

If you think we’re in trouble now. Wait until this country’s fine leadership spends us to the point where the governement can no longer borrow money. That will make burying future generations in debt look like a great idea. Trouble is by then it will be a moot point. Think about it.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

One noticeable feature of President Obama’s March 24, 2009 press conference is that he likes the word ‘ host.’ According to the transcript he used it seven times during the press event but it seemed like many more than that. For a scripted press conference one could expect this distraction would have been removed from the program. It makes even more sense now why The Messiah prefers campaign mode and teleprompters. Had to get that out of the way first.

The second issue is the scripting of his performances. Yes, they are more like Hollywood performances reminiscent of the 2008 Presidential campaign and the use of Greek columns for backdrops and concert type venues for The One. At least in press briefings or conferences more typical of Washington it is known that who the speaker calls on for questions has been determined in advance with perhaps an occasional ad hoc invitation for a question or two. But calling on reporters like kids in an elementary school classroom is another unwelcome departure from past practice. Now the second item is out of the way. On to the meat of the subject.

The first reporter tried to ask a pointed question. That is, if using different words, the question could have been are you really a socialist Mr President and will you nationalize much of the private sector using the recession as an excuse? But instead she asked if the public should support or reject Geithner and Bernanke’s errand boy trip to the Hill asking for just such an action. Obama replied that not having the power to take over the private sector is exactly why the bailout mess happened. Gee Mr President, have you ever considered that not acting correctly on mergers and acquisitions that can stifle competition could have avoided the opportunity to call some companies too big to fail? Gee Mr President, is the Justice Department charged with the responsibility of oversight in this regard? Perhaps the SEC as well as other agencies and departments are involved also?

If you want to criticize other administrations for dropping the ball on unrestrained mergers and acquisitions that is quite understandable. But looking to nationalize private sector entities in whole or in part using the excuse of current dilemmas as justification is perverse. So is the growing evidence that Mr Obama and crew would be quite satisfied with a socialist regime in the good ol US of A. Go ahead, criticize this post and author for mentioning the ‘S’ word but then have the rebuttal evidence to support your position. Obama continues to promote nationalizing banks, businesses, energy, health care and increasing government control over education. In other words expanding the role of government in everything about private lives. Inidividual freedom and responsibility will be lost in a country founded on such principles if Obama has his way. Even George Will in a piece cited on this blog suggests the Obama answer and Washington DC in general is to fix things by expanding the role of government. While he has rejected the notion of socialism from Obama in the past this is about as close as he may get to saying it.

The next post will pick up on the question of the next reporter chosen by President Obama. Otherwise these posts will get much too large and unruly.

A related item that seems worthy of repeating comes from the 60 Minutes interview when Steve Kroft asked the President if there is a limit to what we can spend? The President replied that we can spend as long as we can borrow the money. The fact that this question and answer were not major headlines throughtout this country rather than the punchdrunk laughter story or the bad joke on Leno is as troubling as Obama’s answer.

If you think we’re in trouble now. Wait until this country’s fine leadership spends us to the point where the governement can no longer borrow money. That will make burying future generations in debt look like a great idea. Trouble is by then it will be a moot point. Think about it.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Now, they tell us - Pt II: AP really catching on to Obama math! (Michelle Malkin)