.

*** SPECIAL ***

Waxman-Markey:
Man-Made Disaster
___

Fiscal Policy: The House of Representatives is voting TODAY on an anti-stimulus package that in the name of saving the earth will destroy the American economy.

___

Not since the Smoot-Hawley misguided piece of legislation imposed tariffs that turned a recession into a depression has there been a piece of legislation as bad as Waxman-Markey.

The 1,000-plus-page American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) is being rushed to a vote by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi before anyone can seriously object to this economic suicide pact.

It's what Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security, might call a "man-caused disaster," a phrase she coined to replace the politically incorrect "terrorist attack." But no terrorist could ever dream of inflicting as much damage as this bill.

Its centerpiece is a "cap and trade" provision that has been rightfully derided as "cap and tax." It is in fact a tax on energy everywhere it is consumed on everything it is used to make or provide.

It is the largest tax increase in American history — a tax on all Americans — even the 95% that President Obama pledged would never see a tax increase.

It's a political bill that could come to a vote now that a deal was struck with farm-state legislators concerned about the taxation of even bovine flatulence.

As part of the agreement reached Tuesday night and announced by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Beverly Hills, agricultural oversight for cap-and-trade was transferred from the Environmental Protection Agency to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Farmers hope the USDA will be less intrusive. The EPA has been tasked by a Supreme Court ruling to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from your nostrils to your lawn mower. This even covers the emissions of barnyard animals, including the methane from cows.

The American Farm Bureau warns that cap and trade would cost the average farmer $175 on every dairy cow and $80 for beef cattle. So farm-state politics trumped climate change.

We all know about farmers paid not to grow food. But now, American taxpayers apparently will be paying companies not to chop down trees. The Washington Times reports that as part of the legislation, the House will also be voting Friday on a plan [us] to pay domestic and international companies around the world not to cut down trees.

Such offsets "would be a transfer of wealth overseas," said William Kovacs, vice president for environmental affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. So if a tree falls in a Brazilian forest, does a U.S. taxpayer make a sound?

As we've said before, capping emissions is capping economic growth. An analysis of Waxman-Markey by the Heritage Foundation [next-below] projects that by 2035 it would reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion. In an average year, 844,000 jobs would be destroyed, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by almost 2 million (see charts below).

Consumers would pay through the nose as electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, as President Obama once put it, by 90% adjusted for inflation. Inflation-adjusted gasoline prices would rise 74%, residential natural gas prices by 55% and the average family's annual energy bill by $1,500.

Hit hardest by all this would be the "95% of working families" Obama keeps mentioning as being protected from increased taxation. They are protected, that is, unless they use energy. Then they'll be hit by this draconian energy tax.

And what would we get for all this pain? According to an analysis by Chip Knappenberger, administrator of the World Climate Report, the reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 — the goal of the Waxman-Markey bill — would reduce global temperature in 2050 by a mere 0.05 degree Celsius.

President Obama has called on the U.S. to "lead by example" on global warming. During the campaign, he said: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."

Soon we may not be able to. Other countries can just sit back and watch us destroy ourselves.

___

Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill:
Economic Impact by Congressional District

Karen A. Campbell, Ph.D., is Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics and David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst for Energy Economics and Climate Change.

[a quite cool breakdown of what this bill will mean to each of us - keep in mind that the more energy you use the more the numbers go up...]

It has become quite clear over the past several months that placing a cap on carbon emission--via rationing, taxing, and eliminating consumer choice--will have major implications for American families and the economy.

An analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill (as reported out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce) by The Heritage Foundation found that unemployment will increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program, and reach nearly 2.5 million in 2035, the last year of the analysis. Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion. The national debt would balloon as the economy slowed, saddling a family of four with $114,915 of additional national debt. Families would also suffer, as the bill would slap the equivalent of a $4,609 tax on a family of four by 2035.[1]

Heritage is not alone in its assessment. The National Black Chamber of Commerce[2] and the Brookings Institution[3] also project huge job losses. Proponents of a national energy tax will quickly point to a recent Congressional Budget Office memo[4] and Environmental Protection Agency[5] analysis suggesting low per family costs. Those estimates are grossly inaccurate, as both the CBO memo and the EPA's analysis contain flaws too serious for use as measures of the economic impact of the Waxman-Markey bill.

While national numbers are startling, many Members of Congress may be tempted to assume that their congressional districts will not be affected because they "cut a deal" or they have an incomplete view of how the American economy functions. Thus, it is crucially important that the Members making decisions, and the people affected by those decisions, understand how their congressional districts will be impacted by Waxman-Markey, or any type of national energy tax.

The table below lays out six congressional district specific data points:

• Gross State Product Loss in 2012: This number is the amount of economic destruction that will occur in that district in the first year of the cap-and-trade regime.
• Average Gross State Product Loss, 2012-2035: Same as above, only it is the average economic destruction in the district for the bill's first 24 years.
• Personal Income Loss in 2012: This number represents the reduction in consumer spending power in a district in the first year of the cap-and-trade regime.
• Average Personal Income Loss, 2012-2035: Same as above, only it is the reduction in consumer spending power in the district for the bill's first 24 years.
• Non-Farm Job Loss in 2012: Jobs are jobs, and in the first year of the cap-and-trade regime, each district will have significantly less than they otherwise could.
• Average Non-Farm Job Loss, 2012-2035: This number is crucially important because it demonstrates that no district gains jobs, even in the long run; the increase in "green jobs" does not outweigh the decrease in jobs elsewhere.

A Final Note on Jobs

During the "stimulus" debate, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs lamented that "more companies [have] announced mass layoffs."[6] The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines mass layoffs as "where private sector nonfarm employers indicate that 50 or more workers were separated from their jobs for at least 31 days." Under Waxman-Markey, on average each congressional district would experience the equivalent of more than 52 mass layoffs.

Although losing several thousand jobs may not seem like a lot to some politicians who are stuck inside the beltway, the mass layoffs resulting from Waxman-Markey should make any politician--and hard working American--cringe.

Appendix: Table 1

[excerpt of my district, CA 11th/McNerney (Dublin) - open above and find yours...]

THEN {TODAY folks - NOW would be good} >>

"OPPOSE H.R. 2454 (the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009)."


House-Pelosi: http://speaker.house.gov/contact/
YOUR Congressman: https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

or: Speed Message them with your personal distribution list...

and PLEASE PASS THIS ON...
[white envelope lower-left will forward a link to this brief]

.
AND >>>

CALL THE HOUSE SWITCHBOARD and tell 'them'* that you're calling to REGISTER OPPOSITION TO THE WAXMAN-MARKEY BILL...

{* You'll probably get a busy or 'all circuits busy' recording as I have several times (at both numbers) - that's ok, put your call on hold to keep them that way...}

House of Representatives switchboard:
202.225.3121 - 202.224-3121

Please take the time to do your part - despite the focus on economic costs to this bill I personally believe them secondary to the massive transfer of power to control all activity the government will acquire through this bill: if we fail to stop this bill our children will grow up in a country where the government can dictate the cost of all activity - at the cost of personal choice.

So, please forward to everyone you know and call often...

tx.

Oh, and a 'few' FLASHBACKS > ...

.

image toon - 1st iran gwot islm = Death to Satan = Imam, not America

President Obama, Seize the Moment

In 1983, Ronald Reagan used a word to describe the Soviet Union that some of his advisors who wanted engagement with the Soviets wished he wouldn't use. It will anger the Soviet leaders, they said. It will make negotiations impossible.

But Reagan used the word anyway. He called the Soviet regime "evil."

And the impact of that word changed history.

"He could not have helped us better," Lech Walesa, the head of Poland's Solidarity movement, said later. "I don't think any missiles or any army could have been more effective."

President Obama finally spoke forcefully and eloquently about the aspirations of the Iranian people who are demonstrating in the streets of Iran today. His words, "Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history" were particularly meaningful.

Still, President Obama is standing by his policy of engagement with the Iranian theocrats.

Like the advisors to President Reagan, Obama wants to preserve the option of negotiations with Iran. A perfect example of this was the President's refusal in the press conference to address the issue of rescinding invitations to Iranian diplomats of the current Islamic regime to Fourth of July celebrations at U.S. embassies across the world.

But the President's policy of engagement with Iran is dead. The protestors in the streets of Iran killed it.

What's left is a tremendous opportunity - and a tremendous choice - for President Obama. He can use his great rhetorical skills and the resources of the American government to buttress the courage shown by the protestors in the Iranian streets, or he can use them to betray them...

READ MORE

image toon = iran islam crpt 1st fnn = Supreme leader = election as clean as Franken's

Iranian Diplomat: Iran Has Right to Nuclear Weapons

Iran's envoy to the United Nations' atomic watchdog said last week that his country has the right to build nuclear weapons, Agence France Presse reported.

"The whole Iranian nation are united... on [the] inalienable right of [having a] nuclear weapon,"

Ali Asghar Soltanieh said, in an apparent departure from the country's usual refrain that it is only pursuing nuclear energy for civilian purposes.

In addition, the report warned that Tehran has sped up its production of nuclear fuel and has increased its number of installed centrifuges to 7,200—more than enough to make fuel for two nuclear bombs per year.

READ MORE

Toronto 18 attack was to mimic 9/11

It was to be ''the Battle of Toronto,'' a three-day bombing assault aimed at shutting the downtown core, crippling the economy and killing civilians. Members of the so-called Toronto 18 would pack three U-Haul vans with explosives and park them at three locations: the Toronto Stock Exchange; the Front St. offices of Canada's spy agency; and a military base off Highway 401
.
Those were some of the comments made by the alleged Number 2..

[GWOT]

READ MORE

image toon - 1st fnn gwot nsec bdd = Oby repaints lady liberties mantra to include Gitmo murderers

NO EXIT IN JAPAN

Japan's stronger firms have responded relatively quickly to the recession, in marked contrast to the dithering during the "lost decade" of the 1990s. However, it's certain that efforts to keep their struggling companies afloat are hurting them. All of this does enormous harm, says the Economist:

• Tellingly, the shut-down rate of companies in Japan is around half that in America and Britain:
• And the number of corporate insolvencies is expected to increase in Japan this year by only 15 percent, despite the depth of its recession, compared with more than 30 percent in Western Europe and 40 percent in America.

Keeping struggling firms alive fossilizes industry structures and hinders the development of a more flexible labor market and a business environment more supportive of new-company creation -- two areas where Japan is also sadly deficient.

Furthermore, Japan's experience -- a downturn followed by years of stagnation -- serves as a reminder of the importance of destruction in capitalism.

Instead of continuing to prop up struggling companies, Japan and other countries need to let them go under, so that new, better ones can be created...

READ MORE

Americans Still Like Wal-Mart, Say It’s Good for the Community

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans have at least a somewhat favorable view of Wal-Mart, including 24% who are very favorable toward the merchandising giant.

Three-out-of-10 Americans (30%) shop at Wal-Mart at least once a week. Twenty-six percent (26%) rarely or never shop at the store.

While Wal-Mart is often accused of having a negative impact on small, local stores when it moves into an area, 52% of Americans believe, that Wal-Mart is good for the community. Only 28% now say Wal-Mart is bad for the community. [and they're all union workers]

READ MORE

txt mny trade msm = MSM look to teleprompter to give number of jobs saved

Most Oppose More Government Regulation of U.S. Financial System - Obama Ignores

Forty-seven percent (47%) of Americans oppose more government regulation of the U.S. financial system, while just 23% of adults favor giving the Federal Reserve Board more regulatory control.

Fifty-one percent (51%) oppose expanding the Fed’s regulatory powers.

The new survey was taken after the president last week announced a major expansion of regulatory controls over banks and other financial institutions and increases the Fed’s powers over the economy.

[Representative government?]

READ MORE

POLL: 76% Say Government Likely To Waste Stimulus Money

Seventy-six percent (76%) of Americans say it is at least somewhat likely that a large amount of money in the $787-billion economic stimulus plan will be wasted due to inadequate government oversight. Nearly half (46%) say it is very likely, only 18% say it is not likely that taxpayer money will be wasted.

Just 36% of Americans are at least somewhat confident that taxpayer money will be wisely and carefully spent, but that’s down 10 points from February just after the president made his pledge of unprecedented oversight of all government spending and put Vice President Joseph Biden in charge of oversight.

Forty-five percent (45%) of Americans believe the rest of the new government spending authorized in the stimulus plan should be canceled right away.

Obama in a press conference on Tuesday acknowledged that the U.S. economy remains sluggish and reiterated his intention to speed up stimulus spending...

READ MORE

image toon - mny sclm = Stimulus balloons = still down economy

THE NEXT GREAT CRISIS: AMERICA'S DEBT

In 2009 the United States will post a deficit of $1.8 trillion. Even looking forward to 2019, the deficit will still be in the trillions, $1.2 trillion to be exact. But this can't go on forever. What will shock America into action is the prospect of fiscal collapse. And making the challenge far greater: Obama's budget is packed with a wish list of expensive new programs, led by a giant health care reform plan, says CNNMoney.com.

READ MORE

ABC's Jake Tapper Hits Obama for Specifics on Health Care Plan

[Credit where due]

During the June 23 White House press conference, ABC News reporter Jake Tapper sparred with Barack Obama over the details of the President's universal health care plan, bluntly observing,

"...If the government is offering a cheaper health care plan, then lots of employers will want to have their employees covered by that cheaper plan, which will not have to be for-profit, unlike private plans."

Tapper's question, about whether the so-called "public choice" option would actually allow employees to keep the current insurance plans they have now, was a follow-up to a similar one offered by USA Today's David Jackson. After the President failed to answer that query, Tapper began by challenging,

"I wonder if you could actually answer David's? Is the public plan non- negotiable?"

A testy Obama retorted,

"All right, if that's your question ... You think you're going to- are you the ombudsman for the White House press corps? What's your question- is that your question?"

After pointing out how the public option could lead to employers choosing a cheaper, government plan, Tapper continued,

"And then their employees would be signed up for this public plan, which would violate what you're promising the American people, that they will not have to change health care plans if they like the plan they have."

Obama interrupted and attempted to clarify,

"Well, all right- when I say if you have your plan and you like it, and your doctor has a plan- or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don't have to change plans, what I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform."

[Translation: Yes, we'll be forced into the government plan when our employeers cancel their private-insurance coverage to have the tax payers foot the bill.

This is what Obama said on the campaign trail he expects to happen, leaving only the government system in '15 to 20 years'.]

A transcript of the June 23 exchange, which occurred at 1:02pm, follows:

READ MORE

What Does the President’s Promise

"No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people,"

President Obama told the American Medical Association on June 15.

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."

But today the president 'clarified' that promise.

It seems he wasn’t saying “no one” will take away any American’s health insurance – he was saying the government wouldn’t.

Which is not to say that the government wouldn’t create a situation where such a thing would happen...

“Now, there ae going to be employers out there that start start making decisions..."

[Like I just said. I think those folks really think we're that stupid.]

READ MORE

.

SAVING THE PLANET BUT LOSING THE PATIENT

It looks like public hospitals in British Columbia, Canada, will have to cut patient services in order to comply with global warming laws established by the provincial government. According to the Surrey Leader:

• The Lower Mainland's health authorities will have to dig more than $4 million a year out of their already stretched budgets to pay B.C.'s carbon tax and offset their carbon footprints.
• Critics say the payments mean the government's strategy to fight climate change will further exacerbate a crisis in health funding.

"You have public hospitals cutting services to pay a tax that goes to another 100 per cent government- owned agency,"

For example:

• The Fraser Health Authority will pay $616,000 in carbon tax this year, rising to $821,000 next year, officials there said.
• And by 2010 Fraser will pay $1.3 million a year to the province's Pacific Carbon Trust to offset its projected 52,600 tons of carbon emissions released.
• Vancouver Coastal Health Authority also expects its costs will be close to $2 million next year in combined carbon tax and offset payments.

And while human life is threatened, of course, the stated objective of global warming kooks is once again undermined: Dix warned that some of the potential cuts -- such as closing the emergency room at Mission Memorial Hospital -- would actually increase carbon emissions by sending patients further afield...

READ MORE

White House seeks consumer aid in U.S. climate plan

Washington - A portion of the revenue from any U.S. system capping carbon emissions must go toward softening the impact of higher energy prices on consumers, a White House official said on Wednesday. Joseph Aldy, special assistant to the president for energy and the environment, said building a clean energy economy will not be easy.

''There will be those who are going to be vulnerable as we make this transition''

[That would be everyone, and the economy itself.]

READ MORE

.

NOT TOO LATE TO KILL "CAP-AND-TAX" BILL

.
Perhaps the most destructive legislation in our country's history will, as soon as TOMORROW, be voted on in the House of Representatives: the Waxman-Markey tax bill in the guise of addressing climate change [aka: H.R. 2454 (the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009).]. It will have adverse and lingering consequences for every American.

For example:

• It will raise the cost of electricity in our homes, the fuel for our cars and the energy that produces our manufacturing jobs, with little or no environmental benefit.
• Independent experts estimate that it will cost Americans more than $2 trillion in just over eight years.
• All Americans in the Midwest, South and Rocky Mountain regions will be most drastically affected because the climate change legislation will destroy the nation's coal industry and the low-cost electricity it has provided to these regions for generations.
• Wealth will be transferred away from almost every state to the West Coast and New England.

The most abundant and by far least expensive energy source in our country for generating electricity is coal. America's coal reserves rival the energy potential of Saudi Arabian oil.

But this legislation forces America to throw away this tremendous resource, and our low-cost electricity with it. For instance, the legislation discards coal by setting an unattainable cap on carbon dioxide emissions by 2020, with the first reductions due by 2012.

Under the program, businesses that emit carbon dioxide would be required to purchase or obtain from the government special carbon dioxide credits.
This carbon dioxide cap will force utilities to switch from lower-cost coal to natural gas or other more expensive energy sources.

Reliable estimates show that this bill will cost each American family at least $3,000 more in energy costs each year, notwithstanding the $2 trillion cost to the economy in just eight years.

READ MORE

Then >

"OPPOSE H.R. 2454 (the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009)."


House-Pelosi: http://speaker.house.gov/contact/
YOUR Congressman: https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

or: Speed Message them with your personal distribution list...

and PLEASE PASS THIS ON...
[white envelope lower-left will forward a link to this brief]
.

.

No more Briefs today, so you can focus on your above 'homework'...

Politicians aren't real bright, they need time to digest what they're being told, which means your opposition to the above cap-&-tax bill needs be sent TODAY -

Go tell 'em (& thank you).

.