Dec/090
Population Control
Save the Planet Kill Yourself
It is hard to put into words how perverse and disgusting it is to have a country with a law like Population Control. The fact that they are so “Matter of Fact” about it makes it even worse, taking a human life in the name of the government is said to be okay. China has a large population and lots of pollution, and they use this to justify their “one baby per family” rule.
Laws like this devalue the tremendous value that life caries. It is so hard for us to understand because we value life of others more than our own in many cases. Or do we? There is a growing number of Western Nations that would be subdued to the devaluation of life, in the name of government. Look at health care, we and other countries are already putting a value on life in the name of cost cutting. And we are getting articles from journalist like this one from the China Daily that are agreeing and promoting with China’s laws in the name of Global Warming and Global Population Control. It’s sickening to me.
[source: ChinaDaily]
Oct/090
Congress Fights Transparency
Congressional Hall
What a joke! What are these guys scared of when posting bills online. Even this won’t help too much but why not allow the American people who are interested in seeing what their government is pushing on them by simply posting the bills online?
And wasn’t this one of Obama’s campaign promises to post bills and agenda’s online before voting on takes place? Why is Obama not out there excoriating these people and letting them know that this is what he wants them to do?
Bringing trancpericy to our federal government is going to take a lot of hard work and spine. These people know that allowing the American public to see what they are doing and what they are voting on will lead to backlash and possibly the end of their terms.
Follow the Jump to read the Source article:
What you don’t know can hurt you:
» House energy and global warming bill, passed June 26, 2009. 1,200 pages. Available online 15 hours before vote.
» $789 billion stimulus bill, passed Feb. 14, 2009. 1,100 pages. Available online 13 hours before debate.
» $700 billion financial sector rescue package, passed Oct. 3, 2008. 169 pages. Available online 29 hours before vote.
» USA Patriot domestic surveillance bill, passed Oct. 23, 2001. Unavailable to the public before debate.
Sep/090
The Tyranny of Health Insurance:
Obama Health Insurance
It all started with a question. If you are going to impose on every American that they must buy Health Insurance, then what is the penalty if they choose not to?
The answer is very disturbing!
A $25,000 fine or up to a year in jail!
Read more:
| September 25, 2009 Categories: Senate http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall Ensign receives handwritten confirmation This doesn’t happen often enough. Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance. Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it “Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold.” |
| By Carrie Budoff Brown 11:40 AM |
| September 24, 2009 Categories: Senate Flout the mandate penalty? Face the IRS Americans who fail to pay the penalty for not buying insurance would face legal action from the Internal Revenue Service, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. The remarks Thursday from the committee’s chief of staff, Thomas Barthold, seems to further weaken President Barack Obama’s contention last week that the individual mandate penalty, which could go as high as $1,900, is not a tax increase. Under questioning from Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Barthold said the IRS would “take you to court and undertake normal collection proceedings.” Ensign pursued the line of questioning because he said a lot of Americans don’t believe the Constitution allows the government to mandate the purchase of insurance. “We could be subjecting those very people who conscientiously, because they believe in the U.S. Constitution, we could be subjecting them to fines or the interpretation of a judge, all the way up to imprisonment,” Ensign said. “That seems to me to be a problem.” Ensign’s argument , however, wasn’t persuasive to the committee — which rejected an amendment from Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) to eliminate the individual mandate. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) was the only Republican to vote with Democrats to preserve the mandate. |
| By Carrie Budoff Brown 04:04 PM |
Sep/090
Taking Over American Education: the final chapter
Congressional Hall
Bill Name Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 Bill Category Amendment Extented Title To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes.
Bill Summary This information is intended to be a nonpartisan summary and may not include all specifics contained in the full text of the bill. Further research may be necessary in order to make an informed decision. This bill does several things. First, this bill increases, by $490, the maximum Pell Grant amount that can be awarded to students. This bill also allocates money to be given in the form of grants to states for programs to promote the completion of post-secondary education, especially for minority groups that are underrepresented in higher education. This bill also states that if a student is called up for active duty in the military, and has taken a loan to pay for that portion of his/her schooling, then that portion of the loan will be repaid for him/her. If a student has more than $150,000 in assets, then that student will not be eligible for Pell grants, loans, or work assistance. Also this bill includes language that would prohibit federal funds from what are called certain indicted organizations, specifically the community organizing group ACORN. Bill Type House Bill Interest Education, House of Representatives, Monetary Sponsor George Miller (D) California Co-Sponsor
09-17-2009 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 253 – 171 (Roll no. 719). 07-27-2009 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Labor. H. Rept. 111-232. 07-15-2009 Introduced in House
CBO estimates 705 billion in loans, 70% of all loan volume over the next 10 years.
Bill Upends System for College Loans
By COREY BOLES and ROBERT TOMSHO
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125321217589620383.html
(See Corrections & Amplifications below)
WASHINGTON — House approval of an education-financing bill Thursday marks a first step toward sweeping changes in U.S. higher education that would cut out private lenders and leave the government as sole provider of student loans under federal programs.
The bill, which passed on a largely party-line 253-171 vote, would save taxpayers $87 billion over the next decade by ending fees paid by the government to private lenders, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Among other things, the House bill would use the anticipated savings to increase grants for low-income students and boost funding for minority students.
The cost of student loans wouldn’t change as a result of the overhaul, according to the Obama administration. The only difference would be the source of the loans — the government as opposed to private lenders.
While the measure would eliminate private lenders from originating government-backed loans, banks and other lenders would be allowed to bid for a limited number of contracts to service government-made loans.
Richard Hunt, president of the Consumer Bankers Association, said Congress and the Obama administration should “consider alternative approaches that maintain choice for students and protect local jobs” at banks. Ending private lenders’ ability to originate government-backed loans “is a step in the wrong direction and at the wrong time,” he said.
The House vote follows two years of turmoil in the student-loan industry. In 2007, Congress reduced government payments to lenders making federally guaranteed student loans by more than $20 billion — just as credit markets started to seize up, eventually making it nearly impossible for lenders to package student loans into securities and sell them to investors, a key source of liquidity. Since the fall of 2007, more than 180 lenders have exited from all or part of the federal student-loan program.
This week, Fitch Ratings downgraded student-loan company SLM Corp., better known as Sallie Mae, to BBB-, and called its outlook negative.
For the school year that ended in the spring, companies lent students at 4,465 schools a total of $74 billion, up 13% from $65.3 billion the prior year.
Sep/090
Maxine Waters: Press Should Probe Conservatives For Racist Views
Maxine Waters
The Hill: Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said that it’s not enough for African-Americans to levy allegations of racism against the right-leaning protesters, and that the media must look into their views.
“I want those people talked to; I want them interviewed,” Waters told the liberal Bill Press Radio show in a podcast. “I want journalists to be all over those rallies and the marches with the birthers and the teabaggers.”
Sep/090
45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting
Doctors Ready to Quit
By TERRY JONES
News Analysis by IBD | Posted Tuesday, September 15, 2009 4:30 PM PT
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=337909690110379
Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.
The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors’ own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.
It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration’s claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.
The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail the past two weeks, with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part. Responses are still coming in, and doctors’ positions on related topics — including the impact of an overhaul on senior care, medical school applications and drug development — will be covered later in this series.
Major findings included:
• Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration’s claims that doctors are part of an “unprecedented coalition” supporting a medical overhaul.
It also differs with findings of a poll released Monday by National Public Radio that suggests a “majority of physicians want public and private insurance options,” and clashes with media reports such as Tuesday’s front-page story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline “Doctors Go For Obama’s Reform.”
Nowhere in the Times story does it say doctors as a whole back the overhaul. It says only that the AMA — the “association representing the nation’s physicians” and what “many still regard as the country’s premier lobbying force” — is “lobbying and advertising to win public support for President Obama’s sweeping plan.”
The AMA, in fact, represents approximately 18% of physicians and has been hit with a number of defections by members opposed to the AMA’s support of Democrats’ proposed health care overhaul.
• Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they “would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement” if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.
More than 800,000 doctors were practicing in 2006, the government says. Projecting the poll’s finding onto that population, 360,000 doctors would consider quitting.
• More than seven in 10 doctors, or 71% — the most lopsided response in the poll — answered “no” when asked if they believed “the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better.”
This response is consistent with critics who complain that the administration and congressional Democrats have yet to explain how, even with the current number of physicians and nurses, they can cover more people and lower the cost at the same time.
The only way, the critics contend, is by rationing care — giving it to some and denying it to others. That cuts against another claim by plan supporters — that care would be better.
IBD/TIPP’s finding that many doctors could leave the business suggests that such rationing could be more severe than even critics believe. Rationing is one of the drawbacks associated with government plans in countries such as Canada and the U.K. Stories about growing waiting lists for badly needed care, horror stories of care gone wrong, babies born on sidewalks, and even people dying as a result of care delayed or denied are rife.
In this country, the number of doctors is already lagging population growth.
From 2003 to 2006, the number of active physicians in the U.S. grew by just 0.8% a year, adding a total of 25,700 doctors.
Recent population growth has been 1% a year. Patients, in short, are already being added faster than physicians, creating a medical bottleneck.
The great concern is that, with increased mandates, lower pay and less freedom to practice, doctors could abandon medicine in droves, as the IBD/TIPP Poll suggests. Under the proposed medical overhaul, an additional 47 million people would have to be cared for — an 18% increase in patient loads, without an equivalent increase in doctors. The actual effect could be somewhat less because a significant share of the uninsured already get care.
Even so, the government vows to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from health care spending to pay for reform, which would encourage a flight from the profession.
The U.S. today has just 2.4 physicians per 1,000 population — below the median of 3.1 for members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the official club of wealthy nations.
Adding millions of patients to physicians’ caseloads would threaten to overwhelm the system. Medical gatekeepers would have to deny care to large numbers of people. That means care would have to be rationed.
“It’s like giving everyone free bus passes, but there are only two buses,” Dr. Ted Epperly, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, told the Associated Press.
Hope for a surge in new doctors may be misplaced. A recent study from the Association of American Medical Colleges found steadily declining enrollment in medical schools since 1980.
The study found that, just with current patient demand, the U.S. will have 159,000 fewer doctors than it needs by 2025. Unless corrected, that would make some sort of medical rationing or long waiting lists almost mandatory.
Experiments at the state level show that an overhaul isn’t likely to change much.
On Monday came word from the Massachusetts Medical Society — a group representing physicians in a state that has implemented an overhaul similar to that under consideration in Washington — that doctor shortages remain a growing problem.
Its 2009 Physician Workforce Study found that:
• The primary care specialties of family medicine and internal medicine are in short supply for a fourth straight year.
• The percentage of primary care practices closed to new patients is the highest ever recorded.
• Seven of 18 specialties — dermatology, neurology, urology, vascular surgery and (for the first time) obstetrics-gynecology, in addition to family and internal medicine — are in short supply.
• Recruitment and retention of physicians remains difficult, especially at community hospitals and with primary care.
A key reason for the doctor shortages, according to the study, is a “lingering poor practice environment in the state.”
In 2006, Massachusetts passed its medical overhaul — minus a public option — similar to what’s being proposed on a national scale now. It hasn’t worked as expected. Costs are higher, with insurance premiums rising 22% faster than in the U.S. as a whole.
“Health spending in Massachusetts is higher than the United States on average and is growing at a faster rate,” according to a recent report from the Urban Institute.
Other states with government-run or mandated health insurance systems, including Maine, Tennessee and Hawaii, have been forced to cut back services and coverage.
This experience has been repeated in other countries where a form of nationalized care is common. In particular, many nationalized health systems seem to have trouble finding enough doctors to meet demand.
In Britain, a lack of practicing physicians means the country has had to import thousands of foreign doctors to care for patients in the National Health Service.
“A third of (British) primary care trusts are flying in (general practitioners) from as far away as Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Switzerland” because of a doctor shortage, a recent story in the British Daily Mail noted.
British doctors, demoralized by long hours and burdensome rules, simply refuse to see patients at nights and weekends.
Likewise, Canadian physicians who have to deal with the stringent rules and income limits imposed by that country’s national health plan have emigrated in droves to other countries, including the U.S.
Sep/090
Smoking Papers On Global Warming
Smoke Stacks
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:20 PM PT
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=337991812954735
Climate Change: A Treasury Department analysis says a cap-and-trade law could cost American families more than $1,700 a year. No wonder administrators tried to keep the study secret.
The House narrowly approved — by seven votes — the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill in June over complaints that it would be an undue financial burden to American families. It passed after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi strode to the chamber floor and claimed that “this legislation means jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs. Let’s vote for jobs.”
Even some of the bill’s supporters had to roll their eyes at the assertion. It was a talking point intended to convince those who have not been paying attention to the legislation’s severe shortcomings, not wise and experienced lawmakers who know better.
Throughout the debate, the bill’s defenders said Waxman-Markey would cost “less than the price of a postage stamp per day,” a small price to pay, they declared, for saving the Earth from global warming. Their evidence: a Congressional Budget Office report that estimated the cost would be $175 per household a year.
But, as is often the case in Washington, it’s what they didn’t say that was more important.
While the House debated and eventually voted, filed away within the walls of the Treasury Department was an internal estimate that projected a cap-and-trade law would cost Americans up to $200 billion a year in new taxes. These taxes won’t be levied directly but will be paid when power providers and other carbon dioxide producers buy CO2 emission allowances from the federal government and then pass the costs on to customers — as will inevitably happen.
Overall, the costs would be “the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15%,” Declan McCullagh reports on his “Taking Liberties” blog on CBSnews.com.
“At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year,” McCullagh wrote.
Had it not been for the efforts of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the analysis would have likely remained a guarded secret.
A handful of Treasury documents related to cap-and-trade, carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases were made public Tuesday, but only after CEI’s Christopher Horner used the Freedom of Information Act to force its disclosure.
“In short,” Horner wrote on National Review’s “Planet Gore” blog, the Treasury documents are “a candid snapshot of what they’re admitting to each other, while telling you a, ah, different story — to your face.”
But the government is allowing only so much candor.
The estimated cost of a cap-and-trade program in terms of higher energy prices has been, unsurprisingly, edited out of one of the Treasury documents. A thick black line follows the sentence that opens with “While such a program can yield environmental benefits that justify its costs, it will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order . . . .”
In two other documents, passages explaining the “significant costs and potential revenues” generated by “domestic policies to address climate change” were covered by black ink.
The only logical conclusion is that the figures are so staggeringly large that bureaucrats, and possibly elected officials, feel that they have to hide them from the public.
Treasury’s censors weren’t able to expunge everything, though.
A separate administration transition memo drafted two days after the election notes that the “Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1% of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation.”
In other words, under cap-and-trade, the economic costs of environmental regulation would double overnight.
Horner has said he’ll ask the courts to force the government to release the redacted references to increases in energy costs as well as other parts that have been blacked out.
We wish him the best. The country needs more people like him and fewer government officials who, for political purposes, conceal information that the public has a right to know.
Sep/090
CO2 emissions take center stage over MPG
EPA and the DOT
by Sebastian Blanco (RSS feed) on Sep 15th 2009 at 3:22PM
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/15/epa-and-dot-announce-new-fuel-economy-greenhouse-gas-plan-co2/
Back in May, the Obama Administration raised the national CAFE standard to 35.5 mpg (for cars and trucks) by 2016. The higher standard would build from the 27.3 mpg 2011 standard and go up five percent each year until 2016. Today, the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation issued a joint statement proposing just how the two agencies will work together to reach the higher standard required for model year 2012-2016 vehicles.
The 35.5 mpg number from the CAFE regulations can be reached, the DOT and EPA say, if all MY 2016 vehicles have “an estimated combined average emission level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile” (to compare, that would be 155 g/km using the European g/km measurement) and that target is met by improving fuel economy. We can’t help but think that a focus on CO2 instead of mpg is needed in light of new claims that cars can get 230 mpg.
The two agencies say that the new standard will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil, reduce greenhouse gases by 950 metric tons and save “the average car buyer” over $3,000 in fuel costs. The main point, though, is that everyone involved has agreed to combine the CAFE standards and EPA’s greenhouse gas emissions standards into one, making it clear what automakers have to do to sell cars in any state in the Union.
Considering the long fight that the Auto Alliance had with California and other states that wanted to adopt more stringent rules than the Bush-era EPA was willing to declare, the EPA and DOT’s proposal appeals to Alliance president Dave McCurdy. “Final rules are essential to providing manufacturers with the certainty and lead time necessary to plan for the future and cost effectively add new technology,” he said. “We look forward to working constructively with the Obama administration to provide comments and begin meeting our shared goals of increasing fuel economy, enhancing energy security, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions through this single national program.” Press releases are after the jump, as is information on how to comment on the EPA and DOT’s proposed rule over the next 60 days.
[Source: EPA/DOT, Auto Alliance]
Washington, D.C. – “Last May, automakers committed to President Obama to increase the average fuel economy in new vehicles by 40 percent to a combined 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. This historic joint-rulemaking proposal released today by the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration creates a coordinated national approach for increasing fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gases and prevents competing regulations at the state and federal level.
The proposal provides manufacturers with a roadmap for meeting significant increases for model years 2012-2016. Final rules are essential to providing manufacturers with the certainty and lead time necessary to plan for the future and cost effectively add new technology. We look forward to working constructively with the Obama administration to provide comments and begin meeting our shared goals of increasing fuel economy, enhancing energy security, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions through this single national program.”
DOT Secretary Ray LaHood and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson Propose National Program to Improve Fuel Economy and Reduce Greenhouse Gases
New Interagency Program to Address Climate Change and Energy Security
WASHINGTON – U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Ray LaHood and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson today jointly proposed a rule establishing an historic national program that would improve vehicle fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gases. Their proposal builds upon core principles President Obama announced with automakers, the United Auto Workers, leaders in the environmental community, governors and state officials in May, and would provide coordinated national vehicle fuel efficiency and emissions standards. The proposed program would also conserve billions of barrels of oil, save consumers money at the pump, increase fuel economy, and reduce millions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions.
“American drivers will keep more money in their pockets, put less pollution into the air, and help reduce a dependence on oil that sends billions of dollars out of our economy every year,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “By bringing together a broad coalition of stakeholders – including an unprecedented partnership with American automakers – we have crafted a path forward that is win-win for our health, our environment, and our economy. Through that partnership, we’ve taken the historic step of proposing the nation’s first ever greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles, and moved substantially closer to an efficient, clean energy future.”
“The increases in fuel economy and the reductions in greenhouse gases we are proposing today would bring about a new era in automotive history,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said. “These proposed standards would help consumers save money at the gas pump, help the environment, and decrease our dependence on oil – all while ensuring that consumers still have a full range of vehicle choices.”
Under the proposed program, which covers model years 2012 through 2016, automobile manufacturers would be able to build a single, light-duty national fleet that satisfies all federal requirements as well as the standards of California and other states. The proposed program includes miles per gallon requirements under NHTSA’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE) program and the first-ever national emissions standards under EPA’s greenhouse gas program. The collaboration of federal agencies for this proposal also allows for clearer rules for all automakers, instead of three standards (DOT, EPA, and a state standard).
Specifically, the program would:
- Increase fuel economy by approximately five percent every year
- Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 950 million metric tons
- Save the average car buyer more than $3,000 in fuel costs
- Conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil
Increase Fuel Economy and Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions:
The proposed national program would require model year 2016 vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emission level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. Under the proposed program, the overall light-duty vehicle fleet would reach 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) in model year 2016, if all reductions were made through fuel economy improvements. If this occurs, Congress’ fuel economy goal of 35.0 mpg by 2020 will be met four years ahead of schedule. This would surpass the CAFE law passed by Congress in 2007, which required an average fuel economy of 35 mpg in 2020.
Reduce Greenhouse Gases:
Climate change poses a significant long-term threat to America ’s environment. The vehicles subject to the proposed rules announced today are responsible for almost 60 percent of all U.S. transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. These will be the nation’s first ever national greenhouse gas standards. The proposed standards would require model year 2016 vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emission level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile under EPA’s greenhouse gas program. The combined EPA and NHTSA standards would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the light-duty vehicle fleet by about 21 percent in 2030 over the level that would occur in the absence of any new greenhouse gas or fuel economy standards. The greenhouse gas emission reductions this program would bring about are equivalent to the emissions of 42 million cars.
Save Consumers Money:
NHTSA and EPA estimate that U.S. consumers who purchase their vehicle outright would save enough in lower fuel costs over the first three years to offset the increases in vehicle costs. Consumers would save more than $3,000 due to fuel savings over the lifetime of a model year 2016 vehicle.
Conserve Oil and Increase Energy Security:
The light-duty vehicles subject to this proposed National Program account for about 40 percent of all U.S. oil consumption. The program will provide important energy security benefits by conserving 1.8 billion barrels of oil, which is twice the amount of oil (crude oil and products) imported in 2008 from the Persian Gulf countries, according to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration Office. These standards also provide important energy security benefits as light-duty vehicles account for about 60 percent of transportation oil use.
Within the Auto Industry’s Reach:
EPA and NHTSA have worked closely to develop this coordinated joint proposal and have met with many stakeholders including automakers to insure the standards proposed today are both aggressive and achievable given the current financial state of the auto industry.
NHTSA and EPA expect automobile manufacturers would meet these proposed standards by improving engine efficiency, transmissions and tires, as well as increasing the use of start-stop technology and improvements in air conditioning systems. EPA and NHTSA also anticipate that these standards would promote the more widespread use of advanced fuel-saving technologies like hybrid vehicles and clean diesel engines.
NHTSA and EPA are providing a 60-day comment period that begins with publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. The proposal and information about how to submit comments are at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm for EPA and http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0/
for NHTSA.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement:
NHTSA has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed CAFE standards. The Draft EIS compares the environmental impacts of the agency’s proposal and reasonable alternatives. NHTSA is providing a 45-day comment period on the Draft EIS. Information on the submission of comments is provided at the above NHTSA Web address.
Sep/091
Santorum may challenge ‘injurious’ Obama
Rick Santorum
September 15, 2009
By Ben Smith 12:59 PM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Santorum_may_challenge_injurious_Obama.html
Rick Santorum affirmed on an RNC conference call — aimed at attacking Arlen Specter — that he’s considering a run for president in 2012 — because, he said, the Obama presidency is “injurious to America.”
“The dynamic has changed,” Santorum said. “A lot of folks who might not have thought about running against an incumbent president” are now considering it.
He cited Obama’s lower poll numbers and his failure to “transform” and unify the country.
“A lot of people are going to take a look and see wht they can do to try to confront this presidency, which many of us — as you’re seeing from the tea parties and the like — which many of us believe is injurious to America,” Santorum said, saying the 2012 race is “something that I think I would consider.”
Santorum also elaborated on his opposition to the use of reconciliation to pass health care legislation; the parliamentary procedure was used, with his support, in the Bush years to pass the controversial 2003 tax cuts and a range of other measures, including opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
Santorum called ANWR drilling “fairly minor” in its impact on the land and on the economy
“You’re talking about drilling holes, as opposed to rejiggering and reconstructing the entire health care system of this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator said.
“A tax bill is by definition a revenue bill – it affects the budget. That’s what reconciliation is for,” he said.
“This is a major policy initiative in an area that goes beyond the federal government’s balance sheets — that to me makes it an abomination.”
He warned that the procedure would turn the bill into a “Rube Goldberg machine.”
UPDATE: A Democrat notes that Santorum didn’t always consider ANWR a minor matter of a few holes: “I believe that ANWR has the potential to play a significant role in reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and I support exploring this area in a safe and environmentally sound way,” he wrote in 2006.
Sep/091
No, Mr. President
Obama on 60 Minutes
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2009
Posted by William Kristol
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#13172
In his 60 Minutes interview to be aired tonight, President Obama apparently says, “I intend to be president for a while and once this bill passes, I own it….I’m the one who’s going to be held responsible. So I have every incentive to get this right.”
No, Mr. President. It’s not about you. If legislation passes, you don’t own it.
We all own it. Any health care bill will become part of the U.S. Code, not simply an item on the Obama White House web site. We will all feel its effects. We are all responsible for the future of our country. Here the people rule.
Which is why it is wrong to jam through a 1,000+ page legislative act in such a rush that its defenders can’t even give a coherent account of what it will and won’t do, and in order to deal with a situation that the president himself acknowledged Wednesday night is not a crisis (“But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came to build a future. So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future — and that is the issue of health care.”).
The national debate on health care has just begun. Much of the popular anger of this past summer came from a feeling — a justified one — that if Obama has his way, we, the people, won’t have an opportunity to debate this issue as it deserves. The August recess seemed to be citizens’ one chance to force a reconsideration by their elected representatives before Obama succeeded in rushing the Congress to judgment.
This is a moment of truth for the two political parties.
Will enough Congressional Democrats refuse to be herded like sheep and stampeded like cattle? Will they do what is right, and insist, for the sake of the political health of the country, on an open and measured and deliberative process?
And if there are not enough such Democrats — if the Democratic party simply yields to Barack Obama and his assurance that, hey, he has every incentive to get it right, so everyone else should just get out of the way — if the Democratic Congress jams this legislation down the people’s throat — then the Republican party will have to say: We do not yield. We do not acquiesce. And we will take this issue to the country in 2010 and 2012, with the purpose of repealing this dangerous and damaging legislation.