EPA: Rules Won’t Slow Climate Change Much, but They Will Slow the Economy

October 19, 2010

[picapp align=”left” wrap=”true” link=”term=climate+change&iid=2265183″ src=”http://view3.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/2265183/report-blames-human/report-blames-human.jpg?size=500&imageId=2265183″ width=”234″ height=”154″ /]A few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had the authority to regulate certain greenhouse-gas emissions. But those environmentalists excited about the dramatic and beneficial effects such regulations would have on global ‘climate change’ (the newer, more politically acceptable name for global warming) make want to take heed of the EPA’s own recent analysis.

A recent CNS News report notes the following:

Tough new rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency restricting greenhouse gas emissions would reduce the global mean temperature by only 0.006 to 0.0015 of a degree Celsius by the year 2100, according to the EPA’s analysis.

Self-proclaimed protectors of the planet may be a little disappointed by this revelation, but even more worrisome is the predicted effect these rules would have on the already struggling economy:

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Feinstein and Abortion Subsidies

December 10, 2009

Worried that proposed health-care “reform” measures would somehow divert your tax money to help fund abortions? Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) has this response to your concerns: “Please.”

In an interview with CNS News in which she was asked if it was morally right to use tax dollars from pro-life Americans to subsidize insurance plans that cover abortion, Feinstein argued the following:

Is it morally correct? Yes, I believe it is.  Abortion is legal, and there (are) certain very tragic circumstances that a woman finds herself in. Married, with an unborn baby that’s unable to survive outside of the womb, her doctor tells her it’s a threat to her health.  I think she ought to have a policy available to her.

When asked again, she replied with the following:

Please. We pay for a lot of things that we may or may not agree with, and taxpayers pay for it, for those things, as well.

So, her argument seems to be that since taxpayers already pay for many things they don’t morally agree with, it’s alright to add yet another item to that list. And that’s the logic of a statist. Nevermind the individual religious or property rights of the taxpayers — or the Constitution for that matter.

It might have been wise for the reporter to again follow up with the senator by asking her something like this: “Exactly which part of the Constitution permits Congress to take money from one American and use it to subsidize a medical procedure for another American?” A good guess would be that she would then either attempt to twist the wording and/or meaning of the Constitution to fit her objectives or just simply blow the question off.

She may want to take a tip from the playbook of her fellow member of Congress from California, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi replied with this gem when asked in October by a CNS reporter to explain what part of the Constitution gave Congress the authority to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”. She then shook her head. Her spokesman later reiterated the point with the following statement:

You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.

Moral of the story: Don’t question members of Congress; they know better than you. Forget the details of that pesky Constitution.


Welfare/Warfare Spending Comparison

September 25, 2009

CNS News is reporting that President Obama’s spending on welfare programs through next year will be greater than the entire bill for the Iraq War from the first bombing all the way until the end of President Bush’s presidency. The total cost of the Iraq War under Bush was $622 billion. Obama’s proposed welfare spending will total $697 billion in the first fiscal year.

One telling fact from this story is the following disturbing numbers comparing welfare spending with war spending in the past:

Welfare spending has taken its toll on the federal debt. Since the beginning of the “war on poverty,” $15.9 trillion has been spent on welfare programs. The total cost of every war in American history, starting with the American Revolution, is $6.4 trillion when adjusted for inflation.

The next time someone tells you the government spends too much money on the military in relation to social welfare, point them to stories like this.