Palin Still Trusted : Truth Be Known

"Know the truth and the truth will set you free"

Global Warmers & Changers Fleese Taxpayers : Facts Are Irrelevante

That the climate does not need to be saved in the first place as the 'warmers' contend, there is no 'man made' climate change, has nothing to do with the amount of money demanded by the warmers and changes, it still all about taking control of resources for the ultimate result of population control.

The warmers and changers rely on 'consensus' among advocates for more research and ignore the facts presented by scientists. That the global warmers 'consensus' has been proven to be out right lies is of no consequence,  they move forward with more demands and more managed consensus.

The question that still remains, why does the general public still buy into the lie? Go figure.

Wind and Solar Can't Save Climate
Source: Robert Bryce, "Four Numbers Say Wind and Solar Can't Save Climate," Bloomberg, September 20, 2013.
September 30, 2013

Climate scientists can warn about carbon dioxide emissions and their effect on the atmosphere and global temperatures, but politicians cannot ignore the basic physics and math of the world's $5 trillion-a-year appetite for energy, says Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Bryce says to keep four numbers in mind: 32, 1, 30 and 1/2. These are the numbers that explain why any transition away from our existing energy systems will be protracted and costly.

• First, 32: That's the percentage growth in carbon dioxide emissions that has occurred globally since 2002. In the past decade, these emissions have increased by about 8.4 billion tons. And nearly all of that has happened in the developing world. In the United States, meanwhile, carbon dioxide emissions were 8 percent lower in 2012 than they were in 2002, largely due to a surge in shale gas production, which has reduced coal use.
• Now to the second number: 1. That's the power density of wind in watts per square meter. Wind energy's paltry power density means that enormous tracts of land must be set aside to make it viable.
• Now let's turn to the third number: 30. This represents the massive scale of global energy use, which is about 250 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, or the output of about 30 Saudi Arabias. Of that 30 Saudi Arabias of daily energy consumption, we get 10 from oil, nine from coal, seven from natural gas, two from hydro and 1 1/2 from nuclear.
• That remaining 1/2 -- the final number -- represents the amount of energy the world gets from all renewable sources, not counting hydropower. Put another way, the world gets about 50 times as much energy from all other sources -- coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear and hydropower -- as it does from wind, solar, geothermal and biomass.

If policymakers are committed to reducing global carbon dioxide emissions, then they will have to get serious about promoting sources of electricity production that can compete with coal on price.

Those sources must be scalable, meaning they can be deployed all over the world fairly rapidly, produce fewer carbon emissions than coal, and not take up too much land.
Fortunately, we already have those energy sources. They are natural gas and nuclear.
 

IRS Losses Millions : Lost or Stolen?

Why would anyone believe that these monies are unaccounted for? Given how corrupt the IRS is, why the question even comes up about what the IRS is doing and why is questionable? If you need further proof of the intentions of the IRS, ask any Tea Party affiliate that asked for tax exempt status?

IRS Fails to Account for $67 Million for ObamaCare
Source: John McKinnon, "IG Report: IRS Failed to Track $67 Million for ObamaCare," Wall Street Journal, September 26, 2013.
September 30, 2013

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) failed to track some $67 million in indirect costs of implementing the 2010 health care overhaul, according to a new inspector general report. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration said that the IRS should have done a better job of accounting for those indirect costs, including cost of workspace and computer support for people working on the health care program, says the Wall Street Journal.

The IRS is central to carrying out the complex health care overhaul.

• For fiscal years 2010 through 2012, the IRS spent about $488 million to carry out the law, using a special fund created by Congress, the report found.
• But the IRS accounted only for direct costs such as labor and contracts. That was consistent with the health care law's intent, but doesn't give a full picture of the costs.
• The law contains about 50 tax provisions, including at least eight that are requiring the agency to build new computer systems and business processes.

 

Federal Reserve Chairman : Independent? Transparent?

The real problem here is the chairman of the  Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, is not independent, he is owned by the powers that control Washington, and in this case, by the Obama administration.  

Fed Policy: Good Intentions, Risky Consequences
Source: Charles I. Plosser, "Fed Policy: Good Intentions, Risky Consequences," Cato Journal, Fall 2013.
September 30, 2013

Some of the actions the Federal Reserve has taken to address the financial crisis and the slow economic recovery, while well intentioned, have created some long-term risks for the economy and for the Fed as an institution. Excessive focus on the short term can result in long-term problems. Avoiding these risks is dependent on the Fed executing a graceful exit from this period of extraordinary accommodation. Such an exit depends on the Fed's ability to be systematic and transparent about its policy decisions, says Charles I. Plosser, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

Four monetary policy principles that Plosser suggests:

• The first principle is to be clear and explicit about the goals and objectives of policy. And in so doing, policymakers must acknowledge what policy can and cannot achieve.
• The second principle is for policymakers to make a credible commitment to their goals by describing how they will conduct policy in a way that is consistent with those goals. One way to do this is for the central bank to articulate a reaction function or rule that will guide policy decisions.
• The third principle is to be clear and transparent in communicating to the public the policy actions that are taken.
• The fourth principle is to strive to ensure central bank independence.

Over the past several years, the Fed has taken some beneficial steps toward increased transparency, which will serve the economy well now and in the future. The Fed should continue on this path by more clearly articulating a systematic approach to policymaking, centered on using robust simple rules as guides to both its policy decisions and the way in which it communicates those decisions.
 

California Versus Texas : Moving Forward or Backward?

And we are told by the progressives how great their system is and how if would all just stop trying to fight for individual freedom we would all be so much better off. Look how well the residence of California are doing? What more could anyone ask for?

So to make sure the entire country becomes like California, vote for more progressive Democrats.

The Moving Experience of a Lifetime
Source: Scott Burns, "The Moving Experience of a Lifetime," Daily Herald, September 29, 2013.
September 30, 2013

Scott Burns, a registered investment adviser, recently sat down with Pamela Villarreal, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), to discuss a new tool at the NCPA's website -- a free calculator that will estimate the lifetime value of moving from one state to another.
Yes, you read that right: The lifetime value. Not just whether you can afford a move today, but the long-term impact on how much more (or less) you'll be able to spend each year or leave to heirs.
Example of testing the move from California to Texas:

• A 40-year-old worker, who is single, earns $70,000 annually, has $70,000 in retirement accounts, $70,000 in taxable savings, rents in California at $1,500 a month and intends to rent in Texas at the same amount.
• After pressing the "calculate" button, the 40-year-old worker will gain $1,615 a year in spendable income by moving to Texas.
• If the money is saved rather than spent, he or she would have an additional $133,593 in his or her estate.

The engine behind this calculator isn't driven by the relative price of avocados and movie tickets. Its primary driver is tax differences. A single worker earning $70,000 a year gets hit with a tough income tax in California. The federal income tax rate is pretty tough, too.

Using a very sophisticated calculating engine, it calculates the lifetime discretionary income ramifications of decisions about location, shelter, savings and taxes. The main difference between the NCPA tool and the full financial planning software is that the NCPA calculator makes a variety of assumptions to reduce the items you have to enter to get a result. The NCPA calculator is available at www.whynotmove.org.
 

Obama's Base Subsidized & Marginalized

Why would anyone believe that Mr Obama's people have any idea what has happened to them over the last 5 years? Worse, what has happened isn't important to them, their only concern is what happens to Mr Obama.

Mindless and shameless, they march forward, shoulder to shoulder. "Ours is not reason why, ours is but to do and die".

Are you scared yet? If not, then we are doomed to be marginalized and subsidized as well.

New Technology : Less Then Expected

 

This doesn't bode will for the future

 

WELCOME TO THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE 21ST CENTURY! 
Our Phones ~ Wireless 
Cooking ~ Fireless 
Cars ~ Keyless 
Food ~ Fatless 
Tires ~ Tubeless 
Dress ~ Sleeveless

 

Youth ~ Jobless 

Leaders ~ Shameless
 

Relationships ~ Meaningless
  Attitude ~ Careless
  Wives ~ Fearless
  Babies ~ Fatherless
  Feelings ~ Heartless
  Education ~ Valueless
  Children ~ Mannerless
 Our Congress is ~ Clueless

Our President is ~ Worthless
 And this leaves me ~ Speechless

 

--

ObamaCare Is Here : Thank You Obama Voters

But then those of us that have been paying attention knew ObamaCare would kill the American dream from the very beginning as Mr Obama told us exactly what he would do if elected, and he has kept his word. He told us he would "fundamentally" change the country.

And if not to make things worse, ACA is just the first shot, the zinger will be when this all falls apart is the solution, 'single payer'.

To all those that voted for Mr Obama, I hope you all understand what's coming your way and how you have dragged the rest of us down with you.

EPA Regulations On Coal & Gas : Progessive Tyrants

More insanity from the EPA - this is just one more reason to stop the progressive socialist lift Democrats that believe the population of this country is not capable of making rational decisions on their own. This is the reason why the EPA has decided to eliminate coal fired electrical power generating plants that produce more then 45% of all our electrical needs. They believe fossil fuels  cause 'green house gasses' are destroying the planet.

They have decided to take Unconstitutional action instituting new regulations on old and new coal and natural gas energy plants to advance their personal agenda at the expense of the entire country. This is the agenda of the progressive socialists based on "fundamentally" changing this country.

Believe this is not by accident, this is by design, if relying on 'renewable' energy resources means millions of lost jobs, forced dependence and poverty, so what, this is of no consequence to those in Washington where their jobs are secure.

Environmental Protection Agency to Make Costly New Standards
Source: Jonathan H. Adler, "No Cost-Free Climate Control," National Review, September 23, 2013
September 27, 2013

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed new regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. If finalized, this regulation will, in effect, bar the construction of new coal-fired power plants unless they use costly carbon-capture technology. It is the latest in a series of EPA regulations governing greenhouse gases that the Supreme Court triggered with its decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. Still more regulations are on the way, says Jonathan H. Adler, director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

The EPA's proposed rule would require both natural-gas and coal-fired power plants to meet stringent new limits -- limits that most new natural-gas plants can meet, but that are not (yet) met by any coal-fired plant in regular operation.

• Specifically, the regulation would limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants to between 1,100 and 1,000 pounds per megawatt-hour (lbs/MWh), depending on the size of the plant and method of emission monitoring. This is an easy standard for state-of-the-art gas plants to meet; coal, not so much.
• Right now, the average U.S. coal plant emits over 1,700 lbs CO2/MWh.
• The average natural-gas plant, on the other hand, emits around 850 lbs CO2/MWh.

If finalized, the EPA's rule is likely to be challenged in court. At issue will be whether the new standards comply with the relevant statutory requirements, particularly as applied to coal plants.

• Under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA is to set an emission limit "achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction" that, accounting for the economic costs, "the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated."
• This awkward statutory language about the "best" emissions-reduction system that is "adequately demonstrated" means that the EPA cannot set new emission standards based on the hypothetical performance of unproven technologies, as such technologies have not been "adequately demonstrated."

Whether or not this rule is finalized and survives court challenge, more greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations are coming our way. Under the Supreme Court's Massachusetts v. EPA decision, the EPA is effectively required to adopt GHG emission rules under the Clean Air Act.

Even those who don't accept that climate change is a serious problem should recognize that many policies are preferable to letting the EPA use the Clean Air Act to regulate GHGs.
.

Medical Mistakes Cause Deaths : Accounting Managed?

This is very unsettling in that many in the industry will do what they can to protect their own.

How Many Die from Medical Mistakes in U.S. Hospitals?
Source: Marshall Allen, "How Many Die from Medical Mistakes in U.S. Hospitals?" NPR, September 20, 2013.
September 27, 2013

It seems that every time researchers estimate how often a medical mistake contributes to a hospital patient's death, the numbers come out worse. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine published the famous "To Err Is Human" report, which dropped a bombshell on the medical community by reporting that up to 98,000 people a year die because of mistakes in hospitals. The number was initially disputed, but is now widely accepted by doctors and hospital officials, says NPR.

• In 2010, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services said that bad hospital care contributed to the deaths of 180,000 patients in Medicare alone in a given year.
• The current issue of Journal of Patient Safety says the numbers may be much higher -- between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death.
• That would make medical errors the third-leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease, which is the first, and cancer, which is second.

Dr. David Mayer, vice president of quality and safety at Maryland-based MedStar Health, says people can make arguments about how many patient deaths are hastened by poor hospital care, but that's not really the point. All the estimates, even on the low end, expose a crisis, he says.
"Way too many people are being harmed by unintentional medical error," Mayer says, "and it needs to be corrected."
 

Tax Defered Savings Accts Work : Good Retirement Planning

Good article on why having a saving account is a good idea and contributing to it on a regular bases. The tax deferred accounts mentioned here have a profound effect on retirement funding especially if you are thinking Social Security will be all you need to retire on. Social Security will never cover the needs during retirement but then it was never intended for that purpose, Social Security is only a supplement, nothing more.

Tax Deferral: An Incentive to Save More Today
Source: Jeremy Horpedahl and Harrison Searles, "The Tax Exclusion for Retirement and Pension Plans," Mercatus Center, September 17, 2013.
September 27, 2013

The U.S. federal tax code contains a number of provisions designed to encourage individuals to save for retirement. These provisions allow individuals to avoid or defer taxes if they choose to set aside a portion of their income for future consumption. When all of these provisions are combined, they are the second largest "tax expenditure" category as defined by the Joint Committee on Taxation, say Jeremy Horpedahl, an assistant professor of economics at Buena Vista University, and Harrison Searles of the Mercatus Center.

The exclusion of retirement savings from taxation causes some economic distortions. However, unlike some other tax expenditures, there is a strong economic rationale for not taxing savings.

• Higher rates of investment lead to higher rates of economic growth, and it may be sound policy for the tax code to encourage this behavior, even after considering the economic costs.
• Excluding retirement income from taxation may also make the tax system more efficient, even though most other tax expenditures reduce efficiency.
• Although Keogh plans, IRAs and 401(k)s have important technical differences, the basic economic function is the same: contributions are made with pre-tax income and grow tax free, and the tax is paid in the future when withdrawals are made.
• The more recent Roth IRA operates differently from the rest, as it is funded with post-tax dollars and only the gains are tax free, but the intended economic effect of encouraging retirement savings is the same.

In the end, people choose to save more because they probably will be in a lower income tax bracket during their retirement and also because they will be able to accrue the benefits of invested funds that would have otherwise been taxed away. Despite the complexity that this deduction adds to the tax code and some economic costs, this deferral brings the income tax function closer to a more economically efficient consumption tax. It also mitigates the problem of the double taxation of capital for the tax-deferred contributions.
 

Global Wamers & Climate Changers Still Wrong : It's About the Money, Stupid!

I can't understand why there is even any debate on climate change given how wrong all the predictions have been and how the "experts" fudged the facts to arrive at their conclusions? Why do so many still demand we have a problem, other then for the money that is associated with producing more managed, fraudulent information?

To try and contemplate the reasoning of supposedly honest people that actually believe we are all going to die if we don't spend more money to prove we, as human beings, are at fault for problems that have so many inconvenient contradictions and many, easily proven, out right lies, when they claim it will be our demise if we don't act immediately.

It's not there is warming or change, it's that there might be sometime in the future so we have to act now to save the plant for our children. Our computer models have been proven wrong but still we must act or all is lost.

So the beat goes on, more hand wringing, more hair on fire and much more gnashing of teeth. Unfortunately the general public is not up to speed on this scam yet, but maybe when the money really gets short they will take another look at the obvious out right theft of the global warmers and climate changers with their collective hands in everyone's pockets just to enrich themselves at the expense of all of us that pay taxes. Hope springs eternal.

Obama Clings to Climate Change Science That Now Looks Very Wrong
Source: H. Sterling Burnett, "Obama Clings to Climate Change Science That Now Looks Very Wrong," Investor's Business Daily, September 27, 2013. "Global Warming Primer 2nd Edition," National Center for Policy Analysis, September 12, 2013.
September 27, 2013

Flying under the media radar largely due to the ongoing Syrian crisis, President Obama has in the past two weeks signed on to three multinational climate agreements aimed at limiting greenhouse gases and dealing with sea level rise, says H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

• Despite dire predictions of a total loss of ice in the Arctic by 2013, the Arctic ice cap actually grew by 60 percent over the summer of 2013.
• Rather than increasing in frequency or power, the Atlantic Hurricane season is experiencing one of its quietest years on record.
• Sea levels are rising, yes -- as they have consistently done since the end of the last ice age. But at just 2/16 of an inch per year, sea levels are rising at a far slower rate now than they have on average for the past 17,000 years.
• Weather-related deaths are lower now than at any time in human history, with fewer than 19,000 per year. That's compared to 485,000 annual weather-related deaths in the 1920s.

Moreover, as the National Center for Policy Analysis's updated Global Warming Primer shows, these events are not flukes. Indeed, again and again, the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) predictions have proven themselves to be wrong, and with each new report, the predicted harms either have had to be dropped entirely or scaled back dramatically.
With the IPCC numbers declining every time a new report is released, it is still unclear to what extent, if at all, humans are contributing to global warming. Certainly, President Obama should not be signing new climate change agreements based on predictions that keep changing year-to-year.
 

Progressive Democrat Fake Twitter Accts & Other Fantasies Revealed

What a great article from the American Thinker on how the progressive socialists left Democrats are rolling the general public with fantasy. The question now is will the public wake up in time to save themselves and our country from the riggers of an all powerful and all controlling government?


http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/obamas_fake_twitter_followers_explained.html

Carbon Tax In Australia : Lessons In Lunacy

The lesson here for all of us and the Australians is that there is no 'man made climate change' - and to believe that spending billions of tax dollars to stop it is nonsense. All it does is enrich the those that scream the loudest of impending doom. The facts are everywhere but no one cares. Why?

In the face of a history that has proven to show the earth has not had any significant rise in temperature, the warmers have admitted their collective models were wrong, and actually has proven to be cooling, make no difference to those that hold the reigns of power that fund more of the insanity that is global warming or climate change.

Take your pick when it comes to global warming or climate change, when it cooling it's climate change, but the temperature is hot, it's global warming. Who are these people?

Lessons from the Australian Carbon Tax
Source: Alex Robson, "Australia's Carbon Tax: An Economic Evaluation," Institute for Energy Research, September 2013.
September 26, 2013

Poor policy processes tend to lead to poor policy outcomes. Australia's carbon tax experience provides a number of important lessons in how not to go about implementing sensible climate change policy, says Alex Robson, a senior lecture at Griffith University in Australia.

What the United States needs to learn from Australia:

• When policymakers are uncertain or ignorant about the position of marginal costs and benefit curves, no climate change policy will be perfect -- all policies will create welfare losses.
• Do not ignore the effects and costs of "complementary" policies, which are likely to result in efficiency losses rather than efficiency gains, compounding any negative effects of a carbon tax or cap and trade scheme.
• Cumulative economic costs are likely to be substantial over the long term, with lower discount rates resulting in higher cumulative costs in present value terms.
• Fiscal impacts are likely to be uncertain, with both carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes adding to any existing revenue volatility.
• Carefully assess the possibility and costs of carbon leakage. The effect of a carbon tax on emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries is similar to a tax on exports or a tax on import-competing industries. The net effect is a pure deadweight cost to the economy.
• The double dividend is elusive. As part of the compensation package for the carbon tax, the Australian government lowered some average income tax rates but actually increased marginal tax rates for around 2 million taxpayers. The increase in marginal tax rates is exactly the opposite policy of what a government would do if it was trying to capture a "double dividend" from environmental taxation.
• Establishing a robust, sustainable and credible carbon tax is politically difficult. Policy uncertainty and time inconsistency are the norm rather than the exception.

One of the theoretical justifications for introducing a carbon tax is that it provides a credible price signal and encourages future investment in alternative energy sources. With so much uncertainty surrounding current arrangements in Australia, it is doubtful whether the current price signal is very strong.
 

Natural Gas Drilling CO2 leaks Bogus : EPA Still Wrong

How bad are the effects of 'green house gases' anyway? Exactly who has determined what is the measurement of this gas in our atmosphere, and it's effect on the environment? The EPA? Really? A department of like minded individuals that marches to the tune of Democrat National Committee. 

Is this like the global warming nightmare of managed facts of East Anglia, all based on the rise of green house gases, the famed hockey stick graph, from the smartest in the world that were demanding we must do something before we all die in the next several years, which just happened to be more than a decade ago. Is this the same group of people that are now demanding 'fracking' cease before we all die again from more green house gases?

Oh wait, are these the same people that said the Polar Bears will all be gone as the ice caps melt away in 3 years, rising the sea levels to flood the city of New York and all of the East Coast? That was 5 years ago. And why would anyone believe anything that comes from the EPA that  isn't completely fictional? The EPA has no reason to product any documents that have any resemblance to reality.

The EPA rulings aren't about science or the environment, the EPA is the alternative to Mr Obama's failed Cap and Trade policy where he declared fossil fuels must be eliminated. He couldn't get it done by congressional law so he 'declares' it done by the EPA ruling under the Clean Air Act.

Please explain how one unelected person can proclaim that a certain a material that is common everywhere in our environment, carbon dioxide, we exhale this stuff, as a hazard to our environment and must be controlled with tax dollars and regulation and uses 'consensus' a scientific proof. And yet millions of our citizens believe and vote for more of the same.

What exactly is the definition of insanity - - - !!!

Gas-Drilling Leaks Overstated
Source: Russell Gold, "U.S. Overstates Leaks by Gas-Drillers," Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2013. David T. Allen et al., "Measurements of Methane Emissions at Natural Gas Production Sites in the United States," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, September 2013.
September 20, 2013

Natural gas drilling sites aren't leaking as much methane into the atmosphere as the federal government and critics of hydraulic fracturing had believed, says the Wall Street Journal.
The study, led by researchers at the University of Texas at Austin and published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is likely to ease some concerns about the impact of natural gas extraction on the climate.

• Measuring emissions at 190 sites, the study found less "fugitive methane" than previous work by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and some university researchers, which relied on estimates.
• Methane, the primary ingredient in natural gas, is a potent greenhouse gas.
• The measurements of gas emissions found that wells emitted about 20 percent less greenhouse gases than the EPA had estimated -- which is less than the amount emitted by burning coal.
• The study also found much higher-than-expected leakage from pneumatic switches, which are used to turn equipment on and off at well sites.

David Allen, a chemical engineering professor at the University of Texas and lead researcher, said he believed the better data will help guide policymakers.
 

Germany Struggles With 'Renewable' Production : Cost Skyrocket

Given what we are seeing in Germany today with the ever increasing electrical rates due to 'renewable' resources come on line in ever increasing amounts, and how it is costing the citizens more and more, we, in this country, have a chance to turn our country around before the electrical generation resources that we depend on for our survival become victims as coal, oil and natural gas development have come under increased attack from the environmental lunatics as well as progressive Democrat politicians.

Given the economic realities of high unemployment, high debt and deficits, it only makes sense to reduce the demand for renewable energy resources that are unreliable as well as expensive to recover and distribute.

How Electricity Became a Luxury Good in Germany
Source: "Germany's Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good," Der Spiegel, September 4, 2013.
September 20, 2013

Germany's aggressive and reckless expansion of wind and solar power has come with a hefty price tag for consumers, and the costs often fall disproportionately on the poor. Government advisers are calling for a completely new start, says Der Spiegel.

• The German Environment Minister, Peter Altmaier, and others are on a mission to help people save money on their electricity bills, because they're about to receive some bad news.
• The government predicts that the renewable energy surcharge added to every consumer's electricity bill will increase from 5.3 cents today to between 6.2 and 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour -- a 20 percent price hike.

German consumers already pay the highest electricity prices in Europe. But because the government is failing to get the costs of its new energy policy under control, rising prices are already on the horizon. Electricity is becoming a luxury good in Germany, and one of the country's most important future-oriented projects is acutely at risk.

• This year, German consumers will be forced to pay 20 billion euro ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants -- electricity with a market price of just over 3 billion euro.
• Two-thirds of the price increase is due to new government fees, surcharges and taxes.
• But despite those price hikes, government pensions and social welfare payments have not been adjusted.
• As a result, every new fee becomes a threat to low-income consumers.

It is clear that the next German government will have to plan a shift in energy policy. But the price of electricity is a toxic issue in the campaign, given the bad prognoses and broken promises.
 

Flood Insurance : A Free Market Winner

Removing the federal government from subsidizing the flood insurance program really was a good idea and has been since 1982. Over that time though pressure has been building to gut the program as developers are on the move to build in areas that are high risk for flooding but want to rely on the taxpayers to be ready to rebuild damaged or destroyed prosperities as a result of flooding thus giving the developers a free hand to build anywhere they want to without risk.

In the end it's about the money and politics as usual. I wonder who will win in this contest what's right for the people and the environment - the taxpayers or the politicians?

Why Expanding the Coastal Barrier Resources System Makes Sense
Source: Lori Sanders, "Opportunities for the Expansion of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982," R Street Institute, September 2013.
September 19, 2013

If the fight is between taxpayer protection and proactive government spending on conservation, today's budget realities clearly favor those fighting for taxpayer protections. But the reality is that conservation doesn't have to come down to that simple binary choice. In many ways, current government policy incentivizes behavior that both harms the environment and wastes taxpayer dollars, says Lori Sanders, outreach manager and policy analyst at the R Street Institute.
Congress did just this in 1982, when it passed the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA).

With the CBRA, Congress created the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS), an area where the federal government no longer would subsidize development or offer other support, such as federal flood insurance.

• By prohibiting subsidies and cutting off access to the Nation­al Flood Insurance Program, it has been estimated that CBRA has saved almost $1.3 billion since its enactment.
• It's impor­tant to note that a CBRS designation doesn't prohibit an area from being developed. Rather, the decision to develop is left to individuals and firms. State and local governments can choose to build or subsidize development within the zone.
• Additionally, existing development in the CBRS was grand­fathered in, allowing property owners to continue receiving subsidies so long as the building has not been significantly improved or damaged since the designation.

CBRS maps are both outdated and difficult to use. CBRS maps should be digitized to ease the process for determining whether a property is in a CBRS zone.

• Map updates will go a long way toward improving outcomes in CBRA zones, but given the current process, which requires congressional approval for most CBRA changes, updates will continue to face unnecessary delays due to competing prior­ities and partisan gridlock in Congress.
• While large changes -- such as the addition of new zones or changes that stand to have large economic impacts on local communities -- should require additional scrutiny.

Expanding the CBRS can be a commonsense way for Congress to improve outcomes for taxpayers and the environment, as it would in no way prohibit private development or even state and local subsidies from reaching the area.
 

PETA Meets the Bikers : Amazing Results

How cool it this - I feel better already this early in the morning knowing I will have to face more crap from the media lunatics and progressive socialist Democrats in congress, but I repeat myself. 

Enjoy!


The Steady Drip – by RightBill [Satire]

What a wonderful coming together of two diverse groups! We need more gatherings where the idiot activists are given warm, moist, aromatic welcomes like this one. This is why PETA usually protests women wearing fur rather than bikers wearing leather. Sounds to me like the old saying, “you mess with the bull, and you get the horns”. Gee, I guess these characters thought that Bikers where going to be politically correct like the rest of the wimpy world.

HERE’S HOW POLICE FOUND ONE OF THEM.

Johnstown, PA (GlossyNews) – Local and state police scoured the hills outside rural Johnstown, Pennsylvania, after reports of three animal rights activists going missing after attempting to protest the wearing of leather at a large motorcycle gang rally this weekend. Two others, previously reported missing, were discovered by fast food workers “duct taped inside fast food restaurant dumpsters,” according to police officials.
“Something just went wrong,” said a still visibly shaken organizer of the protest. “Something just went horribly, horribly, wrong.”
The organizer said a group of concerned animal rights activists, “growing tired of throwing fake blood and shouting profanities at older women wearing leather or fur coats,” decided to protest the annual motorcycle club event “in a hope to show them our outrage at their wanton use of leather in their clothing and motor bike seats.”

“In fact,” said the organizer, “motorcycle gangs are one of the biggest abusers of wearing leather, and we decided it was high time that we let them know that we disagree with them using it, ergo, they should stop.”
According to witnesses, protesters arrived at the event in a vintage 1960′s era Volkswagen van and began to pelt the gang members with balloons filled with red colored water, simulating blood, and shouting “you’re murderers” to passersby. This, evidently, is when the brouhaha began.
“They peed on me!!!” charged one activist. “They grabbed me, said I looked like I was French, started calling me ‘La Trene’ and duct taped me to a tree so they could pee on me all day!”
Still others claimed they were forced to eat hamburgers and hot dogs under duress. Those who resisted were allegedly held down while several bikers “farted on their heads.”
Police officials declined comments on any leads or arrests due to the ongoing nature of the investigation; however, organizers for the motorcycle club rally expressed “surprise” at the allegations.
“That’s preposterous,”said one high-ranking member of the biker organizing committee. “We were having a party, and these people showed up and were very rude to us. They threw things at us, called us names, and tried to ruin the entire event. So, what did we do? We invited them to the party!
What could be more friendly than that? You know, just because we are all members of motorcycle clubs does not mean we do not care about inclusiveness. Personally, I think it shows a lack of character for them to be saying such nasty things about us after we bent over backwards to make them feel welcome.”
When confronted with the allegations of force-feeding the activist’s meat, using them as ad hoc latrines, leaving them incapacitated in fast food restaurant dumpsters, and ‘farting on their heads,’ the organizer declined to comment in detail. “That’s just our secret hand shake,” assured the organizer.

“Something just went wrong,” said a still visibly shaken organizer of the
protest. “Something just went horribly, horribly, wrong.” Yes, it did. What went wrong is that, at some point in your life, you became horribly, horribly stupid.

Detroit : Living On the Edge (Some Humor)

Good humor - but sadly it's close to the truth. A great American city destroyed by liberalism - that is, Democrats having power for decades if not generations. Need more proof? Look anywhere in the country where a city or state that is about to go bankrupt, you will nearly always find the power behind the failure is progressive liberal left Democrats.

 

 

Move to Detroit

 

 Bob was sitting on the plane waiting to fly to Detroit, when a guy took the seat beside him. The guy was an emotional wreck, pale, hands shaking, moaning in fear. 

 

 "What's the matter, bud?" Bob asked. 

 

 " I've been transferred to Detroit - I've heard the people are crazy there. They've got lots of shootings, gangs, race riots, drugs, poor public schools, and the highest crime rate in the nation." 

 

 Bob replied, "I've lived in Detroit all my life. It's not as bad as the media says. Find a nice home, go to work, mind your own business, and enroll your kids in a nice private school. It's as safe a place as anywhere in the world." 

 

 The guy relaxed and stopped shaking and said, "Oh, thank you. I've been worried to death. But if you live there and say it's OK, I'll take your word for it. What do you do for a living?" 

 

"I ride shot gun on a Budweiser truck."

 

Progressivism Killing America : A Poem

I don't know who wrote this but I believe it's a sign of the times. More and more people are starting to wake up to the fact that we are actually watching our country be dismantled by the progressive socialist Democrats while we do nothing to stop it. Really?

 

Who voted twice for the destruction to continue? Are these people unaware, lazy or just don't care what happens out side of their  little world of IPhone messages or what's the next best app to down load?

 

The solution to stopping the nightmare that has infected the country is to vote out the Democrats. Not just some of them, but all of them. 

 

 

I do not like this Uncle Sam,
I do not like his health care scam.
I do not like these dirty crooks,
or how they lie and cook the books!!...
I do not like when Congress steals,
I do not like their secret deals.
I do not like this speaker, Nan,
I do not like this, 'YES WE CAN'!!
I do not like this spending spree,
I'm smart, I know that nothing's free.
I do not like their smug replies,
when I complain about their lies.
I do not like this kind of hope,
I do not like it, NOPE, NOPE, NOPE!!

 

Economic Freedom Hated by Progressive Democrats : Fear of Power Loss

Free markets and individual freedom scares the hell out of the progressive socialists Democrats that want only one thing from the population and that is obedience to their collective demands. Without the population on their knees to big government the socialists will not be able to control the direction of the country.

How Economic Freedom Promotes Better Health Care, Education and Environmental Quality
Source: James M. Roberts and Ryan Olson, "How Economic Freedom Promotes Better Health Care, Education and Environmental Quality," Heritage Foundation, September 11, 2013.
September 25, 2013

Economic freedom and prosperity go hand in hand with improved health and health care, better education, and a cleaner environment, say James M. Roberts, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and Ryan Olson, a research assistant at the Center for International Trade and Economics.

Instead of the coercive monopolization of health care through expensive and inefficient government programs, economic freedom can be applied to achieve positive health care outcomes by:

• Eliminating barriers by removing subsidies and repealing laws that prevent individuals from purchasing health care services from market-based sources.
• Increasing competition among bidders to help reduce cost trend and encourage innovation.
• Decentralizing regulations, allowing for health care plans that fit the customer.

Education:

• Empirical evidence indicates that the free market principles that underlie economic freedom are the most effective means of enhancing people's efforts to lift themselves out of poverty and earn their own success through hard work and entrepreneurship.
• One of the most easily recognized indicators of the success of a society's provision of basic social goods is the literacy of its citizens.
• Literacy is the foundation for continued success in advanced information-age economies as well as increased educational and economic achievement throughout the lifetimes of its citizens.

Environmental quality:

• Critics of the free market sometimes complain that environmental degradation is the result of "market failure," whereby negative externalities are created through the private sector's production of goods and services for which individuals and firms are not held accountable.
• Thus they defend the necessity of imposing government regulations to control these negative externalities.
• But their arguments are hollow: Economically freer countries throughout the world continue to outperform their repressed counterparts on environmental protection.
• The environment is also better protected when larger percentages of land and other real property are privately held and protected by a country's judicial system.

 

EPA Attacking Coal Industry : Middle Class & Poor Crushed

What the EPA is doing has nothing to do with the environment, this is about "fundamentally" changing the country. What Mr Obama couldn't get done with his 'Cap and Trade' Carbon tax he is doing through the unelected EPA.  That this will cripple the country forcing millions out of work and slow economic growth of is of no importance.

And isn't the slogan of the Democrats that they are all about the middle class and fighting for the little guy? What hog wash. Forcing the demise of coal will cause the most damage on the middle class and destroy the poor. Yet millions believe. Go figure!

Environmental Protection Agency to Curb Coal Plant Emissions
Source: Tennille Tracy, "EPA Unveils Plan to Curb Emissions From New Coal Plants," Wall Street Journal, September 20, 2013.
September 25, 2013

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently unveiled its proposal to limit greenhouse gases from new coal-fired power plants, setting up a battle with companies that say tougher standards require the use of costly and largely unproven technology, says the Wall Street Journal.

• The proposal requires new coal plants to limit their emissions to 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour, about 700 fewer pounds than most modern-day coal units.
• The new rule is a key part of President Barack Obama's climate change plan, announced in June.
• The president has said he wants to cut U.S. carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020 when compared with 2005.
• Technology known as carbon capture and storage, which is required to meet the new EPA standard, isn't currently used at any commercial-scale power plant.

The EPA rule, which will undergo public comment before being made final, is likely to be challenged in court. The legal fight will also hinge largely on the agency's ability to show that carbon-capture and carbon-storage technology is a viable option for the power industry. The Clean Air Act requires the agency to show that its standards are "achievable" and that required technology has been "adequately demonstrated."

Even without tighter standards, coal plants have fallen out of favor as power companies switch to cheap and cleaner-burning natural gas. The industry's concern is that the EPA's proposal will effectively ban the construction of new coal plants even if natural gas prices were to double or triple.
 

Road Maintenance Needs A 'Use Tax' : Pay As You Go

Pay as you go is a good idea as is replacing our tax system in the same manner. A use tax makes sure every one pays the same amount to use the server. This way those that use the roads pay to maintain them. The only thing I don't' like is the fee for trucks at .14 cents - just think how this would impart food prices that are already out of control. maintenance

Improving Interstate Highway System Using Tolls
Source: Robert Poole, "Interstate 2.0: Modernizing the Interstate Highway System via Toll Finance," Reason Foundation, September 12, 2013.
September 25, 2013

The Interstate highway system is America's most important surface transportation system. With just 2.5 percent of the nation's lane-miles of highway, it handles some 25 percent of all vehicle miles of travel. It served to open the country to trade and travel, enabling the just-in-time logistics system at the heart of the U.S. goods movement. Yet the first-generation Interstate system is wearing out. Most of the pavement has exceeded or is nearing its 50-year design life, says Robert Poole, the Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow at the Reason Foundation.

The need for massive investment to transform the first-generation Interstate into what this report calls Interstate 2.0 occurs just as our 20th century highway funding system -- based on fuel taxes and state and federal highway trust funds -- is running out of gas. The transportation community agrees that we need to phase out fuel taxes and replace them with a more sustainable funding source, generally agreed to be mileage-based user fees of some sort.

Poole's study seeks to address both problems: replacing the aging Interstate system with a 21st century Interstate 2.0 and taking the first major step toward implementing mileage-based user fees. It proposes that the United States finance the Interstate 2.0 project based on per-mile tolls collected using all-electronic tolling (AET). Over several decades, the transformation of the Interstate system, state by state, would convert at least one-fourth of all travel from per-gallon fuel taxes to per-mile charging.

• The estimated cost of improving the current interstate system is $983 billion (2010 dollars).
• To get a handle on the feasibility of toll financing, the study models a tolling system based on 3.5¢/mile for cars and 14¢/mile for trucks that would fully fund the project after 35 years, indexed annually for inflation.
• To make the transition attractive to highway users, the study proposes it be implemented on the principle of "value-added tolling." That means tolls would only be introduced in a corridor once it was reconstructed and modernized, designed to operate at a higher "level of service" than today's design standards call for.
• If a state has not yet replaced its per-gallon fuel taxes with a standard mileage-based user fee at the time Interstate tolls are introduced, the AET system will permit rebates of fuel taxes generated by the miles driven on the tolled Interstates, thereby avoiding "double taxation."

 

Union Management Pay Goes up : Member numbers Go Down

This is no surprise as one only needs to find out who was the biggest contributors to the Obama campaign were and for that matter to all progressive socialist Democrats of all kinds. The question that remains is why would they do this with the union retirement programs severely under funded?

Do you think it's because the union officials really don't care about their members? nah! I guess it the same thing when considering how the Democrats feel about the population in general, just tools to be used to gain power. The sad part is the majority of the population is so willing to let it happen.

Unions Pay Big, Feds Look the Other Way
Source: Luke Rosiak, "Labor Watch: The Unions' Own '1%': The Laborers and Other Unions Pay Big, while Feds Look the Other Way," Capital Research Center, August 12, 2013.
September 24, 2013

The Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) says it fights for equality, for lowering the gap between the highest- and lowest-paid, and against the corrupt practices of corporate fat cats who have politicians in their pockets and avoid paying their fair share in taxes. That's the image the union wants to project. The reality is different, says Luke Rosiak of the Capital Research Center.

At marble palaces throughout Washington, union leaders who are often the sons and grandsons of organizers and who have just as often had virtually no experience toiling on job sites, have come to view themselves as untouchable. Indeed, that sense of invulnerability is rooted in reality, given the record of Obama administration officials in charge of enforcing labor laws.

• Critics say that the Laborers and other unions are less likely to face scrutiny because President Obama has stacked the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) with former union officials.
• Notably, OLMS has stopped auditing the international unions that control the majority of union money and slashed the number of local union audits in half.
• In 2008, the OLMS audited 791 unions, but in 2011, under new director John Lund, it looked at only 461.
• Over the past decade, top union officials' compensation has risen even though membership has fallen, and the unions have added significantly more employees to their offices.

The LIUNA presents a case study in the hypocrisy, self-dealing and good-old-boy networking that now characterizes many if not most unions. Entrenchment is common, with the same people holding office year after year. Nepotism is rampant; privilege afforded by birth is the norm in much of the labor movement.
 

Detroit Bumper Sticker : Home Town Sickness - Humor

I guess this is where we are today - without a little humor all life worth living will be lost - enjoy!

 

 

Homesick Snowbird

I was in Ft. Myers, Florida the other day and I saw a bumper sticker on a parked car that read: "I miss Detroit".

So, I broke the window, stole the radio, shot out two tires, added an Obama bumper sticker and left a note that read, "I hope this helps!"

 

 

Economy Struggling : A Federal Reserve Failure

What ever happened to the free market forces that have always worked in the past to bring our economy back from the brink? With the fed so busy trying to control with free money being pumped into the system, and with the midterm elections just around the corner where Mr Obama has declared he wants to take back the House of Representatives, little wonder then why the fed has their thumb on the scales to make the economy look and feel successful.

I wonder how many among the population has noticed the price of food and fuel lately? I wonder how the fed and the progressives socialist politicians explain where the 2% inflation went wrong? How does one not include energy and food in the calculations for inflation?

Why the Economy Is Recovering Slowly
Source: Scott Sumner, "Why the Fiscal Multiplier Is Roughly Zero," Mercatus Center, September 11, 2013.
September 24, 2013

Many observers have been per­plexed by the slow recovery from the 2008 recession. In the United States, Congress passed a nearly $800 billion stimulus in early 2009, yet growth remained sluggish, says Scott Sumner, a professor at Bentley University.

Why has the effect of fiscal stimulus been so meager in recent years? The most likely explana­tion is monetary offset, a concept built into modern central bank policy but poorly understood.

• Let's assume that the central bank is targeting infla­tion at 2 percent.
• If fiscal stimulus works, it's by shifting the aggregate demand (AD) curve to the right. This tends to raise both prices and output, although in the very long run, only prices are affected.
• The central bank then must adopt a more contractionary monetary policy in order to prevent inflation from exceeding their 2 percent target. The contractionary monetary policy shifts AD back to the left, offsetting the effect of the fiscal stimulus.
• This is called monetary offset.

What would an effective fiscal stimulus look like?
It turns out that fiscal policy could play a role, but only through supply-side channels. Return to the aggregate supply/aggregate demand idea discussed above. If policymakers were able to increase aggregate supply, then the Fed would be under no pressure to offset the effects with tighter monetary policy. That's because supply-side tax cuts actually tend to lower the inflation rates and raise growth.

• A good example is a cut in the employer-side of the payroll tax, which would encour­age hiring but would not boost wages or prices.
• Indeed, the cost of labor from the firm's perspective would decline, whereas workers would see no change in take-home pay.
• Some economists believe that cuts in taxes on investment income might also boost aggregate supply.

Policy is most effective if each part of the government focuses on what it does best. That means the Fed should focus on stable monetary conditions. By committing to a policy of stable spending growth, the Fed can shape market expectations in a way that would lessen the vola­tility created by its current policies. This would result in less aggressive policies from the Fed in the long run.
Meanwhile, the fiscal authorities should focus on the supply side of the economy, creating an environment where the private sector can flourish.

Attempts to jumpstart the economy with demand-side fiscal stimulus merely causes the government to pile up more debt, with any growth effects being offset by the Fed.
 

ObamaCare Exchanges : Corruption & Destruction

To believe that any program, mandate, that is this big, the largest in our history, and forced on the general public by threat of fines and jail time, will be successful when all the other mandates that have been sponsored by an over reaching government, and that are smaller and less intrusive, is to believe Mr Obama and the progressive socialist Democrats actually knows what they are doing in Washington.

And to believe the former means you should seek professions help as you are insane.

ObamaCare Exchanges: One Big Headache
Source: Joseph Antos, "ObamaCare: Destined to Flop? Part I," The American, September 16, 2013.
September 24, 2013

Purchasing health insurance can be a frustrating experience for people trying to buy coverage on their own. Benefits, cost-sharing requirements (including deductibles and copayments), access to specific doctors and other health care providers, and premiums all vary, making comparisons difficult. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) establishes exchanges that are supposed to help people purchase insurance, says Joseph Antos, the Wilson H. Taylor Scholar in Health Care and Retirement Policy at the American Enterprise Institute.

Regardless of who runs the exchanges (the states or the federal government), they will all have problems getting up and running. Establishing an insurance exchange is "highly complex . . . unprecedented and it's not going to be smooth," according to Kevin Counihan, chief executive of Connecticut's health exchange who helped implement Massachusetts's health reform. "This is a two- to three-year implementation we're doing in 10 months."

• The bottom line is individuals will be able to purchase insurance through the exchanges if they are persistent.
• Those who can wait a while are likely to have an easier time of it.
• Given the complicated rules and conditions that must be met to buy insurance on the exchanges, this will never be a simple process.

Supporters of the ACA are beginning to accept that at least the first few months of operation will be difficult for most of the insurance exchanges. They will function after a fashion, but considerable effort will need to be invested in resolving problems that can only be identified by trying to make the exchanges work. This is no guarantee that the ACA will be a success. Far from it, in fact.
 

Uninsured Under ACA : Crisis of Ignorance or Apathy?

Is it just that we have so many low information individuals in our country that have no idea what is happening and so vote each election cycle to ensure self destruction out of habit? Or is it that life in this country has been so good to so many that they believe it will continue no matter what policies in Washington  are enacted? It has always been this way so why not now? 

Is it just ignorance of reality or a willingness to give up personal freedom for a promise of security from those that are in power. Is it possible that we all can lose our country just on the promise of better times if only we continue to elect those that brought us so much failure for the past the past five years? We need more time they say.

Do our lives and our children's lives depend on a fantasy like the games on our IPhones? Really? Sleep will not come easily knowing our future lies in the hands of those that know relying on the promises of a corrupt government is not workable but they have no choice. The number that fall into dependence grows by the thousands every day.  It's matter of survival.

This situation is not be accident, this is by design.

The Uninsured Crisis under ObamaCare
Source: Devon M. Herrick, "The Uninsured Crisis under ObamaCare," National Center for Policy Analysis, September 18, 2013.
September 18, 2013

The number of people who lacked health coverage fell slightly to 48 million in 2012, from 48.6 million the year before, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's Income & Poverty report, says Devon M. Herrick, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

• In 2012, just over 84.6 percent of U.S. residents, or 263.2 million people, were privately insured or enrolled in a government health program, according to the Census Bureau.
• This is an increase in health coverage of nearly 3 million people from 2011.

The proportion of Americans without health coverage has been relatively stable over time. However, many of those who lack insurance are uninsured for only a short period of time. Data from past years showed that more than half of the uninsured will be covered within a year. The rise in the uninsured over the past decade was largely due to population growth, immigration, the recession and -- in some instances -- individual choice. However, this phenomenon will likely not change anytime soon.
The uninsured include diverse groups, each uninsured for a different reason. These groups include:

• Low-income families (nearly 14.5 million adults and children).
• Middle-income families (nearly 18.5 million in households with annual incomes above $50,000; 10 million live in households with incomes exceeding $75,000 annually).
• The "young invincibles" (about 19 million 18 to 34 year olds).
• Middle-aged adults.
• Immigrants (12.8 million foreign-born residents).

Proponents of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) hoped it would achieve near-universal coverage. Yet, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the ACA will cover less than half of the uninsured. A decade from now (2023), long after the ACA is fully implemented, the CBO estimates it will only cover about 25 million people who would otherwise be uninsured, leaving 31 million people uninsured.
Following are some of the reasons why ObamaCare will not solve the uninsured crisis.

• Unenforced individual mandate.
• Perverse regulations.
• Delayed employer mandate and the exchanges.
• Rising costs.
• Medicaid expansion limited.
• Immigrants excluded from mandate.

 

Food Insurance Program Is Broke : Flood Plane Residence Pay More?

Goodness - if where you live posses a threat to your existence, move. If where you live floods every few years and you loose everything over and over again, I would like to understand what logic one would use to insist that, we the taxpayer, be on the hook to pay for the ignorance or the unwillingness to make sound decisions regarding their futures?
 
I know this is the trend in our country today, spending trillions to ensure the comfort of others that don't, won't or can't provide for themselves, but even so paying all the bills to make life easier or more convenient for those on the edge in high risk areas for flooding or other natural disasters isn't the answer.
 
Making the same mistakes over and over again expecting different outcomes is truly the definition of insanity.

 Addressing Affordability in the National Flood Insurance Program
Source: Carolyn Kousky and Howard Kunreuther, "Addressing Affordability in the National Flood Insurance Program," Resources for the Future and the Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center, August 2013.
September 9, 2013

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), housed within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), offers flood insurance to residents and businesses of participating communities.

Since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the NFIP has been deeply in debt to the U.S. Treasury. As of July 2013, this debt stood at $24 billion. Last July, the president signed the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act with overwhelming bipartisan support from Congress. This bill extended the NFIP for five years and included new provisions regarding insurance premiums designed to improve the program's financial basis, say Carolyn Kousky, a fellow at Resources for the Future, and Howard Kunreuther, co-director at the Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center.

Historically, some classes of policyholders in the NFIP had received discounted premiums that were never means-tested. The new legislation scheduled the phase out of many of these discounts, thus moving the program toward risk-based pricing.

• Risk-based premiums are needed for the program to be financially self-sustaining.
• They are also important to emphasize to policyholders the magnitude of the risk that they face.
• And also to encourage them to invest in loss reduction measures to merit premium reductions.

Premiums are increasing for many policyholders based on this new legislation and updated flood hazard maps. As a result, many legislators are now wavering on their commitment to risk-based pricing for flood insurance because of concerns that many of their constituents will not be able to afford flood insurance. The legislation did not directly address this issue except to authorize a study by the National Academy of Sciences to examine affordability.

This year has seen the introduction of several pieces of legislation in Congress all aimed at slowing or completely repealing the elimination of the discounted rates that took effect with the Biggert-Waters Flood Reform Act. It is imperative to address the issue of affordability; this should be done in a means-tested manner separate from NFIP pricing.
 

Global Warmers Stealing Our Future : It's All About Control

I don't get it - why all the hand wringing over man made global warming when none exists? Why do many among us insist the global warming will destroy the planet when their proof comes from computer models they themselves admit are flawed?

Why would anyone, that can read or watch television, believe the nonsense of man made global warming when the very institutions that have been at the forefront of the this insanity have been shown, beyond a shadow of a doubt in word and deed and emails, to have lied, from the beginning, about their finding?

What the eco-fascist environmentalists, domestic urban terrorists, want is money and control. And it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to understand why the eco-fascists and the progressive socialist left Democrats are in bed together. Actually, they are one and the same. They both believe that the people are just tools to be used or abused to get what they want. Remember the motto of the progressive liberal is 'by any means necessary'.

Believe, there is no amount of facts that anyone can present to prove them wrong as this isn't about science or truth, this is about power to control outcomes. It's about taking power from the people to decide for themselves what their destinies will be, and transferring it to the elite few who believe they are smarter and better equipped to make decisions. Control and starve the population of energy resources will change how families conduct their personal lives, eventually resulting in a population with no recourse but dependence. 

Tragically it's working as anyone can witness as the majority electing and reelecting the leader of the elite few. Who would have ever believed so many Americans would be so willing to give up freedom for a bowl of soup? 

The Cost of Global Warming Policies
Source: Bjorn Lomborg, "Global Warming Without Fear," Project Syndicate, September 13, 2013.
September 23, 2013

On September 26, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will present the summary of its most recent assessment report, the fifth in 23 years. Although the IPCC is not perfect -- it famously predicted that all Himalayan glaciers would be gone in 2035, when the more likely year is 2350 -- its many experts generally give us the best information on the fractious issue of global warming, says Bjorn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School and director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center.

Though the IPCC, according to its own principles, is a policy-neutral organization, its head, Rajendra Pachauri, will explicitly feed the frenzy by insisting that "humanity has pushed the world's climate system to the brink," and that we need to complete a "transition away from fossil fuels," maybe with some kind of "price of carbon."

As a result, the likely outcome of the report's release will be more of the same: a welter of scary scenarios, followed by politicians promising huge carbon cuts and expensive policies that have virtually no impact on climate change.
Maybe we should try to alter this scenario. We should accept that there is global warming. But we should also accept that current policies are costly and have little upside.

• The European Union will pay $250 billion for its current climate policies each and every year for 87 years.
• For almost $20 trillion, temperatures by the end of the century will be reduced by a negligible 0.05 degrees Celsius.

The current green energy technologies still cost far too much and produce far too little to replace existing energy sources. To insist on buying these expensive non-solutions is to put the cart before the horse. What we need is investment in research and development to reduce green energy's cost and boost its scale. When solar and other green technologies can take over cheaply, we will have addressed global warming -- without the angst.
 

Pelosi On Mr Obama : He's Brilliant

Brilliant? Really? I think if you have to stay awake at night for some reason, put this picture on your wall - just the shear thought of have this woman in your room will scare you awake.

 (Right Wisconsin)

Despite the nearly $17 trillion in debt the United States has amassed, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi just can't seem to find anything (anything!) that could be cut.

 

According to Politico:

 

"The cupboard is bare," the California Democrat said in an interview aired Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "There's no more cuts to make."

 

"We all want to reduce the deficit," she added. "Put everything on the table, review it, but you cannot have any more cuts just for the sake of cuts. Right now you’re taking trophies."

 

"The cupboard is bare?"

 

How about the $1.5 million to study why lesbians are fat? Or $800,000 to study the benefits of snail sex? Or just cutting off government funding for boondoggles like the $535 million spend on Solyndra?