Views on the News
May
29, 2010
Views on the News*
Americans are frustrated with nearly everyone in Washington,
including President Obama, Congress, and the Democratic and Republican parties,
and have become increasingly pessimistic about what the future holds, according
to a new CBS News poll. Seven
in ten Americans are dissatisfied with the way things are going in Washington;
including 22% who say they are "angry" about the situation. Opinions of both parties, meanwhile, are at
or near historic lows: 55% of those surveyed hold unfavorable views of
Republicans, and 54% hold unfavorable views of Democrats. The President's job approval rating has fallen
to 47%, and Americans no longer say he shares their priorities for the country.
The percentage that says Obama shares their
priorities has fallen to 45%. The
percentage who says he does not has risen to 47%. The latest Rasmussen study show that Obama's
Presidential approval has sunk to an all time low. Only 42% of American's approve of the job
Barack Obama is doing as President, 56% disapprove which ties the all time
high. Those who Strongly Approve (24%)
and Strongly Disapprove (44%) also tie record numbers, producing a -20 index. Strong Approval / Disapproval is a key number
as it also indicates the passion of the voters, the higher the Disapproval the
more likely the voter will work against the president in the next election. 61% overall say the county is on the wrong
track. 77% now disapprove of the way
Congress is doing its job, the highest ever in a CBS News poll. Less than one in ten Americans say most members of Congress deserve reelection. Putting it all together it seems as if America
is finally waking up from the "stupor"
of November 2008, and we should expect a dramatic change after the mid-term
election. The
2010 elections will be a tsunami of biblical proportions, because the voters
are angry and frightened at the mess that politicians, as well as the leaders of most of America’s major institutions, have
made of our country.
(“Obama Approval Sinks to All-Time-Low”
dated May 25, 2010 published by Yid With Lid at http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2010/05/crash-obama-approval-sinks-to-all-time.html
“Poll Finds Americans Pessimistic,
Dissatisfied with Washington” by Brian Montopoli dated May 25, 2010
published by CBS News at http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005953-503544.html
“Note to GOP Leadership: No
Compromising With Obama” by Richard Viguerie dated May 26, 2010 published
by News Max at http://www.newsmax.com/Viguerie/gop-mitch-mcconnell-jon/2010/05/26/id/360206
)
Welcome to government by professor, with assorted faculty of Ivy
League schools having come together to form a liberal administration with the
least real-world and most academic experience of any in modern times. This
is an administration stuffed with academics, and not just any academic: These
are educators from elite universities, the kind of experts prized by a
political and media elite seeking confirmation of a worldview that expects,
"the rest of us ... to shut up and
do as we are told." Never
before have so many with so little humility gathered together in our
government, each believing he "is
the smartest guy in the room."
So we have a government of scolds, lecturers, and bullies, arrogant
academics cheered on by mainstream media when they “bravely” take a "paddle" to average citizens and
taxpayers. These pedantic academics
represent the arrogance of an educated class who sees the ordinary taxpayer as
raw material to be shaped by regulations wielded by their intellectual
superiors, as one of those superiors. It
may take a village to raise a child, but it takes a Harvard Ph.D. to raise the
consciousness of a nation of village idiots. Obama see himself as a dedicated soldier in
the battle to remake America into a collectivist social welfare state. His ideology causes him to struggle mightily
to undermine the Constitution, destroy free-market capitalism, subvert
traditional culture, and weaken the sovereign nature of the American republic. In this struggle, Saul Alinsky teaches him to
belittle his opponents, pursue his objectives relentlessly and engage in
elaborate feints and misdirection to confuse and demoralize the opposition. Sounds like a warrior to me...except that the
field of engagement is the political arena instead of a military battlefield. The weapons are words, money, favors, and the
media, not guns and missiles. Physical
courage does not enter the equation; it is replaced by idealistic conviction,
single-minded devotion to a cause, and stubborn unwillingness to entertain the
thought that one might be wrong. These so-called intellectuals gather in Washington to "reengineer" our lives according to
the "abstract theories"
they have taught for so many years, and the American people are the recipients
of their idealistic pronouncements and destructive implementations.
(“America’s Death by Professor”
by Stuart Schwartz dated May 20, 2010 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/americas_death_by_professor.html
“Obama the Warrior” by Ron
Lipsman dated May 26, 2010 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/obama_the_warrior.html
)
Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried, and will
continue to do so despite the best efforts of the die-hard true believers in
the Obama administration and the rest of the world. The
most recent example of this failure: Euro-Socialism is presently bankrupting
the countries that embraced it in Europe, and this will result not only in more
social and economic upheaval, but also the ultimate demise of the ill-conceived
European Union. The original and current
proponents of socialism fail to take into account one very basic but immutable
factor: the fundamental nature of the human race. The pursuit of happiness and the acquisition
of wealth and property are as integral to capitalism as the products advertised
on television, but President Obama would have Americans believe that this
activity is inherently evil and must be curbed.
The most dominant trait mankind has, as do all living creatures, is an
innate desire to survive and prosper. The
Soviet Union, as early as the 1920s and '30s, proved that complete state
control of the means of production was a colossal failure, as it could not
produce sufficient wealth to support the population. Therefore, only the capitalist economic
system, which is anathema to a powerful central government and its attendant
oligarchy, can produce sufficient wealth to underwrite a social safety net for
the general public and finance the agenda of the governing class. Capitalism, reflective of that portion of
mankind choosing to seek subsistence on their own terms, does by its nature celebrate the success of the individual, not the
collective. Individuals, separately or
together, driven by the motive of self-enrichment, produce goods or services
desired by others. In the process, jobs
and wealth are created, thus benefiting society as a whole. A massive tension exists between those who
adhere to central government control and swear fealty to socialist/Marxist
philosophy and those who produce the wealth of a nation. The state inherently has more power than the
individual, and once the radical element of the ruling class assumes power,
government begins an inexorable process of injecting itself into the affairs of
the individual and producer class (which is always a minority in any society). Those who believe they have a manifest destiny
to rule and are faithful to socialist tenets have a predisposition to control the populace and economic activity through laws,
regulations, taxes, and intimidation. The reality is that the economic engine of
capitalism will not continue to produce wealth if it is increasingly put under
the thumb of bureaucrats and central planners inevitably attempting not only to
institute state control of the economy, but to also to regulate the day-to-day
lives of all citizens. The motivation of the producer class will be
stifled and they will either drop out, join the dependent class, or simply move
on to other more hospitable countries. Governments
will (most recently in Europe) turn to excessive and unsustainable borrowings
and inflation to finance their societal obligations. The contract between the statists and the
citizens who were promised cradle-to-grave security cannot be maintained, as
the economic underpinning of this arrangement will quickly erode. These systems failed to ensure the happiness
and prosperity of their citizens because they were predicated on economic
mythology. Better a system that enables
the poor to improve their circumstances than a system that punishes success,
because that is a system that punishes the very people it purports to
help. The Founding Fathers of the United
States understood the basic nature of human beings. They accordingly set forth a form of
government and a written Constitution to greatly limit those who seek hegemony
over the people, especially those seeking unlimited security from a central
government. The Founders recognized that
only the individual free to pursue economic happiness would result in a society
wherein all would benefit on a sustained basis.
The voters of the United States made a grave
error in judgment in 2008; but unlike in many other countries in Europe and
elsewhere, this mistake can be reversed, as the citizens of the United States
do have the governmental structure to allow the country to step back from the
precipice that this nation and many others are presently staring into and throw
this regime out of office in order to reverse the damage done.
(“Socialism’s Downfall” by
Steve McCann dated May 24, 2010 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/socialisms_downfall.html
“The Endgame of Class Warfare”
by John Griffing dated May 28, 2010 published by
American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/the_end_game_of_class_warfare.html
)
President Obama and Congressional Democrats are publicly
fretting about the dangers of spending and debt, which can mean only one thing:
Another big spending "stimulus"
bill is in the works with very little chance of actually creating permanent
private sector jobs. This “stimulus” (II or is it III?) is just another omnibus spending bill falsely
labeled “jobs” to cover the
additional $190 billion in liberal “wish
list” spending. Democrats now say
"paygo"
doesn't apply because this spending qualifies as an "emergency," and
will add $134 billion to the deficit. This
bill includes a grab bag of political payoffs, corporate welfare and transfer
payments. The biggest item is $65
billion to prevent a 21% cut in Medicare physician reimbursements, which was
left out of the health-care law to make it look less expensive. There is $47
billion to extend unemployment insurance to nearly two full years which will
bring the total spent on this program to $137 billion during this recession - five
times more than in either of the prior two recessions. There's $24 billion to help states pay the
exploding tab for Medicaid, the same program that ObamaCare expands by some 16
million new recipients. The bill also
offers $1 billion for temporary (summer) jobs for teens, whose jobless rate is
25.4%. Compounding this fiscal disaster
is the pronouncement that the House will not even deliver a budget proposal
this year, guaranteeing continued spending on its current elevated rate, and
masking the total impact of all of this runaway spending. Finally there is no
job creation forecast included that will not be achieved, unlike the previous
“stimulus” bill that was sold on the creation of an additional 3.5 million
private sector jobs which never materialized while 4 million additional jobs
disappeared.
(“American Jobbery Act” dated
May 25, 2010 published by The Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264532051783298.html
)
The financial regulatory overhaul is not reform, since its fundamental
architecture expands and centralizes power in Washington, doubling down on the
root causes of the 2008 crisis. It is based on a vision that
government can foresee future crises and avert them, despite the fact that an
army of regulators never saw the most recent crisis coming. The complex array of new councils, agencies,
and bureaucracies creates endless channels for crony capitalists to penetrate. A financial system that once thrived on
entrepreneurial risk and low barriers to entry for investment will now deny
admittance to everyone except those sophisticated enough, connected enough, and
flush enough with campaign contributions to do business with government and pay
the price of entry. Institutions deemed
"too-small-to-succeed"
would not be afforded the explicit protections given to the largest firms,
resulting in higher borrowing costs and higher hurdles to succeed relative to
their well-connected competitors. Unprecedented
authority over the operations of financial institutions would be vested in the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The
FDIC would be authorized to seize risky financial institutions if a council of
regulators, chaired by the Treasury Secretary, believes a company is in danger
of default and poses systemic risk. Once
a company has been seized, the FDIC oversees its entire resolution process,
including restructuring the order of creditor obligations - serving as
creditor, manager, and referee. Conflicts
of interest will inevitably arise on how to treat creditors of failed firms,
and increasingly, what were once economic decisions will now be political
decisions. Dispelling the market
discipline of our profit-and-loss
free enterprise system, collusion between government bureaucrats and their
private-sector counterparts will determine winners and losers. Despite roughly 1400 pages of text in the
legislation, the destructive role of the two government-backed housing giants
remains a glaring omission. Enabled by
Congress, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wrought havoc on the housing market and
remain on operational life support as taxpayers subsidize their failure. After their leading role in the sub-prime
mortgage crisis, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received $145 billion in taxpayer
dollars, with no limit to additional funding. Failure to reform the system poses clear
risks, but the frenzied push to score a legislative victory prior to the
November midterms with a deeply flawed bill poses greater risk. Reform should aim to restore the principles
that have made credit available to American families and entrepreneurs and our
capital markets the envy of the world: freedom to participate, an unbreakable
link between performance and reward, continued attachment to risk, and a sense
of responsibility that ensures those who seek to reap the gains also bear the
full risks of losses. The financial services sector needs reform, yet the overhaul
before Congress exacerbates the worst aspects of today's system, attempting to
solve every problem with greater government control, and higher spending,
taxes, and record levels of debt.
(“Wall Street ‘Reform’ Just More
Crony Capitalism” by Paul Ryan dated May 20, 2010 published by Real Clear
Politics at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/05/20/wall_street_reform_just_more_crony_capitalism_105659.html
)
Three days after Hurricane Katrina struck, President Bush was
criticized for not wresting control from the inept Democrat New Orleans Mayor
and Louisiana Governor, but after five weeks President Obama’s incompetence is
given a pass by the Mainstream Media while the federal government offers British
Petroleum (BP) only impatience and criticism from the sidelines. President
Obama and his administration have tried to distance themselves from the tragedy
in the Gulf of Mexico and only acknowledged the disaster five days after the
initial fire, and only showing up on-site after another seven days. Once it was clear that there was no quick
resolution Obama deployed an army of bureaucrats to second guess BP, and the
administration’s dodging and dithering in the face of environmental calamity impeded
decision making. The Oil Pollution Act
of 1990, passed in the wake of the Exxon Valdez disaster, explicitly
places the burden of cleaning up a spill on the company that caused it but
vests the President with the authority to mobilize federal or state assets to
ensure the work gets done. That could
include the Navy, the National Guard and anyone else the President taps, but
more is not always better. The Coast
Guard has been on the scene almost since the beginning of the emergency, and
more than 1,000 vessels and 22,000 people have been at work trying to contain,
burn and disperse the oil. The
uncontrolled, environmentally and politically toxic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is now lapping at the White House.
The federal government's response so far has consisted largely of
scapegoating BP and ignoring its own responsibilities and lack of preparation,
railing against Big Oil, while Congress makes plans to quadruple the federal
gasoline tax, ostensibly to finance cleanups.
Obama administration had been issuing hollow threats to BP, since it is not the federal government that has all the equipment and
expertise to deal with the spill. Obama is powerless to do anything useful, so
he instead named an investigatory commission which will just distract attention
from the problem while it seeks to assign blame. In reality governmental failures all occurred
before the explosion and leak; the administration's response
since has been aggressive but ineffectual because it appears
there is nothing more they can do to stop the leak. What can’t be lost in the rhetoric is
drilling in the Gulf has been going on for over 70 years. There are currently over 700 rigs in
operation, and this is only the second significant spill during that entire
period. The oil rigs have even weathered
numerous hurricanes, and they provide over one fourth of U.S. domestic oil
production. Allowing the crisis to
fester long enough, Obama has used this BP spill to justify stopping all
offshore drilling, further punishing the energy industry and American
consumers. Positive opinion about the
federal government's handling of a BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill is down 13
points from two weeks ago, dropping from 29% to 16%, a new Zogby
Interactive survey finds. Analysts say
growing ecological and economic damage from the spill could spell the political
end of the President before November Congressional elections. Remember that Obama
delegated his two most inept appointees as point people to lead the federal
support: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Interior Secretary Ken
Salazar (“Dumb and Dumber?”) and they
have successfully mismanaged this disaster into “Obama’s Katrina!”
(“As Gulf of Mexico oil disaster
wears on, blame is finding its way to the White House” by Bruce Albert
dated May 24, 2010 published by Times Picayune at http://blog.nola.com/2010_gulf_oil_spill/print.html?entry=/2010/05/as_gulf_of_mexico_oil_disaster.html
“BP’s Oil: Fouling the White House
Along With the Gulf” by Jeffrey Kluger dated May 25, 2010 published by Time
Magazine at http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1991713,00.html
“Louisiana Jindal: Where’s Obama?”
dated May 25, 2010 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/535322/201005251829/Louisianas-Jindal-Wheres-Obama-.aspx
“Is oil spill becoming Obama’s
Katrina?” by Mimi Hall, RickJervis, and Alan Levin dated May 27, 2010
published by USA Today at http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-05-27-Spill-poll_N.htm
“Lost in the Gulf: Perspective”
by Ron Ross dated May 27, 2010 published by The American Spectator at http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/27/lost-in-the-gulf-perspective
“He Was Supposed to Be Competent”
by Peggy Noonan dated May 29, 2010 published by The Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704269204575270950789108846.html
)
The Senate Kerry-Lieberman climate bill is based on an
environmental hoax, promises negligible impact on the environment, expands
government reach into the energy industry, and disguises a global
redistribution of wealth all undermining free market capitalism. Too much money is being spent
on one-sided global warming advocacy cloaked as “research,” not enough on natural causes and adaptation. The new Kerry-Lieberman climate bill mandates
a 17% reduction in US carbon dioxide emissions by 2020. It first targets power plants that provide
reliable, affordable electricity for American homes, schools, hospitals,
offices and factories. Six years later,
it further hobbles the manufacturing sector itself. Like the House-passed climate bill,
Kerry-Lieberman also requires an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. Once population growth and transportation,
communication and electrification technologies are taken into account, this
translates into requiring US emission levels last seen around 1870! House Speaker Pelosi says “every aspect of our lives must be subjected
to an inventory,” to ensure that America achieves these emission mandates. This means replacing what is left of our
free-market economy with an intrusive Green Nanny State, compelling us to
switch to unreliable wind and solar power, and imposing skyrocketing energy
costs on every company and citizen. Meanwhile,
the Environmental Protection Agency is implementing its own draconian energy
restrictions, in case Congress does not enact punitive legislation. It’s time to ask these politicians some fundamental
questions:
·
Even
slashing carbon dioxide emissions to 80% below 2005 levels would reduce
projected global average temperatures in 2050 by barely 0.2 degrees F,
according to a study that used the UN’s own climate models. How do you justify such destructive, punitive, meaningless
legislation?
·
Reflecting
agreement with thousands of scientists, most Americans now say climate change is
natural, not manmade. What provision of the
Constitution, your oath of office or your duty to the overall health and
welfare of this nation permits you to ignore the will of the people, the
mounting evidence that “climate disasters”
are the product of computer models, manipulated data and falsified UN reports,
and the job-killing impacts of the laws and regulations you seek to impose?
·
If carbon dioxide is causing “runaway
global warming,” why have average global temperatures not risen since 1995,
and why have they been COOLING for the past five years – even as atmospheric
carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise to levels unprecedented in the
modern era?
·
What properties does manmade carbon dioxide have that enable it to
replace the complex natural forces that clearly caused the Ice Ages, Medieval
Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Dust Bowl, ice-free Arctic seas in 1822 and 1922,
Alaska’s 100 degree F temperature record in 1915, and all the other climate and
weather changes and anomalies, blessings and disasters that our planet has
experienced during its long geologic history?
·
What physical or chemical properties does manmade carbon dioxide
have that would enable it to overturn the laws of thermodynamics – and cause
temperatures in Antarctica to rise 85 degrees F, from an average of minus 50 F
to plus 35 F year-round, to melt that continent’s vast ice masses, raise sea
levels 20 feet or more, and flood coastal cities?
·
Precisely what chemical, physical and thermodynamic processes would
drastic carbon dioxide reductions alter, and how? Precisely what weather and
climate improvements would those reductions achieve? Precisely how will CO2
reductions stabilize planetary temperature, climate and weather systems that
have been turbulent, unpredictable and anything but stable throughout Earth’s
history?
·
Is there ANY direct physical observation or evidence that would disprove
your climate crisis thesis, and cause you to admit human greenhouse gas
emissions are not causing a planetary climate disaster? Does everything that
happens confirm your climate disaster hypothesis: warmer or colder, wetter or
drier, more snow and ice or less, more hurricanes and tornadoes or cyclical
periods with few such storms?
·
Replacing
hydrocarbons with unreliable, subsidized “green”
energy will require millions of acres of land for wind turbines, solar panels
and transmission lines, plus hundreds of millions of tons of steel, copper,
concrete, fiberglass and rare earth minerals for all those facilities. Do you support delaying wind, solar and transmission projects
for years, to protect the rights and property of local communities and private
landowners? Or do you favor regulatory edicts and eminent domain actions, so
that government can seize people’s property and expedite construction of these
projects? Do you support opening US
public lands for renewed exploration and development, so that we can produce
these raw materials and create American jobs? Or do you intend to keep US lands
off limits, and force us to depend on imports for renewable energy, too? Do you support relaxing environmental study,
endangered species and other laws, to fast-track approval of these projects,
despite their obvious impacts on wildlife and habitats? Or do you want them
subjected to the same rules that have stymied thousands of other energy
projects, so that renewable energy projects cannot be built, and we have
massive blackouts?
·
Over
1.5 billion people in Africa, Asia and Latin America still do not have
electricity, for even a light bulb or tiny refrigerator. Millions die every
year from diseases that would be largely eradicated with electricity for
refrigeration, sanitation, modern hospitals, and industries that generate
greater health and prosperity. How can you justify
using taxpayer money to finance UN and environmental activist programs that
claim global warming is the biggest threat they face, and they need to get by
on wind and solar power, and give up their dreams of better lives, because YOU
are worried about global warming?
·
If you’re so sure about your data and conclusions – and intend to
use climate disaster claims to justify sending our energy costs skyrocketing,
killing millions of factory jobs, controlling our lives, and totally
overhauling our energy, economic and social structure – why do you refuse to
allow fair, open and balanced congressional hearings and debates on climate
science and economics? Why do you refuse to debate skeptical experts in a
public forum, or even answer questions that challenge your alarmist thinking?
Why do you refuse to require that scientists who get taxpayer money for their
research must share and discuss climate data, computer codes, methodologies and
analyses?
·
How much money and campaign help have you gotten from companies and
activist groups that benefit from renewable energy mandates and subsidies,
carbon offset and trading schemes, coal mining and oil leasing bans, and other
provisions of climate and energy legislation?
·
What if you vote for these
job-killing, anti-growth, anti-poor, anti-human-rights “climate disaster prevention” laws and it turns out you are WRONG on the science or
economics? What will you do: Give up your Congressional seat, home, pension and
worldly wealth, and pledge yourself to an austere life of service to the people
you have harmed; or just say, “Oh, I’m so
sorry,” and then pass more intrusive, oppressive laws, before retiring to
collect a nice government pension, while millions freeze jobless in the dark?
If you can’t or won’t answer these questions, then why do you think
you have a right to tell anyone on this planet that we have a “climate crisis,” and dictate how they
must live their lives – especially when you’ve done so little to slash your own
taxpayer-funded air travel, staff, and home and office energy use?
(“A few questions for climate
alarmists” by Paul Driessen dated May 15, 2010 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulDriessen/2010/05/15/a_few_questions_for_climate_alarmists
)
* There is so much published each week that unless
you search for it, you will miss important breaking news. I try to package the best of this information
into my “Views on the News”
each Saturday morning. Updates have been
made this week to the following issue section:
·
Crime at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/crime.php
·
Education at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/education.php
·
Defense at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/fp/defense.php
David Coughlin
Hawthorne, NY