Subscribe to the Patriot Support the Patriot
Vol. 09 No. 20
Page I of IV ->
THE FOUNDATION
"A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired." --Alexander Hamilton
GOVERNMENT & POLITICS
Hope 'n' Change: The Obama Auto Show
The 2010 Obamobile
Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the president of the United States the power to be commander in chief of the armed forces (subject to declarations of war in Congress), to make treaties with other nations (subject to ratification in the Senate), to grant pardons, to appoint ambassadors, judges and other officers, to recommend measures to Congress. The Constitution also bestows a number of other minor powers based on these major components.
Nowhere in our nation's governing document can one find a presidential power to regulate the minutiae of private business, much less take ownership of those private businesses. Yet that is how Barack Obama is wielding his ever-increasing power, despite taking an oath to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and ... to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
"President Barack Obama announced plans on Tuesday for a national fuel-economy and greenhouse-gas standard that would significantly increase mileage requirements for cars and trucks by 2016," Politico reports. The fuel standards will require that automakers reach an industry average of 35.5 miles per gallon within just seven years. The current average is 25 mpg. The goal is to link the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard to the Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse-gas standard. Congress is working on legislation for $25 billion in further loans to the auto industry to pay for the change, which will likely cost upwards of $100 billion.
Of his fiat Obama said it is a "historic agreement to help America break its dependence on oil, reduce harmful pollution and begin the transition to a clean-energy economy." The White House claims it will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil, along with reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 900 million metric tons. History says otherwise, however. The original 1975 CAFE standards resulted in more fuel consumption, not less, because driving became cheaper.
The flip side is that the new regulations will add $1,300 to the cost of a car as reckoned by the same administration that estimated this year's budget deficit: so potential car buyers will almost certainly be hanging on to their older cars a bit longer -- counter to Obama's stated purpose. That $1,300 is also a tax increase, even on the middle class whose taxes Obama has repeatedly promised not to increase.
Finally, the regulations aren't safe. As the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Sam Kazman explained in 2002, "[T]he evidence on this issue comes from no less a body than the National Academy of Sciences, which issued a report last August finding that CAFE contributes to between 1,300 and 2,600 traffic deaths per year. Given that this program has been in effect for more than two decades, its cumulative toll is staggering. CAFE has this impact on safety because it restricts the production of large cars. Large cars are less fuel efficient than smaller, similarly equipped vehicles, but they are also more crashworthy in practically every type of accident."
The BIG Lie
"[E]ven as the price to build these cars and trucks goes up, the cost of driving these vehicles will go down, as drivers save money at the pump. And this is a point I want to emphasize: If you buy a car, your investment in a more fuel-efficient vehicle as a result of this standard will pay off in just three years. In three years' time you will have paid off the additional investment required. So this is a winning proposition for folks looking to buy a car. ... The fact is, everyone wins." --Barack Obama
Credit Card 'Reform' Clears Congress
Sweeping legislation that will fundamentally change the way credit card issuers do business sailed through the House and Senate and is now on its way to the White House for President Obama's signature. Among the changes set to be in place by February 2010 is a prohibition on charging consumers for paying credit card bills by phone, and an end to sudden interest rate hikes. Consumers will have to be told how long it will take to pay off their balances by making minimum payments, and information on the ins and outs of their agreements must be made in plain and clear language, whatever that means. Additionally, payments above the minimum due must be applied to the highest interest rates first, and credit card issuers must provide at least 45 days before making any major changes to the terms of the card agreement.
The banking industry has some major complaints about the legislation, noting primarily that the new regulations will deal them a financial blow on top of what they are already experiencing with the recession. Furthermore, a higher level of risk will result from these new regulations, making credit harder to obtain. The nation's largest banks involved in the credit card business have warned that they will charge higher interest rates once the new rules take effect, and some users may face cancellation of their cards if they don't use them regularly. Also, bonus reward point programs and frequent user rebates may come to an end as companies struggle to find new ways to remain profitable in the restricted environment.
Nestled deep in the language of the credit card reform bill, however, is a provision that restores the Bush administration policy to allow citizens to carry loaded and concealed firearms in national parks. To the amazement of pretty much everyone, Democrats largely joined Republicans in supporting the measure, much to the chagrin of gun grabbers and environmentalist groups, who apparently believe that the measure will lead to massacres in the forest and cause significant harm to the environment.
This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award
"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47s on nature hikes." --Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign
Democrats Hot for Global Warming Legislation
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) won a victory on his 1,000-page cap and trade (read: cap and tax) bill Thursday when it passed his committee on a party line 33-25 vote. The bill ostensibly tackles global warming by creating a system in which industrial producers of greenhouse gas emissions would be required to meet a government-imposed cap on their emissions, but would allow them to purchase credits that cover emissions exceeding the cap.
Initially, Obama wanted the credits to be auctioned off, with the estimated $629 billion in proceeds to go to other government-subsidized programs, of which he has no shortage. Congress thought otherwise, though, and instead will allow the EPA to dole out 85 percent of the credits for free to various energy producers and states. The remaining 15 percent would be auctioned off, with the proceeds going to low- and middle-income families hardest hit by the inevitable rise in electricity costs that will come after the program is in place.
This brings us to why Waxman is in such a hurry to get this bill through the House. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 80 percent of Americans can expect a rise in their energy bills and a reduction in real income because of the cap and trade bill. What amounts to a national energy tax also will cost jobs, as the bill itself admits. Part 2, section 426, states: "An eligible worker, specifically workers who lose their jobs as a result of this measure, may receive a climate change adjustment allowance under this subsection for a period of not longer than 156 weeks." That's three years for those educated in public schools.
Unfortunately, consumers know very little about the cap and trade legislation (and as seen in this video, neither does Waxman. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, only 24 percent of voters know what cap and trade is; 29 percent thought it was related to Wall Street and 17 percent thought it was related to health care reform. Fully 30 percent didn't have a clue what the term even meant. And that fits perfectly into the Democrats' plan.
New & Notable Legislation
The House and Senate passed the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act this week, and President Obama signed it, naturally without the five days for public scrutiny that he guaranteed on the campaign trail. The Associated Press says the bill "would expand [individual eligibility for] an existing $300 billion program that encourages lenders to write down an individual's mortgage if the homeowner agrees to pay an insurance premium. The program, set to expire in 2011, would swap out a homeowner's high-interest rate for a 30-year fixed loan backed by the Federal Housing Administration."
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) introduced the No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009, H.R. 2401, which aims to stop "persons who may be prevented from boarding an aircraft in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System" from buying a gun. As columnist David Codrea put it, "In other words, if your name appears on the same list as the one that delayed Teddy Kennedy's boarding pass, you'll be denied purchasing a gun. And even scarier, you'll be subject to arrest." This is the same Carolyn McCarthy who, regarding many firearms and their components, doesn't even know what she's trying to ban.
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Disney World) plans to introduce the Paid Vacation Act, which would make one week of paid vacation a federal mandate for companies with more than 100 employees. An employee would earn the week off after working for one year; three years' work would merit two weeks vacation. Companies with 50 or more employees would have to provide one week after three years of employment. "There's a reason why Disney World is the happiest place on Earth: The people who go there are on vacation," said Grayson. "[T]he best days of my life are and always have been the days I'm on vacation." We're sure his constituents at Disney World appreciate his attempts to drum up business for them.
From the Left: Feds Throw the Book at Hsu
Democrat fundraiser Norman Hsu was convicted Tuesday of violating campaign finance laws by making thousands of dollars of donations through straw donors in order to bypass limits on individual contributions to a candidate. Hsu also pleaded guilty to wire fraud in a Ponzi scheme he used to bilk investors out of more than $20 million. He faces 30 years in prison. Hsu has been most visibly associated with Hillary Clinton's failed campaign for the Democrat presidential nomination last year, but he is also linked to other prominent Democrats -- including the current occupant of the White House. Clinton returned $850,000 to donors linked to Hsu; Obama's Hopefund PAC took in at least $24,000 from him and his associates from 2005 to 2007.
This Week's 'Braying Jenny' Award
"Norman! It's Hillary. What am I going to do with you Norman? You are working so hard for me, that I, I just don't know what to say anymore. I've never seen anybody who has been more loyal and more effective and really just having greater success supporting someone, uh, than you. Everywhere I go, you're there. If you're not, you're sending people to be part of my events. You know, we're going to win this campaign, Norman, because you single-handedly are going to make that happen. ... Lots of love. Bye-bye." --Hillary Clinton on a March 2007 voicemail to Norman Hsu
News From the Swamp: Utah Gov. Tapped for China Post
Four months after assuming the office of Chief Executive, President Obama finally got around to filling the key post of Ambassador to China by selecting Jon Huntsman Jr., Utah governor. Huntsman, first elected as Utah's governor in 2004, is well versed in Asian affairs and is fluent in Mandarin. He previously served as a deputy trade representative under President George W. Bush from 2001-2004 and was ambassador to Singapore from 1992-1994.
While Huntsman is a fine selection, his nomination continues an Obama trend of naming possible political opponents to inferior positions in his administration. Naming Hillary Clinton as secretary of state is an obvious example, but another was his bid to remake the Senate by tapping Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to be secretary of commerce, a post Gregg eventually declined. Huntsman was on the verge of forming an exploratory committee for 2012. As has long been the case with Obama, he prefers to clear the playing field rather than compete on a level one.
The Least Obvious Cut
Despite a bloated budget that expands government, President Obama vowed to cut or get rid of programs he considers useless or wasteful. But as a favor to his union buddies, one of Obama's real dollar cuts comes at the expense of the Office of Labor-Management Standards -- an agency that became a guardian of workers' rights under the Bush administration and whose investigations during his tenure led to 900 convictions of corrupt union officials.
Obama's budget proposal cuts $4 million in funding for the agency and requires resources to be transferred from the union watchdog to other agencies focusing on employers. Furthermore, the little guy who works in the union shop can no longer find out just how his hard-earned dues are spent -- on AIG-style perks, for example. The Obama Labor Department will not enforce the disclosure requirements put in place under President Bush.
With Big Labor now sitting in the catbird seat at two of the Big Three automakers and with billions in federal funding to fall back on, removing a watchdog agency geared toward policing union scofflaws doesn't seem like it benefits the American taxpayer, nor will it bolster their confidence in the new UAW-led regimes at GM and Chrysler.
From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File
The Social Security Administration has sent out 52 million stimulus checks, and in its rush to meet the June distribution deadline, some of them ended up going to dead people (a.k.a. Obama voters). As reported by the New York City Fox News affiliate, Antoniette Santopadre of Long Island received a check made out to her father, who died in Italy 34 years ago. He had been a U.S. citizen but had not been in the United States since 1969. It is estimated that some 8,000 to 10,000 checks amounting to millions of dollars in taxpayer money went to dead people because Social Security had no record of their passing. Fair enough, but how do you explain mistakes like Santopadre's father, who was never even part of the Social Security system?
0 comments:
Post a Comment