Obama Administration: Hydrocarbon-Deniers

There’s a new term for you: Hydrocarbon-Deniers. Those are people who think that we can magically walk away from fossil fuels and everything will be a-okay and all Americans will have good jobs as a result.

That is, until reality kicks in and we see what really happens. The truth is that oil and other fossil fuels are what we need to get our economy back on track. Why the Obama Administration and other leftists are stuck in some fantasy world, I can’t even begin to guess.

Investor’s Business Daily notes the following:

With an economy struggling to regain sound footing, Chu advocated a starvation diet devoid of additional fossil fuels that are to remain under the ground and seabed. Instead, he supports 53% more funding for wind research and a 22% jump for solar research.

Subsidizing alternative energy fits the classic definition of insanity. Despite huge subsidies, it has proved to be neither cost-effective nor a reliable, significant contributor to our national power grid. Yet we keep subsidizing it, expecting a different result.

“Oil is an ideal transportation fuel, so it will be with us for decades,” Chu conceded, even as the administration forbids us from getting more of it here, creating energy jobs, lowering energy costs and cutting our trade deficit. Instead we’ll rely increasingly on foreign and often unfriendly suppliers.

How much more money are we going to waste a) researching energy sources that won’t fulfill our needs and b) buying oil from Islamic nations so those governments can turn around and give that money to terrorist groups to attack us?

If the left keeps getting its way, we will waste that money forever.

More:

Equally unimpressed with Chu’s presentation was another speaker. “Gas is more than a bridge fuel,” said James Mulva, CEO of Houston-based ConocoPhillips, noting that huge gas discoveries in recent years in North America in shale and other unconventional rock formations could provide more than a century of supply. “It is part of the long-term energy solution.”

“We must overcome the opposition of the ‘hydrocarbon deniers,'” Mulva said, playing off Al Gore’s term for climate-change skeptics. Hydrocarbon deniers, he said, are those who “believe that renewable energy will quickly and easily replace hydrocarbons and cure all that ails us.”

The headline above a story in the New York Times read, “Oil Execs Chortle as Obama Admin Promotes Renewables.” Except that it’s not funny; it’s tragic. To leave vast stores of domestic energy untapped while Americans are looking for cheap energy and jobs is irresponsible. Unfortunately, this administration has no long-term energy solution, other than hoping for a lot of cloudless and windy days.

But the Obama Administration is set to put a 3 year ban in place for offshore drilling. Such bans will only serve to keep the cost of energy high and the prospect of economic recovery low.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Chortling At Chu
IBD Editorial
March 15, 2010

As The Cap And Trade Energy Tax Heads To The Senate, We Must Look At Who Will Profit From It

One of the principles of ethics that should govern politicians and their dealings with the private sector is that politicians should not be voting on legislation that directly involves their own personal investments. Ideally, politicians shouldn’t be investing in the market at all since they can vote to influence the market in their favor. If they do have investments in the private sector, then they should recuse themsleves from voting on any legislation that would influence the profitability of those investments.

The Cap and Trace Energy Tax recently passed by the House of Representatives is a good case in point. Several lawmakers will enjoy direct financial benefits from the legislation should it become law. Among these are Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

From Mark Tapscott at the Washington Examiner:

How much money will Pelosi make if the measure (Obama-Waxman-Markey (OWM)) becomes law, as seems quite likely?

Pelosi, of course, is not the only member of Congress to own significant shares of energy companies. Senators and representatives from all over the country do, not just the “oilies” from energy states like Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana.

But as House Speaker, Pelosi’s ownership of an unknown number of shares in the Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE) valued at between $15,000 and $50,000, may deserve particular attention.

Pelosi will profit because OWM will boost the price of natural gas on the market. This is because natural gas burns with significantly less carbon emissions than other fossil fuels. For companies trying to get under OWM limits for greenhouse gases emissions, burning more natural gas instead of, say coal, will be a no-brainer. That will drive up demand for natural gas, which in turn will create upward price pressures.

Pelosi claims that her husband handles the stocks and that she has no knowledge of what stocks he is purchasing. This is an irrelevent cop-out. Mr. Pelosi knows very well what legislation his wife is working on and whether or not it is likely to be passed. He further knows what effect such legislation would have on the stocks he will be purchasing. That is the same thing as insider trading and that makes it every bit as unethical as it would be if Speaker Pelosi purchased the stocks herself.

Rather than fulfill her 2006 promise of ridding D.C. of the culture of corruption, Pelosi and her fellow Dems simply claimed the cess pool as their own, jumped in and began splashing around.

You can access this story on on-line here:

Pelosi Will Profit From Obama-Waxman-Markey Cap-And-Trade Energy Bill
Mark Tapscott
Washington Examiner
June 24, 2009

And who else stands to make bank from this legislation? Al Gore and Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) for two. Markey holds between $51,000 and $115,000 in investments in Firsthand Technology Value Fund (solar-evergy manufacturers) and Al Gore has $6 million in the Venture Capital Group (CO2 emmissions tracking software), both of which will make very nice profits under the cap-and-trade tax. Profits that will come from fleecing the American people through higher taxes.

Before this gets voted on in the Senate, we should seriously look into which members of Congress will make a profit off of it and how they voted or intend to vote.

Global Warming? Not So Fast, Skeptics Say At Meeting

Here is more evidence that the big media outlets like the Washington Post and the alphabet networks do not cover the news in an objective and balanced way. On Tuesday, June 3, 2009, the 3rd Annual International Conference on Climate Change took place but not one single major news outlet covered it. Why? Because this conference was based on real science and would have shown evidence against the political agenda espoused by networks like CNN and NBC.

From Scott Harper of the Virginia-Pilot:

“We are seldom heard in the policy debate,” said Joseph L. Bast, president of The Heartland Institute. “If you open your newspaper, turn on your TV set, you’re likely to see global warming alarmism, and nothing else.”

Bast labeled as “popular delusion” the current conventional wisdom on the issue – that man-made emissions, notably carbon dioxide, from the burning of fossil fuels is dangerously heating up the planet, causing sea levels to rise and is increasing the ferocity of storms and drought.

As such, the conference represents a lingering – and still powerful – sentiment that global warming is not such a big deal after all.

Instead, attendees argued, the slow and slight increase in air, water and atmospheric temperatures during much of the 20th century is part of a natural cycle of the Earth’s unpredictable, roller-coaster weather patterns.

How unpredicatable are the earth’s weather patterns? So much so that the global warming alarmist people have gotten their own predictions wrong. The earth has been in a cooling trend since 2003.

More:

Bast acknowledged that the conference was hurriedly organized, and moved from New York City to Washington, to counteract proposals from President Barack Obama for a “cap-and-trade” program aimed at fighting global warming by drastically limiting carbon emissions.

Bast and others described the proposed programs as a complete waste of money, with potentially crippling consequences for the economy, and without any attainable goals.

“How do you control the weather?” asked Bob Carter, an Australian scholar from James Cook University. “For us to assume we can somehow control nature and regulate weather patterns, when we cannot even predict them correctly, is patently absurd.”

And this:

[S]cientist after scientist at the conference pointed out flaws and shortcomings in the calculations of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations sponsored group), especially its reliance on computer models to make forecasts.

One researcher, Roy Spencer, a professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, noted that the IPCC did not adequately calculate how clouds play a major role in ground temperatures.

When there are few clouds in the sky, temperatures typically are warmer, Spencer said, and when it is cloudy outside, conditions typically are cooler.

Is it possible then, Spencer asked, that decreasing clouds in recent decades caused the warmings recorded on Earth?

Spencer said he asked the IPCC about this and was surprised to learn that the organization had not researched this point and had assumed that cloud cover does not change over time but is fairly consistent.

The two revelations sparked more wry laughter from the audience.

“If a 1 percent change in cloudiness could trigger global warming, or global cooling, wouldn’t you think that’d be a pretty important thing to nail down?” Spencer asked. “They have never gone there.”

How interesting it would have been to see this covered on the Today Show or Good Morning America or some other news broadcast. But that would have meant doing damage to the leftist political agenda, even if it meant bringing some truth to an issue that many people seem to be completely ignorant of.

But, where global warming alramists are politicians (or scientists trying to win research grants) the skeptics are mostly scientists objectively looking at the data:

William “Skip” Stiles, a Norfolk environmentalist, was working as a congressional aide back then, and he remembers the committee hearings, the charges and countercharges of bias and flawed science.

“I will agree that these models are only as good as the data that goes into them,” Stiles said. “But when you think of all the shots these folks have had at this, and all the years of research by the IPCC – we’re talking 25 years! – you have to think we’ve reached some fairly solid conclusions that global warming is real and we, as humans, are playing a major role in it.”

Carl Hershner, a researcher and professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science who has tracked sea level rise in Virginia for years, expressed similar thoughts.

“One thing about science is that you never get rid of all the naysayers,” Hershner said. He described the IPCC as “an extremely conservative group” that “constantly looks at achieving consensus, and updates its findings regularly.”

Let’s get the politicians out of the debate and let the scientists discuss the full spectrum of data.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Global Warming? Not So Fast, Skeptics Say At Meeting
Scott Harper
Virginia Pilot
June 6, 2009

The Ehthanol Hoax: Still Going Strong

I posted last year about how ethanol was one big hoax. You can read that blog entry here:

Big Corn And Ethanol Hoax
84rules
March 13, 2008

And you can get information about the side effects here:

Ethanol: The Side Effects
84rules
April 29, 2008

Well, ethanol is still a big hoax and the Obama adminstration thinks that you and I are still dumb enough to fall for it. From the Wall Street Journal:

The biofuels industry already receives a 45 cent tax credit for every gallon of ethanol produced, or about $3 billion a year. Meanwhile, import tariffs of 54 cents a gallon and an ad valorem tariff of four to seven cents a gallon keep out sugar-based ethanol from Brazil and the Caribbean. The federal 10% blending requirement insures a market for ethanol whether consumers want it or not — a market Congress has mandated will double to 20.5 billion gallons in 2015.

What has happened here is that the Big Corn/Ethanol lobby has successfully conned Congress into giving them a monopoly over the ethanol industry and forced Americans to buy only from this monopoly. (Where are the trust-busters now?)

And then there are the side effects:

The Congressional Budget Office reported last month that Americans pay another surcharge for ethanol in higher food prices. CBO estimates that from April 2007 to April 2008 “the increased use of ethanol accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices.” Ethanol raises food prices because millions of acres of farmland and three billion bushels of corn were diverted to ethanol from food production. Americans spend about $1.1 trillion a year on food, so in 2007 the ethanol subsidy cost families between $5.5 billion and $8.8 billion in higher grocery bills.

So, not only are you paying higher gas prices, but you are paying higher food prices as well.

But, many of you out there will say, “We’re helping the environment, though!” Not so. Ethanol is having negligible effects, and in many instances, negative effects.

A second study — by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality — explains that the reduction in CO2 emissions from burning ethanol are minimal and maybe negative. Making ethanol requires new land from clearing forest and grasslands that would otherwise sequester carbon emissions. “As with petroleum based fuels,” the report concludes: “GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions are associated with the conversion and combustion of bio-fuels and every year they are produced GHG emissions could be released through time if new acres are needed to produce corn or other crops for biofuels.”

The EPA study also explores a series of alternative scenarios over 30 to 100 years. In some cases ethanol leads to a net reduction in carbon relative to using gasoline. But many other long-term scenarios observe a net increase in CO2 relative to burning fossil fuels. Ethanol produced in a “basic natural gas fired dry mill” will over a 30-year horizon produce “a 5% increase in GHG emissions compared to petroleum gasoline.” When ethanol is produced with coal burning mills, the process “significantly worsens the lifecycle GHG impact of ethanol” creating 34% more greenhouse gases than gasoline does over 30 years.

And the parting shot:

As public policy, ethanol is like the joke about the baseball prospect who is a poor hitter but a bad fielder. It doesn’t reduce CO2 but it does cost more. Imagine how many subsidies the Beltway would throw at ethanol if the fuel actually had any benefits.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Ethanol’s Grocery Bill
Review & Outlook
Wall Street Journal
June 2, 2009

Obama’s Tax Increases: Heralding The Beginning Of The Second Great Depression

Are you ready for double-digit unemployment and double-digit inflation rates? We haven’t seen that since Jimmy Carter. But, they are on their way here again.

Barack Obama’s tax-and-spend liberal policies are the same exact policies that Jimmy Carter tried and the same exact policies that took us into the recession of late 70’s/early 80’s. We got out of that recession by cutting taxes and letting the American economy grow.

Only this time, Obama’s policies are Carter’s policies on steroids. The results are going to be even more catastrophic than Carter’s, and those of us who remember 1979 know exactly how catastrophic they were. It was the first time since the Great Depression that we has a misiery index over 20. (Misery index = inflation rate plus unemployment rate.)

Here is what Barack Obama wants to do to our economy according to Jake Tapper of ABC News:

President Obama’s budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion – Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion – eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion – capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion – Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion – tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion – codify “economic substance doctrine”
$61 billion – repeal LIFO
$210 billion – international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion – information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion – excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion – repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million – repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million – repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion – repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion – increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million – eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years

Several things to notice here:

1. Look at all the new taxes on oil and gas companies. How high do you think the price for a gallon of gas will go? How badly do you think that will affect low and middle income families? It is not only the gas that will go up in price but anything that has to be transported will go up in price as well. That includes food, clothing and any other consumer commodity that must be transported by ship, truck or rail.

2. The total revenue on these new taxes is $989 billion. That doesn’t even cover the porkulus/spendulus bill (1.3 trillion total in spending and interest) and represents only about half of Obama’s proposed $1.75 trillion deficit! Who among you really believes that the Dems are going to stop their tax-and-spend orgy at people making more than $250,000 per year? How long before the proposed new taxes extend downwards towards people making $100,000 per year, or $75,000 per year or $50,000 per year? I’m betting months.

I have historical fact on my side for that last assertion. In 1992, Bill Clinton promised that his new taxes would not affect anyone making less than $90,000 per year. After they added up all the numbers, a new tax law was passed through Congress which levied new taxes on people making as little as $36,000 per year. So much for unkeepable promises.

These new taxes will mark the beginning of the Second Great Depression, just as Smoot-Hawley heralded the onset of the First Great Depression.

When all is said and done, the Democrats will only have themselves to blame for the coming financial disaster, but you can be certain they will be trying to pass the blame off on someone else.

You can access the complete entry on-line here:

Obama’s Budget: Almost $1 Trillion In New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
Jake Tapper
ABC News
February 26, 2009

Fact-Checking Obama’s Speech: His Words Ring Hollow

A look at a few of Obama’s statements from his speech last night. Clearly, as he did with his comments on the deficit, he is trying to lay blame at someone else’s feet if the economy gets worse, which under his policies, it most certainly will.

Here they are:

OBAMA: “We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It’s a plan that won’t help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values.”

THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money only goes to those who got in honest trouble, it hasn’t said so.

Defending the program Tuesday at a Senate hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it’s important to save those who made bad calls, for the greater good. He likened it to calling the fire department to put out a blaze caused by someone smoking in bed.

“I think the smart way to deal with a situation like that is to put out the fire, save him from his own consequences of his own action but then, going forward, enact penalties and set tougher rules about smoking in bed.”

Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suggested this month it’s not likely aid will be denied to all homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn’t afford.

“I think it’s just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans,” Sheila Bair told National Public Radio.

In other words, you and I will be working to pay off mortgages for people like Peggy The Moocher.

OBAMA: “And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.”

THE FACTS: Depends what your definition of automobiles, is. According to the Library of Congress, the inventor of the first true automobile was probably Germany’s Karl Benz, who created the first auto powered by an internal combustion gasoline engine, in 1885 or 1886. In the U.S., Charles Duryea tested what library researchers called the first successful gas-powered car in 1893. Nobody disputes that Henry Ford created the first assembly line that made cars affordable.

It’s hard to believe that any Ivy League institution would be proud of an alumnus who can’t get the facts of history straight.

OBAMA: “We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before.”

THE FACTS: Oil imports peaked in 2005 at just over 5 billion barrels, and have been declining slightly since. The figure in 2007 was 4.9 billion barrels, or about 58 percent of total consumption. The nation is on pace this year to import 4.7 billion barrels, and government projections are for imports to hold steady or decrease a bit over the next two decades.

Again, scare tactics from the One who wanted to give us “hope and change.” What he is basically saying here is that he wants us all to pony up more money for unproven technologies and make his environmentalist friends and lobbyists rich in the process.

OBAMA: “We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade.”

THE FACTS: Although 10-year projections are common in government, they don’t mean much. And at times, they are a way for a president to pass on the most painful steps to his successor, by putting off big tax increases or spending cuts until someone else is in the White House.

Obama only has a real say on spending during the four years of his term. He may not be president after that and he certainly won’t be 10 years from now.

And don’t forget that the price tag of the porkulus package is over $1.3 trillion. If Obama’s above statement were true, then there is no deficit right now and our children and grandchildren won’t have to work to pay off our debt. I don’t know of a single reputable economist who would agree with that. Certainly, the Congressional Budget Office does not agree with that assessment since they are predicting that our economy will shrink as a result of the porkulus/spendulus bill.

OBAMA: “Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.”

THE FACTS: This may be so, but it isn’t only Republicans who pushed for deregulation of the financial industries. The Clinton administration championed an easing of banking regulations, including legislation that ended the barrier between regular banks and Wall Street banks. That led to a deregulation that kept regular banks under tight federal regulation but extended lax regulation of Wall Street banks. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, later an economic adviser to candidate Obama, was in the forefront in pushing for this deregulation.

And here you have probably the most glaring example of Obama trying to pass the buck. I can tell you one set of regulations that wasn’t gutted: those regulations in the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to make bad loans to risky home buyers and ultimately resulted in the credit crisis we are in today. Obama actually tells a bold-faced lie here by making it seem like lenders did this voluntarily. Sorry, but it was the 1977 CRA (passed and signed into law by Democrats) that is to blame, not the Republicans.

OBAMA: “In this budget, we will end education programs that don’t work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don’t need them. We’ll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use. We will root out the waste, fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn’t make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas.”

THE FACTS: First, his budget does not accomplish any of that. It only proposes those steps. That’s all a president can do, because control over spending rests with Congress. Obama’s proposals here are a wish list and some items, including corporate tax increases and cuts in agricultural aid, will be a tough sale in Congress.

Second, waste, fraud and abuse are routinely targeted by presidents who later find that the savings realized seldom amount to significant sums. Programs that a president might consider wasteful have staunch defenders in Congress who have fought off similar efforts in the past.

This also shows Obama’s ignorance on economic matters. Companies do not outsource jobs because the American tax system gives them a break, they outsource them because the tax system already makes it more expensive to hire American than it does to ship the jobs offshore. If our corporate tax code were not so suffocating, fewer jobs would get shipped overseas. Obama’s plans will ensure that more jobs go outside of the United States.

OBAMA: “Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years.”

THE FACTS: While the president’s stimulus package includes billions in aid for renewable energy and conservation, his goal is unlikely to be achieved through the recovery plan alone.

In 2007, the U.S. produced 8.4 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, including hydroelectric dams, solar panels and windmills. Under the status quo, the Energy Department says, it will take more than two decades to boost that figure to 12.5 percent.

And it will cost more to implement and continue to run these energy production facilities than it costs to use the proven technologies we already have. Plus, you have hypocrits like Ted Kennedy opposing windmills near their vacation homes because it somehow disrupts their view.

OBAMA: “Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs.”

THE FACTS: This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.

The president’s own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, “It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error.”

It also means they will have wiggle room to blame others when their own policies come up severely short.

Obama’s entire speech was nothing more than window dressing. He and the Democrats are looking for a pipe dream that simply will not come true. Government cannot magically create jobs and energy sources have these nagging little things like the laws of physics to contend with. Further, taxpayers will not appreciate having to bail out people like Peggy the Moocher and other malcontents waiting for a welfare handout while the rest of us actually get off of our rears and at least try to do work.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

FACT CHECK: Obama’s Words On Home Aid Ring Hollow
Calvin Woodward and Jim Kuhnhenn (Tom Raum, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Dina Cappiello also contributed)
Associated press via TownHall.com
February 25, 2009

Democrats Force Higher Energy Costs On America: Ban Exploration Of Oil Rich Lands

Get ready for higher energy costs courtesy of the Democrat-controlled Congress. The Senate voted 66-12 to ensure that we Americans remain dependent on foreign oil to satisfy the needs of our economy. What is even worse is that now, we will be at the mercy of OPEC more than ever before in our history.

For those of you from Virginia, you’ll note that the very first legislative action of Senator Mark Warner was to ensure that we Virginians are paying higher prices for our energy needs. You’ll also noted that Jim Webb voted that way as well.

Writing for Town Hall, Amanda Carpenter has this to say:

The 1200-page, pork-laden, $10 billion proposal locks up millions of acres of energy-rich property by designating it as environmentalist-friendly “federal wilderness” area where not even as much as a bicycle would be permitted to travel across the land. Many of these areas recently became available when the ban on domestic drilling in Western states expired last fall and the liberal left couldn’t muster the courage to keep it in place due to rising energy prices. Now Democratic leaders are using different legislative strategies to put a new kind of ban in place.

The Dems have deluded themsleves into believing that some form of alternative energy is going to come to our rescue within the next four years. Don’t hold your breath over it. Oil is still the most economical energy source we have and no matter how much money we put into solar or wind or pixie dust, alternative energy sources will not be able to make up for the amount of energy we will be losing because of this land grab.

More:

For example, one piece of the bill that has drawn the ire of the Wall Street Journal is a provision sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank (D.-Mass.). He’d like to make a robust, container shipping port located in his district’s Taunton River into a scenic tourist destination. This would have the liberally convenient side effect of killing a proposal to create a terminal to import liquefied natural gas.

Again, this will have the effect of forcing energy prices higher. But will Barney Frank, Jim Webb and Mark Warner care? No! They have all the perks they need as members of Congress and no reason to care about the needs of Joe and Jane Average American.

And no bill shoved through Congress using the new Democrat rules that bar Republicans from offering alternative legislation or bringing in testimony from opposing viewpoints would be complete without loads of pork.

Read on:

Then, as to be expected in an omnibus bill, there’s the pork. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.) is requesting $461 million to legally settle a dispute over the San Joaquin River with the environmentalist group Natural Resources Defense Council. The money would be used for a water project that has the “minimum goal” of restoring 500 salmon to the river. (That’s nearly $1 million per fish!) Montana Sen. Jon Tester (D.) wants $5 million to fund a “Wolf Compensation and Prevention Program” to assist property owners use “non-lethal” measures to prohibit wolves from killing their livestock.

Didn’t Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid promise fiscal responsibility when they took over in 2006? Weren’t they complaining that the Republicans were waiting resources and pushing energy prices higher?

The Dems lied to us back in 2006 and again in 2008. We are in for some very long years ahead, possibly even a new Great Depression and the Democrats will only have themselves to blame for it.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Harry Reid’s Land Grab
Amanda Carpenter
TownHall.com
January 10, 2009

To see how they voted, click here:

How They Voted On S. 22
United States Senate
January 11, 2008