Secretary of the Treasury Discusses Energy and Climate Change Policy? Seems Odd.

By Tom Doggett
WASHINGTON, March 4 (Reuters) - U.S. oil and natural gas producing companies should not receive federal subsidies in the form of tax breaks because their businesses contribute to global warming, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress on Wednesday.

It was one of the sharpest attacks yet on the oil and gas industry by a top Obama administration official, reinforcing the White House stance that new U.S. energy policy will focus on promoting renewable energy sources like wind and solar power and rely less on traditional fossil fuels like oil as America tackles climate change.

"We don't believe it makes sense to significantly subsidize the production and use of sources of energy (like oil and gas) that are dramatically going to add to our climate change (problem). We don't think that's good economic policy and we think changing those incentives is good for the country," Geithner told the Senate Finance Committee at a hearing on the White House's proposed budget for the 2010 spending year.

The Obama administration's budget would levy an excise tax on oil and natural gas produced in the Gulf of Mexico, raising $5.3 billion in revenue from 2011 to 2019.

This new 13 percent tax on all oil and gas production in the Gulf would only affect those companies enjoying a loophole that allows them to avoid paying royalties on the energy supplies they drill. Companies already paying royalties would get a tax credit.

Obama's budget would also place a $4 per acre annual fee on energy leases in the Gulf that are designated as nonproducing. The budget proposal projects the fee would generate $1.2 billion from 2010 to 2019

My Thoughts:

I am absolutely convinced that Obama intends to have oil prices back up to the levels of this past summer. Why? Tax revenues and tax on windfall profits from big oil. The funny thing is that during the campaign Obama constantly criticized big oil for their greed. Here we see the greedy one is sitting in the White House in Washington.

As unemployment levels stay stagant, as Washington keeps printing currency, and as energy prices increase only one thing will happen.....double digit inflation. A double whammy on the backs of the middle class, who have seen the devaluation of their assets by almost 50%, now will pay a second time as prices rise, stealing more money from our pocketbooks.

Is this what Obama wants? I have to think he does, why would he have the Secretary of the Treasury discussing energy and global warming policy? Doesn't Giethner have enough to worry about with nationalizing the banks?

Missle Defense Shield

On February 4th, Iranian officials announced that they launched their first satellite into orbit. There is no international agreement limiting countries from developing missiles for space launch vehicles (SLV), but even the UN admits that, "Aside from warhead-specific technology and re-entry vehicle technology, there is little difference from SLV and ballistic missile technology."

The Iranian SAFIR-2 rocket has a range of about 1500 miles and its design is not capable of carrying a warhead. However, considering the pace that Iran is developing a nuclear program and obtaining enriched uranium, isn’t it inconceivable to think that this hostile nation would try to develop rockets with the range to deliver a nuclear warhead to Israel or even the United States?

For thirty years Iran has been a model of a rouge state; deliberately refusing to live up to international agreements, financing and harboring terrorists and creating a state that is intolerant to dissent. Even if President Obama is successful with opening a diplomatic dialogue with Iran, it is doubtful that we will ever get to the point that we can "trust, but verify".

The international community has two options; go to war with Iran or develop technologies that would make the Iranian pursuit of weapons of mass destruction obsolete; this would be the Missile Defense Shield. President Obama’s reluctance to do either has put a cornerstone of his foreign policy (improving relations with Iran) at a great disadvantage and this country at risk.

Based on Obama’s statement against the Iraqi War, I cannot see him supporting a first strike against Iran. That leaves a Missile Defense Shield; during the campaign Obama was less than enthusiastic about the defense shield program, saying that he would evaluate the program based on the success of testing. The Defense Department has conducted 13 tests, of which 8 have been successful, most recently on December 6th, 2008. Despite the success, Obama seems to be more than willing to trade in this program to appease Vladimir Putin than to implement and protect his country.

What the Obama Administration should do is to convince Russia that the Missile Defense Shield can be used to protect Russians as well as Americans. Offer to share the technology and the development with Russia. This is nothing new, both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush has made similar offers. Obama should show Russia that we are serious about this offer.

It’s this simple, without a first strike option or a strong missile defense diplomatic efforts with Iran will fail.

Obama: You know, I don't remember exactly what Joe was referring to, not surprisingly

This from the UK Telegraph.

Barack Obama throws Joe Biden under the bus
Posted By: Toby Harnden at Feb 10, 2009 at 02:30:33

Pity poor Joe Biden. His "there's still a 30 percent chance we're going to get it wrong" quote is put straight to President Barack Obama during the White House press conference just now and his boss seemed to want to say: "Vice-President Who?"

As reporters started giggling, Obama came close to conceding that Biden was indeed a joke. "You know, I don't remember exactly what Joe was referring to, not surprisingly."

The President went on to say that "I think what Joe may have been suggesting, although I wouldn't ascribe any numerical percentage to any of this, is that given the magnitude of the challenges that we have, any single thing that we do is going to be part of the solution, not all of the solution."

Of course, Biden wasn't saying anything of the sort - Obama knew that and all the rest of us did too.

Biden's exact quote, read out by Fox's Major Garrett at the presser was: "If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, if we stand up there and we really make the tough decisions, there's still a 30 percent chance we're going to get it wrong."

Clearly, Obama and his aides were unhappy about Biden's loose lips. On Friday, top Obama adviser David Axelrod said on CNN: "I don't know exactly about what that math was."

We're probably going to have to get used to Obama explaining "what Joe may have been suggesting". And Biden must be wondering if he's going to end up as a Dan Quayle figure.

Ms. Pelosi - It's All Yours

Politico reported this morning that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged Democrats in the House to dismiss the call for bipartisanship stating, " ..it is a process extraneous to passing a stimulus bill."

Yeah, we totally understand your arrogance Ms. Pelosi, you feel your party is running the show and if you exclude the minority voice who would care enough to stop you. That's why you ordered most house committee meetings to deny any motion by Republicans to move forward. I realized that long before yesterday that you had no intention for bipartisanship in your house. The only thing is Ms. Pelosi, the person calling for bipartisanship is the President of the United States. You should talk to him.

Every Republican out there understands that you have all the votes you need to pass any legislation that you want. No need for you to compromise, just do it. But understand that Republicans, like myself and over 58 million others, would we ever vote for an inexperienced senator as President of the United States, nor would we ever vote for someone with your values. So you better be sure you don't screw it up. If you do not have bipartisan support then this is your spending bill, your recession and your issue to be accountable for in the next election.

God speed Ms. Pelosi, 2010 is right around the corner.

Create or Save?

The great debate of the day is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka - The Economic Stimulus Bill. The catch phrase from the left is that this bill with create or save 3 to 4 million jobs in the next 2 years, though President Obama has, on occasion, lowered his rhetoric to 2.5 million jobs.

It's not just President Obama that is saying create or save phrase. Every democrat on Capitol Hill is saying the same thing and not surprising the media is repeating the democratic talking points. Not one person is actually looking at the words being used and providing any type of analysis on what they are really saying. Just me.

The analysis that the media provides always talk about job creation. Their assumption is that the ARRA is going create 3 million jobs, but this is not what Obama and his friends are saying. Look if Obama believed that his spending programs would create 3 million jobs he would simply say this bill creates 3 million jobs. Instead Obama adds these words "or save" to every one of his speeches. If we are going to spend $900 billion I want something qualifiable to measure against its success. How do you measure jobs saved? At the end of the day are we going to say that we spent over 2 trillion dollars to keep our unemployment rate at 7.6%? That's moronic.

Government spending does not buy us out of a recession. Sweden would be a world power if this was the case. If Government spending creates jobs then why has France’s unemployment rate been a steady 9% for thirty years?

Even if the $900 billion dollar spending bill is signed into law and it really does create 3 million jobs that means we spent $300,000 per new job. How does that make sense to anyone?

Pam Davis - Hero

If you ever doubted that one person can make a difference then the story of Pam Davis, CEO of Edward Hospital, will change your mind.

Last week, for the third time, the Illinois Health Facility Planning Board rejected Edward Hospital proposed full-service facility in Plainfield. Even though Plainfield and Will County has one of the state's fastest growing population base and one of the lowest hospital beds to population ratio in the state. Despite this setback the planning board did approve a facility that will provide emergency care and for this we can thank the vigilance and courage of Pam Davis.

In 2003 Edward Hospital first proposed a full service facility to be built in Plainfield, IL. Davis was told that she would only gain approval for the new facility if she used a specific contractor. Instead of playing Illinois' favorite game, pay for play, Davis decided to go to the FBI. For eight months she wore a wire and the information gathered by the recorded conversations exposed corruption on the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board, leading to indictments of two of the four board members, Tony Rezko, and a corrupt governor.

In the state of Illinois, where turning your head and playing the game, is often easier than doing the right thing, Pam Davis shows us that when you stay true to your convictions change can happen. This is why ABC News named her Person of the Week and new Governor Pat Quinn appointed her to be on the Illinois Reform Commission. Thank you Pam Davis!

Here is the link to see the ABC News feature on Pam Davis.

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=6615027

Giethner Confirmed as Secretary of Treasury

By a 60-34 vote the US Senate confirmed Timothy Giethner as Secretary of the Treasury. The following Republican Senators voted to confirm the nomination:

• Corker (R-TN), Yea
• Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
• Crapo (R-ID), Yea
• Ensign (R-NV), Yea
• Hatch (R-UT), Yea
• Shelby (R-AL), Yea
• Snowe (R-ME), Yea

As John McCain once said, "We will know their names! "

Say No to the Freedom of Choice Act

During the campaign President Obama was asked what he would do to preserve reproductive rights of women, he response was "The first thing I'd do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."

As written, the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is a shallow piece of legislation that was introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer and co-sponsored by then Sen. Barak Obama. The stated policy of the act declares that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

A week following the November elections, the U.S Conference of Bishops, headed by Cardinal Francis George, released a statement that the Freedom of Choice Act “…was so sweeping and draconian that it would not only repeal every single state restriction on abortion, it would seriously jeopardize the right of Catholic hospitals and doctors to opt out of performing abortions.”

Supporters of FOCA state that a religious facility is protected by Federal Conscience Law and does not mean that simply because a they may receive public funding will it require them to perform abortions. This is true, but the FOCA contains a provision that states that any individual aggrieved by a violation of this act may obtain appropriate relief in a civil action. Meaning that it would allow one lawsuit after another against any facility refusing to perform abortions. If concerns for the religious facilities were genuine then specific language protecting them would be written in to this law. It is not and that speaks volumes.

FOCA states that the fetal viability is the stage of the pregnancy where there is reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman. This means the repeal of the ban of the partial birth abortion. Recent polls have shown that American support of banning partial birth abortions remain above the 70% mark. No one, except Barbara Boxer, can say that partial birth abortion procedure is not inhumane and a violent act against the unborn.

Recently, a 14 year old girl went to a Plan Parenthood facility in Cincinnati, OH, with her soccer coach, 21 year old John Haller. Haller had been engaging in sexual activity with the girl for more than a year. Instead of calling the girl’s parents (and the police), Plan Parenthood called Haller’s cell phone and failed to verify that they were talking to the girl’s parents. Plan Parenthood performed the abortion and sent the girl home with a bag of condoms. Laws protecting minors exist for a reason and this is one of them. FOCA would reverse any regulation restricting access of abortions to minors without parental notification. Currently 36 states has this law and would be subject to repeal these laws or face threat of civil action.

FOCA finds its justification for this congressional act from Congress’ authority over interstate commerce. The act finds since many facilities accept patients who have to cross state borders, employs doctors and nurses who cross state lines to go to work and buy equipment from out of state providers that this gives Congress the right to regulate these facilities based on the Interstate Commerce rules in the Constitution. This stretch of section 8 of Article 1 of the constitution allows the federal government to overturn any state law it might have restricting abortion, such as the 36 states that currently have parental notification laws. Even beyond abortion, this act sets a precident that allows the federal government to infridge on a wide ranging areas currently in the state's jurisdiction. Certainly, if this law is sign, expect a battle in the Supreme Court to rule on its constitutionality.

The Freedom of Choice Act may appeal to the Democratic Party's core constituency but hardly reflect the values of everyday Americans. FOCA is bad legislation and should not be supported. Please contact your representative in US House and Senate and urge them to vote against this act.

When Cats and Dogs Love Each Other

No one has ever excused me of being left of center however in the past couple of days I have supported a Kennedy (see post on Caroline Kennedy) and now the Washington Post editors are echoing the same sentiment I posted yesterday on the economic stimulus. Here is the link their editoral and a brief snippet of their comments.

"...some in Congress and the new administration apparently see the country's present recession as an opportunity to change the federal government's spending priorities more generally or simply to reward loyal political constituencies. This is understandable, given that the voters endorsed the Democratic Party and its priorities in November. But it's risky to make new, multiyear commitments in the middle of a crisis without debate over competing priorities -- and without paying for them through some means other than borrowing.

Helping hire, equip and pay police, a $4 billion item under the bill, might be a good idea, but writing checks to individual households for the same amount would do more to stimulate the economy. Ditto for $16 billion in Pell Grants for college students, $2.1 billion for Head Start and $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. All of those ideas may have merit, but why do they belong in an emergency measure aimed to kick-start the economy?"

Washington Post, January 25, 2009

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/24/AR2009012401616.html

Back to Parsing Words and what the Economic Stimulus Really Means

I think the day has come to define the difference between and emergency economic stimulus bill and pork barrel spending. During President Obama's weekly radio address he highlighted several key points to his plan:

• Double within three years the amount of energy obtained from renewable resources.
• Upgrade 10,000 schools and improve learning for about 5 million students
• Save 2 billion dollars by making federal buildings more energy efficient
• Triple the number of undergraduate and graduate fellowships in science
• Tighten security at 90 major ports.

All of these plans have merits on their own but none of these will stimulate our economy. Let me make my point clearer, tightening security at our ports might be a good thing, increasing science fellowships might be a good thing, investing in renewal energy might be a good thing, but none will provide an economic stimulus that is needed immediately.

Maybe we could use a little transparency on President Obama's intentions. These are projects that President Obama has wanted since the day he has started campaigning, but he is putting an "economic stimulus" cloak on them in the hopes that people would support this because we are in such serious economic trouble and no one would notice.

The Presidents claims that his infrastucture programs will alone create 600,000 new jobs. That should be comforting to the 5,000 employees Microsoft laid off yesterday. They may be able to get jobs paving streets.

Mr. President let me give you some ideas on what would have an immediate impact on our economy:

• Reduce taxes on corporations by a third. That would still be nearly twice as much as corporations in Ireland pay.
• Do a two year furlough on capital gains taxes. With the huge losses we have seen in the past few months no one is going to have capital gains anyhow.
• Since the unemployment roles have nearly doubled in the past year do you think that maybe a time for an aggressive job training program? Duh.
• Allow people to dip into to their 401k savings without penalty taxes to get caught up on their bills.
• Repeal many of the SOX compliancy regulations that prevent companies from upgrading information systems.

President Obama ends his address by telling the American people "It's a plan that will save or create 3 to 4 million jobs over the next few years." Are we back to a time when we are going to parse every word that a President says? Save or create? What does that mean? We may have 10% unemployment but he can take credit for saving 4 million jobs that would have been lost had he not been there to help us?

Mr. President your plan is an $800 billion pork barrel!

President Obama and His Childish First Week

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics. We remain a young nation. But in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.

President Barak Obama – January 20, 2009

The first week President Obama has held office isn’t over and one is left with wondering how much conviction Obama has in the very words that he wrote and spoke. In separate events today President Obama was at the least extremely arrogant and at worst downright insulting.

Early in the day Obama warned the Republicans in Congress they need to quit listening to Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and his administration. First off, if Republicans had listened to Rush Limbaugh, they wouldn’t have supported the government bailout in October and John McCain would not have won the party’s nomination. Second, Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House, but you, Mr. President, are insisting that the new emergency stimulus has to have bi-partisan support. President Obama this is your spending bill, and with the strangle hold the Democrats have on Washington you can pass your spending bill without a single Republican supporting it. So if you want this bi-partisan support then it’s the Democrats responsibility to go out of their way to get along with Republicans.

Now if the new administration was concerned about transparency they would publish the White House Press Briefings transcripts on their web site, much like President Bush and President Clinton did. But President Obama has no plans on doing that. So please accept my apology if I don’t get the quote correct from today’s press briefing. Several reporters asked about Republican concerns about the so-call emergency stimulus bill. All the White House could say is that they heard the Republican leadership concerns but that there was not going to be any movement on the spending spree planed by the House Democrats.

Adding insult to injury the New York Post reports, “While discussing the stimulus package with top lawmakers in the White House's Roosevelt Room, President Obama shot down a critic with a simple message.

"I won," he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. "I will trump you on that."
The response was to the objection by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) to the president's proposal to increase benefits for low-income workers who don't owe federal income taxes.

Not that Obama was gloating. He was just explaining that he aims to get his way on the stimulus package and all other legislation, sources said, noting his unrivaled one-party control of both congressional chambers. “

Mr. Obama you are the one that wants bi-partisan support, but you don’t have to be genius to see that you only want that so you can have political backup. I can hear it right now, well the Republicans supported the bill too. Mr. Obama if you want Republican support then you are going to have to make concessions, if you choose not to then not one Republican should support this bill. Pass it yourself!

Guatanamo Bay Closing in 1 year

President Obama issued an executive order to shutdown the terrorist detention at Guantanamo Bay by the end of the year. The Obama Administration does not have a plan to do with detainees currently being held there, but expects to have one before the end of the year.

You have got to be kidding me. The man has been campaigning on this issue for nearly three years and he doesn’t have a plan? Good Lord, even if winning the election was surprise to Obama he has had since November to come up with a good idea to present to the American people. It's almost like he is winging it!

I Know J LO and Caroline Kennedy is no J LO

Yesterday, citing personal reasons, Caroline Kennedy informed Gov. David Paterson that she wanted her name withdrawn from consideration to fill Hillary Clinton vacant Senate seat. It’s not often (if ever) that I have empathy for a Kennedy, but in this case I do. I can’t help feeling that the elitist attitudes of Democratic Party and the media (New York Times in particular) did Caroline Kennedy in. Their opinions and actions have demonstrated they do not feel a citizen legislator is worthy of holding office. Shame on them, as they used the same tatics they perfected on Sarah Palin against Ms. Kennedy.

Understand, I would not agree with 99% of what a Senator Caroline Kennedy would advocate in the Senate, but I can say the same thing about any appointee coming from Gov. Patterson. This is not about ideology; it’s about the belief that the experience of being a productive citizen is just as valuable as one has enjoyed the ‘favors’ of office.

Caroline Kennedy has asked for none of the spotlight or the responsibilities her last name carries, none the less she has performed her duties with dignity and grace. Sure she is only famous because of her last name, causing Congressman Gary Ackermann to snipe “I don't know what Caroline Kennedy's qualifications are, except that she has name recognition, but so does J.Lo.”

Ackerman thinks he is being coy but in reality he is showing his ignorance! Part of what separates Caroline Kennedy from celeb-retards like J. LO, is that she has not craved for the headlines by exploiting the over indulgent media with one love affair after another. We don’t see unflattering mug shots of her like we have of Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohen and half of her Kennedy cousins. She simply goes about her life being a mother of three children, a wife of twenty years, a student of law at Columbia and Harvard, an author of several history and law books and a concern citizen who raised nearly 70 million dollars to improve NYC public schools. I’ll say it again, I do not agree with a whole host of issues that Caroline Kennedy supports but I cannot take away her qualifications that would make her a U.S. Senator from New York.

So why has the possibility of her becoming the next Senator Kennedy caused all this controversy. I don’t think it would surprise anyone that Gary Ackerman has been a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton. This same support of Hillary Clinton can be said of several members of the NY Times Editorial Board, who just so happened to ask the most insulting questions and then decide to publish the transcripts of Kennedy’s interview with them with every “you know” in the transcription. Deliberately making her look bad. The Clintons may not have ordered this bashing of Caroline Kennedy but her supporters cannot get over the fact that the Kennedy endorsed Obama for President.

Biden Steps In It...... Again!

After only two days Joe Biden (and his wife) is responsible for the first two embarrassing moments for the new administration. The first was on the Oprah Show where Dr. Jill Biden states Obama offered Joe his choice of VP or Sec. of State, which I'm sure Hillary was happy to hear.

On Day 2 the Vice President was given the simple task of swearing in the new White House staff and it turned into an insult to Chief Justice Roberts. Make sure you check out the icy look on President Obama's face after the remark - priceless!

It's clear that Obama is going to have to do something to keep Biden from being seen. I hear that there is going to be vacancies at the Guantanamo Hilton.

Bailout Banks Big Contributors to Obama's Inaugaration

Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley all beneficiaries of the government bailout show up on the largest contributor list to the Obama Inaugration.

Obama's Choice to run IRS did not pay taxes

Timothy Geithner has paid over $48,000 in back taxes and interest, including $26,000 just last November, right before his nomination papers went to the Senate. As secretary of the Treasury, his job includes oversight of the Internal Revenue Service.

Geithner reportedly has no explanation for his failure to pay the self-employment taxes even though he was notified by the International Monetary Fund where he worked at the time that he was responsible for them and had signed documents to that effect. Obama continues to back Geithner, who was head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the time of his nomination and has been heavily involved in high-level government discussions about economic rescue measures in recent months.

My Thoughts: This man didn't pay taxes for three years! This was not a simple oversight, it is an example of habitual criminal behaviour. Lets ask Wesley Snipes where Giethner should begin his term as Secretary of the Treasury!