Barack Obama "just cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people". So why all the tea bags? Obama understands our burden, don't you know?
Senior White House adviser David Axelrod on Sunday suggested the "Tea Party" movement is an "unhealthy" reaction to the tough economic climate facing the country.
"I think any time you have severe economic conditions there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that's unhealthy," Axelrod said.
Axelrod is bewildered:
"The thing that bewilders me is that this president just cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people," Axelrod argued. "I think the tea bags should be directed elsewhere because he certainly understands the burden that people face."
I suppose Axelrod, and his boss, think all Americans are either stupid or are not paying attention. Some of us, stupid or not, however, are paying attention. Obama believes Americans will be so grateful for the crumbs he's tossing out, said crumbs just now showing up in their paychecks, they will not notice the massive loaf Obama has hidden behind the curtain. That loaf will dwarf the crumby tax cut.
Obama's cap and trade plan will cause all Americans' utility bills to skyrocket. He admitted as much during his campaign:
You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.
And so many of those consumers will blame not the person responsible, one President Barack Obama, they will instead blame the evil utility companies. Obama is counting on it and he probably won't be disappointed.
Obama is committed to the global warming hysteria and the EPA is chomping at the bit to get in on the action:
action marks the first step toward imposing limits on pollution linked
to climate change, which would mean tighter rules for cars and power
plants. Agency officials cautioned such regulations are expected to be
part of a lengthy process and not issued anytime soon.
The Environmental Protection Agency concluded Friday that greenhouse gases linked to climate change "endanger public health and welfare," setting the stage for regulating them under federal clean air laws.
The EPA action marks the first step toward imposing limits on pollution linked to climate change, which would mean tighter rules for cars and power plants. Agency officials cautioned such regulations are expected to be part of a lengthy process and not issued anytime soon.
Sooner or later, the devastating effects on the economy are guaranteed:
Limits on carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases would have widespread economic and social impact, from requiring better fuel efficiency for automobiles to limiting emissions from power plants and industrial sources, changing the way the nation produces energy.
In announcing the proposed finding, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said it "confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations." She reiterated that the Obama administration prefers that climate change be address by Congress through broad, economy-wide limits on climate-changing pollution. But the EPA finding of endangerment prepares for possible regulatory action if Congress fails to act.
Congress is considering imposing an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions along with giving industry the ability to trade emission allowances to mitigate costs. Legislation could be considered by the House before the August congressional recess.
An endangerment finding would lead to destructive regulatory schemes that Congress never authorized. Significant uncertainty persists with regard to climate sensitivity—the core scientific issue. Despite the ongoing increase in air’s CO2 content, various measures of public health and welfare—life-expectancy, heat-related mortality, weather-related mortality, air quality, agricultural productivity—continue to improve. Endangerment of public health and welfare is not “reasonably anticipated.”
What else is behind that curtain? A $6 billion National Service boondoggle:
The House passed the “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act” – or the GIVE Act – last week. The Senate took up the companion “SERVE Act” Tuesday afternoon. According to a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Senate bill, S. 277, the bill would cost “$418 million in 2010 and about $5.7 billion over the 2010-2014 period.” And like most federal programs, these would be sure to grow over time. The bills reauthorize the Clinton-era Americorps boondoggle program and an older law, the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973.
The programs have already been allocated $1.1 billion for fiscal 2009, including $200 million from the porkulus package signed into law last month. In addition to recruiting up to 250,000 enrollees in AmeriCorps, the GIVE/SERVE bills would create new little armies of government volunteers, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps, Veterans Service Corps, and and expanded National Civilian Community Corps for disaster relief and energy conservation. And that’s not all. Spending would include new funds for:
*Foster Grandparent Program ($115 million);
*Learn and Serve America. ($97 million);
*Retired and Senior Volunteer Program ($70 million);
*Senior Companion Program ($55 million);
*$12 million for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for “the Silver Scholarships and Encore Fellowships programs;”
*$10 million a year from 2010-2014 for a new “Volunteers for Prosperity” program at USAID to “award grants to fund opportunities for volunteering internationally
in coordination with eligible organizations; and
*Social Innovation Fund and Volunteer Generation Fund-$50 million in 2010; $60 million in 2011; $70 million in 2012; $80 million in 2013; and $100 million in 2014.
I'm still trying to find authority for this in the Constitution but I must have an old copy. At any rate, someone will have to pay for all this volunteering. Better hang on to that "tax cut". There's more:
The House and Senate approved budgets of about $3.5 trillion for the government on Thursday with no Republican support, a sign of deep partisan tensions likely to color Congressional efforts to enact major policy initiatives sought by President Obama.
On the heels of House approval of its spending plan for 2010, the Senate voted 55 to 43 shortly before midnight to adopt a similar budget after a day spent laboring over politically tinged amendments that did little to change a fiscal blueprint generally in keeping with Mr. Obama’s ambitious agenda.
This ambitious agenda comes with an astronomical price tag. Someone will be forced to pay for it. Make no mistake taxpayers giddy over Obama's pathetic tax cut, it will be you.