Thursday, July 02, 2009
National Center's Tom Borelli Discusses Cap-and-Trade on Glenn Beck
In case you missed it, here's the segment of
Glenn Beck's Fox TV show from Wednesday night featuring Tom Borelli of the National Center for Public Policy Research and David Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation.
The topic is cap and trade, USCAP, corporations doing the bidding of the left, the Waxman-Markey global warming bill and the use of last minute amendments filled with goodies (amendments Congress wasn't given time to read, of course) by the House leadership to get the legislation approved by the House.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Conservatives, Energy, Liberals, Media, Regulation
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:11 AM
Naughty Conservatives Shouldn't Mind Votes for Waxman-Markey (Or So We're Told)
In an error-riddled column posted Wednesday on TownHall.com, the supposedly conservative Michael Gerson has a novel take on the
Republican Congressmen who voted for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill: He blames conservatives for minding.
One of his reasons: "It is typical that we praise independent judgment and political nerve in our elected officials -- until they actually show those qualities."
If any conservatives and/or others dedicated to limiting government called on our elected representatives to show "independent judgement and political nerve" in service of anything other than principle, they were wrong to do so.
Gerson doesn't quote anybody, though, and I can see why: There are a lot more quotes available of conservatives calling upon their elected representatives to govern
conservatively.
Gerson's try to tar the conservative movement with a hypocrisy tag doesn't work.
Gerson is honest, though, in saying he likes the bill (I find it difficult to believe this man is a conservative).
He likes it because, he says, the global warming theory is the dominant view of the "scientific community" (a brush broad enough to include gynecologists), because "some scientists" warn of "possible 'tipping points'," and because, supposedly, mankind's carbon dioxide emissions have reduced crop yields and driven some species to extinction. How he could possibly know this is not mentioned, possibly because what he claims is beyond the current ability of modern science to prove or disprove.
Gerson says "global warming since the 19th century is undeniable," which is another way of saying the planet warmed as the Little Ice Age ended, though Gerson does not mention that there even was a Little Ice Age (and before it, warmer temperatures, though no SUVs).
Gerson doesn't mention, either, that if concern for crop yields is paramount, a little more CO2 in the atmosphere might be just the thing.
And then there's his comment that warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is "closely correlated with increases in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide," which by itself would prove nothing if it were true, but it isn't.
There's more, such as Gerson's ludicrious comment that in failing to appreciate cap-and-trade, "conservatives seem strangely intent on ignoring the power of markets to encourage... innovation," as if Waxman-Markey had anything whatsoever to do with
free markets (oops, Gerson left the word "free" out, so there goes the innovation).
I could go on, but there's really no need. I linked to the version of this column on TownHall with comments. The column is impossible to appreciate, but some of the comments are superlative.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Liberals, Media, Regulation
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:16 AM
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
We're Not Traitors, But Is Paul Krugman?
Many readers will be aware that New York Times opinion writer Paul Krugman wrote in his Monday column that individuals who did not support the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill when it came up in the House for a vote last Friday are guilty of
"a form of treason" against the planet.
A thought experiment: If two doctors were to disagree on a patient's diagnosis, and Krugman agreed with one of them, would the one Krugman disagrees with be guilty of a form of treason?
Even that analogy is too generous to Krugman, as doctors take an oath to (essentially) be loyal to their patients' welfare, but it is not at all common for people with opinions (of any kind) on cap-and-trade or even global warming to first take an oath of loyalty to the planet.
What many of us have done is take oaths of loyalty to the United States. The Waxman-Markey bill would ship American jobs overseas, raise energy prices, shovel money to special interests corruptly, drag down economic growth and impose regressive regulatory taxes on consumers. It would not have a measurable effect on temperature. As it does bad without doing good, the Waxman-Markey bill is bad for the United States of America.
Thus, by Paul Krugman's definition, anyone who supports Waxman-Markey is guilty of "a form of treason" against the United States.
Fortunately for Krugman, his definition of treason is even more silly than it is offensive, which is saying a great deal.
P.S. Climate Skeptic has very good
commentary about Krugman's treason charge, going into different areas than I did. (I read it after seeing a link on
Coyote Blog.) Interesting that neither Krugman nor his editors knew that you can't write "degrees" with meaning without specifying the temperature scale being used.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Climate, Liberals, Media
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:55 AM
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Quote of Note: How to Control Health Care Costs
"When President Obama tells you he's 'reforming' health care to 'control costs,' the point to remember is that the only way to control costs in health care is to have less of it."
-Mark Steyn, "Being Taken Care of Weakens Us," Washington Times, June 15, 2009
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Media, Retirement
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:12 AM
Look, Everybody, I Have a Hybrid!
Not me; I don't, but when I saw this car in a parking lot, I thought, "Gee, do you suppose car companies believe hybrid buyers want the world to know they drive a hybrid?"
I think I'll get a big sticker for the back window of my vehicle. It will say:
GASOLINE. I'm sure everybody's very interested.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Business, Energy
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:14 AM
Monday, June 29, 2009
Black Activists Praise Supreme Court
Project 21 has issued a press release on the
Supreme Court's affirmative action decision today:
Black Activists Praise Supreme Court's Affirmative Action Decision
Justices' Ruling Throws Sotomayor Nomination into Serious Question
For Release: June 29, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org
With the U.S. Supreme Court dealing a stinging blow to race-based employment practices, members of the Project 21 black leadership network are praising the Ricci v. DeStefano decision as a step toward removing the racial trappings of a by-gone era and putting all Americans on equal footing.
"It was clear to this Court that barring people from promotion because of the color of their skin is wrong. The only downside is that four justices still cling to an outmoded and discriminatory line of thought," said Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie. "True equality allows people to rise and fall on their merits. That's what this decision protects. How can one oppose such fairness?"
In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed the lower court ruling, barring the use of race as the sole factor in promotions. In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the City's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions."
The decision also casts serious doubt on the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. She was a member of the appeals court panel that issued the one-paragraph opinion overturned today. Now, she must explain to senators how she could be so much at odds with her potential future colleagues.
"Justice is supposed to be blind, but the opinion she joined in the Ricci case - now overturned by the Supreme Court - shows Sonia Sotomayor believes justice should be based on ethnicity," added Project 21's Massie. "Her ruling in Ricci is an unambiguous example of her placing her feelings and personal prejudices above what the law dictates or allows."
The Ricci case revolves around a 2003 promotions exam given to firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut. After the tests were scored, only two Hispanics and no blacks scored high enough to qualify for promotion. After black and Hispanic activists pushed to have the test results thrown out, the city's Civil Service Commission effectively did so by deadlocking 2-2 on the decision to certify the exam.
After the results of the exam were set aside by the city, 20 New Haven firefighters - one Hispanic and 19 white - sued based on the claim of reverse discrimination. The city was granted summary judgment at the district court level, and a panel of judges that included current U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor sided with the lower court in a eight-sentence opinion that called the previous opinion allowing the city to throw out the test scores based on race "thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned."
In a concurring opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote of the question of empathy for those passed over: "But 'sympathy' is not what petitioners have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law... And that is what, until today's decision, has been denied them."
The release is online
here.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Conservatives, Constitutional Law, Project 21, Race
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:15 PM
Subjects of Congressional Ethics Probe Fight Back
Project 21 just issued a
press release criticizing the Congressional Black Caucus's apparent plans to retaliate against the House Office of Congressional Ethics, which concluded that several CBC members should be investigated by the full Ethics Committee for alleged violations of gift rules.
The release says:
Project 21 Critical of Members of Congress Under Ethics Investigation for Retaliating Against House Ethics Office and for Playing 'Race Card'
For Release: June 29, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org
An apparent effort by the Congressional Black Caucus to deter ethics investigations of its membership is drawing sharp criticism from members of the black leadership group Project 21.
CBC members reportedly are considering changes to the law authorizing the House Office of Congressional Ethics, or OCE, in retaliation for the OCE referring allegations against several CBC members to the House Ethics Committee.
CBC members reportedly also have complained that the OCE does not have enough minority staffers, adding a racial element to the apparent retaliation.
"What does the racial or ethnic makeup of the Office of Congressional Ethics have to do with the fact that these members of the Congressional Black Caucus may have violated ethics laws? It has absolutely no bearing on the charge, and to claim that is a lack of diversity at the OCE is playing the race card plain and simple," said Project 21 member Joe Hicks, also a commentator for Pajamas Television. "It is laughable that CBC members are charging the OCE with some sort of racial targeting. The OCE was created by Speaker Pelosi, someone who shamelessly bends over backwards to be politically correct."
Of the three investigative counsels hired by the OCE, one is black. The chairman of the formal Ethics Committee investigation sparked by the OCE referral is a black Member of Congress, Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), a CBC member.
"A legitimate complaint has been filed and an investigation has begun, but political pressure is now being applied to cover up the allegations and brush everything under the rug," said Project 21 member Bishop Council Nedd II. "So much for those promises to 'drain the swamp' and root out the 'culture of corruption.' It seems that swamp has turned into a hot tub for them rather quickly."
"President Obama has long proclaimed that it is special interest lobbyists who are the root of what is wrong with our federal government. This latest lapse in congressional sensibilities exposes the fact that it is wayward members of Congress themselves, whether Republican or Democrat, who pose the greatest threat to good government for the citizens of this country," said Project 21 member John Meredith. "The idea of disbanding the one avenue the citizens of this great nation have to track congressional malfeasance is an affront to the pledge of transparency in government and the use of the race card to facilitate the closing of the Office of Congressional Ethics is insulting not only to black people but to people of every color."
The controversy was sparked by an ethics complaint (PDF) filed with the OCE by National Legal and Policy Center President Peter Flaherty.
In November 2008, Flaherty attended the "Caribbean Multi-Cultural Business Conference" on the Caribbean island of St. Maarten. Although the conference officially was sponsored by the Carib News Foundation, according to Flaherty, signs and materials present indicate the event was funded by Citigroup, Pfizer, American Airlines, Verizon, IBM and other large corporations with business before Congress. CBC members Charles Rangel (D-NY), Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Donald Payne (D-NJ), Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Delegate Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands) attended the event.
Members of Congress have been prohibited since 2007 from taking funded trips of over two days if those trips are paid for or coordinated by companies that "employ or retain a registered lobbyist."
Flaherty alerted the OCE. In his letter to the OCE, Flaherty noted: "My characterization of the trip as a 'junket' is based on my observation that the sessions were lightly attended. Most attendees spent significant time at the beach or the pool. Members of Congress attended the sessions when they had a speaking role." Flaherty also said any suggestion that attendees could not see evidence of corporate involvement was "implausible."
The press release can be found online at
http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21PR-Congressional_Ethics_062909.html.
Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Corruption, Liberals, Project 21, Race, Scandals
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:16 AM
Quote of Note: Does Preventative Care Save Money?
"Prevention of a disease, we all assume, should save us money, right? An ounce of prevention...? Alas, If only such aphorisms were true we’d hand out apples each day and our problems would be over.
It is true that if the prevention strategies we are talking about are behavioral things—eat better, lose weight, exercise more, smoke less, wear a seat belt—then they cost very little and they do save money by keeping people healthy.
But if your preventive strategy is medical, if it involves us, if it consists of screening, finding medical conditions early, shaking the bushes for high cholesterols, or abnormal EKGs, markers for prostate cancer such as PSA, then more often than not you don’t save anything and you might generate more medical costs. Prevention is a good thing to do, but why equate it with saving money when it won’t?"
-Abraham Verghese, "The Myth of Prevention," Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2009
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Health Care, Retirement
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:34 AM
What Killed GM
In this CNBC interview, Peter Flaherty of the
National Legal and Policy Center argues that
government regulation killed GM.
Peter includes the role of government-backed unions in his analysis:
...[GM's management's] biggest shortcoming... was the failure to take on the unions. No executive in Detroit would dare take on the unions or build a non-union plant in a southern state. Now, there is a reason for that... That’s because of the government, because of the power of the United Auto Workers on our government. If one of them tried, they would have been run out of town. And now we have the ultimate manifestation of it where the UAW has an equity stake in the company and I predict the results are just going to be worse and worse.
Dittos to Peter on that one.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Business, Conservatives, Government Power, Labor Unions, Regulation
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:04 AM
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Quote of Note: CBS Anchor Osgood on Global Warming
"The sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity—and last year, it was supposed to have heated up—and at its peak would have a tumultuous, boiling atmosphere, spitting out flares and huge chunks of superhot gas. Instead, it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity. Right now, the sun is the dimmest it’s been in nearly a century.
In the mid-seventeenth century, there was a quiet spell on the sun, known as the Maunder Minimum, which lasted 70 years and led to a mini-Ice Age here on Earth. Right now, global warming is a given to so many, it raises the question: Could another minimum activity period on the sun counteract, in any way, the effects of global warming?
Hush, child! You’re not even supposed to suggest that."
-CBS's Charles Osgood, April 21, 2009, as cited by Krystle Russin, "
CBS Anchor Osgood Takes Skeptical Stand, Environment & Climate News, July 2009
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Climate, Media
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:57 AM
There's Money to Be Made
Al Gore reportedly has
billions of reasons to be glad the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill was approved by the House in a squeaker Friday.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Liberals
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:26 AM
Saturday, June 27, 2009
American Spectator Covers African-American Energy Poll
Thanks to W. James Antle for his story "
Lights Out," in the American Spectator, which mentioned The National Center's poll of the African-American community on energy issues.
The article appeared on Rush Limbaugh's "Stack of Stuff" Thursday.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Media, Polls, Race, Regulation
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:46 PM
Because Nothing Says "Slavery"...
Like "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."
There's a
movement to take the word "plantations" out of Rhode Island's name because slavery once occurred in Rhode Island's agricultural areas.
Yes, I'm serious.
Three reasons why this is idiotic:
1) Slavery once occurred all over Rhode Island, yet they're not thinking of changing the entire name;
2) Slavery was associated with agriculture, but no one suggests Rhode Islanders stop eating in penance (only a meaningless thing -- a name change -- is proposed);
2) Newport (Rhode Island) was a major slave port, yet no one considers the name "Newport" synonymous with slavery, or suggests changing its name; and
3) Slavery was practiced all over New England and didn't start in Rhode Island. (If the Massachusetts Bay Colony had taken a strong stand against it, American history would have unfolded very differently.)
Even discussing this perpetuates the absurd notion that slavery existed only on plantations. Plantations, of course, are largely associated with the American South.
It is understandable that New Englanders would be comfortable perpetuating the myth -- as this does -- that the South is the exclusive location in North America in which slavery was commonplace and legal, but if a geographical region can be blamed for a moral failing, on the question of slavery, New England has much to answer for.
If the people of Rhode Island want to change their name because they probably are all forced to learn the long version in elementary school, never to usefully use the information again, I certainly can understand their thinking. But to do it as a moral stand is idiocy.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Culture, Race
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:53 AM
Friday, June 26, 2009
Examiner Coverage of Poll
Mark Tapscott, Editorial Page Editor of the Washington Examiner, covered our
poll today in his editorial, "
Survey Finds Three-Fourths of African-Americans Have Big Worries About Obama-Waxman-Markey."
Many thanks to Mark, whose editorial page is a must-read. If you aren't reading daily now, try it for a week -- heck, try it for a day -- and you will be hooked.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Media, Polls, Regulation
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:23 PM
Truth in Labelling
David Ridenour calls the Waxman-Markey bill the "Waxman-Markey Economic Climate Change" bill, because the only climate Waxman-Markey has a prayer of changing is our economic one.
And prospects for that, if it passes, are very good indeed.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Climate, Congress, Economics
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:03 PM
Understatement of the Day
The New York Times,
referring to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill: "The bill has shortcomings."
Ya think?
P.S. Apologies. I forgot to add that, except for the sentence quoted above, the NY Times editorial is also one of the most dishonest bits of writing you'll ever come across. To name just one example, it ends on an implied claim that Waxman-Markey will prevent "drought, famine, [and] coastal devastation."
In fact, Waxman-Markey, if adopted, will have an impact on the environment that is too scant to measure
even if human beings are causing global warming through CO2 emissions.
As the headline of far, far wiser Orange County Register editorial put it, "
Climate change bill all pain, no gain."
Even environmentalists should oppose hurting people for no reason -- and some of them, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, do oppose Waxman-Markey.
The rest have no excuse.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Climate, Congress, Media
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:44 AM
I Don't Recommend...
...looking for a job in Scotland
anytime soon.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Climate
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:41 AM
National Review Online Coverage of Our Poll
National Review Online has covered our poll on African-Americans and climate policy -- twice.
On The Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez contributed "
Blacks vs. Cap and Trade," and at Planet Gore, Edward John Craig wrote "
More Opposition to the Obama Energy Tax."
Much appreciated!
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Media, Polls, Race, Regulation
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:21 AM
House Leadership Takes Suicidal Stand Against Its African-American Base - Townhall.com
David Ridenour has a
new column published on TownHall.com examining the Democratic Congressional leadership's seemingly suicidal lack of concern for the wishes of its most loyal core constituency, African-Americans.
It begins:
Overly influenced by certain big-name green groups, misled by their own ideology and perhaps also a bit dazzled by the unlikely stardom of failed-politician-turned-climate-hero Al Gore, Democrats on Capitol Hill seem bent on self-destruction when it comes to climate change...
Go
here to read the rest.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Polls, Race
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:52 AM
Politico Coverage of Our Poll
Cesar Conda has covered
our energy and climate poll of African-Americans in his blog on Politico.
Thanks to Cesar for the coverage!
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Media, Race, Regulation
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:14 AM
Poll Shows: Black Americans Prefer Delaying Action on Climate Change; Want Economy Fixed First
76% of African-Americans want Congress to make
economic recovery, not climate change, its top priority, says a poll just released by the National Center for Public Policy Research.
The U.S. House of Representatives is planning a vote today on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade climate bill.
The legislation, if adopted, is expected to reduce aggregate GDP by $7.4 trillion in an effort to reduce global warming, based on a Heritage Foundation analysis.
The survey of 800 African-Americans, 80% of which were self-identified Democrats and 4% self-identified Republicans, found significant concern that government action on climate change would have a harmful and disproportionately negative impact on the African-American community.
Among the key findings:
* 38% believe job losses from climate change legislation would be felt most strongly in the black community. 7% believe job losses would fall most on Hispanics and 2% on whites;
* 56% believe Washington policymakers have failed to adequately consider economic and quality of life concerns of the black community when addressing climate issues;
* 52% of respondents don't want to pay more for gasoline or electricity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 73% are unwilling to pay more than 50 cents more for a gallon of gas; 76% are unwilling to pay more than $50 more per year for electricity;
* Black Americans are virtually deadlocked on plans to reduce emissions if it would increase prices and unemployment. 44% opposed reductions under these circumstances, 45% supported them.
* 76% want Congress to make economic recovery the top priority.
The survey was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies and has a margin of error of +/- 3.4%. The questions we asked, plus summary materials, can be viewed at:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/BlackOpinion.html.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Polls, Race, Regulation
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:29 AM
Thursday, June 25, 2009
ABC Stands for "All Barack Channel"?
Writing on the Fox News Channel's Fox Forum website, our Tom Borelli examines the
political connections of ABC and NBC, saying the Obama Administration seems to have a deliberate political strategy of co-opting media corporations as a deliberate strategy.
But that's no reason, Tom also says, for corporations such as Disney, which owns ABC, and GE, which owns NBC, CNB and MSNBC, to play along, or for the public to stand for it.
Tom's entire piece can be read
here.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Business, Media, White House
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:10 PM
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Puzzled
I don't know why everyone's so amazed by Gov. Mark Sanford's announcement. He was just getting himself a little experience in foreign affairs.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Foreign Policy, Scandals
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:07 PM
Tom Borelli to Tackle Cap and Trade on Fox Thursday
Tom Borelli of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project is scheduled to appear on the Fox News Channel's online "
Strategy Room" program on Thursday, June 25 between 9:00 AM and 10:00 AM eastern.
Tom is planning to talk about the Waxman-Markey "cap-and-trade" legislation that could come up for a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives as early as this Friday. This bill would regulate the emissions of American businesses, inevitably raising consumer prices for what is predicted as a negligible effect on climate change.
A recent
poll commissioned by the National Center's Public Opinion and Policy Center found that black Americans in particular are opposed to such new regulation while the economy is under strain. Of 800 black Americans polled, 76% want economic recovery to be the top priority of lawmakers and 52% do not favor paying even a single penny in higher gas and electricity prices to promote liberal climate change policy.
A press release summarizing the results of the POP Center poll can be found
here.
To access the live Internet broadcast on Thursday, click
here and then click the "STREAM THIS NOW" headline in the center or the page under the photo.
This post was written by David Almasi, executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.
Labels: Business, Climate, Conservatives, Environment, FreeEnterpriseProject
Posted by David W. Almasi at 7:23 PM
Iran Quick Hits
Husband David says Obama's message to the Iranian government boils down to: What you're doing is unacceptable and it's none of our business.
Michael Barone of the Washington Examiner sees in the President's Iran stance a bit of an adolescent still growing up: "There is a tendency for newly installed presidents, like adolescents suddenly liberated from adult supervision, to do the exact opposite of what their predecessors did. Presidents of both parties indulge in this behavior, though Democrats who campaign as candidates of hope and change are more likely to do so."
I assume that last sentence is a bit tongue-in-cheek.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Foreign Policy, Media, White House
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:59 AM
Copyright 2003-2009 National Center for Public Policy Research
