Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Another 53 Major Organizations Warn Congress, Public About Clean Water Restoration Act

Following up on a letter signed by over 100 organizations and individuals last fall, the National Center for Public Policy Research is today releasing another coalition letter warning the public and the policymakers about the Oberstar/Feingold Clean Water Restoration Act.

CWRA is to be the focus of hearings in the Senate and House on April 9 and 16, respectively. We can be sure that the very liberal Senator Barbara Boxer (D-MN), and the bill's main sponsor, Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), the chairmen of the committees holding the hearings, will examine the bill quite objectively. (Not.)

More about the letters, and links to the letters, including a list of signers:

Representatives of 53 Organizations Warn Congress, Public about Oberstar/Feingold Clean Water Restoration Act

Farm Bureaus, Manufacturers, Sportsmen, Taxpayer Advocates, Think-Tanks and Others Express Concern About Expansion of Federal Power

Washington, D.C. - A letter signed by representatives of over 53 organizations expressing grave concerns about the Oberstar/Feingold Clean Water Restoration Act, or CWRA, is being delivered to Congress this week.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired by Barbara Boxer (D-CA), has scheduled a hearing on CWRA for April 9. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, chaired by CWRA sponsor James Oberstar (D-MN), has a hearing scheduled April 16.

The letter says CWRA sponsors are wrong in claiming CWRA would restore the original intent of the 1972 Clean Water Act. Instead, the letter says, CWRA would greatly expand its scope.

The letter is signed by representatives of nineteen state farm bureaus. Other organizations with representatives signing include the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the Public Lands Council, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the Family Farm Alliance, the Family Water Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the Alabama Farmers Federation, the Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy, the California Land Institute, and very many public policy advocacy groups and think-tanks.

"The Clean Water Restoration Act would not restore the original intent of the Clean Water Act, but significantly expand it. It would expand federal clean water regulations to often dry land by re-defining dry lake beds, intermittent streams and, possibly, even tiny backyard fish ponds as 'waters of the United States,'" said David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, which organized the letter. "This expansive federal power goes far beyond what Congress intended when it passed the original Clean Water Act in 1972."

The letter also says CWRA would increase confusion within the already highly-litigated question of what waters are subject to regulation. Although the bill itself greatly expands federal power, as Congress' authority to regulate waters rests on the Commerce Clause, those waters that have no impact on interstate commerce would be immune from the authority of the Act. Knowing which waters meet the Commerce Clause test could be nearly impossible for the average landowner, however. Many cases would be settled only after expensive and protracted litigation.

"Rather than eliminate the ambiguity of the original law, CWRA would codify it. Instead of providing clear, predictable standards of regulation, CWRA would punt these decisions to the courts," said Ridenour.

This letter follows another letter, signed by 100 conservationists, family advocacy groups, civil rights leaders, sportsmen organizations, seniors advocates, think-tanks and taxpayer action groups in October 2007, expressing nearly identical concerns about CWRA. As hearings in the House and Senate about CWRA neared, this second letter was organized in response to demand from organizations concerned that the public, and many legislators, remain unaware of serious problems within this legislation.

The letter and list of signers is available online here (pdf). The October letter can be found here (pdf).

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation based in Washington, D.C, now in its 26th year.

-30-

_____

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Environment, Government Power, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:08 AM

Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie Named "Conservative Man of the Year"

Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie will receive the "Conservative Man of the Year" Award from the Suffolk County, New York Conservative Party on April 10.

Here's what David Almasi had to say: "The members and staff of Project 21 are extremely proud of Mychal. Mychal has earned more than his fair share of criticism from the left for daring to speak his mind and promoting the diversity of opinion among black Americans that is largely overlooked in the media. It is high time for him to be congratulated for it."

World Net Daily is covering the award here.
____

Labels: Conservatives, Project 21

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:59 AM

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Lights out at MichelleMalkin.com

I love what Michelle Malkin is doing here.
_____

Labels: Climate, Conservatives, Environment

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:46 AM

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Fox News Reports on New Anti-Global Warming Gas Tax Poll

Fox News' William La Jeunesse has reported several stories on the National Center for Public Policy Research's just-released poll measuring the public's willingness to pay more for gasoline to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

The clip above is one that appeared on the Fox Report with Shepherd Smith on March 19. Click the picture to view the clip with poll graphics or read the transcrip below:

Michigan Congressman Wants 50-Cent Tax Hike on Every Gallon of Gas

A Michigan congressman wants to put a 50-cent tax on every gallon of gasoline to try to cut back on Americans' consumption.

Polls show that a majority of Americans support policies that would reduce greenhouse gases. But when it comes to paying for it, it's a different story.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., wants to help cut consumption with a gas tax but some don't agree with the idea, according to a new poll by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

The poll, scheduled to be released on Thursday, shows 48 percent don't support paying even a penny more, 28 percent would pay up to 50 cents more, 10 percent would pay more than 50 cents and 8 percent would pay more than a dollar.

"I don't want to pay more, I don't think anyone wants to," said Karen Deacon, a motorist.

"I think that wouldn't make any sense," said Frankie Hoe, a motorist. "Ugh ... who's making the money from all this and where is that money going? Is it going to go green? I don't see any green things anywhere."

The automobile is the nation's biggest polluter; Americans use more gas than the next 20 countries combined.

Some environmentalists and economists say pain at the pump may be bad for Americans, but good medicine for a sick planet.

But others say it wouldn't change much. Even if Americans abandoned their cars, global emissions would fall by less than one percent.

"A tax on gas is a way to reduce dependence on import oil, reduce traffic congrestion and reduce carbon emissions," said Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute.

The Earth Policy Institute proposes raising the gas tax 30 cents per gallon each year over a decade and offset with a reduction of income taxes, Brown said.

David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, said the proposal wouldn't help long term.

"I think when you are talking about raising gas prices, there may be short-term reduction, put off vacations, but bottom line is over long term, that isn't going to have much of an effect," Ridenour said.

While Dingell's idea will likely lie dormant until after the 2008 election, the idea of carbon taxes is not. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all support some type of system that either directly or indirectly will raise prices to penalize polluters.

_____

Labels: Business, Climate, Conservatives, Environment, Liberals, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:34 PM

Thursday, March 06, 2008

CNN's O'Brien Telepathic - Or Conspiring to Mislead?

From David Ridenour:

CNN's Miles O'Brien recently asserted that the Heartland Institute "desperately wants us to believe" there's a conspiracy to distort information about global warming.

O'Brien said so in his Tuesday story about the Chicago-based group's March 2-4 international global warming conference held in New York.

The trouble is, no one from the Heartland Institute said anything about a conspiracy. Without the power of telepathy, O'Brien would have no way of knowing what Heartland Institute wants.

So why did O'Brien have conspiracy on his mind?

Perhaps because O'Brien was busy distorting the global warming debate at the very time he was mocking this straw man of his own creation.

For example, O'Brien cited a Yale University poll showing that an overwhelming number of Americans - 83% -- are concerned about global warming.

To find the poll, O'Brien had to be pretty creative.

For one thing, he had to track down a poll more than a year old while skipping over other more recent ones, including another Yale poll just last September, showing less concern over global warming. Yale's September poll found 62% of respondents believe urgent action on global warming is needed and only 48% believe that most scientists agree that global warming is occurring.

O'Brien also had to be creative in finding a global warming poll that wasn't weighted to reflect the actual composition of the population. Respondents were screened for age to ensure they were 18 years of age, but nothing else.

O'Brien didn't mention that 71% of those polled also indicated that they are "often interested in theories," that 67% "like to lead others," that 26% have already purchased a vehicles getting 35 mpg or more (yet the average fleet mpg is miraculously still 20.2 mpg); and that 66% had a negative view of the overall state of the environment.

Little wonder than 83% of those polled were concerned about global warming!

Seventy-one percent of those respondents, by the way, self-ided themselves as "intellectual."

Must have been an interesting list they polled.

Finally, O'Brien fails to note that those expressing concern about global warming included people concerned about natural global warming, too. At issue is not all global warming, but anthropogenic - human influenced - global warming.

The poll isn't the only place where O'Brien misled.

He cites Dan Fagin, a journalism teacher at New York University, saying that "skeptics have changed their tune as evidence started stacking up against them" - as though changing ones views as new evidence emerges is an indication of a character flaw.

It is, in fact, an indication of integrity.

Scientists on both sides of the global warming debate - although not enough - have refined their projections and analyses as data has improved and their understanding of the climate increased. That's part of the scientific method.

O'Brien then cited Fagin again, saying, "A decade ago they denied global warming even existed."

Absurd. No one suggested anything of the kind as everyone recognizes that global warming is what makes all life on our planet possible.

The Heartland Institute showed no sign of being "desperate" to prove a conspiracy to misrepresent global warming information.

But after seeing O'Brien's report, perhaps it should be.

_____

Labels: Climate, Conservatives, Environment, Liberals, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:36 PM

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Pro-Military Rally Trumps Leftist Hooligans in DC

As noted the other day, Project 21 member Kevin Martin led the D.C. Chapter of Free Republic in a rally of support for armed forces recruiters in Washington, D.C. Monday.

The rally was in response to an anti-war rally at the same location by some hooligans who described their activities this way:

... After many previous protests had found the 14th st recruiter "closed" at 5PM, Funk the War found them open, and the door unlocked at nearer to 6Pm and promptly exploited the situation by demonstrating to them first hand how an occupying force behaves.

After a loud commotion inside while outnumbered cops watched, recruiters finally managed to get protesters to leave-but not before literature and full-body length cardboard displays in the street window area were destroyed. In addition, hundreds more "Funk the War" stickers were plastered all over just about everything that would take them. By the time everyone was out it looked like a tornado had swept through the lobby.

One recruiter tried to grab an activist but found himself overpowered by SDS's superior strength and numbers and had no choice but to give up!

There is more of that juvenile nonsense here.

Kudos to Kevin and the members of Free Republic who didn't let the hooligans have the last word.

Addendum: Free Republic reports on the rally here; more pictures of the event can be found here.
_____

Labels: Conservatives, Defense, Liberals, Project 21

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:28 AM

Friday, February 22, 2008

Project 21 Member to Lead D.C. Demonstration Monday Supporting Armed Forces Recruiters

From David Almasi:

On February 15, anti-war protestors affiliated with the rejuvenated Students for a Democratic Society marched through Washington, D.C.'s evening rush hour. When they found the local armed forces recruiting station open, the protestors stormed the office and trashed it. The D.C. Police chose not to intervene.

This coming Monday, Project 21 Kevin Martin and members of the D.C. chapter of Free Republic are holding their own demonstration outside of the recruiting office in support of the armed forces and all they do to protect our freedom here and abroad.

Here are the details for those who would like to attend:

Monday, February 25
3pm-6pm
1099 14th Street NW (at L Street NW)
Washington, D.C.

_____

Labels: Conservatives, Defense, Liberals, Project 21

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:24 PM

Monday, February 04, 2008

If Visiting CPAC...

From Executive Director David Almasi:

If you are attending this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, please be sure to say hello to Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli and National Center Senior Fellow Tom Borelli at the DemandDebate table in the CPAC exhibit hall. They will have National Center for Public Policy Research and Project 21 publications available, including free copies of the latest edition of Shattered Dreams.

_____

Labels: Conservatives, Project 21

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:45 PM

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Critics of Global Warming Agenda are Motivated by a Love of Freedom, Borelli Says

From David Almasi:

Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli recently wrote a New Visions Commentary on global warming politics that has been re-posted all over the Internet, including Townhall.com, GOPUSA.com and ChronWatch, to name just a few.

Here is a sample of Deneen's commentary:

Despite the numerous flaws and ambiguities in trying to link human behavior and global warming, activists and their allies in government use emotion and alarmism to make their case. They are seeking to cut off any reasonable debate and silence their critics by saying these people are motivated by corporate and personal greed and don't care about pollution. That, however, is hardly the case.

Critics of the global warming agenda are motivated instead by a love of freedom and civil liberties. They want a discussion based on logic and facts that will address any problems without depriving us of liberty and personal choice. They do not want to sacrifice our way of life based on fears of an unproven theory.

New Vision Commentary op-eds by Deneen and other Project 21 members are available online at the National Center for Public Policy Research website here.
_____

Labels: Climate, Conservatives, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:41 PM

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Australia's John Howard a Global Warming Victim? No.

A post by Joseph Romm published by the Climate Progress Blog (a project of the Center for American Progress) and the environmentalist Grist Blog is claiming Australian Prime Minister John Howard lost his re-election bid because of his stand on global warming:

Australian denier bites the dust — literally

Global warming takes down its first major political victim:

“Conservative Prime Minister John Howard suffered a humiliating defeat Saturday at the hands of the left-leaning opposition, whose leader has promised to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.”

Why the stunning loss? A key reason was Howard’s “head in the sand dust” response to the country’s brutal once-in-a-thousand year drought. As the UK’s Independent reported in April:

… few scientists dispute the part played by climate change, which is making Australia hotter and drier….. Until a few months ago, Mr Howard and his ministers pooh-poohed the climate-change doomsayers....

Read the rest here or here.

Not for the first time, climate alarmists see things as they wish they were, and not as they are.

Howard lost for many reasons far more "key" than Howard's skepticism about the need for the environmental movement's prescriptions for fighting climate change. These reasons include:

Howard had already been prime minister 11 1/2 years (he was running for his fifth term), and is 68 years old to his opponent's more youthful 50.

Many voters took Australia's strong economy -- possibly Howard's greatest achievement -- for granted, as Australia has enjoyed 17 straight years of economic growth.

The Labor Party candidate, Kevin Rudd, campaigned as a strong fiscal conservative, and endorsed very many of Howard's economic policies, leading voters to believe Rudd as new prime minister would continue Howard's economic policy achievements.

Despite a good economic record overall, Howard's Liberal Party was blamed for a recent unpopular rise in interest rates.

The Labor Party ran a celebrity against Howard in his local parliamentary race in New South Wales, forcing him to campaign there frequently, taking his time away from campaigning in marginal districts.

A 2005 industrial relations reform called "Work Choices" was unpopular in some quarters, particularly among organized labor.

A late-breaking scandal took place, in which Liberal Party activists were caught handing out fake Labor Party brochures supporting Islamic terrorists.

The war in Iraq, in which Howard was a steadfast American ally.

_____

Labels: Climate, Conservatives, Environment, Foreign Policy, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:19 AM

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Reagan No Racist, Says Deroy Murdock

Deroy Murdock has a lot of evidence to back up his contention that Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert are wrong: Ronald Reagan was not a racist.
_____

Labels: Conservatives, History, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:30 PM

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Think Progress Slams Conservative Bloggers for Citing a Mere Weatherman on Climate Issues, Yet It Cites a Politician Over a Climatologist

The ridiculous Think Progress is slamming John Coleman for expressing his opinion on climate change because -- get this -- Coleman is a just a weatherman:

The conservative blogosphere is pushing Coleman’s junk science today. Matt Drudge links to NewsBusters’ “marvelous” take on Coleman this morning. Red State [sic], Qando [sic], Sister Toldjah, and the Free Republic also join in by approvingly linking to Coleman’s piece.

The right wing should check Coleman’s credentials before touting his “scientific” work. As Coleman admits, his “expertise” is in weather — not climate change science. In fact, he “has been a TV weatherman since he was a freshman in college in 1953.”

Think Progress doesn't believe a mere "weatherman" should speak his mind on climate, but...

...as recently as November 5, Think Progress promoted the climate views of a politician over those of a bona fide climatologist:

This morning, former vice president Al Gore appeared on NBC’s Today Show to talk about global warming. Host Meredith Vieira brought up a Nov. 1 Wall Street Journal op-ed by climate skeptic John Christy, a former member of the IPCC. In the op-ed, Christy wrote, “I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the activity we see.”

When Vieira asked about the op-ed, Gore noted that Christy “no longer belongs to the IPCC” and is “way outside the scientific consensus.” He also sharply criticized the media for giving so much air time to such climate skeptics...

As Gore noted, scientists such as Christy are outliers, yet the media continue to give them an overblown amount of airtime. Last month, for example, Colorado State University professor Dr. William Gray sharply criticized Gore, saying that he is “brainwashing our children” on global warming.

Christy has a B.A. in mathematics and an M.S. and Ph.D. in atmospheric sciences. Gore earned a degree in government and then attended divinity school and law school.

If conservative bloggers are foolish for citing a mere weatherman on climate issues, what does that make a website that cites a politician?

The headline for the Think Progress piece, by the way, is "Right Wing Trumpets Global Warming Denial Of Discredited ‘TV Weatherman.'" When was Coleman "discredited"?

I'm wondering if the Think Progress staff just made that part up.

Full Disclosure: I cited meterologist John Coleman's remarks yesterday, and would do it again.
_____

Labels: Climate, Conservatives, Environment, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:30 PM

Monday, October 29, 2007

New Gingrich's Contract with the Earth

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has a new book out, "A Contract with the Earth," which, Publishers Weekly says, calls for "businessmen and conservationists to form 'compatible partnerships'" on the environment.

"Compatible partnerships" between business and "conservationists" usually run along the lines of businesses forking over loads of cash to big-government environmental organizations in exchange for the perception that their company will be put slightly lower on Big Green's hit list.

I concede that once in a while the motive is different -- sometimes businesses see a way to profit from new regulations, so they sincerely support Big Green's efforts to get us to pay for them. That sort of sincerity we can do without.

At a conservative environmental policy meeting in 1996 a list of complaints on environmental issues were raised about then-Speaker Gingrich. The list, which I believe provides some context for Gingrich's book tour, was published in a contemporaneous National Center newsletter article under the apt title, "Conservatives Ponder What to Do When the GOP House Speaker is on the Other Side":

...Among the policy disagreements conservatives have with the Speaker:

Gingrich supported and fought to protect Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt's National Biological Service, a new expansion of the federal government's ability to target private property for government acquisition;

Gingrich has given the handful of environmental establishment Republicans veto power over all environmental legislation by establishing a House Task Force on the Environment to decide what environmental legislation will and will not be voted on in the House and then stacking the task force with members who disagree with conservatives on environmental issues;

Gingrich supports creation of federal Heritage Areas, a proposal that would, if approved, use federal tax dollars to empower local governments to control local property at the expense of local property owners;

In published interviews Gingrich has implied that conservatives and rural Westerners need to "grow" [read: become more liberal] on environmental issues;

Gingrich urged Bob Dole to drop his efforts to pass a property rights bill to compensate Americans if regulations reduce the value of their property by one-third or more, despite public opinion polls showing that some 70% of the American people (66% according to a Times-Mirror poll and 72% according to a Polling Company survey) support such legislation. Property rights advocates believe such legislation will eventually pass the Congress if Members of Congress are forced to go on the record as for or against it;

Gingrich frequently confers with left-wing environmentalists but declines to extend the same courtesy to conservatives on the same issues;

Gingrich co-sponsored a bill to create a National Institute on the Environment, which inevitably would devolve into yet another government-funded body requiring the discovery of new environmental risks to justify its existence;

Gingrich opposes opening Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, even though this exploration is environmentally-safe and is vital to the economy of Native residents such as Inupiat Eskimos;

Gingrich supports regulation even when scientific evidence of a need for the regulation is weak. For instance, Gingrich has distanced himself publicly from conservative Congressmen, such as House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, who advocate lifting environmental regulations in cases where the evidence that the regulations help the environment is weak.

(As a side note, in light of the California fires, it is interesting to read the first article in that same newsletter, which describes the environmental movement's ardent opposition to a bill by Senator Larry Craig to address "high risk" forests, and decribes conservatives discussing "with some frustration the environmentalist movement's ability to, as one participant put it, 'Lie at will and never get caught at it.'")

One of the things we tried very hard to do back then was to get a meeting with then-Speaker Gingrich to discuss these concerns. He not only wouldn't grant one, but his staff was arrogant and rude in turning down the requests. No polite "he's love to but he's so very busy" brush-offs for them, no sir. They wanted the contempt to show.

Message received.

Go here for even more reasons to doubt Newt Gingrich is an honest broker between big-government environmental organizations and mainstream conservatives.

I'll buy the book and read it, thereby giving Newt Gingrich a bigger benefit of the doubt on environmental issues than he ever gave us. You'll hear from me again about this, later.
_____

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Environment, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:25 PM

Thursday, October 18, 2007

In Which We Are Condemned As Big-Spending Quasi-Liberals (on SCHIP, No Less)

Dale Franks at QandO is bitterly complaining about my complaint that the Democrat Congressional leadership and its handful of Republican allies have a provision in their SCHIP expansion bill forbidding SCHIP families from making use of FSAs and MSAs offered by employers, even if such employer-based plans meet the families' needs in the most economical manner.

I think Franks is a bit overheated, and consider his allegation that the view I summarize above means my colleagues and I advocate more government spending to be ludicrious, but judge what he wrote for yourself:

So, that's the ground they've chosen to die on. SCHIP must be allowed to subsidize MSAs and the like.

No complaints about a massive expansion of the program. In effect, it's a complaint that the program doesn't go far enough, so that it covers their preferred health care reform, too.

First, this is just silly. You will never, ever win against the Democrats by claiming that they're too stingy with the people's money, or that their benefit programs aren't far-reaching enough. Quite apart from the fact that no one will really believe you, the simple response is that the Democrats actually want to dole out "free" government health care to everybody, and it's the Republicans that are opposed to it. So, this email embodies a stupid tactic.

Second, I look at this stuff, and I think, "The battle's over. We will never stop the expansion of government." Even "conservatives" can no longer find it in themselves to offer up a principled stand against an expansion of SCHIP.

It'd be easier on everyone if we just bypassed the next fifteen years, and proceeded directly to mailing in 90% of our paychecks to the government, and simply be done with it.

The remaining 10%, of course, we can keep, and use to blow on hats, or whatever other little trinkets we've decided to trade in our liberty for.

I posted a response in Q and O's comments:

"No complaints about a massive expansion of the program"? "Even 'conservatives' can no longer find it in themselves to offer up a principled stand against an expansion of SCHIP"?

I take it you did not familarize yourself with our body of work on SCHIP, and simply assumed we hadn't said the things you are condemning us for not saying.

Take a look at these sometime:

SCHIP Expansion: Socialized Medicine on the Installment Plan

Should Most of America's Kids Be on the Dole?

The SCHIP/Frost Affair Continues; Paul Krugman Calls Me a Busybody

SCHIP, Graeme Frost, and the Bloggers

Socialized Medicine by Stealth: Panel Calls SCHIP Expansion 'Bad for Kids, Families, and Taxpayers'

It's Socialized Medicine, All Right, And We Don't Want It

Congress' SCHIP Deception

SCHIP Expansion in Perspective

An SCHIP Fraud? Boy Who Delivered Democrat SCHIP Rebuttal May Not Be Low-Income

Reverse Robin Hood: Congress' Regressive SCHIP Expansion Would Tax Poor to Fund Health Insurance for Middle and Upper-Middle Class

And there's our SCHIP website, which contains nothing except principled stands against an expansion of SCHIP (except the poll, which had a 'no expansion' result until DailyKos and Democratic Underground told their followers to go vote in it).

The argument in our press release is that despite the Democratic leadership's claim that its members respect families like the Frosts, they really don't trust them at all. That's a far cry from "claiming that they're too stingy with the people's money, or that their benefit programs aren't far-reaching enough."

By the way, taking FSA and MSA options out of SCHIP wouldn't save taxpayers' money. Recipients who want these options wouldn't be thrown off the dole. They's just get a more government-laden, and quite likely more expensive to the taxpayers, form of welfare.

_____

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:11 AM

Sunday, October 14, 2007

The SCHIP/Frost Affair Continues; Paul Krugman Calls Me a Busybody

I now have the dubious, but hardly unique, distinction of being the subject of an error-filled essay by the New York Times' infamous Paul Krugman.

Subject: The SCHIP/Graeme Frost affair and whether adults on public assistance have a right to withhold financial information about themselves from taxpayers.

Krugman believes a column I had published on TownHall last Thursday is evidence that "conservatives want those in need to be dependent on the charity of people who will seek to dictate their behavior."

He couldn't be more wrong. Conservatives actually want those in need to not be in need. It's a little odd that after decades of liberals accusing conservatives of not being willing to fund welfare because we're cheap skinflints, Krugman is accusing us of wanting to fund it so we can use it to tell people on public assistance what to do.

In addition to being a bit confused, Krugman seemingly doesn't do original research, and apparently has a prediliction for inaccurate secondary sources. He attributed my busybodiness to a report by a left-wing blogger called Digby, who wrote:

Today, Amy Ridenour of Townhall is touting the idea that Michele Malkin [sic] has the right to dig into every private detail of your life if you take any money from the government. Watch out social security recipients. Watch out veterans. She's going to be putting all your personal information on the internet if you open your mouth in a way she doesn't approve. You give up your right to privacy --- even from shrieking harpy bloggers --- if you receive any money from the taxpayers. In fact, Amy Ridenour and Michele Malkin [sic] personally own you.

Here's what I actually wrote on TownHall:

Do people on the dole have a reasonable expectation of privacy vis-à-vis their financial affairs?

No.

That question, though not always my answer, is coming up frequently as defenders of the Democratic Party's $35 billion SCHIP expansion proposal condemn bloggers and talk show hosts, including Rush Limbaugh, who have examined the statement penned by aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and delivered as the official Democratic Party rebuttal to President Bush's weekly radio address by 12-year-old Graeme Frost, that the State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is for "families like mine."

The questioners' question: If Graeme Frost's family isn't all that low-income, then maybe the SCHIP program doesn't need to be expanded by $35 billion to cover millions of extra families with even higher incomes than the Frosts apparently have.

Rather than address the core question, some say it is inappropriate even to consider the Frost family's circumstances, even if the people doing the considering are helping the Frosts raise their kids. This assumption reverses a thousand years of philanthropic practice.

Throughout history, charity has typically been given out voluntarily and to people whose circumstances were directly known to the donor. Donors usually knew, or could learn, if a recipient genuinely couldn't meet his own needs. As population growth and industrialization led to fewer people living in small towns, charity grew more impersonal. Then the growth of the welfare state made “charity” mandatory. And finally, hastened along by certain wrong-headed Supreme Court decisions, helped by activism by welfare advocacy lobbyists, an assumption developed that people who receive handouts are due privacy along with the help.

The obligation to be self-sufficient when possible had been reversed: Now the self-sufficient are obligated to assist those who are not, and it is considered bad form for the donor to question if the charity is misplaced.

There's more involved in the Frost case, of course, namely the fact that the family itself put its financial condition in the public square by agreeing to serve as the public face of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's $35 billion public health expansion. Once you let your son go on a national broadcast to ask Americans to consider your financial situation, you ought not be surprised if a few of your fellow Americans do just that...

(You can read the rest of the column here.)

See Michelle Malkin's name in there anywhere? Me, neither.

Paul Krugman, however, calls Digby "one of the best writers you’ll ever encounter, on or off the Internet."

Wrong again, Krugman. She's not even funny or a decent stylist, one of which at least one ought to expect from a "best writer" who can't get facts right.

Krugman then purports to describe me and this organization. The one paragraph he devotes to this contains five errors of fact -- an average of one error every 20.6 words. Pretty high error rate, though probably no record for Krugman.

Krugman claims he took the paragraph from his new book, "Error-Filled Liberal,"* which, if true, means that not only did the New York Times publish a piece with an error every 20.6 words, but a major publisher, W.W. Norton and Company, did, too.

Why don't major newspapers and publishers use fact-checkers?

* Note: I may have misstated the title of Krugman's new book a little. The actual title is "Do Liberals have a Conscience?" No, wait, that's not quite right, either...
_____

Labels: Conservatives, Government Spending, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:35 PM

Friday, September 28, 2007

Gore Tells Bush to be More Reaganesque

Peyton Knight approves of some of Al Gore’s advice to President Bush:

At former President Clinton's annual "Global Clinton Initiative" summit Thursday, Al Gore called on President Bush to be more like the Gipper. Gore said:

I... call on President Bush to follow President Reagan's example and listen to those among his advisers who know that we need to have binding reductions in CO2.

Gore was trying to employ Reagan's support for protecting the ozone layer in an effort to nudge Bush toward supporting energy restrictions.

Well, the former veep and newest member of the Reagan fan club has some catch-up reading to do. Reagan knew a thing or two about energy policy, seeing as his predecessor had a disastrous one. As such, when Reagan officially announced his candidacy for President in 1979, he assessed energy policy pretty specifically - and pretty specifically repudiated the Gore approach. According to Reagan:

It is no program simply to say, "Use less energy." Of course waste must be eliminated and efficiently promoted, but for the government simply to tell people to conserve is not an energy policy. At best it means we will run out of energy a little more slowly. But a day will come when the lights will dim and the wheels of industry will turn more slowly and finally stop. As President I will not endorse any course which has this as its principal objective.

We need more energy and that means diversifying our sources of supply away from the OPEC countries...

The answer, obvious to anyone except those in the administration it seems, is more domestic production of oil and gas. We must also have wider use of nuclear power within strict safety rules, of course. There must be more spending by the energy industries on research and development of substitutes for fossil fuels.

In years to come solar energy may provide much of the answer but for the next two or three decades we must do such things as master the chemistry of coal. Putting the market system to work for these objectives is an essential first step for their achievement. Additional multi-billion-dollar federal bureaus and programs are not the answer...

It is not government's function to allocate fuel or impose unnecessary restrictions on the marketplace.

Let's see. Invest in new technology, promote domestic production of oil and gas, increase nuclear power and refuse to restrict Americans' energy supply. Sounds about right to me.

How about you, Al?

_____

Labels: Conservatives, Energy, Environment, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:23 PM

Thursday, September 27, 2007

John Berthoud: He Will Be Missed

I don't want to post anything else on the blog this evening until I note with sadness the death of John Berthoud.

John's death was announced earlier today by the National Taxpayers Union, which John led for the last 11 years.

I did not know John well, but I knew him for many years. He was always willing to lend a hand; often, he was one of the very first to volunteer to assist coalition efforts. His name came up in office conversations often. I do not recall hearing a negative word about him; not even once.

John's work made America a better place. He will be missed.
_____

Labels: Conservatives

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:49 PM

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Power Line Asks About Journey Through Hallowed Ground

Paul Mirengoff of Power Line has asked Senator John McCain what he thinks about the federal Journey Through Hallowed Ground legislation:

Towards the end of the interview, I asked McCain about legislation recently proposed in the House that would use federal money to create a multistate land use planning body for a wide (and apparently unspecified) swath of land in four states where civil war battle fields and other historic landmarks are located ("The Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act") . Some property rights advocates fear that this legislation would limit private property rights while giving environmentalists and wealthy land owners extraordinary power to thwart construction of all but the most expensive houses and estates in the Virginia segment of the "corridor."

Senator McCain responded that, as a general matter, he favors resolving these kinds of matters cooperatively at the state and local level, and with respect for private property rights. Since this particular matter involves multiple states, he seemed receptive to the idea of a voluntary interstate compact.

It is nice to see politicians being asked about this. Next maybe we'll see Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) being asked why he arranged for the lobbying entity for JTHG to receive federal dollars via earmark to lobby for its own power-grab. (They'll argue it was for a scenic byway, but money is fungible, and how many groups -- outside of Alaska, that is -- receive a million-dollar federal grant before they have even been incorporated?

I well remember the morning husband David discovered this earmark while doing research at the kitchen table in his PJs while simultaneously watching the children. "Pajamas media" -- at work.
_____

Labels: Conservatives, Environment, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:05 PM

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Is Caterpillar Going Green or Losing Green?

That's the question CNBC asked Wednesday, as Senior Fellow Tom Borelli took to the airwaves to discuss the letter 70 organizations sent to Caterpillar, asking CEO James Owens to withdraw the corporation from the United States Climate Action Partnership lobbying campaign in favor of new and costly "cap and trade" energy-restriction regulations.

Tom, who in a separate capacity serves as portfolio manager of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, warned that Caterpillar is "going to hurt their profits" and "harm the U.S. economy... by going green, they are turning their customers red."

Tyson Slocum of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen joined the program to counter Tom, largely by arguing, without offering a shred of evidence, that it is "smart business" for major U.S. corporations to help left-wing environmentalists lobby Congress for restrictions on their own activities.

Karl Marx once said, "The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope."

Marx was wrong. The last capitalist to be hanged shall be the one who donated the rope, and then lobbied for his own hanging.

Mr. Slocum described environmentalism's goals very well, though, when he admitted: "...the entire economy is going to have to be focused on adjusting to regulations that deal with climate change."

The entire economy.

Mull that over.
_____

Labels: Business, Climate, Conservatives, Environment, Liberals, Project 21

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:37 AM

Global Warming Alarmism and Religion - Together at Last?

From Peyton Knight:

This is a summary report from last Thursday's Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing titled, "An Examination of the Views of Religious Organizations Regarding Global Warming."

In her opening statement, committee chairman Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said that "Evangelical Christians, Catholics, African Methodist Episcopals, Jews, mainline Protestant Christians, and many other people of faith see the need for action on global warming as a moral, ethical, and scriptural mandate." The clear implication being that the religious community, by and large, was of one mind on the issue.

She then laid out her "vision" of "lush forests teeming with wildlife," clean air, clean water, and various other illustrative descriptions of nature at its best, as well as the United States taking the lead in promoting a "new green economy."

She invoked her own grandson and future grandson for the cause, saying that we all need to save nature for them and other children.

She concluded by quoting "ancient religious writings," saying: "See to it that you do not destroy my world, for there is no one to repair it after you." (Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:13)

In his opening statement before the committee, ranking minority member Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) pointed out that Sen. Boxer's committee had conducted "hearing after hearing after hearing on global warming. But we have yet to have legislative hearings on the climate bills that are supposedly the reason for this endless parade of hearings."

Sen. Inhofe also noted that the Congressional Budget Office had recently released a report titled "Trade-Offs in Allocating Allowances for CO2 Emissions" that found a carbon dioxide allocation scheme would disproportionately harm the poor. The Senator referred such a scheme as "Robin Hood" in reverse.

Inhofe cited a quote from Barrett Duke, Vice President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, who cautioned that we should avoid global warming policies that "make the delivery of electricity to [undeveloped countries] more difficult, millions of people will be condemned to more hardship, more disease, shorter lives and more poverty."

Inhofe also took on one of the chief evangelical global warming alarmists, Rev. Richard Cizik, noting that Cizik also "shares the beliefs of liberals on the issue of population control." According to Inhofe, Cizik told the World Bank in May 2006: "I'd like to take on the population issue... We need to confront population control and we can - we're not Roman Catholics after all - but it's too hot to handle now."

The Senator then offered his own Biblical perspective regarding global warming, saying that we "should respect creation and be wise stewards, but we must be careful not to fall into the trap of secular environmentalists who believe man is an afterthought on this Earth."

For good measure, he quoted Romans 1:25: "They gave up the truth about God for a lie, and they worshiped God's creation instead of God who will be praised forever. Amen."

Below are the summary views of the panelists who testified at the hearing.

*The Most Reverend Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop, The Episcopal Church

According to Dr. Schori: "The crisis of climate change presents an unprecedented challenge to the goodness, interconnectedness, and sanctity of the world God created and loves."

She implored the committee to make cutting carbon emissions by 15 to 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 a "national priority."

Dr. Schori testified that poverty kills 30,000 people in the world each day, and, according to her: "We cannot triumph over global poverty, however, unless we also address climate change, as the two phenomena are intimately related. Climate change exacerbates global poverty, and global poverty propels climate change."

As for mitigating the detrimental effects of global warming policies (i.e., skyrocketing energy prices) on the poorest among us, Dr. Schori recommends adjusting tax policies "to encourage middle and low income taxpayers to take advantage of new technologies or to adjust to potentially higher energy costs." She also suggests throwing more money at the "Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program" (LIHEAP) and expanding the program to pull more households under its umbrella.

*John L. Carr, Secretary of the Department of Social Development and World Peace, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

Channeling his inner Al Gore, Mr. Carr stated that "our response to climate change will be a measure of our moral leadership as a nation."

He said that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops accepts the United Nations' IPCC report on climate change, but pointed out that "for us, this began with Genesis, not Earth Day." He also boldly declared: "If we harm the atmosphere we harm God's creation."

In his testimony, Carr also stated that: "We do not have to know everything to know that human activity is contributing to significant changes in the climate with serious consequences for both the planet and for people, especially those who are poor and vulnerable." To this, he added, "prudence tells us that we know that when a problem is serious and worsening, it is better to act now." (So much for looking before you leap.)

Borrowing more from Al Gore, Mr. Carr told the committee that the real "inconvenient truth" is that those who contribute least to global warming will be hurt the most.

*Rev. Jim Ball, Ph.D, Evangelical Climate Initiative

Dr. Ball confidently declared that "human induced climate change is real," and the "science is settled." Sparing no hyperbole, he called global warming the "major relief and development problem of the 21st Century," and claimed that because of it, "millions are threatened with death."

He stated that "Christian moral convictions demand our response" to global warming, and the response that he supports is a "cap-and-trade" approach.

For good measure, Dr. Ball invoked "the great lawgiver" Moses' call to "choose life" as reason for Christians to embrace the global warming regulatory agenda. The agenda his organization embraces is reducing U.S. CO2 emissions 80 percent below year 2000 levels by the year 2050. He said that this target must not be voluntary, but mandatory.

He also implored "all churches" to teach their members about the threat of global warming.

*Rabbi David Saperstein, Director and Counsel, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

According to Rabbi Saperstein: "The urgency of climate change mixed with our strong scriptural mandates have connected our faiths and compelled us to act in unison to forge an answer to our climate crisis." (Consensus, anyone?)

He cited the "Evangelical 'What Would Jesus Drive?' campaign aimed at raising the moral concerns about fuel economy" and the "Jewish community's 'How Many Jews Does It Take To Change A Light Bulb?'" campaign that "mobilized synagogues to install over 50,000 compact fluorescent light bulbs during this past Hanukkah."

Rabbi Saperstein says "we must transform ourselves from nature's children to nature's guardians by learning to say 'dai,' 'enough,' to ourselves." He claims that this includes challenging the "fever of consumption that drives unsustainable economic growth," as well as challenging "public officials who deify property and wealth."

*Dr. Russel D. Moore, Dean of the School of Theology, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Breaking from his global warming alarmist co-panelists, and perhaps taking umbrage with their not-so-subtle implications that the religious community speaks with one voice on the matter of global warming, Dr. Moore stated that not all evangelicals are united in using the Bible to promote the policies of the "secular environmentalist movement." (Apparently, the art of crafting the perception of consensus where consensus doesn't exist has made its way from alarmists in the scientific community to those in the religious realm.)

Dr. Moore stated that "tying Bible verses to any specific legislation on global warming" was harmful to the public interest. Additionally, he was troubled by the "apocalyptic scenarios" conjured by some evangelicals with regard to global warming and the future of the planet.

According to Dr. Moore, "The theological impetus for environmental concern on the part of Southern Baptists and like-minded evangelicals is, however, the very reason Christians are opposed to the use of religion employed by some environmental activists on the global warming issue. The first area of concern is that the Biblical text not be used as a vehicle for a political agenda."

He denounced the "hyper-politicization of the gospel," and noted, "Southern Baptists and other evangelicals must question the effect of any global warming legislation on the world's poor."

Dr. Moore closed his testimony, stating: "The SBC and other like-minded evangelical groups are not opposed to environmental protection. We have no pronouncements on what Jesus would drive... We are, however, concerned about the ways in which religious arguments are used in this debate, possibly with harmful consequences both for public policy and for the mission of the church."

*Rev. Dr. Jim Tonkowich, President, Institute on Religion and Democracy

Dr. Tonkowich declared: "Thank God for the skeptics."

His testimony addressed two primary concerns: "The first is the positive valuation of human population and human development. The second is the importance on not foreclosing prudential debates that should remain open."

Dr. Tonkowich cited a recent quote by National Association of Evangelicals Vice President Richard Cizik in Newsweek, in which Cizik said that he felt God is saying "with my help, you can restore Eden."

According to Tonkowich, "The thought is tempting, the sound-bite attractive, but Biblically and theologically, it's pure nonsense."

He also lamented that "population control" is beginning to creep into the thinking of some Christians. "For example," Tonkowich observes, "the foundational document of the Evangelical Environmental Network states that environmental 'degradations are signs that we are pressing against the finite limits God has set for creation. With continued population growth, these degradations will become more severe.'"

Tonkowich noted: "Population control, which nearly always includes abortion on demand, is abhorrent to most Evangelical and Catholic Christians."

"And if the truth be told," he testified, "Population growth slows in more technologically advanced societies. So even if we wanted to slow population growth, the most humane way to do that would be to seek the greatest economic benefit for the poor. And in order to do that we must make sufficient quantities of inexpensive energy available to the global poor - something believers in catastrophic global warming are unwilling to do."

Included in his testimony is "an appendix listing scientists with relevant expertise who do not see the evidence that the current warming is primarily caused by humans and catastrophic."

*Mr. David Barton, Author and Historian

Mr. Barton, named by Time Magazine as one of the "25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America," stated that "a very accurate rendering of [Evangelicals'] general theological position is presented in the Cornwall Declaration."

He noted that "while more than 100 religious leaders signed onto the Evangelical Climate Initiative's statement on global warming, some 1,500 religious leaders signed onto the Cornwall Declaration that reached quite different conclusions."

"From the beginning," he said, "God warned about elevating nature and the environment over man and his Creator."

Mr. Barton tallied a list of examples where, after "announcing strong conclusions," environmental science had reversed itself, including: the supposed benefits of fetal tissue research, the doomsday "global population bomb" prognostication and the unfounded "harm to humans from DDT." He said that these examples, along with the predictions of a "coming ice age" 30 years ago, were justification for a healthy dose of skepticism.

In conclusion, Barton stated: "Currently, I do not find any substantial widespread movement within the mainstream Evangelical community to support a massive policy proposal on Global Warming that would significantly alter their current lifestyle, or that might inflict additional burdens on the poor and even potentially confine them permanently to a state of poverty. I therefore urge extreme caution in any approach that this body might take in crafting any policy on this issue."

_____

Labels: Climate, Congress, Conservatives, Environment, Liberals, Religion

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:21 AM

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Wynton C. Hall's Speechwriter Anecdote: Here's Hoping His Source Made It Up

Writing in the Examiner, Wynton C. Hall shares an anecdote that, if true, reveals a breathtaking level of incompetence at the White House, not just in what it says about the staffer in question, but about the hiring process there:

...why can’t this White House get its oratorical act together? One explanation might lie with Bush’s current speechwriters. At a recent social gathering, I spoke to one woman who told me a story that would send a shiver up a speechwriter’s spine.

While chatting with one of Bush’s newly installed speechwriters, the woman said she mentioned how much she loved President Ronald Reagan’s “Pointe du Hoc” speech, delivered on cliffs overlooking Normandy Beach. The young new presidential wordsmith looked at the woman with a quizzical look. The presidential speech writer confessed to being unfamiliar with the speech but was looking forward to reading it.

Indulge me.

Open Letter to Young New Presidential Wordsmith:

Dear Young (may I call you "Young"?),

What fantastic circumstances placed you at the very top of the speechwriting profession while leaving you ignorant of what is most sublime of the profession itself? "I wasn't born then" can be no excuse for mediocrity. Where you born when Lincoln gave his Second Inaugural, or the Gettysburg Address? When Patrick Henry spoke before the Virginia House of Burgesses? The day after the date which shall life in infamy? When Marc Antony ulogized Caesar?

Young, I beg you, learn your craft. If you haven't read or watched those speeches (or what history records of them) and many, many others; if the words "blood, toil, tears and sweat," sound like the name of a rock group to you, take a leave of absence. Learn the history and art of your profession. Learn how Reagan used the imagery of D-Day in his Pointe du Hoc and Omaha Beach speeches on June 6, 1984 to inspire the allies of that day to persevere in the battle of freedom versus Soviet tyranny. Help our President also evoke our shared history, values and aspirations, as we fight the crusade before us now.

With sincerity,

Amy Ridenour

P.S. The text of the Point du Hoc speech is here; the text of the Omaha Beach speech is here. It's better to watch them as well; the Omaha Beach speech is here; I haven't been able to find a video of the Point du Hoc speech online.

Wynton Hall makes several other points. I agree especially about Bush 41 and the fall of the Berlin Wall. The American people are still owed a big party (something modeled on this, perhaps?) to celebrate the end of the Cold War. Is the Cold War the only major conflict ever concluded without a commemoration party? Possibly. At the very least, we should have an annual day of commemoration (I nominate November 9), preferably without time off work. We best honor our successes by building upon them.
_____

Labels: Conservatives, Europe, History

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:47 AM

Monday, April 16, 2007

The Global Warming Argument: Win It, Don't Spin It (If You Can)

A for-profit public relations agency sent me a link and an excerpt to the story "Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them" by Matthew C. Nisbet and Chris Mooney in Sunday's Washington Post, with the suggestion that I might like to blog about it.

The authors (who appear to assume all scientists share the same point of view about human impacts on climate and President Bush's decision to limit the amount of federal funding on embryonic stems cells) call upon scientists to spend less time explaining facts and more time engaging in public relations.

For example:

Global warming is another issue on which scientists continually fail to reach key segments of the public. The real inconvenient truth here is that scientists aren't doing a good job of packaging what they know. No matter how solid the science gets, there remain "two Americas" on the subject: A strong majority of Republicans discount the science and the issue's urgency, while an overwhelming number of Democrats believe the opposite. Once again, the facts aren't driving opinions here. Instead, selective interpretations -- delivered via fragmented media and resonating with the public's partisan prejudices -- are winning out.

Thus, despite ever-increasing scientific consensus, prominent GOP leaders such as Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma still use conservative media outlets to describe climate science as too "uncertain" to justify action. If scientists and their defenders seek to answer such charges by explaining how much we know, they become enmeshed in the technical details (for instance, does climate change really contribute to more intense hurricanes?). And this only creates new opportunities for Inhofe and his flat-earth friends to sow doubt.

So once again, scientists and their allies would be better off shifting their emphasis, as well as the messenger. For example, church leaders can speak to the evangelical community about the necessity of environmental stewardship (a message that's already being delivered from some pulpits), even as business leaders can speak to fiscally oriented conservatives about the economic opportunities there for the plucking if Congress passes a system for trading carbon dioxide emission credits.

Two observations:

1) I think it is odd that these global warming theory advocates claim the science backing their point of view is "solid," and yet argue that scientists shouldn't spend time educating people about its alleged solidity. If their case is as strong as they pretend, presenting it should be a winning hand, not an "opportunit[y] for Inhofe and his flat-earth friends" (of which I am pleased to be one) to "sow doubt."

If you guys can win the argument, win it, don't spin it.

2) If the authors truly believe fiscal conservatives are intrigued by the notion of a federally-mandated carbon market, and/or are likely to be seduced by "business leaders" who want to exploit a carbon-trading system for their own personal and corporate profit, they don't have the slightest inkling of what fiscal conservatives believe.

In reality, corporate sell-outs nauseate us. Nausea is bad way to start to a seduction.

_____

Labels: Climate, Conservatives, Environment, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:05 PM

Friday, April 06, 2007

Newt Gingrich on the Environment

The Washington Post makes what it calls a Newt Gingrich-John Kerry "debate on the environment" sound like a clash of ideological opposites, but Newt Gingrich aspired to be a handmaiden of the environmentalists while Gingrich was Speaker of the House.

The love was unrequited. The environmentalists attacked Gingrich anyway. (They raise money demonizing Republicans.) In private, though, the environmentalists had more luck getting meetings with Speaker Gingrich than conservatives working on environmental issues ever did.

The Gingrich-Kerry "debate" event's announcement itself says the two men will explore "the ways in which Congress might be able to resolve its differences on this long-range issue through institutional change, new analytic techniques, and legislative innovation."

I expect a conversation in which Gingrich and Kerry discuss ways of getting around people in Congress who support the Fifth Amendment, sound science, and a government at least a smidgeon smaller than the Earth the gaians worship.

For those who don't recall -- which will be many of you, since the press didn't cover much of this during Gingrich's speakership (it didn't fit its template) -- a short trip down memory lane:

Newt Gingrich co-sponsored H.R. 341 during the 1993-94 Congress, a bill offered by Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA) that would not only have re-authorized the Endangered Species Act but would have strengthened it in ways that increase the potential for government abuse of landowners.

When Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-KS) sponsored a property rights bill, S. 605, that would have required the government to compensate property owners if by regulatory action the value of their property is diminished by one-third or more, Gingrich urged him not to bring it up for a vote on the floor. At the time, even Democrat pollster Celinda Lake's surveys showed the issue to be a winning one with the public. A Times Mirror poll the prior year found that 66 percent of the public supported compensation for regulatory takings of private property. A Polling Company poll at the time found that 72 percent of the public believed private property owners should be compensated for any losses in property values resulting from government regulation.

Gingrich co-sponsored legislation to create a National Institute on the Environment -- an agency that would inevitably have become yet another government-funded body requiring the "discovery" of new environmental risks -- to justify its existence. It eventually would have served as little more than a funnel for government money to environmental causes, and have resulted in even more burdensome regulations on people and the economy.

Gingrich co-sponsored H.R. 987, a bill that established additional Wilderness Areas in the Tongass National Forest, making sustainable forestry uneconomic in a high unemployment area.

Gingrich voted for the Montana Wilderness Act (H.R. 2473), setting aside 1.6 million acres in Montana for Wilderness Areas (the federal government already “owned” 27.6 percent of Montana).

As Speaker, Gingrich set up a House Task Force on the Environment, which was designed to serve as a Rules Committee of sorts for all environmental legislation -- no environmental legislation was to move in the House without the approval of the new Task Force. (This was an effort to end-run conservatives.) Gingrich then appointed Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), who has liberal views on environmental issues (a 92% rating from the liberal League of Conservation Voters at the time of his appointment, a rating higher than more than 50 percent of the Democrats in the House at the time), to co-chair it. Then Gingrich gave Republicans with views similar to those of liberal environmental organizations equal representation on the task force with Republicans holding conservative/limited-government views, even though the liberal Republicans were a tiny minority within the Republican caucus.

Newt Gingrich was one of the most green Republicans before he became Minority Whip in March 1989, based on the ratings in the League of Conservation Voters' National Environmental Scorecard. Gingrich's LCV ratings were as follows: 1979-80, 45%; 1981-82, 48%; 1983-84, 23%; 1985-86, 33%; and 1987-88, 50%. After his election to leadership in 1989, Gingrich's LCV rating dropped dramatically -- perhaps because he realized that his further rise in leadership depended on the good will of the members of his own party. His ratings for the Congressional sessions immediately afterward were: 1989-90, 12%; 1991-92, 7%; and 1993-94, 13%.

From the April 30, 1996 Greenwire, then-Speaker Gingrich on then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay, the latter a reliable limited-government sound science conservative on environmental and regulatory issues: "I think that Tom at times represents a different view of the environment than I do."

I don't dislike Newt Gingrich. A lot of his ideas are sound (maybe most of them, but when talking about the unpredictable Newt Gingrich, that's a scary thing to commit to). I haven't followed the progress of Gingrich's environmental views much since he left Congress, but they are probably nuanced to the nth degree, and they probably aren't very different from they were ten years ago.

Newt Gingrich has never before spoken for the conservative movement on environmental issues, and it is unlikely that he's going to start now.

_____

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Environment, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:34 PM

Monday, March 12, 2007

More on Ann Coulter - Briefly

Jack Kelly's op-ed on the Ann Coulter CPAC controversy is worth a look, as he takes on not just Ann Coulter, but her many enablers on the right. I agree with what he wrote.

I did several radio interviews after my March 4 post, "Ann Coulter at CPAC," appeared on this blog. If anyone is interested, at least one of the radio outlets archived the interview, but I don't recommend listening if you expect to hear me say anything different than what I already said on this blog. It was a pretty short interview.

Reuters quoted this blog about the Coulter matter over the weekend, as did Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media. Like Kelly, Kincaid questions the judgment of some of Coulter's enablers, and I recommend his essay.

Finally, among other emails, I received one from Jeff Gannon asking why I did not cite his blog's commentary on the Coulter matter among a list of blog posts I recommended to readers of this blog on March 4. Sorry, Jeff, but it's because I don't agree with you on this one.

Jeff wrote, in part:

Why is there a different standard for Ann Coulter? There were no repercussions when liberals produced a film about the assassination of George W. Bush and Cindy Sheehan wrote that she dreamed of traveling back in time to strangle the future president in his cradle. Liberals cheered when Bill Maher expressed disappointment that Vice President Dick Cheney wasn’t killed in the recent terrorist attack against him in Afghanistan.

While at the CPAC podium, Coulter was perceived by many to be acting as a representative of the conservative movement (as were those who applauded her, or laughed). If we do not correct this misperception, it will stand.

When Bill Maher and Cindy Sheehan speak, no one attributes their views to us.

_____

Labels: Conservatives

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:58 PM

Sunday, March 04, 2007

Ann Coulter at CPAC

I'm sorry to see that Ann Coulter once again made certain news coverage of CPAC would be focused upon her instead of upon the conservative movement's goals and principles.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is one of very many co-sponsors of CPAC, and has been for some years. After Ann Coulter's offensive speech last year, we telephoned the organizers and strongly suggested than Ann Coulter’s behavior was harmful to, and unrepresentative of, the conservative movement. We said we were considering pulling out our co-sponsorship because of Ann Coulter’s "raghead" comment, and asked them to not invite Ann Coulter to speak in CPAC 2007, or, at the very least, only invite her if she was told to can the offensive speech, and explicitly agreed to do so. I had 90 percent decided to stop our co-sponsorship for CPAC 2007, but the sponsor seemed to be taking our concerns about Coulter’s 2006 remarks seriously and with what seemed to us to be appropriate sympathy, so the National Center co-sponsored CPAC again this year.

(I am, by the way. under no illusion that CPAC's main sponsors lose sleep over possibly losing the National Center's co-sponsorship. We do pay a fee to co-sponsor, and all the fees paid by all the co-sponsors together do add up to quite a tidy sum, but I'm sure any one co-sponsor is quite expendable.)

As has been widely reported, Ann Coulter not only once again went out of her way to use a nasty epithet, she pushed her offensiveness up a notch, using a word that is even more universally reviled than the derogatory term she hurled last year.

So, CPAC's sponsors either invited Coulter back without first getting her pledge that she would speak without using demeaning epithets, or they obtained her pledge, and she broke her word.

We'll ask.

It would be better, in my opinion, to not have a CPAC at all than to have one that presents conservatism as a hostile, people-hating ideology. We conservatives have enough trouble overcoming the false things that are said about us without paying for a platform upon which we shoot ourselves annually in the foot.

Some of my past commentary on Ann Coulter can be found here and here.

Here's a roundup of other conservative (and moderate) commentary on the Coulter situation:

"With Friends Like These... (re Ann Coulter)," JonQuixote

"CPAC is Shocked--Shocked!--by Ann Coulter's Remarks," Jon Swift

"Coulter Screams for Attention, Again - Losing Whatever Supporters She Still Had," Patterico

"Ann Coulter Doesn't Speak For Me," Wizbang

"Coulter Said What? (Bumped)," Captain's Quarters

"The Shame Of Ann Coulter," The Moderate Voice

"Ann Coulter at CPAC," Betsy's Page

"Ann Coulter calls John Edwards...," Right Thoughts

"Count Me Out," Lone Star Times

"Ann Coulter Calls John Edwards The 'F-word'," Gay Patriot

"Coulter Needs A Rehab," Riehl World View

"Apologizing for Ann Coulter," MyDD

"On Ann Coulter, John Edwards, and Civility," historymike

P.S. A hostile liberal blogger issues a challenge to conservatives:

Reality: [Ann Coulter] is your biggest star. The people you claim to speak for feel she speaks for them much, much more than you do -- and they're right. She is modern conservatism's id -- she's the one who says what the rest of you would say if you didn't feel it would cost you your standing as reasonable, responsible people.

Want to prove me wrong? You cut her off. You boycott the sponsors of TV shows that still invite her on as a guest. You show up at her book signings and campus appearances and hand out flyers quoting her nastiest bon mots. You boycott CPAC next year if she's invited, and demand that others do the same. Or if you have a problem with boycotts as a matter of principle, at the very least urge your fellow conservatives, on college campuses and elsewhere, to stop extending invitations to her, given the profound harm you say she does to your movement.

But you won't do that, will you? In that case, shut the hell up, hypocrites, and acknowledge that while Coulter may be the bad apple in the family, your door is always open to her.

Well?

Addendum, 3/4/07: This post has generated a great deal of comment mail, most of it vile. I can clear up a majority of the issues made by correspondents (who self-identified themselves as liberals and conservatives in roughly equal numbers) with these responses:

1) No, I have never had sex with Ann Coulter. This seems irrelevan