Support the Cap-and-Trade Tax Disclosure Act

image by Rees

article from Michelle Malkin.com
written by Michelle Malkin
May 7, 2009

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, one of the bright lights of the GOP in the House, has a terrific idea to let the sun shine in on the Democrats’ massive national energy tax proposal.

He’s looking for co-sponsors of a measure that would require full disclosure of the impact of “cap-and-trade” on ratepayers.

The details via the Republican Study Committee:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz is seeking original cosponsors for the Cap-and-Trade Tax Disclosure Act which will require utility companies to disclose and separately itemize the impact of cap-and-trade taxes on each customer’s utility bill. Sound tax policy requires that taxes should be visible to taxpayers and not buried in the cost of items we purchase. With this legislation, every utility customer – residential and business — will be able to identify the cost of cap-and-trade emissions that the utility is passing on to the customer. As regulated entities, utilities pass taxes on to customers, unlike unregulated companies that can also pass taxes on to shareholders and employees. The cap-and-trade tax is potentially the largest tax increase ever imposed. According to the Administration’s own budget document, the cost will be at least $646 billion over an eight-year period. No matter where you stand on the issue of cap and trade, both sides can agree that full disclosure and transparency are good public policy.

Call your rep and ask them to sign on (and make a special effort to contact the Democrats who have publicly criticized the national eco-tax): 202-224-3121.

Pssst, President Obama: This is what transparency looks like.

***
And this is what transparency looks like, thanks to Sen. Jim DeMint:

The US Senate has finally reversed its longstanding policy of restricting public access to raw data about how Senators vote, and is now posting XML of votes on Senate.gov.

This move follows a recent initiative, led by Senator DeMint, to request the Senate Rules Committee post the votes data.

While this issue may seem to be arising out of the blue, with recent coverage in the Politico, Senate votes XML have been brooched as a perennial roadblock. It would seem, however, that the number of people affected by the restriction grew to the point where they could no longer be ignored, and common sense prevailed.

Just as the recent rewriting of Web use restrictions has led to creative Internet use among Members of Congress, the new votes data should help fuel a renaissance of vote analysis and visualization. XML encourages advanced processing and analysis, making votes legible to both humans and computers, and giving us a new view on how Senators vote.

Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

AIR HEADS IN WHITE HOUSE TERRORIZE NEW YORK CITY

Scare Force One - The Doh!meister is at it again!
IDIOTIC FLIGHT SPURS '9/11' EVAC

By MURRAY WEISS, DAVID SEIFMAN and JEREMY OLSHAN
from The New York Post
April 28, 2009

"Air Farce One" played out over lower Manhattan yesterday -- in a terrifyingly bizarre military photo op that sent office workers fleeing from their buildings fearing a new 9/11-type attack.

But it turned out that the backup Air Force One jet and the fighter that appeared to be pursuing it only 1,000 feet above Ground Zero were staging the spectacle to get publicity shots of the presidential plane with a New York backdrop.

"We all ran to the window, and I thought, that's it, we're all dead," said Chris Biancamano, 36, who works at a brokerage in Jersey City. "It brought back all the memories of 9/11. I said, 'I have to get out of here now!' "

The planes flew over the Verrazano Bridge, buzzed Lady Liberty's left ear, continued up the Hudson past Jersey City and then circled back toward Staten Island, federal officials said. The jets then completed two more loops as photographers aboard the F-16 took the world's most expensive snapshots.

Although the Air Force had permission for the 10 a.m. flyover, no one bothered to warn the people on the ground, and as the two jets hurtled toward lower Manhattan, many mistook Obama's plane for Osama's.

President Obama himself was not in the plane at the time, but the 747 flew so low that New Yorkers had no trouble reading the aircraft's insignia.

Dominick Caglioti, who works at the Mercantile Exchange in lower Manhattan, thought the planes were headed straight for his window. After learning it was all a photo op, he fumed.

"It's so stupid because they tell you about every fire drill, but they didn't tell us about this," he said.

Jillian Pizzarello, who also works at the Mercantile Exchange, said, "You don't do this to people down here after all we have been through."

Thousands of people were evacuated from buildings on both sides of the Hudson during the half-hour episode.

Federal aviation officials had notified Mayor Bloomberg's office -- but not the mayor himself -- and the NYPD last week. But officials were given clear instructions not to share the classified mission with the public, sources said.

NYPD brass told 911 operators in advance to explain to callers that the planes -- which came within 500 feet of the Statue of Liberty's torch -- were conducting an "authorized" military operation.

The only relatively high-ranking person in the Bloomberg administration told of the plan was Marc Mugnos, the director of operations in the Office of Citywide Event Coordination -- a man normally charged with approving street fairs, sources said.

Bloomberg said he never received word of the plans, and he was "furious."

"Why the Defense Department wanted to do a photo op right around the site of the World Trade Center catastrophe de fies imagination," he said. "Poor judgment would be a nice way to phrase it. Had I known about it I would have called them right away and asked them not to." Mugnos was reprimanded for failing to notify the mayor, a source said.

It's unclear how much the stunt cost taxpayers, but officials said earlier this year that flying Air Force One comes with a $40,000-per-hour price tag.

At first, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed complaints and said he had no knowledge of the flyover.

"I was working on other things. You might be surprised to know I don't know every movement of Air Force One or what happens to it," he said.

But Louis Caldera, director of the White House Military Office, later said he approved the mission.

"I take responsibility for that decision. While federal authorities took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey, it's clear that the mission created confusion and disruption," he said. "I apologize and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused."

Obama did not know of the elaborate plans for the photos.

"When he found out, he was absolutely furious," a White House aide told The Post.

The new photo of the plane with the Statue of Liberty was to replace the current publicity shot of Air Force One above Mount Rushmore.

Additional reporting by Kirsten Fleming and David Hastie
murray.weiss@ny post.com
Click to read the article and comments

Israel shocked by Obama's approval of large Turkish arms sale to Lebanon

Obama's Foreign Policy Is A Runaway Train...and as the train speeds off out of sight, you can hear Obama calling out to the Jewish people, "Who's your daddy now!"
Rees

from the DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
April 22, 2009

Turkish commandoes will train Lebanese troops

DEBKAfile quotes senior Israeli military circles as staggered by the discovery that US president Barack Obama had approved a large Turkish arms sale to the Lebanese army, including the services of Turkish military instructors. This was taken as further proof that the US president is deaf to Israel's immediate security concerns. Lebanese president Gen. Michel Suleiman has more than once threatened neighboring Israel. When he signed the arms deal in Ankara Tuesday, April 21, he once again pledged publicly to place the Lebanese army at the disposal of the Shiite terrorist Hizballah in any confrontation with Israel.

If that happened, said one Israeli source, Israel could find itself under attack not just by Hizballah as in the past, but by a Lebanese army, well trained and armed by Turkey. He noted that more than 50 percent of Lebanon's fighting manpower are Shiites loyal to Hizballah.

The conviction is growing in Jerusalem that the US president endorsed the transaction as a means of breaking up the long-standing military pact between Israel and Turkey, because it interferes with his Middle East objectives. Our sources note that neither Washington nor Ankara bothered to inform Israel of the transaction or its scope.

After meeting Turkish president Abdullah Gul, Suleiman at the head of a large Lebanese military delegation signed the contracts for the sale and declared with deep satisfaction: "We reviewed the new [US] policies towards the region in the light of President Obama's recent visit to Turkey."
Click to go to the article

US Signals It Will Appease Iran - At Israel's Expense

article from Joshua Pundit
photo from Joshua Pundit
Friday, April 17, 2009

The US Signals It Will Appease Iran - At Israel's Expense

The Obama Administration has sent a number of unmistakable signals recently to Israel that it considers them an obstruction rather than an ally...and that appeasing Iran and the Muslim world takes priority its relationship with Israel.

First, President Obama agreed on an important concession to Iran, reversing years of policy. They sent a message to the Mullahs that they would be willing to begin talks on Iran's nuclear weapons program without insisting that the Iranians at least temporarily cease enrichment - which means that the mullahs can run out the clock with endless negotiations while they continue to perfect their nukes and their delivery systems.

Second, the Israelis definitely took note of the North Korean fiasco, where Secretary of Defense Robert Gates went public before the Nork's recent missile launch to tell the world that the US couldn't or wouldn't do anything about it. As I mentioned at the time the Israelis, if they're paying attention, should realize that if the US either couldn't or wouldn't do anything to stop North Korea, they're not going to stop an Iranian missile strike on Israel either. And that any guarantees the Israelis get on that score are pretty much worthless.

Just to underline that message, it recently came out that SecDef Gates refused Japan's request to allow the US Navy to utilize America's most advanced radar, a seaborne X-band unit during the North Korean launch:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates denied permission for the U.S. Northern Command to use the Pentagon's most powerful sea-based radar to monitor North Korea's recent missile launch, precluding officials from collecting finely detailed launch data or testing the radar in a real-time crisis, current and former defense officials said.

To say that the Japanese were upset about this is an understatement.

The Israelis also have an X-Band unit, stationed in the Negev Desert as part of the well-publicized link up of the Israeli and US missile defense systems designed to ease Israel's concerns about Iran's nukes.The US has insisted that the unit remain completely under US control without any Israeli oversight or involvement..which wasn't a huge problem because the Israelis felt confident that the Americans would never allow a missile attack against a long time ally of the US.

After seeing how Japan, another log-time US ally was left hanging, I doubt the Israelis have that confidence.

Finally, Israel was the recipient of two high level blunt warnings from the US in the space of about a week against taking any action to stop the Iranians from getting nukes, one from Vice President Joe Biden and the other from Secretary of Def Robert Gates.

Gates statement was reminiscent of his remarks on North Korea, saying that the US can't do anything about Iran's quest for nukes and that an Iranian nuclear bomb can be prevented only if "Iranians themselves decide it's too costly."

He also said that a strike on Iran's nukes would unify Iran, "cement their determination to have a nuclear program, and also build into the whole country an undying hatred of whoever hits them."

Of course that ignores both the Iranian regime's determination to obtain nukes that's already cemented in place and its genocidal desire to use them on Israel, whether on it's own or by providing them its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. As for the hatred, that's pretty much a given already. Referring to a country as a cancer and threatening to wipe it off the map reflects sentiments that aren't going to change no matter what Israel does or doesn't do.

Not only does Gate's statement effectively signal the Mullahs that the US is not going to do anything effective to stop them, it tells the Israelis that the US is not to be depended on as an ally and that they're supposed to cringe, depend on Ahmadinejad and Khamenei's good graces and hope it all works out.

Gates, of course is speaking with Obama's voice. The Israelis would be fools to accept this, and I doubt they will.

As for the US, if things continue as they are we're set to learn a very hard lesson on why appeasing a regime like Iran's is a no guarantee of our own security.

We will pay in blood and treasure and treasure for that lesson, and the longer we try to delay the inevitable the higher the bill will be.
Click to read the article and comments

Roxana Saberi - Let's not forget about her!

Editorial
from The New York Times
April 17, 2009

There is nothing resembling justice in Iran’s prosecution of Roxana Saberi. The government’s accusations against Ms. Saberi, a journalist with dual American-Iranian citizenship, have fluctuated wildly — culminating only last week with charges that she spied for the United States government. Her one-day trial this week was held in secret, and state officials have not revealed any evidence against her.

Iran’s government needs to release Ms. Saberi and end this dangerous farce.

Ms. Saberi, whose father was born in Iran, grew up in North Dakota. She moved to Iran six years ago and worked as a freelance reporter, including for National Public Radio and the British Broadcasting Corporation, while also pursuing a master’s degree in Iranian studies.

When she was arrested in January, Ms. Saberi was first accused of buying wine (illegal in Iran but hardly meriting imprisonment) and then of working without press credentials. While the government revoked those credentials three years ago, it tolerated her filing of news stories for months afterward, according to NPR.

On March 6, in comments that seemed to suggest the case had been resolved, an Iranian prosecutor told the Iranian Student News Agency that Ms. Saberi would be released from custody “in the next few days.”

Then last week, the government suddenly charged Ms. Saberi with espionage.

Iran has played this absurd game before. In recent years, other Americans, including two scholars, a Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty correspondent and an American democracy activist, were unjustly detained. Thankfully all were eventually released but only after enduring months of deprivation under house arrest or in prison. In 2003, Zahra Kazemi, an Iranian-born Canadian photojournalist charged with espionage, suffered an even worse fate: According to the Iranian doctor who treated her, she died after being beaten and tortured while in Evin prison, the notorious facility where Ms. Saberi is being held. A former F.B.I. agent who went missing in 2007 while on a business trip, Robert Levinson, is also believed to be imprisoned.

We do not know why the government decided to go after Ms. Saberi. One theory is that Tehran may want to try to “trade” her for three Iranian diplomats arrested in Iraq by United States troops in 2007 and charged in connection with attacks on Iraqi and American forces. Another is that government hard-liners may be trying to sabotage President Obama’s effort to engage Tehran after 30 years of mutual isolation.

The two countries have a lot they need to talk about, including their shared interest in controlling Afghanistan’s narcotics industry and ensuring that Iraq’s civil war does not again spin out of control as American troops begin to withdraw.

They also have many difficult areas of disagreement, starting with Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Tehran has often demanded that Washington not interfere in its internal affairs. By using Ms. Saberi and many of its own citizens as political pawns, Iran is ensuring that its shockingly poor human rights record will remain a contentious issue between the two countries and make finding rapprochement even harder.
Click to read the article

Yes, Mr. Self-Righteous. You inherited a deficit. But, hey, it doesn't mean you have to go and quadruple it!

Obama can pontificate all he wants, but the graph doesn't lie. It reflects not only his own numbers, but those of the CBO.
Rees

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures
from The Heritage Foundation
March 25, 2009

President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

• President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
• President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
• President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
• President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
• President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
• President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

Click to go to read the article and comments