While Democrats wince and Republicans rejoice about President Obama’s decision to place a two-year freeze on federal government workers’ salaries, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh isn’t buying the hype. (video via Fox Nation)
Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com
The president plans to meet tomorrow with congressional leaders of both parties to discuss the future of the Bush tax cuts. Could today’s news of a federal pay freeze be just smoke and mirrors?
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., criticized the president’s plan for not including military personnel in the pay freeze, claiming the extension would have increased savings and added “an element of fairness.”
Meanwhile, ABC News’ Jake Tapper notes that members of Congress and their staffs are exempt from the pay freeze, even though they will be the ones voting on it.
During Monday’s White House press briefing, Tapper asked press secretary Robert Gibbs if the pay freeze meant President Obama agrees with his conservative detractors that the size of government is getting too large. Not so, said Gibbs:
TAPPER: Does the president believe that the size of the federal government is too big?
GIBBS: Well, let me say this, Jake, that we’re in the process of putting forward — putting together and ultimately releasing early next year a budget for the next fiscal year and which lays out several fiscal years beyond that. We have taken steps to, as you heard the president mention today, cut programs that are unnecessary and unwise, and believes that we should — we have to continue to do that. Our government should be lean and efficient. And the actions that the president outlined today and the actions that he has outlined in both previous budgets and in future budgets will meet that test.
TAPPER: But doesn‘t the president believe that you can’t really get ahold of the deficit or the debt unless you actually start making cuts in programs that are necessary and wise?
GIBBS: I don’t — I don’t think a — I think there is a whole host of decisions — as — again, as you heard the president say — that are going to have to be made in the next year or two years or three years to address a problem that took us many years to get — to get into.
Jake, I think it — look, the president did not say today that this action alone will solve our deficit problems. There are a series of actions alone that won’t solve our deficit problems, but we have to make a series of collective and very difficult decisions to get our fiscal house in order. Obviously, the deficit and debt commission will come back later this week, and the president will get a chance to — and the team here — to evaluate where we are in that process as we create a budget going forward.
And despite being a two-year freeze, the White House is claiming the plan will save the country $60 billion over the next ten years.
"How is it that the Wikileaks guy remains free, and why do these leaks keep coming?:
video via Speakmymind02
O’Reilly says it’s because no one fears Obama:
video via Gateway Pundit
“I Don’t Think There’s Anybody in the World Who Fears Obama. I Don’t Think Anybody Does!”
Problems are only problems if you are unaware of them. Once identified you’re over halfway to resolution. American voters rejected the Obama administration’s policies of increasing government control through energy, environment and economic policies. They voted for cessation and reversal. Now the new politicians and chastened survivors must act accordingly. Debt and deficit are serious problems and the solution depends partly on reduced government spending, but mostly on a vigorous growing economy and that depends on energy. Maurice Strong’s plan to collapse the industrial economies recognized this with his focus on fossil fuels and CO2, so that’s where the solution must begin.
Keynote speaker Vaclav Klaus, elected President of the Czech Republic in 2003 made a memorable comment for me at the first Heartland Conference on Climate Change in New York. He said we’ve just emerged from 70 years of communism and asked, incredulously, why anyone would go back. He was referring to the US and Europe and identified environmentalism and climate change as the vehicles for the transit. He made his case effectively in his book Blue Planet in Green Shackles where he writes, “The themes in the contemporary dispute (or perhaps clash) are clearly about human freedom – not about the environment.” His warnings are not surprising given his personal experiences, but they’re supported by similar comments and actions by Russia and China. The contradiction is not surprising and parallels evolution of human, social, economic and political systems.
We’ve really only tried two socio-economic systems, capitalism and communism. They evolved from two major 19th century works published just 8 years apart. Darwin’s Origin of The Species published in 1859 is the essence of capitalism with its theme of survival of the fittest. Karl Marx’s Das Kapital published in 1867 denounced capitalism and became the basis of communism. Now capitalist countries move toward communism in the form of total government control.
Some foolishly suggest a compromise is the oxymoron of State Capitalism. Trouble is capitalism requires free markets with little or no government interference. Ironically, one of the few places where free markets succeeded was the black market in the Soviet Union. One development that paralleled growth of capitalism was increasing government intervention in the market place. Malfeasance in the market place made people realize unbridled capitalism was not the answer. The problem is, once you start controls, how are they limited? This is where limits to growth really apply.
Maurice Strong engineered the attack on capitalism and industrialism, its engine of growth, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He focused on energy, particularly fossil fuels, and that marks the biggest difference currently between former capitalist and communist countries. Phony environmentalists with political agendas and those milking government for climate research funding, blame skeptics for the failures of climate conferences and the collapse of global climate policies. In fact, it was India and China who consistently blocked the plans as they moved to expand their economies. Russia sits cynically on the side doing only what benefits them. All three continue with extensive development of fossil fuels by ensuring access to supply and building energy facilities, especially coal and nuclear. Energy from these facilities is used to produce alternate energy products for nations who foolishly pursue an already proven unsustainable green agenda.
India, China and Russia did not reject IPCC findings simply to advance their economies. They did it because they knew the science was false. Consider the presentations made by Putin’s economic advisor Andrei Ilarianov clearly with approval.
Putin only changed when they threatened to deny access to the World Trade Organization (WTO) if he didn’t sign Kyoto.
Ilarianov resigned. All three paid lip service to Kyoto, but did not become enslaved to the carbon footprint that is stomping out economies of the so-called capitalist economies.
There are simple steps essential to the US rebuilding energy sources and resources.
Rejection of the Obama agenda includes exploitation of climate as a vehicle for total government control. The White House appointment of John Holdren, member of the Club of Rome, as Science Czar confirmed the commitment. It’s time for the newly elected politicians to team up with Senator Inhofe and roll back the policies. Beyond the increased debt, the climate basis for the energy policy has done much to destroy the economy and will do more unless quickly reversed. It then becomes the solution rather than the problem.
**************************
Originally posted at Canada Free Press – used by permission all rights reserved
Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
Dr. Ball can be reached at: Letters@canadafreepress.com
Older articles by Dr. Tim Ball
Who’s ‘In Climate Denial, Again’? The New York Times
EXCERPTS:
As Obama said after the electoral shellacking, “there are other ways to skin that cat.” With more journalists regularly employing the traditionally uncommon phrase that Obama is now “halfway through his term,” the clock to engineer the world the way the Obama administration wants does seem to be ticking.
What Stern and Pershing are hinting at is an “executive agreement” strategy. Among these instruments is something called a “Congressional-executive agreement,” which is a treaty that the political class agrees to not call a treaty.
Outside advocates are ratcheting up their advocacy of this yet again. We all know that Team Soros and other spokes in the wheel of “Big Left” are pushing an executive order strategy, particularly on the “climate” issue now that cap and trade is dead. Anyone who follows the EPA has seen rules in recent months that will shut down cement kilns and paper plants. Power plants are next.
The American people do care about process, despite Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Robert Gibbs insisting otherwise. They care about the Constitution, sovereignty and their rights. These cute hints from Team Obama that they’ll get their international “climate” agreement, by whatever means necessary, is a great context to have that reaffirmed.
Who’s ‘In Climate Denial, Again’? The New York Times
