April 30, 2009
You might be a progressive if...
Posted by Dr. Roy Cordato at 4:08 PM
...you see no contradiction in Joe Biden advising his family to stay off of subways while being part of an administration that is trying to force the rest of us out of our cars and on to public transportation.
Forget about swine flu ...
Posted by David N. Bass at 3:34 PM
... Vice President Joe Biden has foot-in-mouth disease:
Joe Biden said Thursday he advised his family to stay off airplanes and subways because of the new swine flu, a remark that forced the vice president's office to backtrack and prompted one airline official to complain about "fear-mongering."
End the Fed
Posted by George Leef at 1:36 PM
Back in 1988, George Selgin wrote a revolutionary book, The Theory of Free Banking, arguing that there is no need for a government central bank to control money and credit in the economy.
He has not changed his mind in the intervening years. Here is a recent interview with Selgin published by, strangely enough, the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. (This might get the Richmond Fed voted off the island!)
The socialists/fascists in America want people to believe that our economic troubles are rooted in what's left of capitalism. In truth, they're rooted in governmental control over money and credit.
The two young ladies in the video--a correction
Posted by Dr. Roy Cordato at 12:45 AM
Last week I posted this blog with a link to a wonderful video featuring two students that I guessed were from Hillsdale College. It turns out that they are high school students--home schooled, of course.
The AFP Climate Change Pledge
Posted by Daren Bakst at 11:46 AM
Americans for Prosperity is asking members of Congress to sign this pledge:
"I, __________________________, pledge to the taxpayers of the State of _________________ and to the American people that I will oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in federal government revenue.Ē
Their heart is in the right place, but this isn't very helpful.
Legislators still can support climate change legislation that doesn't increase federal government revenue. A cap and trade program, without an auction of permits, wouldn't increase federal government revenue. In fact, even an auction could be designed so that the revenue went to the states.
The impact would still be devastating to the economy--there are still new energy taxes by forcing utilities and pretty much any business to raise their prices to cover the extra costs.
The potential impact on NC of federal cap and trade legislation, by 2030:
Electricity Prices: 135% higher
Gasoline Prices: 145% higher
Decrease in Disposable Household income: $6,428
Net Job Loss: 146,735
Is this OK just because it doesn't increase federal revenue?
My recommendation: Either take out the federal government revenue language or just add the following:
"I, __________________________, pledge to the taxpayers of the State of
_________________ and to the American people that I will oppose any
legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in
federal government revenue or increases the costs of energy.Ē
John Allison of BB&T -- practicing what he preaches
Posted by George Leef at 11:40 AM
There is a good article on NRO today about now retired BB&T chairman John Allison, who is an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism and endeavors to promote reading and teaching about Ayn Rand's philosophy. I commented on the piece here with a link to the article.
With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true
Posted by Mitch Kokai at 11:24 AM
That headline leaps out at you if you thumb through the latest National Review.
It's part of a Cato Institute ad featuring more than 100 scientists who disagree with the following Nov. 19 statement from then President-elect Obama:
"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute, and the facts are clear."
The scientists, including Richard Lindzen (shown here speaking at the John Locke Foundation offices in May 2007), Patrick Michaels, and Roy Spencer (shown here speaking to a JLF Headliner audience in September 2008), offer the following response:
We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events. The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.
Jeff Taylor is shocked ó shocked!
Posted by Mitch Kokai at 11:02 AM
... as he learns the latest developments involving the final leg of Charlotte-Meck's Interstate 485.
One Ham's opinion
Posted by Mitch Kokai at 10:58 AM
Click here to read Mary Katharine Ham's Weekly Standard entry on President Obama's latest nationally televised address.
(For her dad's latest musings about the president, click here and make frequent trips to the Right Angles blog.)
You might be a progressive if...
Posted by Dr. Roy Cordato at 10:50 AM
...you think Obama's cap and trade global warming tax is not actually a tax but a "market mechanism for fighting climate change."
Today's Carolina Journal Online features
Posted by Mitch Kokai at 06:41 AM
Today's Carolina Journal Online exclusive features David Bass' report about N.C. congressional pork.
John Hood's Daily Journal explores the question of who bears the tax burden in North Carolina.
If you still believe the lie that universal coverage will leave you with choice
Posted by Joseph Coletti at 00:36 AM
Pres. Obama told the NY Times David Leonhardt that an "independent group," like maybe a comparative effectiveness commission, will guide political decisions about what kind of care your dying grandmother receives.
THE PRESIDENT: So thatís where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But thatís also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
[LEONHARDT:] So how do you ó how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And thatís part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. Itís not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And thatís part of what I suspect youíll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.
It is very difficult to imagine letting "the country," i.e., the government, make those decisions for me through any channels. Anybody else remember the movie Logan's Run?
Capitol Monitor tracking stimulus projects
Posted by Joseph Coletti at 00:15 AM
With news updates and information on specific projects. Check it out.
<< Last Entry