Comments


  • Gosh Mike,

    I"m sorry I made a typo (budfget/budget) but the "d" and the "f" are right next to each other on my keyboard and I guess I hit both at once.

    I thought the "budget" video explained the Obama savings plan better than anything I could say. Sorry, but the Climate Change Bill will most certainly have an impact on the budget. It will also have a major effect on national debt, so both videos are somewhat relevant.

    As far as it being a "shameful way to distribute right-wing propaganda", I didn't see any innuendos or anything passed off as a fact in the videos that wasn't true.

    I'm sure it stung to see these simple illustrations plugged into the middle of the conversation on your learned presentation. Perhaps if I had your gift for words, I wouldn't have to stoop to using someone else's work to make a point.

    That said, if you don't want someone to use a shameful method to distribute an opinion in the middle of any of your blog debates, you might consider making your point in a letter to the editor. That way it would be at least a week or maybe two, before someone's reply could be printed.

    Of course I would never attempt to try to TELL you how or what or where you should write something - that's above my pay grade.

    June 30, 2009 at 9:57 p.m.

  • Dry those tears Mikey, I'm sure Don Mader did not want to hurt your feelings, he was just trying to inform us about the perfectly insane track that we are on. He may be a right winger but I can assure you it's not an STD.

    June 30, 2009 at 8:22 p.m.

  • This blog is not about the [budfge] whatever that is but it is a shameful way to distribute right-wing propaganda without going through the trouble of writing your own blog..But that is just my opinion.

    June 30, 2009 at 4:18 p.m.

  • For simple and clear understanding of the Obama national budfget, please checkout the following on Youtube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt8hT...

    For a short but understandable history of U.S. debt see:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFt...

    Now, it's starting to make sense - or at least it's understandable altho' it really doesn't make much sense!

    June 30, 2009 at 4:11 p.m.

  • Wayward
    This might surprise you but I don't completely disagree with your points.

    I don't mind the incumbents but the campaign contributions are a real problem.

    I am reading about campaign contributions to my democrats ,from the AMA and insurance companies and it makes my blood boil...I know you don't care about polls but politicians do, and I hope the results will drive them to doing what their constituents want.

    Then again there is that Prop. 13 out in California that let the voters decide, contributing to the mess they have out there..Including one constitutional nightmare (Prop 8)....There has to be a balance.

    June 30, 2009 at 3:33 p.m.

  • Mike..."I believe the government (we the people) and big business can coincide"

    I would question whether government is still "we the people." I believe that "the people" have abdicated our control over government and it has taken on a life of its own. With incumbant re-election running at almost 100%, congress critters no longer listen to "we the people" and are completely beholden to the big business forces who contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to election campaign war chests. Politicians have forgotten for whom they are supposed to work.

    June 30, 2009 at 3:18 p.m.

  • Ok waywardwind, now are getting into the biggest stumbling block of all…. Those that hate or mistrust government and those that believe that the polluters will not police themselves.

    We can both remember the day when title CPA, Attorney, and bankers meant respect, accountable, and honesty…. The CPAs used to warn those they audited about questionable transactions, now they might encourage them, and so forth. Time has changed with the bottom line taking precedent over anything else.

    I believe the government (we the people) and big business can coincide…. The cap and trade bill will have a difficult time passing in the senate, not because of the expense or emission controls but because of special interest… Happens all the time…. The coal and oil lobbyist will be front and center, lining the pockets and of republican and democrats, to keep status quo…IMO

    June 30, 2009 at 10:19 a.m.

  • Mike...Houston is a good example of cleaner...not clean...but cleaner air. I moved to Houston in 1968 from Port Arthur. Those are two places where the improvement in air quality over the last 30 years or so has been dramatic. Yeah, they've a long way still to go, but great strides have been made. And air quality isn't the only place improvements have been made. Heck, fish have returned to the Houston Ship Channel. I still wouldn't eat'em, but they're there. Do you remember years ago when the channel actually caught fire? It's a lot better now.

    All the alternative energy sources you mentioned are things that I agree should be explored -- and exploited. The problem is that the government doesn't seem to be interested in any of them. They want to stick with the coal/oil mix and spend money to try to clean those. I'm not certain they really want to clean so much as tax. The cap and trade idea was a loser from the get go and that's all the feds seem to want to talk about.

    June 30, 2009 at 9:55 a.m.

  • Well wayward, the universe has been tilted again because I agree with just about all that you posted.

    As for this cap- and- trade bill, I don’t really think this is a scam because components of this bill had been out there forever, so although poorly written, deceit was not the objective..IMO

    Remember those old term papers you had six months to research, write a draft, and submit for a grade? This energy bill reminds me of one that was done overnight, although we’d had at least 30 years warning….. I would give it an incomplete but not a failure because it does have some building blocks.

    I agree with your assessment, but I think we need to explore solar power, hydropower, bio fuels, wind power, nuclear, geothermal and cleaner fossil fuels until we decide what is practical.

    I agree with your JFK analogy, but I would add one from “Centennial” where the Indians always gave back to the earth; what they removed… I think we need leave the earth in better shape, than how we received it.

    You did mention that old stumbling block, China, yesterday…. The Olympics were that long ago, when we saw all the people of Beijing wearing masks to protect them from the carbon emissions,, but that will not deter them from firing up at least one coal- fired plant a day…. Coal will be around for the next 75 years, but we are developing technology to pump the emissions underground and resale the CO2… Is it too hard to imagine us selling that technology to China, as a solution? I took my mother to the high-rise Texas Medical Center, about five years ago, where I was able to see the haze over downtown Houston, Texas. … If you’re not convinced that fossil fuel is a dirty energy source; take a trip to the Deer Park area and witness the wall-to- wall filthy chemical plants…. This area’s chemical plants are like a sterilized medical center in comparison to those plants that were grandfathered, when it came to complying with clean air legislation.

    June 30, 2009 at 9:38 a.m.

  • Mike..."Supper is ready ,and I have answered all those same old questions over and over again, but those that are satisfied with status quo, will never be convinced we need to change…."

    Hey Mike...Our reputations are intact! We're back to disagreeing and all is right in the universe. :-) I hope you had a good supper.

    By the way, I'd like to get off the fossil fuel merry-go-round also. I'd like to see us use hydrogen fuel cells -- the hydrogen extracted from sea water. Solar power is also something I think would be invaluable in certain parts of the country. I'd like to be able, in my lifetime, for the US to be able to tell the Saudis, Iraqis, and Iranians to drink their oil and if they have a problem with their leaders to handle it themselves.

    Remember when JFK said we WOULD put men on the moon and return them safely to earth before the end of the decade? Dang if we didn't do it, too. The country was behind the effort. We need that kind of commitment in energy redirection. I think the "cap and trade" proposal is totaly useless in both polution control and creating new energy sources that don't polute -- I think it's a scam that will raise prices and cost jobs.

    June 30, 2009 at 8 a.m.

  • A lot of it is "feel good" legislation. I'm disappointed that 1500 pages of fluff that no one could seriously have had time to read. Obama promised that new legislation would be posted for five days on the internet prior to vote. Broken campaign promise!

    Obama promised that he would review new proposals and line item out any pork. He never read this energy package NOR the stimulus package. No way he could have read that in the 24-48 hours from presentation to vote. Broken campaign promise!

    Obama promises that the government will not interfere with doctor choice or influence insurance procedure coverage - ready....wait for it........wait...here it comes........Gonna be a broken promise! He is a liar and a self centered egomaniac politician. No better than the rest of the DC scum. There, I said it. I was hoping he would be different - I was being audacious to hope - but he ain't what he said he was.

    Now, as far as the incandescent bulbs. The tree huggers feel better about using them because they save energy (which they do). However, every box of those spiraly lights that I have purchased have a disclaimer on the box (go ahead and look, I'll wait) that say "contain mercury do not discard in landfill". Or something to that effect. Great, now we are going to have to have a super-fund site for spiral light bulbs. What is that going to cost and why haven't the green people told us this before? Now I feel guilty for throwing them away - but I'm sure Pelosi and Barack will fix it. I guess I could always hope.

    June 29, 2009 at 7:58 p.m.

  • Waywardwind
    Supper is ready ,and I have answered all those same old questions over and over again, but those that are satisfied with status quo, will never be convinced we need to change…. Years of neglect is the main reason the cost will probably be in the trillions. . … I leave the subject of global warming to the scientist and it will simplify my answer.

    Have agood night

    June 29, 2009 at 5:56 p.m.

  • Democratic spin? That’s not a good starting point…. Are you saying that everything that I post is democratic spin and yours is factual; a straight from the heart?:-)

    What is it about watered- down bill and saying that I don’t pretend to be a climatologist, that leads you to believe, I’m spinning.

    1. This particular bill is a “show and tell” for the upcoming summit on global warming.
    2.I am convinced that carbon dioxide is a heat trapping gas.
    3.I know that our electronic grid is over 40 years old and its power interruptions and blackouts costs, come to over $150 billion a year.
    4.I’d take this as a two step approach: one is to get really serious about the small stuff like insulation, conservation, and incandescent light bulbs..2. Then we need to go all out with an effort to use low carbon energy sources.
    5.As I stated in another post: you cannot take politics out of it, because it will take legislation to get this done.

    I don't really want a debate on "global warming" but I want us to go to clean energy and the green jobs of the future..I want to get off fossiluels and a dependence on foreign oil..I have stated all this in this blog.

    June 29, 2009 at 5:42 p.m.

  • Mike...I would like YOUR opinion. Not the democrat spin, but YOUR opinion of the "cap and trade" bill that the House passed. Do you, in your heart of hearts, believe that it will do any good? Do you BELIEVE that it will affect global warming? Do you believe it will lower global greenhouse gasses? Do you think it will delay the rise in sea level by slowing the melting of the Arctic ice cap? When you look at the polution being spewed out by China, India and other developing countries, do you REALLY believe that our efforts to clean up our emissions -- which over the last few decades have been cleaned up dramatically -- will make a difference globally? Do you think it will be worth the costs -- costs in money spent, costs in increased energy prices for Americans, and costs in lost jobs? Please remember that I would like to read YOUR opinion and not the democrat spin.

    The earth has gone through several cooling and warming cycles over the centuries. The end of the last ice age was caused by -- you guessed it, GLOBAL WARMING. Was that the doing of evil capilalist neanderthals? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, there is a natural phenominom at work here? Or it is all caused because we nasty Americans like our air conditioning and cars that are big enough to get into rather than put on?

    June 29, 2009 at 5:12 p.m.

  • My, Mr. McCain,what a difference nine months makes…Were you right during the campaign or are you right today?Or is it just politics?. I remember John McCain bragging how he and Joe Lieberman were sponsoring cap-and-trade legislation during the recent presidential campaign …. Today ,McCain is calling the “American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES)” a “cap- and- tax” bill…. McCain said Americans are not supportive of legislation like ACES … Wrong... According to a recent Washington Post- ABC poll ;75% supported government regulation of greenhouse emissions and 80% of those, said they should do so even if it raises the price of goods…. As for cap-and-trade 52% favored and 42% opposed it...

    June 29, 2009 at 4:54 p.m.

  • I tried to find an answer as to why the house passed this water- downed version of a cap and trade bill that was sent over to the senate. I have come to the conclusion that this bill is a “show and tell “for the countries that will participate in the U.N. Climate Change Summit this coming December. The senate will not take up this issue until sometime in the fall.

    The Republican Party is branding this bill as a gigantic tax bill and job killer… House minority speaker John Boehner said ““Hey, people deserve to know what’s in this pile of sh*t,”.. The republican representatives are calling for nuclear energy, but stop short of saying if they want government funding or mandates.

    The coal and oil industry will fight this tooth and nail but on the other side the solar ,wind, geothermal and other renewable energy companies will be their opponent. According to Sunday’s Houston Chronicle analysis, farmers and Forrest owners will be huge players in the carbon economy.

    Will it be a job killer? I guess if the polluters are asking permission to continue their polluting ways, or they will take their jobs to countries that will allow them, sort of way, then they have point. The democrats should stop playing politics and just come out and say “yes initially, moving this country to a clean energy economy will increase your energy cost but this is necessary to reduce our dependency on foreign oil as a security measure, and we will do our part to clean up the planet.”…. Those that think that global warming is a hoax, CO2 is not a pollutant, in the business of producing coal and oil and receive generous campaign contributions from coal and oil ,will ALWAYS be against any bill that want to address climate change. .

    This bill has nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi; other than her being the speaker of the house...She was elected to that prestigious job by the Democratic party.

    June 29, 2009 at 10 a.m.

  • We should not allow “mob” rule to rule, but common sense rules to prevail.

    “There are three ways to alleviate a patients suffering; administer drugs, cure the illness, or put a bullet in his head. Only one of those results in the patient living and maintaining their independence, this is how government works. They either pass legislation that deals effectively with a problem, creates another, or wrecks everything” – john

    Cap and Trade were wrong, are wrong, and will continue to be the wrong direction for America.

    “Failure to develop a real solution does not validate a bad one” – john

    I have implied it once; President Obama might want to keep one eye on Pelosi at all times, especially when he goes to bed. If I were President Obama ’d rather go on a hunting trip with Cheney than have tea with Pelosi. Of course this is just my opinion.

    I love free speech.

    June 29, 2009 at 9:45 a.m.

  • In my NSHO, Congress can do a lot more good by using only a fraction of the money they plan to waste on all that crap. Spend whatever it takes to reduce the costs of medical care and medications so the poorest folks can afford them. Dedicate their efforts to eliminate all the money wasting programs they have now and quit dreaming up more ways to spend our money.

    June 29, 2009 at 12:36 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    June 28, 2009 at 9:37 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    June 28, 2009 at 8:46 p.m.

  • I agree with the goal but what they are proposing is very complicated and will, I'm almost certain, have unintended consequences. Just once why can't we keep it simple? Instead we have a 1,600 page monstrosity that will do nothing but expand the government.

    Why not just prohibited the construction of any new coal fired installations followed with higher taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel.

    And oh yeah, lower all the other taxes and for God sake quit thinking up new spending programs, in fact start abolishing the ones we have - clean house in other words.

    June 28, 2009 at 7:52 p.m.

  • Mike, if this administration believes in science as you indicted --where is the science that shows in hard facts that even if carbon emission were reduced to zero in the United States it would even affect global warming by a half a degree or reduce global greenhouse gases by even .001 %.

    Greenhouse gases are composed of more than just carbon dioxide. It includes ozone, methane gas, nitrous oxide, water vapor, CFCs., and others.

    Higher carbon dioxide levels are actually more beneficial to plant life; they grow faster and stronger and help retain surface water.

    If the government really wanted to do something to reduce global warming they would concentrate on methane gas emissions. Molecule to molecule methane warms the plant 8 times more than carbon dioxide. Of course they would have to eliminate the livestock industry and confine emissions from landfills. It would be political suicide to even suggest elimination the livestock industry in America. And the government would lose an opportunity to create a new market and tax base.

    What a laugh "The ultimate goal of climate change is to stimulate a second industrial revolution.” Where are we going to see this climate change and just how and who is it going to document it?

    IMO, the cap and trade bill is just a way to steal the hard earned money from American citizens.

    June 28, 2009 at 3 p.m.

  • Alton

    If you would read why I posted, you would not have written” Mike you must be a rather wealthy person, to not care how much it will cost. Most citizens in the US do care. “….I emphasized that this bill will not stay in current form because the senate will debate and overhaul it, so preliminary costs of the initial proposal is not that important to me..It’s the finally tally…e.g. In the old days of car haggling, the sticker price was just a starting point.

    Another correction: You said” If this bill is such a good direction for Americans, why does it delay starting until after the 2012 Presidential Election? Look at the bill (1,300 pages but this is on pg 1) quarterly auctions begin to distribute greenhouse-gas allowances in the year 2011.

    •President Barack Obama campaigned on reducing greenhouse emissions and so did the Democratic Party...64 million people agreed with their proposals.

    •President Obama picked Nobel-winning physicist Steven Chu to be his U.S. secretary of energy who said “The ultimate goal of climate change is to stimulate a second industrial revolution.”

    •This all ties in with the UN climate talks in Copenhagen this December where unprecedented collaboration will take place..We have an administration that believes in science, unlike the previous eight years; so we will one of 170 countries attending.

    June 28, 2009 at 8:13 a.m.

  • Hmm, well Mike, I guess you can ask all the Chinese engineers about that.

    I would bet that a majority of them went to school at some of our best universities and returned to there native country to apply what they have learned.

    Diversity at American most famed technical universities at it's best.

    Wake up, this is exactly what the rest of the world wants, economic victory by our own hands.

    June 27, 2009 at 7:57 p.m.

  • It is just plan misleading to call this bill a climate control bill. The affect of capping carbon emission in the US will not even reduce global greenhouse gases by one tenth of one percent. That is less than .01 per cent. And the gobal affect upon temperature would be even less.
    This is nothing more than a hidden tax bill that eliminates citizen’s choices on numerous purchases dependent upon energy.
    Mike you must be a rather wealthy person, to not care how much it will cost. Most citizens in the US do care.
    I noticed you used The Congressional Budget Office project increase cost on families as $175.00. That really is encouraging until one looks at their figures and realize it is considers only the direct cost for energy in the first year it takes affect in 2012 for tax paying families. It makes some rather bold assumption about how these families will spend their money. They assume most families will have the funds to take advantage of energy saving credits by purchasing new energy efficient lights, doors, windows, installation, energy efficient appliances and etc. It even adds in the average savings in purchasing a more energy efficient automobile and its tax credits. It makes the assumption that the average family will reduce their purchases of fuel by using mass transportation more and reduced use of personal modes of transportation. The CBO study did not include the accumulative affect of pass down cost to the consumer for food, clothing, entertainment, disposable goods, and etc.
    The National Black Chamber of Commerce, the Brookings Institution, and numerous independent economical analyst studies also project huge job losses. The analysis found that unemployment would increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program, and reach nearly 2.5 million in 2035, the last year of the analysis. Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion. The national debt would balloon as the economy slowed, saddling a family of four with $114,915 of additional national debt. Families would also suffer, as the bill would slap the equivalent of a $4,609 tax on a family of four by 2035. Of course by 2035 American families incomes should have more disposable income according to this Administration and our current majority party in Washington.
    If this bill is such a good direction for Americans, why does it delay starting until after the 2012 Presidential Election?

    June 27, 2009 at 6:48 p.m.

  • Legion357
    Tom Friedman had a little more to say…The world will want the cleaner energy and the products we made from them; we will have the technology that you(China) are not working on, and you (China)will pay dearly for it.

    The polluters are willing to comply but they want a permanent direction whether it be a carbon tax or cap-and-trade and not be changed with the next generation of lawmakers..As they say “their children have to breathe the same air.”…..According to Business Week they are on board but the coal industry and oil industry will be pouring in millions to lobbyist to kill the legislation….You see my mind is not made up and I am sure I will find some interesting articles in tomorrow’s Houston Chronicle.

    The bill is in its early stages, I am glad the house sent it over to the senate for cleaning up…If you always listen to the whining business side we would not have safety bealts,emission scrubbers or the EPA….Take your time and keep an open mind.
    I got to say it one more times…The founding fathers got it right by letting the 435 members of the house have their food fights then turn it over to the more reasonable 100 senators in the senate.

    Thanks for the good comments and I will keep them in mind.

    June 27, 2009 at 5:56 p.m.

  • Very true, a conundrum.
    The point is, in a economic downturn, to legislate additional costs to American businesses and thus American consumers because we all know that American companies will not simple absorb there additional costs, they will pass them along to consumers.

    The cap and trade bill will in fact be a tax on the American consumer, whether from higher energy bills or a higher price charged for goods produced in America.

    Meanwhile, as you put it, “That’s right you go ahead with your coal-fired plants but we will come up with the green technology and green energy that the world is clamoring for, so you go ahead with your old dirty ways.” And they will, to supply the cheaper goods marketed in WalMart ect.

    If you actually believe that other countries will not take advantage of federally mandated higher production cost American companies will have to pay, I don't know what to tell you.

    IMO, all countries that export products to American are very happy with cap and trade, and they pray that it IN FACT WILL BE MADE MORE STRENUOUS.

    Meanwhile, laughing all the way to the bank.


    June 27, 2009 at 5:34 p.m.

  • What’s with all the hate for SanFrancisco, Los Angels and California in general..Is that a right-wing thing? I enjoyed visiting Fisherman’s Wharf, Alcatraz, Candlestick Park, and the Red Wood trees… etc…beautiful city.

    June 27, 2009 at 5:24 p.m.

  • Legion357
    You are pretty much a tit for tat poster but there is more than one way to skin a cat.

    The Chinese CEOs told Tom Friedman that we have polluted the world for many years ,so now it we don’t have a leg to stand on ,when it comes to lecturing them.

    Tom Freidman flabbergasted them when he said “That’s right you go ahead with your coal-fired plants but we will come up with the green technology and green energy that the world is clamoring for, so you go ahead with your old dirty ways.”..I am paraphrasing .

    We can only control what is happening in the United States….Canada is going into mass producing solar panels in order to compete with the world leader Germany….Our solar panel innovators moved their plants to Germany because we were not interested.

    Not now…When?

    June 27, 2009 at 5:13 p.m.

  • California building codes to be enforced for all of us. It's in there!

    June 27, 2009 at 4:39 p.m.

  • WASHINGTON, D.C. - America’s smallest firms bear the largest per employee burden of federal regulatory compliance costs, according to a study released today by the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration. Firms with fewer than 20 employees annually spend $7,647 per employee to comply with federal regulations, compared with the $5,282 spent by firms with more than 500 employees.

    The report thoroughly analyzes compliance costs for economic, workplace, environmental, and tax regulations. It details regulatory costs for five major sectors of the U.S. economy: manufacturing, trade (wholesale and retail), services, health care, and other (a residual category), revealing that the disproportionate cost burden on small firms is particularly stark for the manufacturing sector. The compliance cost per employee for small manufacturers is at least double the compliance cost for medium-sized and large firms.

    Among its other findings, the report also shows that the annual cost of federal regulations in the United States totaled $1.1 trillion in 2004.

    Hmmm, $1.1 trillion, about as much as what the cost of health care is.

    But now the federal government wants to add the added of cap and trade (not to mention higher costs for water all across the country), during a economic downturn. Brilliant, simple brilliant LOL.

    http://www.sba.gov/advo/press/05-43.html

    June 27, 2009 at 3:57 p.m.

  • Unintended consequences, Mike you have use that term yourself.

    Really think about the consequences a cap and trade bill will result in.

    June 27, 2009 at 3:41 p.m.

  • "I hope the senate strengthens the bill, so we have some sense of credibility when it comes to negotiating a new international climate change treaty later this year. "

    Good luck with that. Sure the European countries might go along, but IMO, the emerging industrial countries will not pay any attention to anything that will limit there economic progress.

    On paper China, Indian ect. might sign a international climate warming agreement, but in reality it will be business as usual for them, even more business for them since American companies will be hindered by higher production prices due to cap and trade legislation.

    June 27, 2009 at 3:37 p.m.

  • THIS LEGISLATION IS STUPID AS HELL. All these "green" do-gooders are exactly that, "picked too soon from the vine." As one guy puts it, "for you folks from the nation of "San Francisco or Los Angeles --can't remember" they're too GREEN to know what they're doin'. While the main concept of reducing emissions is noble, IMNSHO, their goals aren't realistic, practical, cost effective, or employment sustaining. Right now, we need to be figuring out the most cost effective way to create/protect jobs. Just passing this crap in order to get re-elected has to STOP NOW.

    OH YES. RINGER SAYS to keep adding, "blog counters, blog counters, blog counters..." to our posts.

    June 27, 2009 at 12:06 p.m.