the Light Switch Tax

House Republicans are now making a claim that President Obama wants to pay for health care by charging a brutal light switch tax that will crush the average tax payer.

An excerpt from the house Republican Statement:

"The administration raises revenue for nationalized health care through a series of new taxes, including a light switch tax that would cost every American household $3,128 a year,"

Let’s read that one again.

"The administration raises revenue for nationalized health care through a series of new taxes, including a light switch tax that would cost every American household $3,128 a year,"

This alleged "light switch tax" is a reference to Obama's proposal to tax power companies for carbon dioxide emissions and allow companies to trade emissions credits among themselves. That's called a cap-and-trade program, and Republicans say the companies would just pass the tax on to electricity consumers.

To give there claim a little more bite, they site a report based on a similar Cap and Trade proposal would raise $366 billion a year. The report couldn’t be based on the Obama Administration proposal because it hasn’t been publicly detailed yet.

The report was put together by M.I.T. and can be viewed here if you like.

What House Republican’s did is make an assumption based on basic math and the idea that the cost of the “similar” Cap and Trade program would be passed on to consumers, or in this case to tax payers.

The “similar” Cap and Trade program would cost $366 billion dollars per year.
There are 114 million households in America. (I don’t know about you but I am not an economist. Even though I am not an economist, I suspect there are a few other items that need to be factored in here.)

If you divide the cost by the number of households you come up with $3,128.205 (you can’t forget the half cent if you want to make a real impact here)

To the House Republican’s credit on March 20th they took there assumption and determination made by use of basic math and contacted one of the reports authors at M.I.T., John Reilly, to make sure that the assumption they were making was correct.

It turns out that the House Republican assumption wasn’t correct. Mr. Reilly even told them why the assumptions they were making were not correct.

According to the Light Switch article at Politifact.com Mr. Reilly stated in an interview, “It’s wrong in so many ways it hard to begin.” Mr. Reilly went on to add “I had explained why the estimate they had was probably incorrect and what they should do to correct it, but I think this wrong number was already floating around by that time.”

OK, we know the program will end up costing us, the consumers something in the long run, but exactly how much it will cost will not be known until the actual Cap and Trade program becomes public knowledge.

The “similar” program did detail how much that program would boil down to per household and per person. According to that report in 2015 the net cost to individuals would be $30.89 per person. If you were to use the 2.56 average household size that the House Republican’s used, you would be looking at $79.078 of additional cost per household per year. That is just a little bit different than the House Republican’s estimate of $3,128.20

I don’t know folks, what do you think?
Should this one get a nomination for the Weekly WTF?!

South seeking solid alliance against North

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak took time during the G-20 to stress the importance of a strong international response from the world’s leaders if Pyongyang carries out the planned launch of what they claim to be a rocket carrying a satellite into orbit. The launch is expected to occur some time between Saturday April 4 and Wednesday April 7.

The U.S., South Korea and Japan suspect the North Korean rocket launch to be a cover for a Long range ballistic missile test. The North Korean’s are currently prohibited from any rocket or missile activity under a UN Security Council agreement. The North Korean government has been notified of the possible actions should they persist and proceed with the launch but have answered the warnings of sanctions with threats of war.

North Korea has informed Japan’s Government that if they attempt to interfere with the planned launch, North Korea will consider it an act of war. According to a South Korean official North Korean radio is stating "If the U.S. imperialists dare to infiltrate spy planes into our airspace to interfere with our peaceful satellite launch preparations, our revolutionary armed forces will mercilessly shoot them down,”

Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso stated "A launch by North Korea would be a clear violation of a U.N. resolution," and that if they proceed with the launch they intend to take North Korea to the Security Council. Aso also said "On this issue, Japan, Korea and the United States need to work closely together,"

Japan has strategically placed battleships armed with antimissile systems off its northern coast line. They have also stationed Patriot missile interceptors around Tokyo to knock down any wayward rocket debris that might fall in that area. Japan has stated that they have no intention of trying to shoot down the rocket but only any possible debris that might threaten Japans citizens.

Currently South Korea and Japan have been joined by England and Australia but have yet to receive backing from the US, Russia or China. It is widely believed that the US will back the attempt to seek UN sanctions against North Korea if they do launch, many doubt that China or Russia will be on board with the attempt. France’s stance may end up being the deciding factor in the end.

The UN Security Council is made up of 15 members. 10 are elected from the member body and 5 are permanent members.

The 5 permanent founding members are France, England, The United States, Russia and China.

Presidents' Obama and Medvedev agree to START over

In a sidebar meeting at the G-20 summit, the two Presidents’ agree that they will renew discussions on reducing the two nations' warhead stockpiles. This will be the first Nuclear Arms discussions between the two nations’ since 1997. Both President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said that they want to "move beyond Cold War mentalities".

The 1991 agreement between the two nuclear superpowers known as START is set to expire on December 5 of this year. START or the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty limited the two nations’ arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads. Now might be the right time to start discussing what comes next since doing so while Bush 43 was in office was not an option. Putin and Bush were far from being on the best of terms. But waiting much longer may risk lifting the limitations that are in place and opening a whole new Arms Race and “Cold War” scenario.

The two Presidents’ stated "that the era when our countries viewed each other as enemies is long over." But this is America and Russia we are talking about. The two seem to get along as well as oil and water at the best of times. Regardless, any attempts to reach a new agreement would have to overcome some rather major obstacles. The plans to deploy an anti-missile defense shield to guard against nuclear threats such as Iran is just one of those obstacles. Both Obama and Medvedev acknowledged that "differences remain over the purposes of deployment of missile-defense assets in Europe". "We discussed new possibilities for mutual international cooperation in the field of missile defense," according to a joint statement the two released. "The relationship between offensive and defensive arms will be discussed by the two governments."

An excerpt from a speech made by President Obama earlier today:

“Let me just make a brief comment. I am very grateful
to President Medvedev for taking the time to visit with me today. I'm
particularly gratified because prior to the meeting our respective teams had
worked together and had developed a series of approaches to areas of common
interest that I think present great promise.

As I've said in the past, I think that over the
last several years the relationship between our two countries has been allowed
to drift. And what I believe we've begun today is a very constructive dialogue
that will allow us to work on issues of mutual interest, like the reduction of
nuclear weapons and the strengthening of our nonproliferation treaties; our
mutual interest in dealing with terrorism and extremism that threatens both
countries; our mutual interest in economic stability and restoring growth around
the world; our mutual interest in promoting peace and stability in areas like
the Middle East.

So I am very encouraged by the leadership of the President.
I'm very grateful that he has taken the time to visit. I am especially excited
about the fact that the President extended an invitation for me to visit Moscow
to build on some of the areas that we discussed on today. And I have agreed to
visit Moscow in July, which we both agreed was a better time than January to
visit.

And my hope is that given the constructive conversations
that we've had today, the joint statements that we will be issuing both on
reductions of nuclear arsenals, as well as a range of other areas of interest,
that what we're seeing today is the beginning of new progress in the
U.S.-Russian relations. And I think that President Medvedev's leadership is --
has been critical in allowing that progress to take place.”

The Top 10 WTF?! of March 2009

The economy is in shambles, but the most happening city in the country is Washington, D.C., the center of the federal government and the “free” world, even though no resident has Congressional representation. WTF?!

With THAT, we give you the WTF?! ("Washington Total Fails"…and you thought it meant something else!) for the month of March, posted in linear order rather than lowest to highest ranking...well...because I don't do anything normal:

1. President Barack Hussein Obama firing the CEO of a private company. GM CEO Rick Wagoner was a grade A buffoon, an incompetent who sucked more money from your pockets than you’ll ever see in a million lifetimes, but it’s never been the federal government’s business to handle personnel decisions at non-government companies…until Wyatt Earp Obama rode into D.C. on his high horse. To top it off, Obama’s stated preference (as of 3/30/2009) for the future of GM (and Chrysler) is structured bankruptcy (the correct path for dying business models in the first place), this coming after they’ve chewed through a combined $17 billion in newly printed cash from the government mint...then asked for more. It took Obama way too long to figure out how to address the situation, to demand “deadlines” for the companies to write concrete plans for remaining viable -- and when he finally picked a direction, he didn’t even consult Congress about canning someone who doesn’t work for the government. Now, who’s selectively playing “I’m the decider” with little or no Constitutional authority? FAIL!

2. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi using federal property as her personal travel agency. Booking use of Department of Defense airplanes, personnel, time, and expenses… then making last-minute changes and cancellations. Demanding planes already booked for other uses, then expressing outrage when they weren’t available. Requesting an Army escort and three military planes to transport her and other members of Congress to Cleveland, Ohio, for the funeral of the late Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, which she called "Operation Tribute" and an "exception to standard policy." All of which exhibit the actions of someone who really does think she’s a princess, with a carbon footprint that should be, in no way, as diminutive as those of her constituents. FAIL!

3. Obama vacillates between optimism and doom and gloom. After nearly two months of continuously talking down the economy, as Wall Street reacted by dumping stocks day after day, Obama suddenly discovers optimism. First he tells Americans to buy! buy! buy! when the market is at its lowest, exhibiting one of the new duties of the Oval Office, Economist in Chief. A week later, after the market rallied for a few days, he said: "I don't think things are ever as good as they say, or ever as bad as they say. Things two years ago were not as good as we thought because there were a lot of underlying weaknesses in the economy. They're not as bad as we think they are now." Then he fires GM’s Wagoner, and brings up the very real possibility of bankruptcy for the automakers, and the market plummets 250 points. The change we need? Please. When he’s done figuring out how to do his job, we won’t have any change left to pay for his $4 trillion budget next year. FAIL!

4. Timothy Geithner: for existing. Forget the tax-cheat business; that’s last month’s news. The dubious Secretary of the Treasury Department has a big problem with his mouth. Asked about the People's Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan's call for a new international reserve currency, Geithner said, while he had not read Zhou's proposal, he understood it as a plan "designed to increase the use of the IMF's special drawing rights. And we're actually quite open to that." BAM! The dollar dropped worldwide. The next day he said the dollar would remain the world’s “dominant” currency. And this was AFTER Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., patiently drove nails into his eyes over his fundamental lack of understanding of “the Constitution,” during a House Financial Services Committee hearing:

REP. BACHMANN: Reclaiming my time, Mr. Secretary. What provision in the Constitution could you point to to give authority for the actions that have been taken by the treasury since march of ‘08?

SECRETARY GEITHNER: Oh, well, the congress, legislative, in the emergency economic stabilization act, a range of very important new authorities.

REP. BACHMANN: Where in the constitution? What in the constitution could you point to to give authority to the Treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken?

SECRETARY GEITHNER: Every action that the Treasury, Fed and FDIC has been using authority granted by this body by the congress.

REP. BACHMANN: And in the constitution, what could you point to?

SECRETARY GEITHNER: The laws of the land, of course.

HUH???? FAIL!

5. Sen. Christopher Dodd, the Obama Administration, and the AIG bonuses. First Dodd, D-Mass, said -- on camera -- that he didn’t know about the loophole in Porkulus that allowed AIG execs to keep their contracted bonuses, even though AIG had taken a $170 billion bailout from the federal government. Then he said he did know about it, again on camera, but only after he reviewed the facts to discover that the Treasury Department had asked him to rewrite an amendment that let AIG keep the bonuses, if the Obama Administration could take them back. Dodd fails for “misremembering” and then “remembering” to blame the Obama Administration. But, then again, with all of the billions of pork packed into that bill, no member of Congress reading it, and Obama breaking his campaign promise for not allowing ample public viewing of the legislation on the Internet, all of Washington FAILS! on this one.

6. Obama undoes then redoes the ban on funding for stem cell research. In a story that could only come out of Washington, Obama made a great public display of his ethical and scientific obligations for rescinding former President George W. Bush’s 2001 ban on federal funding for stem cell research. Then two days later, while signing the $410 billion omnibus bill (with 9,000 earmarks Obama promised during the campaign to never allow), the president knowingly (supposedly) approved the Dickey-Wicker amendment, an inclusion in the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services every fiscal year since 1996 that bans federal funding for stem cell research. Obama later said he’d leave it to Congress to come up with the law of the land on the matter. Political high drama with zero results at its best…and this is “change” how? FAIL!

7. The Obama administration starts using nondescript language for “terrorism” (in quotes, because it’s no longer “used”…meaning ALLOWED…in Washington). We no longer say “global war on terror,” because our…ahem…friends overseas don’t like it. We now say “overseas contingency plan.” [The chirping of crickets will now begin.] We also no longer say “terrorism.” The unofficial (as in, there’s no official directive on paper, sayeth Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) terminology is now “man-caused disaster.” [Were he here, Homer Simpson would think of saying “DOH!” but even he would be speechless over that one.] FAIL!

8. The beginning of the end for The Pony Express. Your stamp price goes up every two seconds (it seems like it, at least), but Postmaster General John Potter said the Post Office, which does not receive appropriations from Congress, lost $2.8 billion last year. It will lose another $6 billion next year. By contrast, Potter says cutting mail service on Saturdays would save $3.5 billion a year; changes in how the post office pre-pays for retiree health care would cut annual costs by another $2 billion. It can’t be all bad. If the Post Office did receive government funding, like AIG, GM, and Chrysler, the Obama administration would probably be taking back bonuses, firing Potter, and threatening a takeover in 30 - 60 days. FAIL!

9. Obama’s Special Olympics comment on Leno. He told Leno during The Tonight Show that he had bowled a 129, probably qualifying for the Special Olympics (this is paraphrasing, because Obama’s actual statement was more or less “I swear it was like Special Olympics or something” but that doesn’t sound too presidential…presumably because his teleprompter was back in the White House basement). The next day Michigan's Kolan McConiughey, the top bowler for the Special Olympics, fired back: "He bowled a 129. I bowl a 300. I could beat that score easily." Superlatives for McConiughey (and we’d like to see that match, btw). FAIL! for the President.

10. Obama obsesses over a question about whether he’s a socialist: During a flight from Ohio to Washington, New York Times reporter Peter Baker asked the president whether his domestic policies suggested that he was a socialist. “The answer would be no,” Obama said, laughing. But then, back in Washington, Obama called the reporter: “It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question,” Mr. Obama said from the Oval Office. [With many "ahhs" and "umms" removed from this printed version, of course.] With an economy in shambles, a major shift in policy and government control in nearly every aspect of public and private society underway, and two ongoing wars, since when does the president of the United States of America even have enough time to call a reporter back to debate the seriousness of a question? FAIL!