Northwest Suburban Insider » policy

Climate Change: Only for the Little People

Allen — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:33:14 +0000

Some times I write things just to be funny. Some times I write about things that are an outrage. Today, I get to do both - all in one article.

This week, the UN Climate Change Conference is being held in Copenhagen. To say it is a circus of hypocrisy is an understatement on par with saying Tiger Woods has had a bad week.

Of course the people that are attending the Copenhagen Conference are only the best of the best. Those people concerned with saving the planet. People who in their dedication and selflessness would sacrifice all to save the planet. Servants of the people, the protectors of the planet. LOL. If I write any more of that, I think my computer keyboard will come to life, jump up and smack me upside the head.

In order to shuffle these Gandhi like figures around the Copenhagen Conference, there are 1,200 limos driving around the streets. I’m sure they are all hybrids or all-electric vehicles - right? Perhaps they have a couple of limos that have been converted to run on waste cooking oil. To fly these ever so important people in, there are about 140 private jets. So many so, that there is not enough space on the tarmac to park them, so they will drop off the luminaries and then fly to another airport just to park. I’m sure all of this is carbon neutral. Maybe they will all be buying carbon credits from Al Gore.

The fact is that this conference has nothing to do with saving the planet. It has everything to do with leftists beating their chests and proclaiming how righteous they are. Thousands of attendees will come, not because they want to save the planet, but because they want to eat caviar and hang out with all the beautiful people. This is Commodus putting on festivals with the gladiators while the people of Rome suffered for basic necessities. “Woo-hoo, look at what we are doing to save the planet”.

The hypocrisy of this event sickens me. Despite the lies and the fabrication of results that have led the “scientists” to proclaim that we are teetering on a global meltdown, we have politicians and sycophants that cling to global warming (oh, sorry “climate change” since the planet is now cooling) only because it will mean that they can line their pockets and proclaim how much better and more noble they are then the rest of us rubes.

Americans, Indians, and Chinese all agree, Global Warming is not a threat.

Allen — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:27:26 +0000

Crossposted on Gallup:

Chinese see least threat from global warming; Japanese see the most

by Anita Pugliese and Julie Ray

Between 2007 and 2008, Gallup conducted the first comprehensive survey of global opinions about climate change, asking respondents in 128 countries about their awareness of the issue and the extent to which they perceive climate change as a threat to themselves and their families. Overall, Gallup’s data reveal a majority (61%) of the world’s adult population knows at least something about global warming. Forty-one percent are aware of the issue and perceive it as a serious threat.

The following is excerpted from “A Heated Debate: Global Attitudes Toward Climate Change,” which appears in the Fall issue of Harvard International Review on newsstands now.

Together, China, the United States, India, Russia, and Japan account for more than half of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Separately, each has started down the path toward Copenhagen from different places and each has its own perspectives on the culpability of developed and developing nations. Many observers believe the top emitters — particularly China and the United States — will need to walk together to get others to follow.

Public opinion about climate change across this mix of developed and major developing economies reveals some remarkable similarities and differences, both in awareness and in the perceived level of threat that global warming poses.

Chinese Perceive Relatively Low Threat From Global Warming

In China, which rivals the United States for the top spot on the greenhouse gas emitters list, the 62% who are aware of climate change falls roughly at about the world’s average. However, China stands out among these five countries because its public perceives global warming as a relatively low threat.

Gallup’s survey, which is representative of both urban and rural areas, reveals that the general Chinese perception of climate change as a relatively low threat is pervasive across demographic and geographic groups. Awareness is higher among urban Chinese (77%) than rural Chinese (52%). But even within urban and rural areas, education has an independent, additional effect on awareness. As education levels increase, so does basic awareness of climate change.

When we separate those adults who are aware, we find that urban Chinese are slightly more likely than rural Chinese to perceive climate change as a serious issue to them personally. Although education does have an independent effect on perceptions, all groups show a relatively low level of perceived threat of climate change.

Indians Are Least Aware of Climate Change

Like China, India is one of the fastest expanding economies in the world, and as such, its energy needs will only increase over the next decade. Still largely agrarian and poor, India has opposed emissions caps that could potentially curb its growth and maintains that developed nations should shoulder most of the burden. However, India has committed to not increasing its per-capita emissions above those of developed countries and is increasingly looking into alternative fuel options and energy efficiency at home.

Of the top five greenhouse gas-emitting countries, awareness is lowest in India, where only about a third of adults say they know at least something about climate change. As in China, this awareness correlates with urbanicity and educational attainment. In urban India, 49% of adults know at least something about climate change, whereas in rural India — where more than two- thirds of the population lives — 29% does. Within urban and rural India, awareness increases significantly with educational attainment.

While Indians are the least likely of the top five greenhouse gas-emitting countries to report awareness of climate change, they are more likely than the Chinese to say the issue is serious to them. Indians who are aware of the issue are likely to perceive it as a serious personal threat (29% of the total adult population in India). As India’s energy needs increase over the next decade, the country will likely face a challenge as it communicates climate and environmental measures to a public that is highly unaware of the climate change issue.

Japanese, Americans, and Russians Generally Aware but Mixed on the Threat

In Japan, Russia, and the United States, interestingly, where awareness is substantially higher than in China or India, perceptions vary about the seriousness of the threat that climate change poses.

Of the citizens from the top five greenhouse gas-emitting countries, the Japanese are the most likely to say global warming represents a serious threat to themselves and their families, with 80% rating the phenomenon at this threat level. It is too early to tell what impact the recent government change will have on climate change policy in the world’s second-largest economy. Japan’s Democratic Party, which swept to power in late August, had pledged to cut emissions even deeper than the outgoing government. Such efforts may be a tough sell, however, as Japan emerges from deep economic recession.

Historically, the United States is the only country among the top five emitters not to ratify the Kyoto protocol. However, since the Obama administration took office, climate change policies have started to shift. Results from Gallup’s surveys in 2007 and 2008 show that almost all U.S. citizens aged 15 and older are aware of climate change, but a sizable 35% do not believe climate change is a serious threat. In this way, the United States is similar to Russia and China, where more than one-third of the population is aware of climate change but does not see it as posing a threat.

In Russia, one of the world’s most energy-intensive economies, there are signals this year that climate policy is starting to undergo a shift. For the first time, Russia recently announced long-term plans for reducing emissions. At the same time, there may be reluctance to do so at a cost to economic growth as Russia experiences a deep slowdown. Despite high awareness among the Russian public, a minority of 39% is aware of global warming and says it presents a serious threat. In this regard, Russians’ attitudes more closely align with attitudes in India and China than with those in Japan or the United States.

Get Gallup news on Facebook and Twitter

For complete data sets or custom research from the more than 150 countries Gallup continually surveys, please contact worldpollpartners@gallup.com or call 202.715.3030.

Survey Methods

A total of 206,193 interviews was conducted across 128 countries in 2007 and 2008. A nationally representative sample of the civilian, non-institutionalized, adult population aged 15 and older was interviewed in each country, either in person or by telephone. The coverage area is the entire country including rural areas; exceptions include areas where the safety of interviewing staff is threatened and scarcely populated islands in some countries. Interviews are stratified by population size and or geography and clustering is achieved through one or more stages of sampling. Country-level data are weighted to the 2008 World Bank population estimates (aged 15 and older) to derive the regional and worldwide summary figures in this article.

Figures. Obama’s Personal Physician Friend Was a Marxist, Too

Allen — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:15:45 +0000

By Jim Hoft,

It figures. Obama’s neighbor and longtime friend is a raving Marxist.

Barack Obama poses with pal and Marxist Dr. Quentin Young at Dr. Young’s 80th birthday celebration in 2003.

New Zeal reported this week on Barack Obama’s Marxist neighbor and doctor friend who taught him about the single-payer health care system.

The push to socialize US Heathcare came, not from from the “people”, but from small clique of Marxists, led by a man with close persional ties to president Barack Obama.

This group’s goal is fully socialized, government run “single payer” healthcare-as long promoted through Congressman John Conyers’ National Health Insurance Act, or HR 676.

The leader of this Marxist clique is Quentin Young-a retired Chicago physician, a life long Marxist activist and long time friend and political ally of Barack Obama.

According to radical journalist John Nichols writing in The Progressive;

Obama…learned about single-payer health care from his old friend and neighbor Dr. Quentin Young, the longtime coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program.

Quentin Young told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, that while an Illinois State senator, Obama was a strong supporter of “single payer.”

Barack Obama, in those early days—influenced, I hope, by me and others—categorically said single payer was the best way, and he would inaugurate it if he could get the support, meaning majorities in both houses, which he’s got, and the presidency, which he’s got. And he said that on more than one occasion…. ”

So who exactly is Dr. Quentin Young?
According to New Zeal:

Quentin Young is one of America’s most committed socialists, beginning with his time in the Young Communist League in late 1930s Chicago.

After WW2, into the mid 1970s, Young was closely associated with the Communist Party and was accused of belonging to the Bethune Club (a communist doctor’s club) by a US Congressional Committee investigating the riots at the 1968 Democratic Party convention in Chicago.

There’s much more.
Of course, this surprises no one.

What the Health-Care Debate Is Really All About

Allen — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:39:37 +0000

What the Health-Care Debate Is Really All About [Jeffrey H. Anderson]

In the New York Times, David Brooks writes as if it’s more or less equally problematic to reject or enact Obamacare, and the decision is largely a matter of personal taste. He writes:

The bottom line is that we face a brutal choice.

Reform would make us a more decent society, but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untouchable promise on top of the many such promises we’ve already made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilized and sedate one.

We all have to decide what we want at this moment in history, vitality or security. We can debate this or that provision, but where we come down will depend on that moral preference. Don’t get stupefied by technical details. This debate is about values.

There are elements of truth in Brooks’s words, and he’s right that this debate is about values. But it’s not about decency versus vibrancy, about easing anxiety versus promoting growth.

Rather, it’s about liberty versus equality, personal control versus governmental control, dispersed power versus centralized power, freedom versus statism, American Founding principles of limited government and natural rights versus Progressive principles of activist government and conventional (man-made) “rights.”

There is nothing particularly noble, compassionate, or decent about helping to hold a gun to your neighbor’s head and saying that he or she must now pay more money to the state to cover the costs of someone else’s health care. Compassion and decency are much more in evidence in offering your own limited time or hard-earned money to help the needy, in imploring (not forcing) others to do so, in forming civil associations to help, even in leading local government action (from which people can far more easily flee if it becomes oppressive).

This debate is about vibrancy; that is true. But it’s also about decency, and they’re on the same side of the fence. For there is nothing more decent than fighting for liberty — against efforts to centralize and consolidate power in a manner that Tocqueville said “hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.”

Hat tip: National Review

Take a look at the numbers

Allen — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:42:01 +0000

If you only look at three elements of the health care bill, you can clearly see how this bill will not only drive up costs, but will be a disaster for the entire health insurance industry.

A. Family of four making $88,050 a year can not have their insurance premiums go up more than 12.5 percent of income with a cap of $10,000

B. You don’t get insurance, you pay a penalty of 2.5 percent

C. By 2013, you can’t be denied for pre-existing conditions for any reason.

By themselves, these rules seems to create lower costs to the consumer as well as increase the ability to get health insurance coverage. The problem? None of this takes into consideration basic economics. People make decisions to maximize benefits with the least amount of cost as possible.

Any rational individual would not pay up to the $10,000 cap for health insurance, but will pay the penalty of $2,200 ($88,000 x 2.5 percent) per year. Only when a individual has a major illness or surgery will they purchase insurance, because they cannot be denied coverage. After the insurance company paid for the procedure, the individual will drop the insurance, and go back to paying $2,200 fine.

This type of scenario will be played out over and over again, draining the insurance companies and leaving the individuals who regularly pay premiums with nothing. Why someone, like Rep. Bill Foster, cannot connect the dots is beyond me. After all, the man is a scientist.

Cody McCubbin
Geneva
Chairman, Kane County Young Republicans

Global Warming: Can we Get an Apology Now?

Allen — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:25:50 +0000

By John Brown’s Ghost:

For the last few years, many of us have been screaming from the frozen mountaintops that global warming is a farce intended to make lots of money for those that are warning of ocean covered coasts and melting ice sheets. Profiteers like Al Gore have been showing slide shows to our kids, making goofy movies and trying to funnel billions if not trillions of dollars into their pockets.

These people, I understand. They are money grubbing idiots who’s intents are easily seen (at least if you are not wearing green eyeglasses).

What has been frustrating are Republicans who claim that those on the right side (I contend that in this case “right” means correct) of the global warming argument are turning away young voters. I don’t know how many conversations that I’ve had with Republicans who tell me that if we hug the “skeptic” message on global warming, we risk being viewed as an old fuddy-duddy party.

Really?? Is that your final answer? Care to change that before I continue the rest of this article? Last chance.

This last week has been a watershed moment in time for us “skeptics”. It has been widely reported that hundreds of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia were hacked and are now out on the internet for viewing. The CRU is perhaps the most influential source of research for the global warming crowd. While dozens and dozens of great websites have done varying levels of analysis on the hacked e-mails, one of the best and easiest to understand is from Bishop Hill. Click here to review.

What these e-mails show is a systematic attempt to fudge data, affect the political process, silence “skeptics”, and show utter contempt for the scientific process. Some of the most fundamental aspects of Al Gore’s rantings have come from data that is now shown to be in question from the distribution of these e-mails. The scope and severity of the problems with the CRU is truly breathtaking.

So here is what I’m wondering. Will those groups that tried to tell all of us Neanderthal conservatives how wrong we were going to change their tune? Are they going to tell us that we still need to reach out a green handshake to young people or will they admit that maybe we need to show skeptical young people that have already seen how often politicians will lie through their teeth just to get their votes, that we are going to stand for truth?

Maybe we should tell young people that are going to be swimming in a soup of their parents’ and grandparents’ debt brought on by elected officials offering bountiful government programs that we now want them to waste their tax money paying for “environmental” solutions that won’t work and are based on lies.

Will groups like Republicans for Environmental Protection stop praising politicians that want to “go green”, which in many cases means just throwing away green pieces of paper that feature portraits of Jackson and Grant? Maybe they can stop defending politicians such as Lindsey Graham, who just want to make nice with the liberals in Congress.

Being a party that stands on the mantel of protecting freedom, means that we have to build that mantel on the truth. Going along with the global warming hysteria just because it feels good, or it makes us look compassionate, or it will get us supporters, doesn’t lead to a long term success. It will only lead to a future for our children and those same young people that we are courting which will include paying for our folly.

Click here for more…

The Next Fannie Mae Ginnie Mae and FHA are becoming $1 trillion subprime guarantors.

Allen — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:47:35 +0000

Crossposted from WSJ Opinion page:

Much to their dismay, Americans learned last year that they “owned” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Well, meet their cousin, Ginnie Mae or the Government National Mortgage Association, which will soon join them as a trillion-dollar packager of subprime mortgages. Taxpayers own Ginnie too.

Only last week, Ginnie announced that it issued a monthly record of $43 billion in mortgage-backed securities in June. Ginnie Mae President Joseph Murin sounded almost giddy as he cheered this “phenomenal growth.” Ginnie Mae’s mortgage exposure is expected to top $1 trillion by the end of next year—or far more than double the dollar amount of 2007. (See the nearby table.) Earlier this summer, Reuters quoted Anthony Medici of the Housing Department’s Inspector General’s office as saying, “Who would have predicted that Ginnie Mae and Fannie Mae would have swapped positions” in loan volume?

Ginnie’s mission is to bundle, guarantee and then sell mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration, which is Uncle Sam’s home mortgage shop. Ginnie’s growth is a by-product of the FHA’s spectacular growth. The FHA now insures $560 billion of mortgages—quadruple the amount in 2006. Among the FHA, Ginnie, Fannie and Freddie, nearly nine of every 10 new mortgages in America now carry a federal taxpayer guarantee.

Herein lies the problem. The FHA’s standard insurance program today is notoriously lax. It backs low downpayment loans, to buyers who often have below-average to poor credit ratings, and with almost no oversight to protect against fraud. Sound familiar? This is called subprime lending—the same financial roulette that busted Fannie, Freddie and large mortgage houses like Countrywide Financial.

On June 18, HUD’s Inspector General issued a scathing report on the FHA’s lax insurance practices. It found that the FHA’s default rate has grown to 7%, which is about double the level considered safe and sound for lenders, and that 13% of these loans are delinquent by more than 30 days. The FHA’s reserve fund was found to have fallen in half, to 3% from 6.4% in 2007—meaning it now has a 33 to 1 leverage ratio, which is into Bear Stearns territory. The IG says the FHA may need a “Congressional appropriation intervention to make up the shortfall.”

The IG also fears that the recent “surge in FHA loans is likely to overtax the oversight resources of the FHA, making careful and comprehensive lender monitoring difficult.” And it warned that the growth in FHA mortgage volume could make the program “vulnerable to exploitation by fraud schemes . . . that undercut the integrity of the program.” The 19-page IG report includes a horror show of recent fraud cases.

If housing values continue to slide and 10% of FHA loans end up in default, taxpayers will be on the hook for another $50 to $60 billion of mortgage losses. Only last week, Taylor Bean, the FHA’s third largest mortgage originator in June with $17 billion in loans this year, announced it is terminating operations after the FHA barred the mortgage lender from participating in its insurance program. The feds alleged that Taylor Bean had “misrepresented” its relationship with an auditor and had “irregular transactions that raised concerns of fraud.”

Is anyone on Capitol Hill or the White House paying attention? Evidently not, because on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue policy makers are busy giving the FHA even more business while easing its already loosy-goosy underwriting standards. A few weeks ago a House committee approved legislation to keep the FHA’s loan limit in high-income states like California at $729,750. We wonder how many first-time home buyers purchase a $725,000 home. The Members must have missed the IG’s warning that higher loan limits may mean “much greater losses by FHA” and will make fraudsters “much more attracted to the product.”

Click here for more…

The Immorality of Taxpayer Funded Abortion

Allen — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:05:04 +0000

Crossposted from Texas Straight Talk:

Healthcare continues to dominate the agenda on Capitol Hill as House leadership and the administration try to ram through their big government healthcare plan. Fortunately, they have been unsuccessful so far, as there are many horrifying provisions tucked into this massive piece of legislation. One major issue is the public funding of elective abortions. The administration has already removed many longstanding restrictions on abortion, and is unwilling to provide straight answers to questions regarding the public funding of abortion in their plan. This is deeply troubling for those of us who do not want taxpayer dollars funding abortions.

Forcing pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortion is evil and tyrannical. The most basic function of government is to protect life. It is unconscionable that government would enable the taking of it. However this is to be expected when government oversteps its constitutional bounds instead of protecting rights. When government supercedes this very limited role, it cannot help but advance the moral agenda of whoever is in power at the time, at the expense of the rights of others.

Even if you agree with the morality of the current politicians and think their ideas should be advanced, someday different people will inherit that power and use it for their own agendas. The wisdom of the constitution is that it keeps government out of these issues altogether.

Many say we must reform healthcare and treat it as a right, because that is the moral thing to do. Poor people should not go without healthcare in a just society. But too many forget the immorality of stealing from others in order to make this so. They also forget the morality and compassion that naturally exists in communities when government is not fomenting class warfare with wealth redistribution programs.

Many doctors willingly volunteer, accept barter or reduced payment from patients who can’t pay, or give away services for free. Many charities help the poor with food, housing and healthcare. These charities are much more responsive and accountable for helping people in need than government ever could be. This is the moral way that private individuals voluntarily deal with access to healthcare, but government intervention threatens to pull the rug out from this sort of volunteerism and replace it with mandates, taxes, red tape, wealth redistribution, and force.

The fact that the national healthcare overhaul could force taxpayers to subsidize abortions and may even force private insurers to cover abortions is more reason that this bill and the ideas behind it, are neither constitutional, moral, nor in the American people’s best interest.

Click here for more…

Healthcare Is “Not a Right” and Obama’s Plan Will Cost Way Beyond $1T

Allen — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:58:55 +0000

Crossposted from Yahoo Finance:

Healthcare legislation is quickly picking up momentum in Washington. Three separate committees in the House of Representatives are hard at work hammering out details of a bill. Votes are planned today in the Education and Labor and Ways and Means committees on a plan that majority House Democrats presented this week. The legislation seeks to provide coverage to nearly all Americans by subsidizing the poor and penalizing individuals and employers who don’t purchase health insurance.

Meanwhile, the Senate Health committee on Wednesday approved its own version of a bill. Their plan sets up a government-run insurance system to compete with private insurers, and like the House, requires many employers to provide insurance for their workers or face penalties and requires individuals to purchase their own insurance.

Each proposal carries an estimated price tag of about $1 Trillion over the next decade. And that figure will probably balloon says Rep. Ron Paul. “They’ve never been right on projections of medical programs,” referring to his colleagues in Congress, “they’re always off by 100%, 200%. It always costs a lot more.”

As you my have guessed, the independent minded Paul, is no fan of government involvement in healthcare. In this accompanying video exclusive, taped at the Capitol Hill Rotunda in Washington D.C., Paul, who is also an M.D., opens up to Aaron Task about his concerns regarding the government taking a larger role in the medical game.

As far as the Texas Congressman is concerned, healthcare is not a right. “I don’t have a right to medical care,” he emphatically states. In his view, the constitution only guarantees citizens “life, liberty and (the right to) keep the fruits of my labor.”

Don’t be mistaken, he’s very clear to point out, he is in favor of all citizens receiving medical care. “I want everybody to have maximum care at the best price. And that’s why I want the government out of it completely.”

Well, agree with him or not, even he admits some form of a bill will probably pass. Reports indicate, if the Democrats find support in both Houses that bill could arrive on President Obama’s desk by October.

Click here for more…

Czar’s of the USSA

Allen — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:32:09 +0000

by Allen Skillicorn

The dictionary defines the word Czar as; an emperor or king, the former emperor of Russia, an autocratic ruler or leader, and any person exercising great authority or power in a particular field. The Obama administrations likes this nick-name and happily appoints Czars of industries and sectors of the economy on a whim.

Two of these Czars; Van Jones and Carol Browner are self proclaimed a communist and a socialis t. Both have publicly claimed to be reshaping the American economy, empowering the poor, and reducing our dependence on oil. All admirable goals, but at what cost? Could reshaping the American economy mean giving more control to congress and taking control away from the consumer? Will empowering the poor mean more class warfare against the successful? Could higher energy taxes and higher prices effectively snuff out the US energy industry?

As the average and semi-quiet majority, we need to listen carefully to what this administration is saying. Sometimes we need to call a spade, a spade.