Quid Pro Quo...The Washington Way

GE has been closely tied to the government on both climate change and economic recovery issues...now they will benefit if the new Climate Bill passes.

Sen. Barbara Boxer’s climate bill set to be released today contains a provision that will compensate General Electric quite nicely for its lobbying and media efforts promoting climate legislation.

Section 821(c) requires that, by December 12, 2012, the EPA set standards for greenhouse gas emissions from “new aircraft and new engines used in new aircraft.”

General Electric is the world’s largest manufacturer of commercial and military jet engines, a business worth about $12 billion in annual revenues.

So the Boxer bill would compel airlines and the military, when purchasing new aircraft and new aircraft engines, to purchase more expensive “green” engines made by GE, according to standards set by the current and GE-lobbied Obama administration.

Keep in mind that GE CEO Jeff Immelt is member of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Council.

More evidence that GE’s political action committee (GEPAC) meant what it said in its August 19, 2009 e-mail to employees:

The intersection between GE’s interests and government action is clearer than ever.

Other payoffs to GE will likely be unconvered as Boxer’s bill virtually requires the purchase of other GE products including wind turbines, solar panels and water products.

Payoff? Wall Street Gives Money to Key Senators

From Politico:

Wall Street has showered nearly $11 million on the Senate since the beginning of the year, and more than 15 percent of it has gone to a single senator: Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York.

Schumer’s $1.65 million take from the financial services industry is nearly twice that of any other senator's — and more than five times what the industry gave to any single Republican senator.

...Of the $10.6 million the industry has given to sitting senators this year, more than $7.7 million has gone to Democrats. Schumer got his $1.65 million; his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand took in $886,000; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada received $814,000; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut scored $603,000; Colorado freshman Michael Bennet got $401,000; and Agriculture Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas— who will have a big say on the derivatives portion of regulatory reform — got $336,000.

Foreign Policy Wakeup Call From the French

After last week's speeches at the UN meetings, French President Sarkozy issued a wakeup call to President Obama and other UN figures....

“We are here to guarantee peace. We are right to talk about the future. But the present comes before the future, and the present includes two major nuclear crises. The peoples of the entire world are listening to what we are saying, including our promises, commitments and speeches. But we live in the real world, not in a virtual one. (emphasis added)

We say that we must reduce. President Obama himself has said that he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons. Before our very eyes, two countries are doing exactly the opposite at this very moment. Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council Resolutions. [Ed note: Sarkozy then listed international proposals for dialogue with Iran attempted in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009.] I support America’s extended hand. But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community? Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges. And last but not least, it has resulted in a statement by Iranian leaders calling for wiping off the map a Member of the United Nations. What are we to do? What conclusion are we to draw? At a certain moment hard facts will force us to take decisions.

… Secondly, there is North Korea — and there it is even more striking. It has violated every Security Council decision since 1993. It pays absolutely no attention to what the international community says. Even more, it continues ballistic missile testing. How can we accept that? What conclusions should we draw? …”

3 Days to Review Bill Seems Reasonable to Me..

...But apparently not to Senate Democrats. See below. I continue to wonder "what is the rush"? and like many of my fellow citizens, I prefer that my legislators read and ponder bills before voting on them.

Senate Finance Committee Democrats have rejected a GOP amendment that would have required a health overhaul bill to be available online for 72 hours before the committee votes.

Republicans argued that transparency is an Obama administration goal. They also noted that their constituents are demanding that they read bills before voting.

Democrats said it was a delay tactic that could have postponed a vote for weeks.

The Democrats noted that unlike other committees, the Finance Committee works off conceptual language that describes policies — instead of legislative language that ultimately becomes law, and which the GOP amendment would have required.

Democrats accepted an alternate amendment to make conceptual language available online before a vote.

It's great that conceptual language will be available, but that is not the same as the actual law. What is the problem with reading the bill carefully and thinking about it before voting?

CBO: Medicare to Reduce Benefits Under Senate Health Reform Bill

Congress' chief budget officer is contradicting President Barack Obama's oft-stated claim that seniors wouldn't see their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul.

The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told senators Tuesday that seniors in Medicare's managed care plans would see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance Committee.

The bill would cut payments to the Medicare Advantage plans by more than $100 billion over 10 years.

Source: AP

Obama Open to Tax Breaks for Newspapers

This speaks for itself...

The president said he is "happy to look at" bills before Congress that would give struggling news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as nonprofit businesses.

"I haven't seen detailed proposals yet, but I'll be happy to look at them," Obama told the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade in an interview.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) has introduced S. 673, the so-called "Newspaper Revitalization Act," that would give outlets tax deals if they were to restructure as 501(c)(3) corporations.

See this earlier post for more information.

Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal

Scary stuff...

Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.

Those options include:

• Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.

• Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.

• Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.

The review is due to be completed by the end of this year, and European officials say the outcome is not yet clear. But one official said: "Obama is now driving this process. He is saying these are the president's weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role."

The move comes as Obama prepares to take the rare step of chairing a watershed session of the UN security council on Thursday. It is aimed at winning consensus on a new grand bargain: exchanging more radical disarmament by nuclear powers in return for wider global efforts to prevent further proliferation.

President Obama on ACORN

When questioned by George Stephanopoulos today about ACORN, the president responded:

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the funding for ACORN?

OBAMA: You know, if -- frankly, it's not really something I've followed closely. I didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.

He would not commit to cutting funding for ACORN.

ACORN information

If anyone is interested in a timeline and details of ACORN issues, here is an interesting link. Let's hope that ACORN doesn't just change its name and continue its illegal practices (including massive voter fraud).

FDIC Running Out of Money

The FDIC may need to borrow from the Treasury Department to replenish their fund than insures bank deposits.

The FDIC estimates bank failures will cost the fund around $70 billion through 2013. Ninety-two banks have failed so far this year. Hundreds more are expected to fall in coming years largely because of souring loans for commercial real estate.

Laws are for the Rest of Us

We have a law in this country that State Department officials may not attend UN events that are led by representatives of nations who sponsor terrorism. The Justice Department has declared that President Obama can ignore this law.

Presidents of both parties have long protested laws that they see infringing their power to conduct foreign relations. Nevertheless, it is a law, duly passed by Congress.

...many examples of previous administrations of both parties taking a similar view. Among them, Mr. Bush used signing statements to instruct the State Department to interpret identical restrictions as “advisory” rather than mandatory, and his administration sent officials to a Development Program meeting in January.

Congressional leaders are not happy that the Administration has decided it can ignore the law.

The chairwoman of the House appropriations subcommittee that oversees financing for the State Department, Representative Nita M. Lowey, Democrat of New York, strongly objected to the overriding of such statutes by the executive branch.

“This provision is law for a very good reason,” Ms. Lowey said. “There are consequences for being a state sponsor of terrorism. The decision of both the previous and current administrations to disregard this law is unacceptable.”

Young Adults May Pay Disproportionate Amount for Health Care Reform

Part of the reason for this is that young people, as a group, tend to be healthier. Under the current system, insurance costs can be rated depending on your age and health, which means that the younger and healthier you are, the less you pay for insurance. This is because you are less likely to need medical care.

One of the proposals for "reform" will mandate that insurers can no longer charge different levels for different groups of people (e.g. younger people). So, if you average premiums out among the entire population, younger folks will pay more than they need to, in order to subsidize the cost for older people.

Many young people don't have insurance because they don't think they need it or they don't think they can afford it. The new "reform" rules will require them to purchase insurance (the cheapest of which will cost at least $100 per month) or face a fine of $750 to $950 per year.

Doctors May Quit if Health Care Reform Passes

Two thirds of all doctors oppose the health care reform proposals floating around in Congress, according to a recent poll by Investors Business Daily. (Note that the Administration touts support by the AMA, but only 18% of all doctors belong to the AMA).

Worse yet...

Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.

Read the whole article.

Congress Concerned About "Czars"

Congressional leaders, including Democrats Russ Feingold and Diane Feinstein, are expressing concerns about the proliferation of "czars" under the Obama Administration. Many czar roles are undefined and do not have oversight outside of the Executive Branch.

Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin joined the anti-czar chorus Wednesday, asking Obama to detail the roles and responsibilities of all of the czars in his administration and to explain why he believes the use of czars is consistent with the Senate’s constitutional power to offer advice and consent on top-level executive branch officials.

Cap & Trade Will Cost $1761 per Household if Passed

Last spring, the House passed a Cap and Trade bill, which will increase the cost of energy for all of us. This is the intent - they want to force us to reduce consumption by making it very expensive (President Obama and other Democrats have said this explicitly). The bill is currently stalled in the Senate, but there is talk of reviving it.

According to the Obama Administration, the cost to every family would be around $1760 per year...the equivalent of hiking taxes 15%. Read the whole article.

If you read to the very end, you will see a response from the Environmental Defense Fund, which basically says not to worry, because the government will spend all this revenue so it will really benefit you in the end!! Keep an eye on Cap and Trade in case they try to revive it.