Give government bureaucracy the power to nullify your ownership rights in the name of a “higher good”.
You’re all familiar with the poly. The WSJ describes it:
In partnership with green activists, the Department of Interior may attempt one of the largest federal land grabs in modern times, using a familiar vehicle—the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A record 757 new species could be added to the protected list by 2018. The two species with the greatest impact on private development are range birds—the greater sage grouse and the lesser prairie chicken, both about the size of a barnyard chicken. The economic stakes are high because of the birds’ vast habitat.
Interior is expected to decide sometime this month whether to list the lesser prairie chicken, which inhabits five western prairie states, as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. Meantime, the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service are considering land-use amendments to protect the greater sage grouse, which would lay the groundwork for an ESA listing next year.
One of the birds resides mostly on federal land (remember, the federal government owns most of the west of the US). It is on these lands and the little private land there that the sage grouse is found:
The sage grouse is found in 11 western states—California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Most of the areas affected are federal lands routinely used for farming, ranching, mining, road building, water projects and oil and gas drilling.
Ah, gas drilling. Well here we go:
Interior’s proposed “land use” amendments are draconian. They require a four-mile “buffer zone” whenever a sage-grouse mating ground is discovered on federal land. The American Petroleum Institute calls the proposed rules a “de facto ban on drilling.” It fears that compliance could cost tens of millions of dollars in legal fees and cause years of drilling delays.
Well of course it would. That’s the whole point. To make it economically unfeasible to fight this. Never mind that the technology exists to make the foot print tiny (horizontal drilling), you still have to get permission to do it – time and mucho money.
But that’s on federal land. How about private land. Well it just so happens that’s where the prairie chicken comes in (along with the sage grouse). Any idea of where they’re found?
The prairie chicken sits atop Texas’s Permian Basin oil bonanza, and the sage grouse is near the Bakken Shale in North Dakota.
So a bird that is found in 11 western states is apparently “endangered” and also sits conveniently on one of the most productive finds in modern history (Bakken) and the other bird just happens to be in Texas’ big petroleum find? How ironic, no?
Politics in the service of activism. And if the activists don’t get their way?
Environmental groups have won victories by using a strategy called “sue and settle” under which groups propose species for protected status and then sue the federal government, which settles the lawsuit on terms favorable to the greens rather than fight. These settlements typically bypass a thorough review of the scientific evidence and exclude affected parties, such as industry and local communities.
According to Kent Holsinger, a natural resources attorney in Denver heavily involved in these cases, “Wildlife Guardians and Center for Biological Diversity have been party to more than 1,000 lawsuits between 1990 and the present.” The Center for Biological Diversity has made no secret of wanting to end fossil-fuel production in the U.S.
In the case of the Obama administration, it is more likely that this won’t be an antagonistic process, at least where the econuts are concerned. Instead it will be a cooperative process while they bleed the destroy the concept of private property once and for all.
If I’m not mistaken, not a single Obama budget (those few he’s submitted) over the years has gotten even one vote when it hit Congress. And that includes votes from Democrats.
This year is likely to be no exception.
Much of the president’s proposed budget’s rosy projections will require considerable tax financing and political restraint to come to fruition. If revenues are lower than anticipated or spending is not restricted as planned, the ten-year debt picture will look quite different. I have noted before that President Obama’s later mid-session review budget differed considerably from his early budget projections. Early revenue and outlay projections were higher than actual amounts, while deficit spending surged much higher than anticipated from 2010 to 2012. This budget will likely mis-project critical variables as well. The rosiest projections all too often turn out to be the most disappointing.
Talk about an understatement. And the rosy projection? Well here it is compared to the CBO projection:
You have to chuckle at a miss that bad. In the outlying years, look at the percent of GDP the CBO projects vs. Obama. Any guess as to which projection is most likely of the two?
Go back to a key line ins De Rugy’s analysis:
If revenues are lower than anticipated or spending is not restricted as planned, the ten-year debt picture will look quite different.
Point to a moment in recent history where our profligate politicians have actually followed a restrictive spending plan that would have the effect Obama says it will?
Yeah, I can’t point to it either.
Regardless, however, we’re supposed to believe that if the plan is followed as layed out in the Obama budget, we’ll see long term debt reduction.
Unfortunatly the next chart doesn’t at all support that claim:
In every year projected, spendin is greater than revenue. So what they’re assuming is massive growth in the eoncomy to make the debt they pile up in the later years a smaller percentage of the GDP.
Really? Taxes are going to go up, government spending will also go up and yet somehow the private economy is going to surge (10 more “recovery summers”, eh?)? Obama plans spending and taxation as a percentage of GDP that are at or near historic highs, but we’ll see huge economic growth to support that?
Wow, if you’re not flying the red BS flag, you need to take an Econ 101 class.
Yet this is what the President of the United States is presenting as a functional budget for this country 10 years into the future.
We’ve talked about this at other times in the past but there are some examples in a recent Victor Davis Hanson peice that make the point again. Science is science. It should not be something in service to anything, especially politics. It should stand alone and we should deal with its findings as objectively as possible. Unfortunately, today we have “science” (and yes the quote marks do indicate that what I’m going to note has nothing to do with real science) in the service of politics and for hire to whomever can provide it the most grant money. It’s become a bit like expert witnesses in court. Need one to conclude a certain way? We can find that “expert” for you.
Anyway, there is one particularly egregious example in the VDH piece (at least more egregious than some, at least to me) that I want to note because it has so recently been in the news and used in politics to further an agenda:
The president still talks of “settled science” in the global-warming debate. He recently flew to California to attribute the near-record drought there to human-induced global warming.
There is no scientific basis for the president’s assertion about the drought. Periodic droughts are characteristic of California’s climate, both in the distant past and over a century and a half of modern record-keeping. If the president were empirical rather than political, he would instead have cited the logical reasons for the fact that this drought is far more serious than those of the late 1970s.
California has not built additional major mountain storage reservoirs to capture Sierra Nevada runoff in decades. The population of the state’s water consumers has almost doubled since the last severe drought. Several million acre-feet of stored fresh water have been in recent years diverted to the sea — on the dubious science that the endangered delta smelt suffers mostly from irrigation-related water diversions rather than pollutants, and that year-round river flows for salmon, from the mountains to the sea, existed before the reserve water storage available from the construction of mountain reservoirs.
In other words, government has been lax (no forward planning or construction for the water needs of an expanded population), environmentalists have been extreme (demanding an entire valley be dried up for a mostly useless fish) and the result has been to aggrevate a natural penomenon to disaster levels.
But they will tell you that it has to do with “global warming”, not poor government, not environmental extremism. What Obama is pushing is pseudo-science, fashioned to support a political position. There is no reason that this drought should be as severe as it has been. And again – it isn’t global warming causing the severity.
Remember, this was the guy who promised he’s put science back in the place it belonged. Apparently that place is the same place he claimed it was before he took office. As a political tool to push an ideological agenda. That’s precisely what he was doing in California.
But then, the fact that he lied shouldn’t suprise anyone, given his track record.
Congressional “mid-term” elections have, for years, been seen as a referrendum on the President. When the nation is pleased with a President, his party gains seats in Congress and when not pleased, that party suffers by losing seats in Congress. Well, Democrats, gird thy loins, because here it comes:
President Obama’s job approval rating hits a record low this week, as a majority of Americans say his administration has mostly failed at growing the economy, creating jobs, improving health care and the country’s image.
That’s according to a Fox News poll released Wednesday.
For the first time in a Fox News poll, fewer than four voters in ten — 38 percent — approve of President Obama’s job performance. Fifty-four percent disapprove. Before now Obama’s worst job rating was 40-55 percent in November 2013. Last month 42 percent approved and 53 percent disapproved (February 2014).
Approval of Obama among Democrats stands at 71 percent, near its 69 percent record low (September 2013). For independents, 28 percent approve, which is also near the 25 percent all-time low among this group (July 2013). And approval of Obama among Republicans hits a new low of five percent.
Overall, a 59-percent majority thinks the White House has mostly failed at creating jobs, up from 52 percent who said the same in October 2012. Likewise, 56 percent feel it has failed on growing the economy. That’s also up from 52 percent.
Etc. Etc. Etc. Even the Senate majority now is seen to be at risk and no one believes the Dems have a chance in the House.
And the only consistent thing in Obama poll numbers is the drop. He’s near historic lows in approval among many groups to include Democrats. They’re not likely to get better anytime soon.
The empty suit is finally beginning to wear on the electorate.
But I have to ask, how can a country stay so willingly blind that it took until now to see this inept imposter for what he really is?
Ah the left, you can count on them to come up with some way to get into your wallet in answer to any crisis. Thomas Friedman, the man who admires China’s abilty to control almost all aspects of its citizens life, has a great solution to the recent aggression by Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. Tax Americans:
I don’t want to go to war with Putin, but it is time we expose his real weakness and our real strength. That, though, requires a long-term strategy — not just fulminating on “Meet the Press.” It requires going after the twin pillars of his regime: oil and gas. Just as the oil glut of the 1980s, partly engineered by the Saudis, brought down global oil prices to a level that helped collapse Soviet Communism, we could do the same today to Putinism by putting the right long-term policies in place. That is by investing in the facilities to liquefy and export our natural gas bounty (provided it is extracted at the highest environmental standards) and making Europe, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, more dependent on us instead. I’d also raise our gasoline tax, put in place a carbon tax and a national renewable energy portfolio standard — all of which would also help lower the global oil price (and make us stronger, with cleaner air, less oil dependence and more innovation).
Of course one of the real problems to doing what Friedman wants, i.e. exploiting our “natural gas bounty” is found in the parenthetic statement right after that. Government and environmentalists stand in the way because “the highest environmental standards” is a moveable goal post that is pushed further and further out each time industry approaches it. And, of course, Friedman apparently isn’t cognizant of the fact that the “standards” are one of the major cost factors in keeping prices up.
Naturally Friedman also wants the other lefty dream. The Crimea is as good of an excuse as any. The Global Warming scam has been exposed. The chances of getting that carbon tax based in that nonsense seem ever more remote. But wait, we now have the Crimea! Perfect. Lets tax ourselves to do in Putin. Friedman knows that whatever the excuse, taxes are rarely dropped after they’re once implemented. So, with a “whatever it takes” philosophy guiding this, Friedman has his newest and latest excuse to raise taxes. And note – it’s a long term strategy (which apparently assumes that Russia won’t make adjustments to the threat to its business) which means that these aren’t temporary taxes we’re talking about. No. Not by any stretch.
Oh, and for a guy who is so in love with China, I wonder if he has any idea where Russian oil and gas would go if the EU decided to buy from us?
Yeah, probably not.
Not that some aren’t still trying their hardest to pull it off. Face it, his has been one of the most dismal presidencies in history and it isn’t getting any better. However, reading through the headlines about the Ukraine, I came across an Orwellian piece that declares, “No, American weakness didn’t encourage Putin to invade the Ukraine“. Instead, it’s all about how the US has, in fact, broadened it’s power, expanding east, that encouraged Putin’s invasion.
No. Really. That’s the case that the author of the piece is trying to convey. We’re not weaker, we’re not in retreat, in fact, we’re more powerful than ever.
Gee, how about that. In the anarchy that is world politics, we now have the weak trying to counter the strong by invading another country instead of the more inuitive and usual reaction to a power vacuum caused by the retreat of a once great power. The author claims that the expansion of NATO threatened Russia. Wait, isn’t that 20th century thinking? Aren’t we being chided for dropping back on those old cold war theories?
Well, not when you’re tying to defend “The One” and you haven’t much to work with in a particular case.
The fact remains that Putin did what he did because he knew he could and he knew the reaction would be loud, but the response would be tepid. And, of course, when you look at a map of the pipelines that flow from Russia through the Ukraine and into Europe you know that any attempted sanctions will likely be met with counter sanctions by limiting fuel and, in the end, imposing a much higher cost on Europe than Russia.
Putin is a 20th century cold warrior and he knows how to play this game, even in the 21st century. Our leaders? They’re in denial.
Putin knows when he’s faced by a weak willed, “can’t we all just get along” Western leadership. He learned that with Georgia and Syria. Why in the world would he fret about the West’s reaction to Ukraine?
But the apologists want you to know that it isn’t Barry’s fault. He may have be weak willed and prefer “leadership from the rear”, but it realty the Ukraine was invaded beause we’re so strong and powerful. And black is white, up is down and right is wrong. The only 20th century date you can apply to this piece is “1984″.
With the Olympics safely over, Vladimir Putin felt safe to invade the Ukraine and annex the Crimea. Anyone want to take a guess why?
It has to do with “red lines” and words, not action. Those red lines were first drawn in Syria. And when they were crossed … nothing happened. So:
“Putin smelled blood in the water when the airstrikes against the Assad regime were suddenly called off,” Oubai Shahbandar, a senior advisor to the Syrian National Coalition, the U.S.-backed opposition group, said of the Ukraine invasion. “We’ve seen this movie play out before, sadly, as Russian-supplied planes, tanks and even some mercenaries continue to arrive in Syria uninterrupted.”
“Hope won’t stop Russian aggression,” Shahbandar added.
Ah, but we’re talking about “hope and change”. You know, the stuff that will calm the tides, still the wind and, well, fix anything. All the Great One has to do is speak the words and the world trembles in fear. Our first post-modern President is of the ilk that believes talk equals action. And he’s talked about it now, so its time to move on and bash Israel.
Meanwhile, all those red lines drawn and crossed in Syria rightfully have the Syrians leary of any promises from the US:
The Syrian opposition had long held out hope for significant U.S. support for their uprising, from heavy weapons and surface-to-air missiles to a no-fly zone. They argued that Assad’s main allies — Russia and Iran — had been steadfast in boosting his regime with arms and money, and in the latter case, with boots on the ground.
Many Syrians were deeply disappointed when Obama failed to enforce his famous “red line” on the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons with air strikes — opting instead for a Moscow-initiated deal for the regime to give up its stockpile of chemical arms. “Do not develop strategies that are based on any assumption that the U.S. or EU will demonstrate assertive leadership to deter Russian aggression,” said Amr al-Azm, a U.S.-based member of the Syrian opposition and a professor at Shawnee State University.
And Ukraine, that treaty you have the the US?
“The last thing anybody wants is a military option,” Kerry said Sunday.
Seems to me Russia has already used in Mr. Kerry.
Do I want our military involved in another war? Not under this leadership, no. When the leaders are both gutless and clueless, our troops need to stay home. But that’s really not the point here. The point is the happenings in the Ukraine are a direct result of some of the worst foreign policy ineptness we’ve had to suffer under in a couple of centuries. It almost makes one pine for Jimmy Carter.
So … how’s that “reset” going?
We’ve been told over the last few years that our economy is in a slump but not to worry. It’s temporary. The administration is on it. It’s going to be fixed.
What, we’ve had 5 recovery summers and are heading into our 6th?
Well, the CBO, that office the administration loves to cite when it suits them, has decided that this economy, the Obama economy, isn’t an outlier and we should get used to it:
The part of the past that you deem most relevant can be critical in determining your outlook for the future. And nowhere is that clearer than in the changing economic forecasts that come out of the Congressional Budget Office.
This year’s short-term and long-term economic forecasts are substantially worse than last year’s, even though the economy performed better than expected in 2013. What changed was that the C.B.O. economists essentially decided that they would no longer treat the recent years of poor economic performance as a sort of outlier. They have seen enough of a slow economy to begin to think that we should get used to sluggishness.
They think that Americans will earn less than they previously expected, that fewer of them will want jobs and that fewer will get them. They think companies will invest less and earn less. The economy, as measured by growth in real gross domestic product, will settle into a prolonged period in which it grows at an average rate of just 2.1 percent. From 2019 through 2024, job growth will average less than 70,000 a month.
So, how does it feel? You’ve lived through the “Golden age” and are now relegated to … this. Slow to non-existent job growth. Regulation out the wazoo. Rising health care costs. Taxes eating into earnings and no end in sight.
This is the economy this administration has helped fashion with an insensitivity to the economy and a policy cluelessness that is second to none. The fact that they’re still pushing a raise in the minimum wage in the face of half a million job losses (conservative estimate) says it all.
You reap what you sow, or don’t sow, in this case. What they didn’t sow was economic policies that would get the economy moving, create jobs and keep us in that Golden age. Instead we got ideology first, regardless of the economic consequences.
And this is the result.
As CBO says, get used to it.
“Outdated” because it confilicts with liberalism. Here’s a senior at Harvard’s view:
In its oft-cited Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declares that “Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.” In principle, this policy seems sound: It would not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political whims of the moment.
Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?
Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.
And what is it called when one promotes the quashing of dissenting views that they find to conflict with their ideas?
Call is “social justice” or whatever you choose, it is plain old, Brand X “oppression”.
That’s right. Every oppresive regime in the history of our world has been intolerant of dissent and has taken action to quash it. Here we see the same old tired argument presented by a liberal to further the cause of liberalism. Don’t want to hear any dissenting voices, oh no.
And yet this newly trained “scholar” presents this as if it is a brand-new, brightly minted and spectacular idea. She’s a senior at Harvard and “is a joint history of science and studies of women, gender and sexuality concentrator”.
No kidding. What a surprise. There seems to be quite a concentration of potential oppressers in that particular field of study. There certainly seems to be a dearth of critical thinkers however (she probably comes from the school of “it hasn’t worked properly yet because I haven’t been in charge”). It’s a pity she didn’t take a run-of-the-mill world history course or two to see who else in the past has shared that bright idea with her. Past hell, there’s are entire countries which have implemented that exist now.
China, Cuba and North Korea come to mind.