On the heels of the closing of America’s last light bulb factory , a few Repubican members of Congress will attempt to chip away at the Nanny State. [Republican Joe Barton of Texas] said that in 2007 when the Clean Energy Act passed, the reasoning for the phasing out of incandescent bulbs was that over the course of five years, technology would advance , so that by the time incandescent bulbs were fully phased out, there would be more energy efficient, cheaper technology to replace it, so it wouldn’t be a problem for consumers. But since that hasn’t happened , he said, it is necessary to reevaluate the ban. What? Inventing wasn’t done according Congress’ time schedule? I’m shocked! By the way, I’m still waiting for my promised flying car … What’s more, CFLs contain mercury, creating a potentially dangerous situation if one breaks. The EPA recommends that if you break a CFL bulb, everyone should evacuate while the room is aired out for at least fifteen minutes. If the mercury gets onto any bedding or clothing, those articles should be thrown out. It’s a rather extreme procedure to cope with a commonplace accident. As [Republican Michael] Burgess put it, you’re practically “supposed to call a HAZMAT team if you break a bulb.†For both congressmen, the economic concerns outweigh the environmental concerns. “I’m not opposed to the energy saving bulbs at all,†Barton said, “but I say let the consumers make the choice, instead of mandating .â€
Read more here:
Market choice? You don’t say! [Darleen Click]
You get to attend a lot of nice parties when you’re the President. For example, President Obama traveled to Michigan the other day to get down and get funky at the opening of a high tech battery factory. Of course, he touted the factory’s products as evidence of the success of his stimulus program. The Associated Press reports his electrifying comments: In case you've ever wondered what a $33,000 battery looks like “This is about the birth of an entire new industry in America, an industry that’s going to be central to the next generation of cars,†Obama said Monday in a phone call broadcast at the opening of A123 Systems Inc.’s lithium ion battery plant in Livonia, Mich. “And it’s going to allow us to start exporting those cars, making them comfortable, convenient, and affordable. …. When folks lift up their hoods on the cars of the future, I want them to see engines and batteries that are stamped: ‘Made in America,’†Obama said, according to a transcript of the call released by the White House… Buried waaaaaaay down in the story was this little gem: Costs are high. The government has estimated that a battery with a 100-mile range costs about $33,000, although stimulus money could bring that down to $10,000 by the end of 2015. Got that? The President is out there touting an electric car that uses a battery that is, all by itself, far more expensive than the average car. And this is what he uses as an example of the success of his stimulus program. Lunacy. Complete lunacy. Source: Associated Press
Read the original post:
Obama touts glory of electric cars, neglects to mention their $33,000 batteries
Under the Obama regime, 1 in every 7 Americans now live in poverty. The poverty rate in America is now at 14.3 percent. This is the highest level since 1994. You remember 1994 don’t you? Another far left (at the time) progressive was President, and Congress controlled by big government progressives right before the the earthquake that swept them out of Congress that November. The total number of Americans living in poverty under the Obama regime is now up to a whopping 44 million.
Go here to see the original:
More Obama/Progressive Hope and Change: Poverty rate climbs to 14.3 percent — Highest since 1994
– Though as I anticipated , it is (as of now) a soft and bloodless one. Paul Ryan seems to get that . Responding to David Brooks – and, by proxy, to the rest of the establishment Republicans content to live within the faux binary of the current two-party competition for control of first eats at the taxpayer trough: The issue is not whether we ought to “zero out the state†or whether “all government action is automatically dismissed as quasi-socialist.†The issue is rather more subtle and sophisticated than that. The real debate is about whether and how government ought to create the foundations for growth and prosperity, securing a safety net for those who need it most; about how government can act now to avert a catastrophe later. The truth is that there are two stark, competing philosophies over this matter. I know better than most that the debate will at times be uncomfortable and unpleasant. In ordinary times, political debate concerns the means, not the ends, of government. But we do not live in ordinary times; we live in a time when the first principles of governing are on the table. Nor did we seek this debate; bipartisan failures of the past and our current leaders’ acceleration of their agenda have forced America to make this choice. So we cannot advance to the “day after tomorrow†until we decide today what kind of government we want our nation to have after tomorrow. And that is, right now, an open question. This is a potentially clarifying moment for the US. Sure, media filters applying progressive, big government spin will slow the impulse and blunt much of the early momentum of what the establishment is trying to term “anti-government” sentiment. But that’s no reason to accept the flawed (and unstated) premise from the GOP establishment that the best way forward is to continue to act within the constraints imposed upon civic and political discourse by the left. Progressives have made incremental changes to our various institutions — each one of those changes designed to move us away from the principles of classical liberalism and toward the tenets of progressive leftism, with its concentration on identity politics, epistemic contingency, and linguistic unmooring, all of which taken together leads to the deconstruction of the individual and the inversion of liberty into a federal soft-tyranny, a liberal fascism. It’s not they those rebelling are “anti-government”; it’s that they are pro-liberty, and they see the government as overreaching and out of control. What GOP members are “electable” or not is really up to those voting — not to pundits and pollsters operating without all the facts, or well in advance of any kind of potential groundswell. And frankly, electing GOP candidates whose vote for conservative policy only roughly half the time anyway has the perverse effect of providing cover for a progressive policy agenda. As I noted in an interview with NPR during the 2008 GOP primaries, if we have to have a statist in the White House, I’d just as soon s/he wear a D — because then, when the progressive agenda so obviously and fully failed, voters would know going forward precisely who to blame . Obama, in recent speeches, if fond of telling crowds that a vote against the Dems is a vote for a return to Bush-era policies. But what the Tea Party movement is saying is something else entirely: a vote for big government is a vote against the people, regardless of what party letter a candidate aligned with big government wears. And now that even Karl Rove — long depicted by the left as an evil “ultra-rightwing conservative” is being denounced by those who are tired of politics as usual, the left’s most potent attack rhetoric is greatly diminished: by painting Bush and Rove and the “compassionate conservatism” and statism of the establishment GOP (and hell, even of “mavericks” like McCain) as “extremist” and “ultra-right wing,” the left gave itself no room to denounce the Tea Party movement in fresh political terms. After all, Bush was Hitler, remember? And it’s hard to get more “extreme” than Hitler. Keep the fight going. Vote for who you believe in, not who you think can win. We are at a crossroads in this country — a time of deciding on the ends of government, not the means. If that end is to be individual liberty, equality of opportunity, and a government designed to protect your natural rights — not one designed to grant and deny rights based upon current fashion and ideological bullying — the choice on how to move forward is clear: refuse to give power to those who wish to lose more slowly simply because they claim to have your team’s interest at heart. They may or may not in theory. In practice, however, they are creating a conservatism that continues to slide to the left — and that lays claim to the mantle solely by staying to the right of a “liberalism” that continues to drag the country more and more toward the leftist paradise of social democracy / Marxism. (h/t sdferr)
More here:
It is a civil war
You know, a life of non-stop photo shoots, fashion shows, partying and $75,000 a day vacations takes a toll on a woman. Just ask poor Michelle Obama. The Daily Mail UK has the details of the First Lady’s life in hell: This photo says it all: One grimaces, the other smiles Michelle Obama thinks being America’s First Lady is ‘hell,’ Carla Bruni reveals today in a wildly indiscreet new book. Miss Bruni reveals that Mrs Obama replied when asked about her position as the U.S. president’s wife: ‘Don’t ask! It’s hell. I can’t stand it!’ Details of the private conversation, which took place at the White House during an official visit by Nicolas Sarkozy last March, emerged in Carla And The Ambitious, a book written in collaboration with Miss Bruni. We feel your pain, Michelle. So we promise to do everything we can to get you out of that job as soon as possible. And a lot of other Americans are going to join us in that effort. Source: Mail on Sunday UK
See more here:
Poor Michelle Antoinette: First Lady says her job is “hellâ€