The White House’s “over the cliff” moment

July 31, 2011

Salena Zito of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review recently talked with Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) and five Pennsylvania congressmen. To a man, they all said the same thing: with the economy do lousy, the public wants them to focus on jobs, good jobs. Instead the White House (and the Democratic congress, when that party controlled both houses) focused on anything but, and that’s now reflected in the president’s lousy poll numbers and poor consumer confidence. Zito argues that the current bad news about GDP growth and manufacturing orders and their reflection in polls may mark the moment that shows how poorly the President understands the people he supposedly leads:

In June, the nation’s unemployment rate rose for a third straight month, as employers added only 18,000 workers and corporate earnings languished.

Anyone buying basic groceries can feel the pinch of consumer prices rising to offset higher commodity costs, so buying little beyond what you absolutely need has become the norm.

President Barack Obama’s support has eroded among the very independent voters who helped him sweep into office. That drop-off is based on his inability to lead on numerous issues, but most importantly on the economy.

The latest Pew Research poll confirms just that: Only 8 percent of those polled say the national economy is in excellent or good shape, and only 38 percent rate their personal finances positively.

Such attitudes place Obama in an even worse position than President George H.W. Bush was in during his failed 1991-92 re-election campaign, because today’s unemployment rate is much higher and overall satisfaction with the state of the nation is much lower than it was back then.

Polls are no substitute for understanding basic human judgment. Yet they can mark that point in time when an administration fell off the cliff of understanding its own people.

To quote a wise man: “It’s the economy, stupid!”


Rubio: “Save the whole house, or it will all burn down”

July 31, 2011

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) addressed the Senate two days ago on on the question of raising America’s debt limit, making pointed references to the Democrats’ shifting positions and penchant for name-calling at concerned citizens. Senator Kerry (D-MA) thought he’d be smart and take Rubio on with a couple of questions.

Bad move, John:

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: When you watch Marco Rubio, you are looking at a future president.

LINKS: via Fausta, Senator Rubio’s editorial from last March on the debt

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Leadership the Obama Way, then and now

July 31, 2011

Via Hot Air, here’s a commercial that will run in several markets to showcase Barack Obama’s rather… “flexible” positions on America’s debt:

And be sure to have a look at this Byron York article on the Democrats and the debt ceiling, which shows what partisan weasels(1) Reid, Durbin, and Obama have been.

Footnotes:
(1) Which fits with their behavior as sleazy, cheap, partisan weasels on the Iraq War, too. At least they’re consistent.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Saturday chuckles

July 30, 2011

The latest NewsBusted, starring Jodi Miller:

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


I almost feel sorry for global warming cultists. Almost.

July 29, 2011

Pay no attention to facts! The science is settled!

I mean, when one of the central tenets(1) of your faith is shown to be wholly, absolutely wrong and all you can do is stand there slack-jawed and watch like a Philistine as the temple comes crashing down around you, it can be a bit… disheartening.

Truth hurts, doesn’t it? (Emphases added)

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Yeah, you bet they will, if they hold up.(2) Key to the “science” of dangerous man-caused climate change is the idea that the carbon-dioxide man dumps into the atmosphere, rather than being beneficial to plants and otherwise harmless, throws the Earth’s thermostat off and causes dangerous levels of warming — seas rising, ice caps melting, deserts expanding, etc. But not because the CO2 directly warms the atmosphere, though it may do that a teensy bit, but because it traps heat indirectly that should otherwise radiate to space by causing an increase in humidity and cirrus clouds.

See where this is going?

By discovering that the Earth releases far more heat than the UN’s models and releases it far earlier in the process than assumed(3), the central driving mechanism of anthropogenic global warming is shown to be nothing more than a myth, a chimera.

It is shown to be wrong, and with it the whole structure of dangerous man-caused climate change collapses.

Not that this will end this nonsense overnight. Too many people, businesses, and governments have too much false pride, money, and political objectives staked on AGW being true. The British government is enthusiastically driving its economy back into the dark ages in the name of solving  a problem that does not exist. The Obama administration is grasping for control over the US economy via EPA regulations meant to control “carbon pollution.” Alarmist scientists are desperate to preserve their reputations and grant money, and companies like GE and BP are investing a lot to profit from the “green technology” that’s supposedly meant to save us from global warming — and in government mandates that force us to use that technology.

Then there’s the question of faith, coming back to the title of this post. For many, “Green” or “Gaea” is a religion, though most might deny it. Full of loathing for capitalism and seeing an out of control climate as fit punishment for what we’ve done to the Earth, it’s important to them that carbon dioxide really be a demon, rather than plant food. Living the “green life,” rather than simply being sensible stewardship of the environment and not fouling one’s own nest, becomes a quest for virtue and atonement. And, like any zealot, they have to make sure we live their faith, too, whether we want to or not.

Thus Spencer and Braswell’s findings have to be devastating to alarmists who stop to think about them, and I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.

Nah. Not even close.

LINKS: Spencer and Braswell’s article in Remote Sensing (PDF). More at Hot Air, Power Line, and Pirate’s Cove.

RELATED: Oh, my. Polar Bear-gate? Fraud in the Warmist community? Say it ain’t so! *cough*Climategate*cough* A caution.

Footnotes:
(1) Pet peeve: people who either misspell the word as “tenent” or misuse “tenant.”
(2) Yes, if. Science is about testable hypotheses, not consensus or settled science. Spencer and Braswell’s results have to be subjected to falsification.
(3) All the UN/IPCC computer models are based on boatloads of assumption, guesswork, and very little (and that often “adjusted”) empirical data, unlike the study at hand. That’s not science, that’s a rigged game.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Andrew Klavan: teaching the facts of life to young liberals

July 29, 2011

Remember, if someone from the government touches your wallet in a way you don’t like, run and find your nearest conservative:

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Unexpected! ObamaCare makes healthcare *more* expensive faster!

July 28, 2011

Well color me shocked. Who would’ve guessed that a badly-crafted 2,000-page bill that no one read and was rushed through the night and is just chock-full of new regulations, bureaucracies, and mandates would actually bend the cost-curve up?

Anyone with a lick of sense, I guess, which lets out the Democratic Party, their Leftist supporters, and the fawning media. (But I repeat myself.)

From The Washington Times:

Despite President Obama’s promises to rein in health care costs as part of his reform bill, health spending nationwide is expected to rise more than if the sweeping legislation had never become law.

Total spending is projected to grow annually by 5.8 percent under Mr. Obama’s Affordable Care Act, according to a 10-year forecast by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released Thursday. Without the ACA, spending would grow at a slightly slower rate of 5.7 percent annually.

CMS officials attributed the growth to an expansion of the insured population. Under the plan, an estimated 23 million Americans are expected to obtain insurance in 2014, largely through state-based exchanges and expanded Medicaid eligibility.

The federal government is projected to spend 20 percent more on Medicaid, while spending on private health insurance is expected to rise by 9.4 percent.

A tenth of a percent is not small change, when we’re talking about the scale of healthcare spending in the US. Moreover, we were told that implementing ObamaCare was essential to bending the cost-curve down. Not even, not up.

So, then, what was the point? The only thing accomplished is greater government control over and regulation of a crucial sector of our economy, which will only lead to a nationalized, Socialized single-payer system.

Oh, wait. That is the point!

No matter what it costs the rest of us.

via Hot Air, which has the White House rebuttal.

LINKS: Pirate’s Cove notes that ObamaCare cost more than doing nothing. Fancy that.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,780 other followers