WSJ opinion column endorses carbon tax

Conservatives George Schultz (former Secretary of State for Nixon and Reagon) and Gary Becker (Nobel Prize winning economist) endorsed a revenue neutral carbon tax in a Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday. 

Excerpt: 
"A revenue-neutral carbon tax should be supplemented by a reasonable and sustained support for research and development in the energy area. However, we would eliminate any program (loan guarantees, etc.) that tempts the government to get into commercial activities. Clearly, a revenue-neutral carbon tax would benefit all Americans by eliminating the need for costly energy subsidies while promoting a level playing field for energy producers."

There are some sensible things here. 

Click here to read the entire article

It must be the revenue neutrality that got this one through. Less than two weeks ago, the WSJ opined: "Some of our conservative friends want us to endorse a carbon tax, and it certainly beats taxing income. But until someone finds a way to stop [Congressional] liberals from using the additional revenue simply to expand the government, we're with the ... Senate's anti-carbon tax majority."

Sources:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323611604578396401965799658.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324685104578388732901264780.html

Fact Checking the 2nd Presidential Debate/Ten Websites to Review...

After every Presidential debate, various fact-checkers get to work immediately to separate fact from fiction from both participants. Reasonable Conversation has compiled a list of ten different factchecks from around the internet to provide a convenient "one-stop" place for your perusal.

The good folks at Politfact.com were hot on the trail of truth after last night's second presidential debate between President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney. They've posted updated evaluations of claims made by both men on several different topics: Jobs, Energy, Taxes/Spending, Healthcare, Immigration, Foreign Policy and Education. Its a mixed bag of results showing that both men took liberties with the truth as they saw fit.

Not to be outdone, Factcheck.org has also posted their version of fact checking last evening's debate, covering many of the same issues. Here's the overview from their piece posted earlier this morning:

The second Obama-Romney debate was heated, confrontational and full of claims that sometimes didn’t match the facts.

• Obama challenged Romney to “get the transcript” when Romney questioned the president’s claim to have spoken of an “act of terror” the day after the slaying of four Americans in Libya. The president indeed referred to “acts of terror” that day, but then refrained from using such terms for weeks.
• Obama claimed Romney once called Arizona’s “papers, please” immigration law a “model” for the nation. He didn’t. Romney said that of an earlier Arizona law requiring employers to check the immigration status of employees.
• Obama falsely claimed Romney once referred to wind-power jobs as “imaginary.” Not true. Romney actually spoke of “an imaginary world” where “windmills and solar panels could power the economy.”
• Romney said repeatedly he won’t cut taxes for the wealthy, a switch from his position during the GOP primaries, when he said the top 1 percent would be among those to benefit.
• Romney said “a recent study has shown” that taxes “will” rise on the middle class by $4,000 as a result of federal debt increases since Obama took office. Not true. That’s just one possible way debt service could be financed.
• Romney claimed 580,000 women have lost jobs under Obama. The true figure is closer to 93,000.
• Romney claimed the automakers’ bankruptcy that Obama implemented was “precisely what I recommend.” Romney did favor a bankruptcy followed by federal loan guarantees, but not the direct federal aid that Obama insists was essential.
• Romney said he would keep Pell Grants for low-income college students “growing.” That’s a change. Both Romney and his running mate, Ryan, have previously said they’d limit eligibility.

Both candidates repeated false or misleading claims they have made, and we have rebutted, many times before. Obama repeated his claim that he wouldn’t put tax rates for affluent families higher than they were under Bill Clinton. Actually, he’s already signed two new taxes that will also fall on those same high-income persons. And Romney accused Obama of saying “no” to the Keystone XL pipeline. Actually, no final decision has been made, and the company says it expects to win approval and start construction early next year.

Click here to read FactCheck's full article...

Other publications providing factchecking of the debate include The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Washington Times, Fox News offers a factcheck on President Obama's claim he called the events in Libya "terrorism" in the days following the death of four Americans. The Chicago Tribune, CBS News, Bloomberg and Politico also weigh in.

Fox News Says Don't Blame the President for Gas Prices...

Media Matters has put together a powerful compilation of Fox News experts, anchors and prime time hosts opining on how much, if anything elected officials, including a President of the United States can really do to lower gasoline prices at the pump. President Obama has been taking shots from all the Republican candidates as well as much of the right wing and conservative media for failing to do something to lower the price of a gallon of gas.

Enjoy:






Keep this in mind when you hear Newt Gingrich talk about $2.50 a gallon gasoline or Mitt Romney chastise the President for not acting on the Keystone Pipeline (of which not a drop of Canadian oil would enter the US market for oil or lower the price of a domestic gallon of oil...)

A Story on the Keystone Pipeline You Haven't Heard Yet...

(NOTE: Yesterday it was announced that the "Southern Half" of the proposed Keystone Pipeline would move forward, while TransCanada continues to develop an alternate route through Nebraska for the Northern section.)

Talking Points Memo has an interesting article up on its site yesterday that took a look into who TransCanada attempted to acquire the rights to build their pipeline across various private landowners property. With frustrations spreading across all political positions, there's more to the story than has been reported on in most of the mainstream media outlets.

The Keystone Fight Is Uniting Tea Partiers With Environmentalists By Brian Buetler/TPM

In Washington, DC, the fight over the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline mostly divides common enemies: Republicans and Democrats; environmentalists and fossil fuel interests; big business and the federal bureaucracy.

But though the project exists in a state of suspended animation, TransCanada — the company that wants to connect the tar sands in Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico — is preparing to build anyhow. In particular, on the portion of the pipeline that would link Nebraska to Texas, TransCanada has threatened to use disputed eminent domain powers to condemn privately held land, over the owners’ objections. And that’s creating unusual allies — Occupiers, Tea Partiers, environmentalists, individualists — united to stop TransCanada from threatening water supplies, ancient artifacts, and people’s basic property rights.

In 2007 TransCanada’s agents at Universal Field Services approached Randy Thompson, 64, of Martell, NE, asking to survey his farm land. Thompson assented at first, under the assumption that he’d have final say over whether a Canadian company would be allowed to build anything on his property.

“Once I found out a little bit more about what was going on, I rescinded that permission,” Thompson told TPM by phone on Sunday. “[W]e did meet with them once, maybe a couple times. We told them, you don’t have a permit yet, so we absolutely do not want this thing on our property. So until you actually get a permit we have no reason to have any further discussion about this. They continually called me, like once a month or whenever they felt like it. Kept the pressure on us. Made us an offer, $9000. Whatever the offer was, we just don’t want the damn thing on our property.”

That’s when TransCanada really stepped up the pressure.

“In July 2010, we got a written letter from TransCanada, they told us if you don’t accept this within 30 days, we’re going to immediately start eminent domain proceedings against you,” Thompson said. “They didn’t say anything about a permit. I tried to contact the Governor’s office. All I got back was a form letter talking about the pipeline.”

Click here to continue reading...

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/canadian-firm-to-push-ahead-with-part-of-keystone-pipeline/2012/02/27/gIQAvJFtdR_story.html

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/keystone-opposition-creates-strange-bedfellows-in-rural-america.php

Why doesn't the media call politicians on their bs?

Economist Dean Baker, co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, wrote a terrific column last Spring that came to mind over the last few days. It discusses the lack of follow-through from most mainstream media sources when it comes to calling politicians on their hyperbole, their exaggerations and at times their plain old misinformation they resort to when answering questions. In this column, Baker discusses two different subjects. The meme that if we drilled, baby drilled, we could solve our problem at the pumps when it comes to the cost of a gallon of gasoline here in the USA. The second topic he comments is the state of our Social Security program.

Even though the column is almost a year old, I thinks its especially timely when it comes to our fuel prices. What Mr. Baker said back in March of 2011, holds true still today...

Its titled, "The Imaginary World in Which Washington Lives"


Dean Baker
Truthout, March 23, 2011

It is a beautiful spring day in Washington. This is a nice respite from the horrors taking place in Japan and the ever-growing nuttiness of D.C. politics. Enjoying the weather provides a nice alternative to listening to the news or reading the newspaper.

The flood of nonsense in the traditional news outlets just continues to grow. At the top of the list is the steady stream of senators or members of Congress whose response to higher gas prices is to insist on drilling in every square inch of environmentally sensitive territory in the country. This is supposed to reduce our dependence on imported oil and lower the price of gas. Both sides of this assertion are absurd.

According to the Energy Information Agency, the United States has proven reserves of 22.3 billion barrels of oil. Given our current rate of consumption of 6.9 billion barrels a year, U.S. reserves could meet our demand for oil for less than 3.5 years. That means if we could somehow drill here, now, and everywhere, we could be energy independent until the middle of 2014 and then we would be 100 percent dependent on imported oil.

Of course, we cannot suddenly suck all the oil out of the ground at once, it takes time to explore and drill wells and then the oil must be drilled out over time. If we decided that we want to destroy every last national park and coastal region, we may be able to increase production by 1.0-1.5 million barrels a day in 5-10 years. At the high end, this would be a bit less than 2 percent of world supply.

Click here to continue reading...


Source:

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-imaginary-world-in-which-washington-lives