LAR: Keeping Romney's 'promise to America'A hold x
Mar 5 (1 day ago)  | | |||
 |
March 5, 2012
Keeping Romney's 'promise to America' Campaign rhetoric aside, Romney needs 60 Republicans in the Senate to keep his promises of fiscal responsibility.
Video: Obama Answers Adele's "Someone Like You" With His Own Song Hear a new performer chosen by President Barack Obama to sell his tax and spend policies.
The EPA has lost its way on warming Had Climategate surfaced prior to its 2007 deliberations, the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA might well have been very different.
McMorris Rodgers: Why is Obama Bailing Out Greece? And Why is the MSM Covering Up For Him? "At the very least, we should have a public debate about whether or not America should be involved in these European bailouts." Keeping Romney's 'promise to America'
In a recent speech in Michigan, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney stated that "deep confidence in a better tomorrow is the basic promise of America" and that he didn't merely want to change policies but wished to "offer a dramatic change in perspective and philosophy." Hmm. Where have we heard that before?
Oh yes. That's right, it's the same thing every candidate says when facing an incumbent. That what the current administration has done was wrong, but never fear, Romney is here - to save the day.
So who is to be trusted with the future of America? Perhaps the answer lies with some of the key issues from the Obama administration that all of the candidates promise to focus on should they be elected.
First on that list might be our impossibly excessive spending. Our illustrious president has taken the phrase "spend like it's going out of style" to a whole new level, draining our nation's wealth as if it was a pair of purple-striped MC Hammer pants.
Romney, throughout the course of his campaign, has outlined his 59-point plan, in which he claims he will cap spending at 20 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and balance the budget. Santorum and Gingrich have promised similar things, claiming that if they are elected, only then will America be the booming, prosperous giant it once was.
Which would be wonderful, if the Republicans can ever get the 60 Senate votes required to pass that kind of reform. Why?
While it only takes 51 votes to pass a budget, to change so-called "mandatory" spending requires a change of law, which requires 60 votes to gain cloture in the Senate.
The truth of the matter is spending almost never goes down no matter who is in power. According to the Office of Management and Budget, spending has continued to climb throughout our history. So regardless if its Republicans or Democrats, Federalists or Anti-Federalists, no one actually reduces spending the way they say they will.
Get full story here. Obama Answers Adele's "Someone Like You" With His Own Song
Video by Frank McCaffrey
Get permalink here. The EPA has lost its way on warming
Legal challenges by states and industry groups over the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) efforts to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could and should be decided in the challengers' favor. Whether that will happen in this highly politicized, semi-scientific matter of "dangerous manmade global warming and climate change" remains to be seen.
Regardless of the D.C. Court of Appeals' recent decision in ATK Launch Systems, Inc. v. EPA, the case will almost assuredly return to the Supreme Court, where the outcome is equally uncertain.
In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court said EPA had the authority (but not the obligation) to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act's "capacious definition of air pollutant." EPA could do so, the court ruled, if its administrator concluded that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." In other words, the administrator's opinion was not sufficient. The agency must conduct a scientific study and make a convincing scientific case for taking action.
Not surprisingly, Administrator Lisa Jackson decided that CO2 does endanger public health and welfare, and signaled her intention to regulate these emissions. However, there are serious problems with this.
First, EPA conducted no original research of its own. Relying on work by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other agencies, it merely selected existing studies and reports that supported its predetermined outcome - and ignored numerous studies that contradicted its decision.
Get full story here.  ALG Editor's Note: In the following featured column from RedState.com, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers alerts the American people to the ongoing U.S. bailout of Greece via the International Monetary Fund:
Why is Obama Bailing Out Greece? And Why is the MSM Covering Up For Him?
By Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Decades ago, when British Prime Minister Harold Macmillen was asked by a journalist what would decide an upcoming election, he replied: "Events, my dear boy, events." As we take stock of where we are - and what's likely to happen between now and the first Tuesday of November - it's clear that one of the greatest "events" facing us today - which also has the potential to escalate much further - is the European debt crisis.
The mainstream media has given a lot of coverage to the debt crisis and the bailout bonanza it's unleashed - first the Greek bailout, then the Irish and Portuguese bailouts, then Greece again. But the MSM conveniently forgets to mention two important things: the role of the International Monetary Fund in funding these bailouts (one-third of the cost, actually), and the fact that America is the largest contributor to the IMF.
This month, the European Union unveiled its umpteenth bailout of Greece, bringing the total cost of that bailout alone to $500 billion (or more than the entire Greek economy). That doesn't include the cost of the Ireland and Portugal bailouts (combined total: $259 billion), and the growing likelihood that Spain and Italy will need bailouts too. While the MSM looks the other way, a critical mass of bloggers and activists are starting to ask the question, "At a time when America is borrowing over $1 trillion every single year, why are we borrowing more money - much of it from China - to bail out Europe?" Get full story here. |
No comments:
Post a Comment