Elections Have Consequences!
The great mystery of the Great Depression was why it lasted for 14 long years. UCLA economists Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian spent four years pouring over the data from the Great Depression. "The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required..."said Cole. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."
Their report estimates that millions of Americans needlessly stood on breadlines, watered down milk to feed their families and lived in tatters for an additional seven years thanks to FDR's misguided stimulus policies. Most were so grateful for anything, they never realized the president was the cause of their extended suffering.
There's One Born Every Minute!
FDR won his first two terms by attacking the wealthy and pitting them against poor Americans. In 1932 he promised to "cut government operations by 25% and lower taxes", but did neither.
In 1936, he overwhelmingly won by raising taxes on the rich then redistributing the money to larger voting blocks in swing states using the WPA, Silver Purchase Act and the Agricultural Act.
By 1940, needing businesspeople to win the war, he called for unity among the same people he divided and won another decisive victory.
In 1944, FDR sidestepped laws prohibiting union money in elections by forming the nation's first Political Action Committee. This provided urban labor support. Fearing a backlash by Japanese prisoners if released from internment camps, he created an executive order to keep them imprisoned until 3 days after the elections. To gain the Polish American vote, FDR promised special treatment for Poland after the war. He won nearly 90% of their vote, and then betrayed the group by failing to offer the promised "self-determination" for Poland at the Yalta conference. Still, he won a fourth slim victory.
Upon his death, the NYT wrote, "Men will thank God on their knees 100 years from now FDR was in the White House."!
The President's $8 Billion Coincidence
Between budget battles and elections, politicians and media supporters spin wildly to advance their own positions, leaving the public misinformed. In this column we will attempt to unravel some of the worst spins.
Worst Economy, I think!
In 2008, now Pres. Obama said "we are in the worst economy since the Great Depression."
During the Healthcare Summit and his 2010 State of the Union message, Pres. Obama declared the healthcare bill would cut the federal deficit.
Governments Cash In on CO2 Taxes
While scientists tangle over whether or not man affects climate change, governments are weaving revenue schemes that depend on it.
Around the nation and world, the taxation of CO2 is gaining appeal as a revenue generator.
The carbon money grab is not restricted to the U.S. As of the last figures available in U.S. dollars, Finland receives $750 million annually, the Netherlands $4.8 billion, Norway $900 million, Sweden $3.66 billion and Quebec $191 million.
Carbon taxes ultimately come out of citizen's paychecks and collectively lower living standards. Politicians argue that climate tax revenues are neutral as they provide benefits and return money to the people. This may be a hard sell in the U.S. The same political class told the nation the now $1.7 trillion healthcare package was necessary to balance the very budget it worsened.
Even enthusiastic CO2 tax proponents are unhappy with its accompanying price increases. In Australia, unions who championed the carbon tax, are now negotiating for increased compensation to offset the rising costs of energy.
If nations nibble at the CO2 trough, the United Nations gorges itself on the newfound wealth source.
If you think this is to mitigate climate change, think again. According to a November 2011 IMF background paper, "The revenue generated by such carbon-pricing policies, need not be earmarked for climate finance." In fact, most of the revenue could be used by nations for deficit reduction. The IMF proposed the Green Climate Fund.
IPCC Group Co-Chair, Ottmar Edenhofer, makes it clear that the idea that carbon taxes will be used to address environmental issues is merely an "illusion." In a November 2010 interview with Germany's NZZ Online, referencing cap and trade he said…
"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy."
Federal agencies seem content to further the illusion.
On December 7, 2009 while many focused on the memories of Pearl Harbor, the EPA declared CO2 a dangerous pollutant, clearing the way for virtually unlimited taxation. "Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity," claimed the agency.
That controversial finding may or may not be true, but it does not necessarily equate to higher global temperatures. In fact, recent studies of ikaite, a rare mineral, indicate that global warming trends, similar to those predicted by the IPCC, existed long before man spewed large quantities of CO2.
If it evolves that CO2 is not causing climate change, the EPA's massive tax assessments on fossil fuel providers are no longer necessary. With the assessments go the much-needed revenues.
This raises the bigger question. Since governments directly and indirectly fund much of the world's climate research, are they encouraging skewed research results to protect massive potential revenues? Globally and locally, governments have a vested interest in asserting that "the science is settled."
This could explain the vehemence against healthy opposition research and the embarrassing bungling of evidence supportive of manmade climate change.
Did You Know Online
Contact Us: DYKOTeam@gmail.com
Site designed by: 3AM Computing