RightWave

Thanks to the folks over at the Business and Media Institute at the Media Research Center for this stunning story:

Time editor tells MSNBC ‘there needs to be a real effort along the lines of World War II to combat global warming and climate change.’

Shame on the people at Time Magazine for this truly shamelessful Al Gore-esque attempt at thrusting their extreme global warming agenda on the good American taxpayers.

And, if you want a little peek into the other side’s agenda, check out Time’s 51 Things We Can Do  to Save the Environment.  But, be ready to hold your nose…

Eric Odom has a great post (with a link to a fantastic article from the Economist) on smoking bans:

And now we hear that the smoking bans across the country are causing more drunk driving accidents. You read that right. According to research published by the Journal of Public Economics, the rate of fatal alcohol-related car accidents increased by 13% in a typical county containing 680,000 people.

Check out his blog for more - the full post is well worth the read.

Jonah Goldberg over at The Corner has a great depressing/revealing point on Senator Obama and class warfare and the capital gains tax.

To find out more about the capital gains tax, see Americans for Prosperity Policy Director Phil Kerpen’s work on the issue - and particularly this great op-ed from the WSJ.

Caleb Heimlich, a former colleague and current friend, is running for the state house in Washington (state) this fall.  Check him out here and here.

 We need more Calebs - good, hard-working, market-loving guys - in government! 

Go get, em!

I don’t mean to be flippant, but it seems as though we’ve dodged a bullet on the global warming front today.  Not forward progress, but at least it seems we haven’t lost ground.

To be honest, I was nervous about the President’s speech today on the White House initiative on Climate Change.  The scuttlebutt was that the President might endorse disastrous cap and trade legislation or other economy-killing measure to “solve” global warming, but it seems we’ve avoided that…at least for now.

But, I’m not so sure it was a good thing either.

What this address seems to have accomplished is to give fodder to the Left to bring the issue even more to the forefront and criticize the Right on inaction.  It also legitimizes the alarmist claims of the other side about the “onslaught” of global warming as well as the fact that government should, in fact, act.  For example:

These objectives are backed by a combination of new market-based regulations, new government incentives, and new funding for technology research.  We’ve provided billions of dollars for next generation nuclear energy technologies. Along with the private sector, we’ve invested billions more to research, develop and commercially deploy renewable fuels, hydrogen fuel cells, advanced batteries, and other technologies to enable a new generation of vehicles and more reliable renewable power systems.

While I’m not sure what “market-based regulations” are (isn’t that an oxymoron?), it seems that he did, for the most part, address the fact that over-regulation and higher taxes have the potential to grind this economy to a screeching halt.

Without question, this is a vitally important debate - and will continue to be throughout the Presidential campaign - and free-market advocates need to be aggressive in educating taxpayers on the real costs of the Left’s proposed “fixes” to global warming.  Let’s hope the President’s speech did more good than harm, but I’m not convinced.

===

By the way - not to over-promote - but, sign up today for Americans for Prosperity’s Hot Air Tour launch on Monday, April 21.  Now, it’s even more important than ever that we turn out massive numbers of grassroots troops to this event and all of these events around the country to show to elected officials, the media, and, frankly, the other side that taxpayers care about this issue and oppose any new big-government schemes to “solve” the global warming “crisis.”    Check out the newly-launched (and quite snazzy) website here.

UPDATE - Just saw the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s press release on the speech.  I think they got it about right. 

Bush prepares global warming initiative

The administration also is trying to head off what it sees as a regulatory disaster. Environmentalists say greenhouse gases can be regulated under existing rules under the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act or the National Environmental Policy Act, and have filed lawsuits to try to force action. The Bush administration and others want to avoid a web of rules and regulations for businesses.

“The embedded regulatory trajectory that we’re on is a train wreck,” Mrs. Perino said. “For those who want reasonable and responsible action, it is worthwhile to have a constructive conversation as we work to keep the developing nations in this process in a way that will work to solve the problem without harming the economy.”

Oh, good.  So let’s create a new regulatory and economic disaster.  Good plan.  We’ve got President Bush reversing course and (presumably) calling for new regulations and proposing schemes to “solve” global warming - not to mention Senators McCain, Obama and Clinton (and numerous others)!  What happened to supporters of FREE ENTERPRISE!?!

At least there are some reasonable voices in this debate:

One person familiar with the meeting said several members, including Republican Reps. John Shimkus of Illinois and F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, told the White House it was making a mistake if it called for congressional action.

Supposedly, we’ll find out more about the President’s plan tomorrow, so stay tuned. 

In the meantime, sign up today to take a stand against the “ballooning” costs of global warming alarmism.  We need to get the biggest crowd possible to come out for this Americans for Prosperity event on Monday, April 21 to kick off the AFP Hot Air Tour across the country.  Plus, it’s a free lunch and a good time with hundreds of other AFP activists.  See my previous post on this or visit the AFP website for more information.  Sign Up Today!!

We may all need a shot by the time this election’s over!

 Obama denounces big corporate pay packages

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama denounced huge pay packages for U.S. corporate chiefs on Friday in a drive to convert middle-class anger about the U.S. economy into votes. 

“Some CEOs make more in one day than their workers make in one year,” Obama said, jockeying for position against rival Democrat Hillary Clinton in Indiana, which votes on May 6.

…

Clinton and Republican presidential candidate John McCain also have criticized big payouts for chief executive officers who benefit hugely even when their companies are struggling.

“We’ve seen what happens when CEOs are paid for doing a job no matter how bad a job they’re doing,” Obama said. “We can’t afford to postpone reform any longer.”

I’m not sure where in the Constitution it says that the United States Government should regulate pay for anyone other than employees of the government.  Last time I checked, it’s the job of the shareholders and boards of corporations to make hiring, firing and compensation decisions.  This is nothing more than ugly class warfare rhetoric from the Left (though, sadly, it seems Senator McCain has co-opted it as well), and it’s disgraceful.

I was lucky enough to be at the Media Research Center’s 2008 Gala and Dishonors Awards last night, they showed this GREAT video.

Tired of hearing Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, et al., talk about change?  Well, at least we can laugh at them!

 Higher state tax on beer?

SACRAMENTO - Joe Six-pack will have to pay a lot more to get his buzz on if Assemblyman Jim Beall has his way.

The San Jose Democrat on Thursday proposed raising the beer tax by $1.80 per six-pack, or 30 cents per can or bottle. The current tax is 2 cents per can. That’s an increase of about 1,500 percent.

Beall said the tax would generate $2 billion a year to fund health care services, crime prevention and programs to prevent underage drinking and addiction.

“The people who use alcohol should pay for part of the cost to society, just like we’ve accepted that concept with tobacco,” Beall said.

Well, first of all, I’d quarrel with that characterization of tobacco.  This is yet another stupid tax that is not only bad on principle, but it’s bad in practice.  If you base a revenue source on a tax that is aimed, at least in part, at reducing the sales/use of a product, it’s counterproductive.  This is (one of the) reasons so-called “sin taxes” are such a bad idea.

I hope you’ll join me in drinking a “protest beer” this weekend!

And, for goodness sake, if you live in California…

…you gotta fight for your right to party!