Friday, June 26, 2009

Cap and Trade and Card Check Bills are being voted on today.

Cap and Trade and Card Check Bills are being voted on today.

Cap and Trade is essentially just a tax bill that will not control climate it will control energy. The more control the government has over energy the more control they will have over people. Please call your legislator and tell them to vote no on Cap and Trade. If they support this Bill work to get them out of office in 2010 or whenever their seat is up for election. Here is a good piece on why Cap and Trade is bad for America it is put out by the Heritage Foundation. Your Senators and Legislators have invested greatly in companies that will benefit from the passage of the Cap and Trade bills. Passage of these bills will make those people very rich why you will have to pay more taxes.

The below piece is directly from the Heritage Foundation.

Cathy Peschke
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

Later today, the House of Representatives is slated to vote on the most convoluted attempt at economic central-planning this nation has ever attempted: cap and trade. The 1,200-plus page Waxman-Markey climate change legislation is nothing more than an energy tax in disguise that by 2035 will raise:

* Gasoline prices by 58 percent
* Natural gas prices by 55 percent
* Home heating oil by 56 percent
* Worst of all, electricity prices by 90 percent

Although proponents of the bill are pointing to grossly underestimated and incorrect costs, the reality is when all the tax impacts have been added up, the average per-family-of-four costs rise by $2,979 per year. In the year 2035 alone, the cost is $4,609. And the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 are $71,493.

But on second thought, cap and trade is much more than that.

It Kills Jobs: Over the 2012-2035 timeline, job losses average over 1.1 million. By 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline (without a cap and trade bill). Particularly hit hard are sectors of the economy that are very energy-intensive: Manufacturers, farmers, construction, machinery, electrical equipment and appliances, transportation, textiles, paper products, chemicals, plastics and rubbers, and retail trade would face staggering employment losses as a result of Waxman-Markey. It’s worth noting the job losses come after accounting for the green jobs policymakers are so adamant about creating. But don’t worry because the architects of the bill built in unemployment insurance; too bad it will only help 1.5% of those losing their jobs from the bill.

It Destroys Our Economy: Just about everything we do and produce uses energy. As energy prices increase, those costs will be passed onto the consumer and reflected in the higher prices we pay for products. Higher energy prices will cause reduced income, less production and an economy that falls way short of its potential. The average Gross Domestic Product (GDP) lost is $393 billion, hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035. From 2012-2035, the accumulated GDP lost is $9.4 trillion. The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. The increase in family-of-four debt, solely because of Waxman-Markey, hits an almost unbelievable $114,915 by 2035.

It Provides Red Meat for Lobbyists: Businesses, knowing very well this would impose a severe cost on their bottom line, sent their lobbyists to Washington to protect them. And it worked. Most of the allowances (the right to emit carbon dioxide) have been promised to industry, meaning less money will be rebated back to the consumer. Free allowances do not lower the costs of Waxman-Markey; they just shift them around. In other words, every day Americans are going to be footing the bill. Although the government awarded handouts to businesses, the carbon dioxide reduction targets are still there, and the way they will be met is by raising the price of energy and thereby inflicting more economic pain. Prices have to go up enough to force people to use less energy, and so if anyone is bought off with free allowances, the costs for everyone else are that much higher.

There’s one thing the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill doesn’t do: Work. All of the above-mentioned costs accrue in the first 25 years of a 90-year program that, as calculated by climatologists, will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree Celsius in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree Celsius at the end of the century. In the name of saving the planet for future generations, Waxman-Markey does not sound like a great deal: Millions of lost jobs, trillions of lost income, 50-90 percent higher energy prices, and stunning increases in the national debt, all for undetectable changes in world temperature. Who’s buying that?

Quick Hits:

* Yesterday, the State Department announced it will resume full diplomatic relations with Venezuela. On Wednesday, the U.S. sent an Ambassador to Syria for the first time since 2005.
* Yesterday, nearly 100,000 North Koreans attended a mass rally against the U.S. as the communist nation vowed to build its nuclear capacity and warned of a “fire shower of nuclear retaliation.
* Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov signaled that they would not join other nations at the G8 Summit in condemning Iran, calling the protests and violence an “exercise in democracy.
* President Obama met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers on Thursday on immigration reform, cautioning that nothing should be expected this year.
* ABC News’ Wednesday night special ‘Questions for the President’ struggled for viewers, attracting the lowest number of viewers in its timeslot.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Legislature passes irresponsible budget amidst protest

Legislature passes irresponsible budget amidst protest

This afternoon lawmakers in Concord passed an $11.6 billion budget plus a spate of unpopular tax increases needed to pay for it. During the vote, a group of roughly 200 people gathered around the capitol to participate in an organized protest. Cathy, myself and our two children were among them, armed with posters and unflattering words for those who feel they know how best to spend our money.

Protestors covered the gamut, although a few causes such as opposition to the 9% camping tax stood out in larger than average numbers. The rally afforded me the opportunity to speak to lawmakers, reporters, and ordinary citizens. (Having two adorable children in tow helps break the ice.) One lawmaker whose name I didn't get expressed a genuine interest in understanding why I believe that mandates from Concord force school districts to spend far more money than we otherwise would. I should have invited him to a school board meeting to hear people in the audience bleating "Its a state law, we have to do this."

At the same time, a suited man (perhaps a lawmaker or lobbyist) tried to persuade me that cuts in state education spending would mean increased property taxes. As I explained that we could alternatively cut spending, he sprinted away, apparently more comfortable with lecturing me than engaging in a dialogue.

More annoying opposition came from a group of people dressed in chicken suits who walked the perimeter shouting "Republicans are too chicken to name the cuts". The irony of a group concealing their identity afraid to engage those of us who did name cuts calling other people "chicken" was not lost on the public. This was no grass-roots group; it was astroturf. After all, how many people keep chicken suits in their attic at the ready for the next state protest?

Tonight, the champagne will flow freely in the teachers lounges and government employee union halls. While they celebrate their increased wealth at the expense of working class New Hampshire citizens, we must hold lawmakers who have betrayed the public trust to account. Next year can and must be a referendum against lawmakers who have turned their backs on the people of New Hampshire.

Jim Peschke

It's the Spending Stupid Rally in Concord Today

What: Festival
Host: New Hampshire Liberty Alliance
Start Time: Wednesday, June 24 at 12:00pm
End Time: Wednesday, June 24 at 2:00pm
Where: State House Concord

Monday, June 22, 2009

"Chicken Little"s of Parental Choice

"Chicken Little"s of Parental Choice

Now that Croydon is taking measurable steps towards reviewing the AREA agreement with Newport, the "Chicken Little"s are coming out in force. Discontent with the results of a survey showing a large majority of residents favor parental choice, they seek to rewrite history, asserting that the public would never support choice "if they only knew". They want to keep repeating the question, hoping that a campaign of fear will eventually provide the answer they're looking for.

To claim most respondents hadn't considered modifications to the AREA agreement when supporting parental choice is absurd, if not downright dishonest. The resident survey came from the Long Term Planning committee, a group whose sole task was to determine what, if any, modifications should be made to the AREA agreement. The survey was simply a tool to gauge public sentiment.

Nothing can change unless the AREA agreement is modified or scrapped. This year in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, Newport granted raises and benefit increases totaling roughly $600,000. Under the AREA agreement, Croydon taxpayers are legally bound to cover a portion of this cost, even though we had no voice in the spending decision. At the June 8th informational meeting, speakers used eloquent terms to describe this. I prefer the old classic - Taxation without representation.

As long as we maintain our monopoly AREA agreement, we will remain indentured servants of the Newport school system, a system not known for fiscal responsibility. The $67,000 budget cuts, which the board already voted to partially undo through increased spending, cannot hold the line on property taxes alone. Real reform means gaining control of our educational future, not caving to manufactured fears from education power brokers.

Jim Peschke
Croydon School Board