Dim bulb Republicans blame Democrats for their dim bulb policy

Bachman, who else, is making hay over the light bulb efficiency standards and she is for the first time embracing freedom of choice, for light bulbs.  She blames Obama for taking away the light.  But it wasn't his idea (picture a light bulb over his head in keeping with the theme)

But despite the outcry, the new standards were not Obama's fault -- or even his idea. Yes, he voted for them as part of the broad reform bill in 2007. Yes, his administration is implementing consumer efficiency standards already written into law. And yes, he has actively promoted lightbulb restrictions. "I know light bulbs might not seem sexy," Obama said at a 2009 press conference with Energy Secretary Steven Chu, "but this simple action holds enormous promise because 7 percent of all energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and our businesses."

But the standards were initially proposed by a Republican, Fred Upton of Michigan, the current chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. President Bush signed the new lightbulb standards into law in 2007 along with the rest of the bill, and they generated little partisan controversy at the time. For Republicans, the main legislative sticking points were over auto fuel-efficiency standards, mandatory renewable/petroleum blending at refineries, and then-House-Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) failed attempt to include a requirement that more of the nation's electricity come from renewable sources. When the Senate passed the bill, The Washington Post's writeup mentioned nothing about lightbulbs.


I am sure most of the Republicans in Washington know this, but I give Bachman full benefit of the doubt in her sincerity, because I believe her to be that stupid.  But the majority of them aren't as much stupid, as dishonest and love to paint the picture of Obama taking away the freedom to use the bulbs that the Founding Fathers used.

And Tea Partiers fall for it because they aren't that bright.-george

The GOP won't stop until we are in a full scale depression & they'll give us one with a Balanced Budget Amendment

It's a dangerous temptation for those who wish for prudence in government, it is anything but.  A balanced budget at this point would destroy the economy.  Government spending is at the base, spending.  Spending goes into the GDP as demand, which we sorely need. The economy isn't tanked because of no operating cash for businesses, it is because businesses don't have any demand.  It would get worse if you tried to balance the budget.  And given that the GOP doesn't ever want to cut defense, all the balancing will be done on the backs of the poor.


The bastards aren't fit to lead, unless you wish to be led to economic ruin.-george

Quote of the day: If you think Paul Ryan and his Ayn Rand-worshipping colleagues aren't after your Social Security

"If you think Paul Ryan and his Ayn Rand-worshipping colleagues aren't after your Social Security and Medicare, I am here to disabuse you of your naiveté. They will move heaven and earth to force through tax cuts that will so starve the government of revenue that they will be "forced" to make "hard choices" - and that doesn't mean repealing those very same tax cuts, it means cutting the benefits for which you worked."  Recently retired GOP  Congressional staffer named Mike Lofgren


http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779

I've said for years that states rights are just an excuse for selective oppression

If you've heard it once you've heard it a thousand times: states' rights. Along with "states' rights" goes the idea of "small government" which is actually "small federal government." Only this idea of a smaller government and states' rights is a formulated, poll tested, concept that means "no federal taxes" and the South doesn't have to be bossed around by Yankee Presidents any more.

What's rarely talked about is if these ideas were actualized. What would that mean for our country?

Rick Perry is the latest in a long line of rogue statesmen who shout the rallying cry of the 10th Amendment, but the New York Times questions if he's just opportunist.

"In one of his more well-publicized shifts, Mr. Perry proclaimed that gay marriage was an issue for individual states to decide, but backtracked in recent weeks and now says he supports a federal amendment banning gay marriage. He has also signaled support for various federal actions to restrict abortion rather than leaving the issue to states. And he used $17 billion in federal stimulus money to balance the state’s last two budgets."

the Texas Tribune similarly details the struggle Perry seems to have with women's reproductive choice, which, according to a true states rightsman, should be left up to the states to decide. Not according to Perry. The Tribune interviews an anti-choice advocate who, twelve years ago, couldn't get Perry to even push parental notification in the state legislature. Today, it's a different story as he advocates for "personhood" and the "preciousness of life" across the early primary and caucus states.

But Rick Perry isn't the only presidential candidate to advocate for a small federal government while conveniently ignoring social issues. Texas Congressman Ron Paul was the poster boy for libertarian politics, bringing about a movement within the GOP before the tea party was ever AstroTurf-ed.

In an astounding statement this past weekend Paul said he didn't believe natural disasters should fuel increased money to the states. If we lived under a Paul-pocracy these dollars wouldn't have left the states to begin with, and if the state ran out of money do to a preponderance of disaster - they would just file for bankruptcy. Paul doesn't just believe in states' rights; he proved that even when it's unpopular, he believes in states' rights. Except, of course, for the social issues.

Paul voted for the ban on late term abortions in 2003. Paul voted for Don't Ask Don't Tell in 1993 - but then voted to repeal in 2010, but then he condemned President Obama for not abandoning the Defense of Marriage Act. So much for states rights.

It doesn't stop at Presidential candidates, however. Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn is a big fan of states rights …. except of course on gay marriage and abortion, which according to him, the federal government should ban on both accounts. I wrote a few weeks ago about his idea to pull funding from his own state for critical USDA and agriculture programs that were the only line of defense against another Dust Bowl. I also wrote about Coburn and Republican freshman Congressman James Lankford's bill to send back transportation and infrastructure money because they don't believe the federal government should be in the roads and bridges business.

It seems the only consistency with Republicans is the strive for this kind of focus group politics that makes everything sound like a great idea until you sit down and actually think about how it will impact our country. My guess is they're not expecting voters to think about it at all.

When it comes to the states rights argument, the most disappointing (or perhaps amusing) thing is that it destroys the "Republicans are the only patriots" image the Bush Administration worked so hard to manufacture after 9/11. While Bush's America, with its warrentless wiretaps, state sanctioned torture, multicolored threat levels, and warmongering wasn't my ideal America, I did really love that for a while we were all one country. His, and his party's, attempts to own patriotism in those elections after 9/11 forced me to stand up stronger and demand recognition of my own party's faith in our country. It didn't make me be a stronger patriot it made me a louder one in efforts to show that peace and protests were just as patriotic as the fabricated threats.

Remember what it was like after 9/11? Those few weeks as we watched New Yorkers post photos of loved ones across their fallen city. The tears we all shared for the loss of an innocence we never really understood we had. We were all together in what followed, just like we were all together during World War 2. Whether we win Olympic metals or lose our treasured heroes, we have always been a stronger people because these things we share together.

What happened to that America? And why do Republicans want to take it away?


All budget problems boil down to one thing: healthcare

Even as someone who spends a lot of time writing about health policy, this new chart from the Bipartisan Policy Center is still one that gives me a bit of pause:

This chart shows the rise of health care as percent of GDP, compared to other programs that the government spends money on. As the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Loren Adler tweeted shortly after posting the report with this graph, “It’s the health care, stupid!”

One other interesting graph that Adler and co-author Shai Akabas include in their report looks at the role of Medicare and Medicaid in the federal budget. It’s not quite as dramatic, but does make the same point:


EPA regulations save far more money than they cost

CO2 emissions

Via Grist:
[T]here is extensive literature showing that the costs of environmental regulations are more than offset by a broad range of economic, public health, and jobs-related benefits. Additionally, initial cost estimates are consistently found to be exaggerated. Economists and researchers who have compared actual costs with initial projections report that regulations generally end up costing far less than the dire predictions from industry and even, as an RFF study [PDF] shows, below cost projections by the Environmental Protection Agency. [...]

Though costs have always been highlighted by industry -- and many policymakers -- the fact is that public benefits associated with environmental regulations consistently outweigh the costs. For example, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently released its thirteenth annual Report to Congress [PDF], detailing the estimated benefits and costs of federal regulations, finding that:

The estimated annual benefits of major Federal regulations reviewed by OMB from Oct. 1, 1999, to Sept. 30, 2009, for which agencies estimated and monetized both benefits and costs, are in the aggregate between $128 billion and $616 billion, while the estimated annual costs are in the aggregate between $43 billion and $55 billion.

For clean air and water regulations promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over the same time period, the estimated aggregate annual costs range from $26 to $29 billion, while benefits range from $82 to $533 billion [PDF].

Doesn't this sound familiar, at this point? In an effort to cut tens of billions, we lose hundreds of billions?

These regulations aren't anti-business, they're just common sense. Limiting pollution saves us all money. Lots of money. But once again, we are so bent on catering to the needs of a very small subset of people (for ideological reasons, for lobbying reasons, for what-the-hell-ever reasons) that we're willing to damage both citizen health and the wider economy just so we can achieve ... what, exactly?