Here's a story a climate change obsessed media are sure to ignore: a Congressman from Southern California has actually suggested America spend financial resources to fix the endangered entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid rather than to solve global warming.
I don't imagine Katie, Charlie, and Brian will be doing a segment on this tonight, do you?
Regardless, Rep. John Campbell (R-California) published a must-read op-ed Tuesday entitled "Global Warming Heresy" (emphasis added throughout):
The consensus of scientists around the world is that the earth has warmed about 1 degree in the last 100 years. They also agree that human activity is "very likely" to have "contributed" to this phenomenon. Fine.
We have lots of issues today where we are 100% certain that human activity is the sole cause of the problem. For example, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will collapse within 30 years if they are not significantly reformed or tax rates are more than doubled. That is a significant problem. There are Islamic radicals around the world who are bent on the death of western civilization or its conversion to Islam "by the sword." That is a significant problem. In an age where we can produce as much food as we want and medicines are available to cure many diseases, people are still starving and dying by the millions from treatable illnesses. These are significant, manmade problems.
Of course, media would only agree that poverty is a significant problem, Congressman, for it is them that prevented Social Security reform in 2005 by convincing Americans that President Bush was exaggerating the dire nature of the situation much as he supposedly did Saddam Hussein being a threat. And, lest we not forget that these same press outlets today are advancing John Edwards' position that the war on terror is just a bumper sticker slogan.
But I digress:
The question is this: How much of our limited financial and political resources should we divert from these critical 100% manmade problems to try and deal with a problem in which our efforts are "very likely" to make some contribution? Put another way: Reducing greenhouse gases is going to be a very expensive proposition. So expensive that many progressive European countries are already scaling back their greenhouse gas reduction plans as the real costs and economic effects become known. If we could take the many trillions of dollars that may be spent on reducing the growth in greenhouse gases, and instead cure AIDS around the world, which would you do? In a heartbeat, I would choose to cure AIDS and be assured of saving many, many millions of lives. That's the kind of decision we as a society face.
Here, Campbell is sounding much like Danish environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg, who has been making the same case for years, one that logic would dictate media get behind given the vast social implications.
Yet, on this issue, the press are demonstrating that they aren't as interested in the poor or the medically infirmed as they pretend, for if they were, there's no question they would agree with folks like Campbell and Lomborg.
Instead, in this instance, the media clearly see an opportunity to tax people and corporations. And this seems to be a much loftier position for the press to take than solving AIDS or poverty.
Imagine that.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Heresy
September 4, 2007 - 10:42 ET by iveseenitallAsking this Congress to actually do something important--Heresy!
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Finally, some sense.
September 4, 2007 - 10:48 ET by Six String SpiffThis AGW thing has gone way out of hand. Typical MSM led sheeple who read the likes of People, and Us Weekly tripping over themselves to confirm their own self loathing, detremental existence. It's about time we started talking about REAL ISSUES. I have had it with the AGW crowd and their 'consensus o fthe scientific community'. B freakin S on that. Even the brits aren't falling for this years (possibly decade now) 'crisis' that will doom us all. Yes, let's fix SS and medicare. Something the demolibs will be back to bitching about real soon. Although it won't be the same argument we have. no no. Their argument will be how unfair it is to the poor unemployed, eneducated, lazy... wait/.. Who DOES care about them? If somebody thinks this country is all about supporting their pepsi and cheetos diet whilt veging on the couch, let them have the rude awakening. There needs to be more rude awakenings. Lots more.
The American Revolution Continued
MSM's church
September 4, 2007 - 10:49 ET by Mica the MagnificentTithe the Church of Global Warming first and foremost.
OBVIOUSLY, this commentary
September 4, 2007 - 10:50 ET by xfastOBVIOUSLY, this commentary was made BEFORE Hurricane Felix made landfall as a category 8 hurricane, removing all lingering doubt that global warming is manmade. Forget about social security and medicare, global warming has obviously taken a turn for the worst, even faster than our High Priest Al Gore carefully and sternly warned us. We might not be around to even see things 30 years from now. With hurricanes becoming more fierce and numerous than before, I'm worried that even here in Tennessee I won't be safe from hurricanes. Melting glaciers will cause east Tennessee to be ocean front property by the end of the decade.
The earth is on fire and it is YOUR fault for owning a car...
Well damn! An intact, male
September 4, 2007 - 10:51 ET by RackieWell damn! An intact, male Republican running loose in Washington. Set the dogs on him before he makes trouble.
Where can we request a news conference?
September 4, 2007 - 12:01 ET by MikeI would love to see him do this op-ed at a microphone, and give air quotes to the Al Gore claims that it is "very likely" and "contributed", and follow it up with the real science that is available every where but in our media. What would it take for one of the Republican presidential candidates to actually start talking about real issues that will make the Democrats look as weak on every issue that we know they really are.
Good, but...
September 4, 2007 - 10:52 ET by mattm...I have to object to his acquiescence to the idea that mankind is likely responsible for the alleged 1 degree C rise in "global" temperatures.
1. Facts demosntrate that warm periods are cyclical.
2. Data also show that atmospheric CO2 increases AFTER warming cycles begin. i.e. Warming causes CO2 increases, not the other way around.
There's alot more, as most NBers know, but still, Campbell makes a brilliant point.
If I might expand on his point, I would go further and say that the reason the Left is so willing to "solve" a phony problem like APGW and so reluctant to solve real and solvable problems is because they aren't interested in solutions, only the acquisition and maintenence of political power.
I agree with...
September 4, 2007 - 11:34 ET by AtillaKahuna...all of your points, but I believe that the good Congressman is employing a method that I've used from time to time: agree with the primary core argument of the whack-job you're dealing with, and then STILL tear their arguments and points to pieces. Then, they can't say that you're "ignoring" their "facts" and "truths".
Kahuna
I'm hoping for more of
September 4, 2007 - 11:16 ET by dscottI'm hoping for more of that kind of talk from all Repubs. Cut all funds for climate studies and funnel that money to something productive like facilitating faster cures for Dementia, Alzheimers, cancers, etc. I will compromise, some of the cut funds should be earmarked to replace all the compromised weather stations around the country to give us accurate temperature readings. Before any taxes are raised, all earmarks must meet a cost benefit analysis.
Here's a hint you dumb Democrats, Maynard Keynes said that the purpose of taxation is to place a brake upon the economy to prevent inflationary pressure. How is it is after 30 years and Ronald Reagan and George Bush that you still don't get it??? You Dems are imbeciles of the first order, cutting off your nose to spite your face for political gain.
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
Nope, still don't like it
September 4, 2007 - 11:21 ET by Fidel SarcastroAs much as I welcome the the momentary glimpse of sanity re AGW, I still gag at the notion that any money be redirected to fix Social Security or cure AIDS.
More federal money won't fix Medicare. And more federal money won't cure AIDS. Let me keep more of my tax dollars and I'll pay for my own health care. Let me keep more of my tax dollars and I'll hire more employees, lessening the need for entitlements for the impoverished.
"The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution."
Hannah Arendt
Hey, now...
September 4, 2007 - 11:37 ET by AtillaKahuna...if you're going to use logic, reason and sound thinking in your comments, how in the world are the Liberals supposed to understand it? How can they "feel" your logic????
/sarcasm
There are persons...who see not the full extent of the evil which threatens them; they solace themselves with hopes that the enemy...will be merciful.
Rep. John Campbell -- thank
September 4, 2007 - 11:51 ET by OrlinRep. John Campbell -- thank you. Here is just a little bit of common sense.
Must be wrong-a Rep from California!
September 4, 2007 - 12:17 ET by PawpawNMust be something wrong here. We have a Repub from California! Must have been faulty voting machines. & this man has the nerve to say something logical! Wow, does he want to run for Pres!!
Another from California also
September 4, 2007 - 12:20 ET by LionKingDuncan Hunter is another Republican from California and also a conservative.
Yet another
September 4, 2007 - 12:32 ET by ChaitealoverRep. Brian Bilbray is another conservative Republican from CA. There are quite a few of us here. If you remember the map that showed voting by county after the 2000 election, most of CA was red. Unfortunately, the blue areas were the most populated ones, so they make the rules. That's why I'm in favor of splitting the electoral vote by county, so the rest of us can have something to say about the next POTUS.
Hunter/Thompson or Thompson/Hunter suits me.
Those who would expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it - Thomas Paine
Who Votes
September 4, 2007 - 14:42 ET by PawpawNDo the dead in Calif vote like in Chicago, NY, NJ, etc?
Dead
September 4, 2007 - 16:52 ET by ChaitealoverNot in the conservative areas, no, but I can't vouch for SF, where they've elected Pelosi, Feinstein, & Boxer.
As far as I'm concerned, SoCal has no representation in the US Senate.
Those who would expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it - Thomas Paine
For those who think Social
September 4, 2007 - 12:21 ET by MikeBFor those who think Social Security can be fixed, may I refer you to the book, "The Coming Revolution in Social Security." It is written by A. Haeworth Robertson, the former head actuary of the Social Security Administration. Perhaps SS can be saved, but only by either cutting benefits way back, or drastically increasing FICA taxes. If I have read the book correctly, given current demographic patterns, it will take a Social Security tax rate of better than 25% by the year 2035 just to fund the benefits already promised. Yet Congress, whether controlled by Democrats or by Republicans, has always used benefit increases to buy votes from the older population. That will mean, by 2035, before you ever get your pay check, the governments will have confiscated 12.5% for Social Security, at least another 10% for federal withholding taxes, (assuming the current tax rates stay in effect for the next 28 years. The Democrats are already talking about raising the tax rates on "the rich") another 3+% for state income taxes, and then, after you have had all that money confiscated before you ever see your paycheck, you will be paying at least 8% (around here it is 8.8%) in sales taxes on everything you buy. Let's not forget the rent you pay to the state for your own property in the form of ad valorem taxes.
I don't believe Social Security, medicare, medicade, etc., should be fixed. The programs are in violation of the 9th and 10th amendments of the constitution and should be abolished. Like that'll ever happen.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Not having read the book,
September 4, 2007 - 14:13 ET by dscottNot having read the book, did Robertson continue to advocate the same investing strategy of bonds only as do the current managers of the SS trust fund? If he did, then his analysis is flawed, no private pension plan puts all its eggs in one basket, all competent money managers do one thing: diversify, diversify, diversify! One does not achieve actuarial Nirvana by parking all their money in low interest bonds, not even the Life Insurance companies do that.
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
Let's be clear. Anyone
September 4, 2007 - 14:35 ET by jdhawkLet's be clear. Anyone that works is already paying 15.3% of their gross pay to the government in FICA and Medicare. If you think I am wrong about this, add it up. You "contribute" 6.2 in FICA and your employer does likewise up to $97,500 of your pay or $6,045 X 2 or $12,090. The same is true of Medicare, but the rate is 1.45% for each "contributor, but there is no cap on income earned.
Make no mistake: if your employer pays for something on your behalf, you have to earn it first.
It is a constant source of amazement that people aren't outraged at this extraction of hard earned money by our government.
By the way, the first thing that the dimocrats will do when they can either get past President Bush's veteo or elect a defeatocrat president is eliminate the cap on Social Security
Although, Social Security is a serious issue, Medicare is growing many times faster as a problem. Look for the dimocrats to raise the rate to at least twice the present rate in the next election cycle providing they hold on to both houses and win the presidency.
eliminate the cap on
September 4, 2007 - 14:39 ET by dscotteliminate the cap on Social Security
An easy feel good stop gap measure that only delays the inevitable by only a few years. But I agree, they will to save their necks just long enough to delay the 2017 net cash flow date and gets them out of Congress on their cushy retirement. Why should they care, all of us suckers will get stiffed but they won't.
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
Not everyone pays into SS
September 5, 2007 - 11:08 ET by Dan The Man 2Not everyone pays into SS and Medicare, I dont because I am in a defined pension plan and out of the government defined pension plan called SS. Of course I have worked and contributed into SS and have about 1/2 of my time done. When I retire I will probably put the rest in so I can draw a minimun amount out and pay for my insurance premiums.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Where was this guy, or for
September 4, 2007 - 14:13 ET by jdhawkWhere was this guy, or for that matter the entire congressional leadership, when President Bush proposed Social Security reform and requested that the two tax reductions be made permanent?
Instead of uniting around our President and party leader, they choose to raise the federal budget over 50% since 2001 with prolifigate spending.
What did it get them? Ouster as the majority party. Nice going . . .
Even now they can hardly be called the "loyal opposition." Well, I guess if you left out loyal and opposition . . .
Bush betrayed his supporters
September 5, 2007 - 09:42 ET by SPRENWhile Bush started out to do something about social security, he had cut so many of his congressional supporters off at the knees on previous issues that they no longer trusted him. He changes tack quite often when the political winds start blowing, so none of the repubes wanted to get out in the middle of the field and have Bush abandon them there on their own.
He quickly became his own worst enemy after winning in 2004 and claiming he had political capital to spend. He came out of the gate by nominating his personal counsel, Harriet Myers, for Supreme Court justice. That's when the wheels started to come off and he's been dragging down the road since.
Out of the hundreds
September 5, 2007 - 11:00 ET by dscottOut of the hundreds of decisions a POTUS makes, do you really expect him to agree with you 100% of the time? Do you really expect him to be politically savy 100% of the time? I think not. He clearly botched the SCOTUS appointment with Myers and the Immigration issue. He recovered from Myers by appointing Roberts, he will recover from the immigration issue if he continues to keep ICE busy with deportations. Will the recovery be 100%? NO.
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
Bush has runined the Republican Party
September 5, 2007 - 12:54 ET by SPRENdscott, sorry to disagree with you. Although Bush has done a couple of good things (ie. initiating the war on terror and marginal tax rate reductions) he has basically been a country club Repub governing as a liberal. He has absolutely destroyed the Reagan revolution with his "compassionate conservatism" being nothing more than another name for big government and implying that real conservatism isn't "compassionate" whereas the truth is exactly the opposite. He has betrayed our borders, reversed himself on the global warming hoax, pushed the governments nose ever farther into education where it has no authority to go, and created the biggest new entitlement since the Great Society (Prescription Drugs). He has been an unmitigated disaster and something from which it will take years or decades (if ever) for the Republican Party and conservative movement to recover from.