Okay Obama, The party's over. Let's get to work!

A Checklist Of Obama's Many Promises

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, November 10, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Few presidential candidates have made more specific promises to American voters than Barack Obama. They came so fast and furious in the latter part of the campaign, you'd be excused for not keeping up. So as a public service, we've put together a handy checklist of some of the biggest Obama promises — culled from his "Blueprint for Change," his campaign speeches and advertisements. Clip it. Save it. And see how he did in four years.

Taxes

• Give a tax break to 95% of Americans.

• Restore Clinton-era tax rates on top income earners.

• "If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime. Not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes. Nothing."

• Dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes.

• Give American businesses a $3,000 tax credit for every job they create in the U.S.

• Eliminate capital gains taxes for small business and startup companies.

• Eliminate income taxes for seniors making under $50,000.

• Expand the child and dependent care tax credit.

• Expand the earned income tax credit.

• Create a universal mortgage credit.

• Create a small business health tax credit.

• Provide a $500 "make work pay" tax credit to small businesses.

• Provide a $1,000 emergency energy rebate to families.

Energy

• Spend $15 billion a year on renewable sources of energy.

• Eliminate oil imports from the Middle East in 10 years.

• Increase fuel economy standards by 4% a year.

• Weatherize 1 million homes annually.

• Ensure that 10% of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012.

Environment

• Create 5 million green jobs.

• Implement a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

• Get 1 million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015.

Labor

• Sign a fair pay restoration act, which would overturn the Supreme Court's pay discrimination ruling.

• Sign into law an employee free choice act — aka card check — to make it easier for unions to organize.

• Make employers offer seven paid sick days per year.

• Increase the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2009.

National security

• Remove troops from Iraq by the summer of 2010.

• Cut spending on unproven missile defense systems.

• No more homeless veterans.

• Stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq.

• Finish the fight against Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida terrorists.

Social Security

• Work in a "bipartisan way to preserve Social Security for future generations."

• Impose a Social Security payroll tax on incomes above $250,000.

• Match 50% of retirement savings up to $1,000 for families earning less than $75,000.

Education

• Demand higher standards and more accountability from our teachers.

Spending

• Go through the budget, line by line, ending programs we don't need and making the ones we do need work better and cost less.

• Slash earmarks.

Health care

• Lower health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year.

• Let the uninsured get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress get.

• Stop insurance companies from discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

• Spend $10 billion over five years on health care information technology.

Answering Jacoby's questions

Re Obama's new Science Advisor, John Holdren, who has stirred up some controversy with conservatives over his take on Global...er, Catastrophe. Jeff Jacoby, of course, has Eight Questions for Holdren*. Fine, his right. But, given Jacoby's take on science in the past, I really don't see how this is just a twisted version of the pot calling the kettle black. Seriously: our spending on global warming-related fixes/adaptations will hurt the economy far, far, far less than certain imaginative financial products actually did.

Let's examine Jacoby's questions and see how where it takes us:

1. You were long associated with population alarmist Paul Ehrlich, and
joined him in predicting disasters that never came to pass. For example, you and Ehrlich wrote in 1969: "If . . . population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come." In 1971, the two of you were adamant that "some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century." In the 1980s, Ehrlich quoted your expectation that "carbon dioxide-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020." What have you learned from the failure of these prophecies to come true?

Paul Erlich has been (rightly) taken to the woodshed for being spectacularly wrong. That said, was it wrong to raise awareness of potential problems? Malthusian-type problems have never sorted themselves out: they required the active imagination of people to fix them. And conservatives like Jacoby love to use Erlich to argue that we should have all the kids we want and overpopulation is ridiculous and even racist.** But the effects of overpopulation are too real. Jared Diamond in Collapse argues, very effectively, that the Rwanda Genocide was, at its core, an overpopulation problem. And, seriously, what's wrong in eliciting a worst-case scenrio in drawing people's attention to a serious problem? Erlich deserves our scorn in saying that we are helpless, but at least he got people to pay attention.

2. [and 3.] You have advocated the "long-term desirability of zero population growth" for the United States. In 1973, you pronounced the US population of 210 million as "too many" and pooh-poohed any notion that "the strain of an accelerated arms race will do more damage to the Soviet economy than to our own." But that is exactly what happened, and President Reagan's defense buildup helped win the Cold War. Did that outcome alter your thinking?

Looks like there are 2 questions here. One is again overpopulation - and what is the problem with stating such a long-term desirability? Especially when we are stating concerns with fresh water supply, etc. As we have seen with the rise of the Chinese middle class, we simply do not have the resources for everyone to live like Americans. This inconvenient fact needs to be discussed truthfully, whether it goes against Jacoby's religious teachings or not.

The other question has to do with the nuclear arms race. This is not in the domain of science policy, this is for the military folks. So I don't see the need to interrogate here. But if there were such a need, so what? Did everyone in gov't support Reagan's strategy of build-up? I don't think so.

4. You argued that "a massive campaign must be launched . . . to de-develop the United States" in order to conserve energy; you also recommended the "de-development" of modern industrialized nations in order to facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries. Yet elsewhere you observed: "Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others." Which is it?

Both. Affordable energy is energy that we can afford to have, and this means alternative forms like nukes, solar, etc. And we still need to learn how to conserve. I am not in favor of sacrificing our livelihoods so that other countries can make a mess of the environment. I am, however, interested in how to get by with less energy as well as stripping petro-dictatorships of their influence.

5. In Scientific American, you recently wrote: "The ongoing disruption of the Earth's climate by man-made greenhouse gases is already well beyond dangerous and is careening toward completely unmanageable." Given your record with forecasting calamity, shouldn't policymakers view your alarm with a degree of skepticism?

Perhaps, if he were the only one with this opinion. But he is far from that: the great majority of the scientific community is in agreement with this. Jacoby searches for the odd dissenting voice that tries to explain away the melting of polar ice caps and long-term climate data. To whom do we need to apply skepticism?

6. In 2006, according to the London Times, you suggested that global sea
levels could rise 13 feet by the end of this century. But the latest assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that sea levels are likely to have risen only 13 inches by 2100. Can you explain the discrepancy?

That's one data point by one panel, and at least the data's in the right direction, and more conservative. Better than someone saying there is no problem, and we're left to deal with a rising level of 13 inches with no planning, as Jacoby would have.

7. "Variability has been the hallmark of climate over the millennia," you wrote in 1977. "The one statement about future climate that can be made with complete assurance is that it will be variable." If true, should we not be wary of ascribing too much importance to human influence on climate change?

You got another explanation? I always thought of "conservatism" as something that would plan for a worst-case scenario. But, no, let's live high on the hog just in case the cause of climate change is a secret comet passing over the earth that will be gone soon, or something like that.

8. You are withering in your contempt for researchers who are unconvinced that human activity is responsible for global warming, or that global warming is an onrushing disaster. You have written that such ideas are "dangerous," that those who hold them "infest" the public discourse, and that paying any attention to their views is "a menace." You contributed to a published assault on Bjorn Lomborg's notable 2001 book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" - an attack the Economist described as "strong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance." In light of President-elect Obama's insistence that "promoting science" means "protecting free and open
inquiry," will you work to soften your hostility toward scholars who disagree with you?

Sure, I hope so too. But in the end, we need a science policy based on the best data we have, not the best data we can invent. And, guess what, does Jacoby actually think that science will be worse off in an Obama administration than it was during the Bush era? Really?

Jeff Jacoby is a great voice for many things. Science is not one of them.

* Looks like there was a mix-up in the publishing of this article, and I don't believe it was Jacoby's inability to count.

** One of my favorite books on the subject is PJ O'Rourke's hilarious All the Trouble in the World. But it is entertainment, nothing more. O'Rourke himself never really addresses the entire problem, other than attacking Bangladesh's obvious problems in governing itself.

Party Party Party!

Obama hosting pricey party in a dicey economy

Unemployment is up. The stock market is down. Let's party.

The price tag for President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration gala is expected to break records, with some estimates reaching as high as $150 million. Despite the bleak economy, however, Democrats who called on President George W. Bush to be frugal four years ago are issuing no such demands now that an inaugural weekend of rock concert and star-studded parties has begun. [Emphasis mine]

Obama's inaugural committee has raised more than $41 million to cover events ranging from a Philadelphia-to-Washington train ride to a megastar concert with Beyonce, U2 and Bruce Springsteen to 10 official inaugural balls. Add to that the massive costs of security and transportation — costs absorbed by U.S. taxpayers — and the historic inauguration will produce an equally historic bill.

Let it go Nancy!

"Pelosi Open to Prosecution of Bush Administration Officials"

According to Fox News, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is receptive to the idea of prosecuting some Bush administration officials, while letting others who are accused of misdeeds leave office without prosecution, she told Chris Wallace in an interview on "FOX News Sunday."

President-elect Barack Obama has not closed off the possibility of prosecutions, but hinted he does not favor them.

Nancy, give it up.

A moment of silence for Hugo

There's a real side benefit to having oil sub-$36/barrel: the nastiest of the nasties are writhing. Especially Sr. Chavez, who is desperate for oil money to fund his grand socialist experiment. I think Hugo once said that oil should be at least $60, a number that I think was a topping off point for Tom Friedman as well.

So, this is a lesson in irony, caused by being too big for one's britches. Chavez, who nationalized his oil industry with such gusto, now wants the evil imperialist dogs back. "Amigos, I was just kidding!"

As Andrew Sullivan says, in a just world, our oil companies, the only ones in the world willing to deal with Venezuela's "sweet" crude, would just give this prick a collective middle finger up his ass. But, with prospects for new oilfields looking depressing, these guys will have little choice, it seems, but to go back, where they'll be ensconsed until the next time oil breaks the $60 barrier, and Hugo's testicles will find their way back.

Can we now see why we need alternative energy now? Not just an environmental thing: once we get into our 12-step from oil, many a mentally diseased asshole will become just another smelly scumbag.

Where is the Love?

So much for the world respecting us Post Bush.

Video from the Miami Rally.

A Simple Solution.

Dear Readers,

After a brief hiatus due to family obligations, I am back and rested. Most of you are aware of the Ft., Lauderdale incident that happened a week ago in my neighboring hometown where a Muslim women adorned in full Arab Regalia yelled out "Jews, go back to the ovens!"

It seems amazing that one would be able to use this language and still be allowed to walk the streets of the good 'ol USA. But it becomes clear that this is the difference between us and them. Our right to free speech and religion is an enviable right that most societies are not afforded. I only pray that our own litigious and leftist society does not erode our own rights that we become them by polar opposites.

One must realize that this whole media circus is not about a cease fire in Gaza. This is about a group of nomads that are the scourge of the Arab world. Not even the Arabs want them. This is about an agenda to destroy Israel through a series of media and political events. The Arabs secretly hope that Israel will destroy the Palestinians, because it will accomplish two agenda items. One, it will rid the Arabs of their dreck. Two, they can use it to continue to admonish Israel and further their cause to destroy Israel and the Jews.

Most of the people I have regular contact with are well aware of the Hamas techniques of using human shields and using schools and Mosques for hiding their proliferation of weapon caches. What boggles the mind is those that swear that the Hamas would never sacrifice their children and people to further the war effort in Gaza. Is it that people hate Israel and the Jews that much? I'm afraid so. One only needs to look to "civilized" France to see just how bad anti-semitism has gotten in the European Union. There are daily incidents and Jews are leaving in large groups, while the Muslins take over their places. Putin and Russia supply Iran with arms and weapons for Hamas in Gaza.

What is the answer? Simple in my mind. Let the Arab countries repatriate their own people who have been nomads since 1967 evenly between them. Leave Israel alone. They have yet to provoke a war or strap a bomb to a suicide bomber since God created the earth.

"Go back to the ovens!"

Pro-Hamas demonstration in, of all places, Ft. Lauderdale FL, home of the Red Shirt half of this blog. The clip is over 9 minutes, but is fascinating all the same. The anger and fervor of the crowd, numbering about 2 - 3 hundred, is surprising in a place like Ft. Lauderdale.

Notable in the crowd are several demonstrators calling to "Nuke Israel", and helpfully pointing out that "Israel doesn't exist." My favorite, though, is the nice lady yelling to the Israel supporters across the way to "go back to the ovens." Really, I'd love to know where she took those etiquette lessons.

But what do I expect these folks to do differently? Nothing, except be able to demonstrate without needing police to intervene to prevent a potential riot. This is the USA, and people have the right to say what they please, even the nice lady chick full of etiquette and a love of cooking. But if we pretend that this is anything beyond raw tribalism, and that Jewish actions are merely "racist", well...we're just being a tad bit stupid, aren't we?

War in Israel brings out the useful idiots

For instance, Cynthia McKinney:

“Our boat was rammed three times, twice in the front and one on the side,” McKinney told CNN Tuesday morning. “Our mission was a peaceful mission. Our mission was thwarted by the aggressiveness of the Israeli military.”

Actually, mission accomplished. What we tend to forget is that war is many-faceted. There is the military component. And then there is the information component. McKinney, a longtime anti-Israel advocate and former congresswoman from Georgia, understands the power of information.

The mission was NOT a peaceful mission. Entering a war zone, even with relief supplies, to not only give aid and comfort to one side, but also to weaken another, is an act of aggression itself. The existence of an organization like the International Red Cross was an attempt at a non-aligned relief organization in times of war. In this case, Israel is forced to deal with the unarmed occupants (as far as they know) is a nonlethal manner.

That said, anyone entering a war zone expecting to be greeted with rose petals is truly an idiot. Which McKinney is not. Her goal was to give Israel a black eye. Israel Matzav, however, has some interesting details:

The moonbats on the boat have accused Israel of 'piracy on the high seas.' But their understanding of international law is incorrect.

The movement's spokeswoman Greta Berlin told Israel National News that the incident occurred approximately 50-60 miles off the Gaza coast, in international waters. Any vessel can be legally required to identify itself in order to prevent it from entering prohibited territory although its passengers cannot be arrested in international waters, explained Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor.

They're also claiming that the Navy gunboat rammed the yacht, but Palmor shows that contention is ridiculous as well:

The Free Gaza boat, dubbed the Dignity, collided with a Navy boat, but Berlin said the activists on board have pictures to prove it was rammed, an allegation that Palmor said is ridiculous. "If we wanted to hit it intentionally, everyone would have drowned," he told Israel National News.Ministry spokesman Yossi Levy was quoted by a CNN correspondent on board the 60-foot vessel as saying that the collision occurred when a Navy boat tried to turn around. Free Gaza claimed that at least half a dozen Navy boats surrounded the Dignity.The activists reported they did not have enough fuel to return to Cyprus and that the Navy did not allow the boat to proceed to Egypt but is allowing the vessel to sail to Lebanon after originally ordering it to turn back to Cyprus.

While Israel allowed earlier 'mercy missions' to land, the government has apparently now had enough of this nonsense.

Defense Ministry spokesman Shlomo Dror said "the time has come to put a stop to these anarchists" who he said are not bringing any significant amount of
humanitarian supplies. He pointed out that Israel has opened Gaza crossings for
hundreds of tons of aid despite the ongoing rocket and mortar attacks on Israel.

More than 120 trucks entered Gaza Sunday and Monday, and 100 more are expected to reach the area Tuesday.

Free Gaza is a coalition of several groups, including the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), Israel Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) and Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR). All of those groups are financed by European governments.

We must recognize "humanitarian efforts" for what they are: a war on Israel. I have nothing against, and in fact desire, ending the suffering in Gaza. But not at the expense of the Israeli people.