Obama's promises, vision to collide with reality

[janelle]

Obama's promises, vision to collide with reality
By JIM DRINKARD
Associated Press
November 5, 2008

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/november/1105_obama_reality1.shtml

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Over a two-year campaign, Barack Obama laid out a vision for the nation's future in soaring speeches that enthralled his audiences. With his victory in the presidential election on Tuesday, those goals will collide with daunting realities.

President Obama will inherit a budget deficit that many analysts say could hit a trillion dollars for the first time in history, severely crimping any promises for tax cuts or spending on new programs. He faces a diving economy that has traumatized Americans trying to buy a home, pay for college or plan for retirement. And he'll confront the complexities of trying to extricate U.S. forces from Iraq, and a resurgent conflict in Afghanistan. A look at Obama's campaign promises and the challenges that stand in their way:

THE ECONOMY, TAXES AND DEFICITS

The promise: Retain President Bush's tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year and provide more relief to the squeezed middle class by creating new tax breaks for lower-income families; protect middle-class taxpayers from the Alternative Minimum Tax; exempt seniors making less than $50,000 a year from paying income taxes, expand the tax credit for college and provide incentives to encourage savings, and help pay for child care and mortgage expenses.

For the shorter term, Obama supported the $700 billion financial bailout plan passed in October and backs a second stimulus plan that would provide up to about $150 billion on top of the $168 billion package of tax rebates passed earlier in the year. It could provide tax rebates or credits, extend jobless benefits and spending on infrastructure projects like roads and bridges, as well as sending food aid to the poor and money to states to pay their Medicaid bills. Separately, Obama also proposed a $1,000 emergency energy rebate to families and penalty-free withdrawals of up to $10,000 from 401(k)s and IRA's. He also proposes a $3,000-per-employee tax credit to companies for each new job they create.

The problem: Obama's spending plans and middle-class tax relief will confront exploding budget deficits -- $438 billion this year, and growing as the down economy reduces tax revenues and increases spending on bailouts and anti-recessionary programs. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates Obama's proposals would reduce projected tax revenue by $2.95 trillion over the next decade, compared to what would happen if Bush's tax cuts were to expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.

ENERGY

The promise: A crash program to begin to wean the country off of its dependence on oil. The goal is to reduce U.S. petroleum demand by an amount equal to the 3.5 million barrels a day now imported from unfriendly Venezuela and the volatile Persian Gulf. Obama also would invest $15 billion a year over the next 10 years to spur commercial development of alternative energy -- wind, biomass and solar -- and more energy-efficient buildings and automobiles. And he wants a short-term rebate of $1,000 per couple to help with rising energy costs.

The problem: Here, too, the economic crisis throws new spending into doubt -- including Obama's alternative energy plans. The $150 billion program also is tied to Congess tackling global warming by putting a price on greenhouse gases, a prospect that faces many obstacles. The call for an energy rebate also may lose its urgency as gasoline prices have dropped by more than a third and heating oil by almost half from their peaks last summer.

HEALTH CARE

The promise: Increase the number of people with health insurance by having the government subsidize the cost of coverage for low- and middle-income families. To help pay for that expense, increase taxes for those families earning more than $250,000. Obama also would require employers not offering health coverage to pay a percentage of their payroll toward a national health plan. Small businesses would be exempt. He would also mandate that children have health insurance, and he would expand who can participate in Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Obama's plan would let people choose a public, Medicare-like plan or browse a shopping center of sorts for private insurance plans. The National Health Insurance Exchange would create rules and standards for participating private plans, and insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy regardless of pre-existing health conditions.

The problem: While the plan would help millions of people obtain health insurance, health analysts say it falls short of universal coverage. The Tax Policy Center says the Obama plan would reduce the number of uninsured by 18 million in the first full year of operation, from the current figure of 45 million. That still would leave millions of uninsured adults. Meanwhile, the penalty on employers that don't offer health insurance could increase the cost of operating a business. Also, the plan will cost an estimated $1.6 trillion over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center.

FOREIGN POLICY

The promise: Obama says he would engage both allies and adversaries to repair the U.S. image abroad and regain leverage and leadership that he says Bush squandered with the Iraq war. He says he will marshal international pressure against Iran, boost U.S. efforts against extremists along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and get a faster and firmer start on Middle East peacemaking. He vowed to "renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression."

FOREIGN POLICY

The promise: Obama says he would engage both allies and adversaries to repair the U.S. image abroad and regain leverage and leadership that he says Bush squandered with the Iraq war. He says he will marshal international pressure against Iran, boost U.S. efforts against extremists along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and get a faster and firmer start on Middle East peacemaking. He vowed to "renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression."

The problem: The Bush administration has already reversed many of its policies that other nations saw as isolationist or bullying -- for example, by joining international diplomatic efforts with "axis of evil" nations Iran and North Korea. But even those haven't produced great results and neither has yet to achieve its desired goal. Obama has suggested he would continue such efforts, but there is no guarantee they will yield greater success. The Bush administration has also in recent weeks engaged in unilateral strikes against extremists inside both Pakistan and Syria, prompting furious responses from those countries. Obama says he, too, will go after terrorists this way but any president wanting to step up such activities will face strong resistance from local authorities and probably pay the price for violating other nations' sovereignty by seeing cooperation cut back.

DEFENSE

The promise: Pull all U.S. combat forces out of Iraq within 16 months, send more combat troops to Afghanistan and provide better care for wounded troops and veterans.

The problem: A troop pullout by mid-2010 is feasible, although some argue that it risks shifting full responsibility to Iraq's security forces before they are ready. The Bush administration, which originally opposed setting any pullout date, has targeted departure by the end of 2011, although the Iraqis have yet to agree.

Until U.S. forces are pulled from Iraq, there are none to bolster the force in Afghanistan. Balancing needs in those two countries will be an immediate challenge for Obama. There is broad consensus on the need for more troops to combat an emboldened insurgency in Afghanistan and to train government troops there, but the trick is to accomplish that without giving up gains against the insurgency in Iraq and without robbing combat-weary soldiers and Marines of the rest periods they need.

Caring for veterans and the wounded entails enormous costs, and the scope of the health care requirements for returning troops is not yet fully known.

EDUCATION

The promise: An $18 billion plan that would encourage, but not mandate, universal pre-kindergarten; teacher pay raises tied to, although not based solely on, test scores; an overhaul of President Bush's No Child Left Behind law to better measure student progress, make room for subjects like music and art and be less punitive toward failing schools, and a tax credit to pay up to $4,000 of college costs for students who perform 100 hours of community service a year. Obama would pay for part of his plan by ending corporate tax deductions for CEO pay. He has backed away from his proposal to save money by delaying NASA's moon and Mars missions.

The problem: With the budget stretched thin, a huge infusion of cash for early childhood education or college costs seems unlikely. Federal spending on education has already been rising for more than a decade. Congress and the White House will be in no hurry to tackle No Child Left Behind, which was due for a rewrite in 2007; the economy, the war and health care are stickier and more pressing concerns.

------

Associated Press writers Tom Raum, Kevin Freking, Robert Burns, H. Josef Hebert, Matthew Lee and Libby Quaid contributed to this story.

[DrHolliday]

http://www.blueherald.com/uploads/Batocchio/RW_Cartoons/2008/3_30_08/_Gorrell_3_12_08_Obama.jpg

[whatever]

PLus on Yahoo they are saying he is already Renigging on most of his "changes" he promised. Well what a shock.:nono

[speedygirl]

I looked at Yahoo and didn't see anyrhing about reneging. The only article that can be remotely misinterpreted as reneging is the one about people's expectations and the realities of it all. I imagine one could twist this into that meaning without grasping the true meaning.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_el_pr/obama_great_expectations

[anothersta]

What is the 'true' meaning?

[Jolie Rouge]

November 05, 2008
Huffpo blogger to Obama: It's OK to stab Cuban-Americans in the back

Sarah Stephens agrees that Obama won without the help of Cuban-Americans. And since we didn't turnout for him, she argues that he's under no obligation to live up to campaign promises he made:


In fact, three Miami-area Congressional candidates who agreed with Obama's minimal reforms on Cuba were all defeated in their campaigns by the Cuban-American Representatives who supported John McCain and President Bush's hard-line on Cuba.

This disposes of the argument, once and for all, that a presidential candidate couldn't carry Florida or win the White House unless he bowed to the hard-liners and supported the harshest possible approach to U.S.-Cuba relations...

President-elect Obama, you proved them wrong, and now you have the freedom to make even bigger and better changes in a policy that everyone knows is a failure.

President Bush put cruel restrictions on the rights of Cuban-Americans to visit their families on the island and limits on the financial support they can provide. You have already promised to repeal those restrictions. Now is the time to go further.

Every American should enjoy the constitutional right to travel freely to Cuba.


That was then, this is now I suppose.

comments:

Well, I hate it more than words, but every lefty I know despises Cubans. I mean, they hate them so much Clarence Thomas and Dick Cheney would feel bad for them. They feel that since Cuban-Americans are anti-communist, hate that piece of sh*t castro (How anyone can defend this pig is beyond me, but how anyone can love him makes me really question their humanity), and support Republicans, to borrow a quote from Comrade Markos - Screw them.

In fact, I think Cuban Americans are the only minority that it's 'acceptable' discriminate against and even 'cooler' to hate.

Then again, this just shows how intellectually dishonest much of their disgust about racism is - and every other ism for that matter.

Well, they may hate you but having grown up smack dab in th emiddle of Miami, I can say our country s infinitely better of b/c of Cuban-Americans. The lefties hate them but everyone else hates lefties - seems fair enough

The HuffPo can talk all the smack they want, I doubt any Cuban American wanted them as friends anyway.

http://www.babalublog.com/archives/010474.html

[Jolie Rouge]

He promised the moon ...
... and he won.
And now he gets to deliver it...
... Should be interesting.


And the real winner is…Peggy the Moocher
November 5, 2008 12:17 PM

My syndicated column today looks at how both parties in Washington have fueled our out-of-control bailout mania and entitlement culture. The ethos is embodied by Peggy the Moocher — the Obama supporter who is no doubt ecstactic today over the prospect of her gas and mortgage bills being covered. We are a Land of Peggy the Moochers now, in large part thanks to Republican capitulationists. That is the main point of the piece and I don’t want you to miss it. It’s not just about one Obama supporter. It’s about the endless parade of corporations and homeowners lining up for their handout and how the GOP failed fiscal conservatism. Failed the party base. And failed taxpayers. On a related note, the American Issues Project has just released a new survey of voters in battleground states. The bailout “played a big and punishing role for the GOP.”

Learn from this, Washington.

Right on cue, Nancy Pelosi has just issued a renewed call for the Democratic stimulus boondoggle (which is item one on my What Not To Do list): “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is calling again for a lameduck session of Congress to enact a stimulus program to shore up the sinking economy. Pelosi, a California Democrat, said Wednesday that no decisions have yet been made on such a post-election session. But she did say that talks are continuing with the White House on the terms of such a package, which would include additional assistance for people who are out of work.”

***


And the winner is…Peggy the Moocher
Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

Sorry to break the bad news to Joe the Plumber. But the winner of Campaign 2008 is Peggy the Moocher. No matter who moves into the White House, Peggy’s got good reason to do a happy dance. The plain, ugly fact is that both major political parties are committed to spreading the wealth in one form or another. It’s all just a question of how much and how quickly, not whether.

Who is Peggy the Moocher? She’s Peggy Joseph, a voter in Sarasota, Florida who exulted earlier this week at a Barack Obama rally that this was “the most memorable time of my life.” Why? As she told a Florida reporter on a YouTube video now viewed by hundreds of thousands: “Because I never thought this day would ever happen. I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know. If I help [Obama], he’s gonna help me.”

You can’t blame Peggy the Moocher for viewing Obama as the superior Santa Claus. With a relentless messianic campaign, a grievance-mongering wife touting him as the country’s soul fixer, and a national infomercial promising to take care of every need from night classes to medical bills to rent and fuel-efficient cars. Obama effectively channeled Oprah Winfrey’s Big Give.

“Everybody gets a car!” “Everybody gets a car!” And gas. And mortgage payment relief.

Bu the damning reality for fiscal conservatives is that John McCain’s plan for homeowners under water on their mortgages was even more generous than Obama’s. His $300 billion “rescue” involved directing the Treasury Secretary to “purchase mortgages directly from homeowners and mortgage servicers.” That was on top of the trillion-dollar-plus “bank” bailout supported by both presidential candidates, the White House, and the Democratic leadership; the $85 billion-plus to AIG; the $25 billion to automakers; the $200 billion in capital and credit lines to Fannie and Freddie; and who knows what else we’ll be redistributing to the indebted states of New York, California, Massachusetts, and all the other Peggy the Moochers large and small lining up for their piece of the bailout pie.

McCain assailed massive government spending —while promising to heap on more massive government spending to pursue home ownership and retention at all costs. It was the Republican, not the Democrat, who entrusted the Treasury Department to renegotiate individual home loans and become chief principal write-down agents for the nation. Both private and public entities are planning for a McCain-esque homeowner salvation plan for borrowers in the red. It’s a swell idea for everyone who bought overpriced homes with Adjustable Rate Mortgages. Those who rented or bought within their means or locked into fixed-rate loans that they can afford are out of luck, naturally. The only sane thing to do in response? Stop paying your mortgage and get in line.

“E Pluribus Unum” is no longer our national motto. These three words are: “Do For Me.” As in: What will the government do for me? On Election Day, the federal government quietly reported that it will borrow a record $550 billion in the current quarter to fund the bipartisan bailout. The Treasury Department reported that it plans to borrow more than a half-trillion dollars in the current October-December quarter and another $368 billion in the first three months of next year. Estimated total for the whole year: $1.4 trillion. Democrats plan to add another $500 billion in “stimulus”-palooza legislation. Credit card companies, utilities, insurance companies, and car loan and student loan debtors await their turn.

The bailout bonanza blurred the differences between the two major political parties, but the Peggy the Moocher video shows there are still basically two stark, contrasting views of government in this country among the rank-and-file electorate. Unlike Joe The Plumber, Peggy sees government as her salvation and the president as her subsidizer-in-chief. She voted with the expectation that the Spreader of Wealth will reward her with payback. Joe just wants Washington to leave him alone to fend for himself.

Personal responsibility? Hah. Washington can’t afford it.

[DrHolliday]

I looked at Yahoo and didn't see anyrhing about reneging. The only article that can be remotely misinterpreted as reneging is the one about people's expectations and the realities of it all. I imagine one could twist this into that meaning without grasping the true meaning.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_el_pr/obama_great_expectations

Read this.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/obama-lays-plans-kill-expectations-election-victory/

[speedygirl]

Read this.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/obama-lays-plans-kill-expectations-election-victory/

Hah, Fox news. lol. The ultimate in fairness...not. It's about people having higher then achievable expectations and what has to be done to bring them down to realism. People tend to get higher then normal expectations over many things in life and the article states that they have made preparations to be realistic. You always get those over eager people in any situation.
If McCain was elected you would have had a group of people expecting miracles as well.
It's all about people's unrealistic expectations and not actual plans, lol.

[DrHolliday]

Hah, Fox news. lol. The ultimate in fairness...not. It's about people having higher then achievable expectations and what has to be done to bring them down to realism. People tend to get higher then normal expectations over many things in life and the article states that they have made preparations to be realistic. You always get those over eager people in any situation.
If McCain was elected you would have had a group of people expecting miracles as well.
It's all about people's unrealistic expectations and not actual plans, lol.

Hah. Like ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN aren't in the tank for Obama.

It's about a candidate making outlandish promises. Gullible people believing the candidate. And now the candidate having to tell the people Santa Claus isn't real after all. LOL

[anothersta]

Hah. Like ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN aren't in the tank for Obama.

It's about a candidate making outlandish promises. Gullible people believing the candidate. And now the candidate having to tell the people Santa Claus isn't real after all. LOL

If you watch BHO's speech, check out the facial expressions in the crowd when he starts talking about the sacrifices we all will have to make.

They look perplexed.

[DrHolliday]

If you watch BHO's speech, check out the facial expressions in the crowd when he starts talking about the sacrifices we all will have to make.

They look perplexed.

Kind of like my youngest will look when I tell her Santa Claus isn't real. :)

[anothersta]

Kind of like my youngest will look when I tell her Santa Claus isn't real. :)

lol, yes! But not quite as angry....... yet

[harloo]

Obama hasn't even set foot in the White House yet and conservatives are already crying foul. I wish the neo-cons were kicked out of this country. With the economic crisis, loss of jobs, failing health care, gas prices, housing bubble we don't need division. It didn't matter who won the election because neither John McCain or Barrack Obama are strong enough to save this country from recession/depression in one term. As a matter of fact, I don't believe any future President will be able to completely repair our economy. Bush has destroyed this country and will go down as one of the worst President's in history. But YOU voted for him so blame yourselves. He'll be at home at his million dollar ranch while everybody else will be struggling.

[Jolie Rouge]

Obama hasn't even set foot in the White House yet and conservatives are already crying foul.

We were pointing out fraud and corruption within Obama's campaign for weeks ... months... BEFORE the election. Never has there been so much DOCUMENTED voter fraud, campaign finance fraud ect ect PRIOR to the election.



I wish the neo-cons were kicked out of this country. With the economic crisis, loss of jobs, failing health care, gas prices, housing bubble we don't need division.

One minute ya'll want to tell us "suck it up" - then you want to sit down and sing "Kumbaya" - now you want to "kick people out of the country".... way to be a "uniter" ( BTW - it has been all the limo libs that insist they will "leave the country" if their candidate doesn't win.... )



It didn't matter who won the election because neither John McCain or Barrack Obama are strong enough to save this country from recession/depression in one term.

The man was voted "President" not "Savior" nor "Superman" ... this was years in the making and it will be years in resolving.


Bush has destroyed this country and will go down as one of the worst President's in history. But YOU voted for him so blame yourselves.

This is not divisive ???

One man did not "destroy" this country ... it was a team effort ... a team of which as members of the Congress McCain, Obama, and Biden ALL played a role.


He'll be at home at his million dollar ranch while everybody else will be struggling.

LOL - I am sure the Clintons, and the Keneddey's and Soros and Company will all be sitting back laughing at the "common people" over the next few years....

He'll be at home at his million dollar ranch while everybody else will be struggling.

[speedygirl]

Hah. Like ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN aren't in the tank for Obama.

It's about a candidate making outlandish promises. Gullible people believing the candidate. And now the candidate having to tell the people Santa Claus isn't real after all. LOL

The same words are being echoed throughout the media. Once again, it's about unrealistic expectations but you're going to interpret it whatever way you want so I'm just wasting my time with you. ;)

[Jolie Rouge]

Once again, it's about unrealistic expectations ....

They don't expect much, do they ....


Obama left with little time to curb global warming
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
Mon Dec 15, 12:36 am ET

WASHINGTON – When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Now it is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid.

Since Clinton's inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton's second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it.

"The time for delay is over; the time for denial is over," he said on Tuesday after meeting with former Vice President Al Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming. "We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now that this is a matter of urgency and national security and it has to be dealt with in a serious way."

But there are powerful political and economic realities that must be quickly overcome for Obama to succeed. Despite the urgency he expresses, it's not at all clear that he and Congress will agree on an approach during a worldwide financial crisis in time to meet some of the more crucial deadlines.

Obama is pushing changes in the way Americans use energy, and produce greenhouse gases, as part of what will be a massive economic stimulus. He called it an opportunity "to re-power America."

After years of inaction on global warming, 2009 might be different. Obama replaces a president who opposed mandatory cuts of greenhouse gas pollution and it appears he will have a willing Congress. Also, next year, diplomats will try to agree on a major new international treaty to curb the gases that promote global warming.

"We need to start in January making significant changes," Gore said in a recent telephone interview with The Associated Press. "This year coming up is the most important opportunity the world has ever had to make progress in really solving the climate crisis."

Scientists are increasingly anxious, talking more often and more urgently about exceeding "tipping points."

"We're out of time," Stanford University biologist Terry Root said. "Things are going extinct."

U.S. emissions have increased by 20 percent since 1992. China has more than doubled its carbon dioxide pollution in that time. World carbon dioxide emissions have grown faster than scientists' worst-case scenarios. Methane, the next most potent greenhouse gas, suddenly is on the rise again and scientists fear that vast amounts of the trapped gas will escape from thawing Arctic permafrost.

The amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has already pushed past what some scientists say is the safe level.

In the early 1990s, many scientists figured that the world was about a century away from a truly dangerous amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, said Mike MacCracken, who was a top climate scientist in the Clinton administration. But as they studied the greenhouse effect further, scientists realized that harmful changes kick in at far lower levels of carbon dioxide than they thought. Now some scientists, but not all, say the safe carbon dioxide level for Earth is about 10 percent below what it is now.

Gore called the situation "the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately."

Scientists fear that what's happening with Arctic ice melt will be amplified so that ominous sea level rise will occur sooner than they expected. They predict Arctic waters could be ice-free in summers, perhaps by 2013, decades earlier than they thought only a few years ago.

In December 2009, diplomats are charged with forging a new treaty replacing the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which set limits on greenhouse gases, and which the United States didn't ratify. This time European officials have high expectations for the U.S. to take the lead. But many experts don't see Congress passing a climate bill in time because of pressing economic and war issues.

"The reality is, it may take more than the first year to get it all done," Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said recently.

Complicating everything is the worldwide financial meltdown. Frank Maisano, a Washington energy specialist and spokesman who represents coal-fired utilities and refineries, sees the poor economy as "a huge factor" that could stop everything. That's because global warming efforts are aimed at restricting coal power, which is cheap. That would likely mean higher utility bills and more damage to ailing economies that depend on coal production, he said.

Obama is stacking his Cabinet and inner circle with advocates who have pushed for deep mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas pollution and even with government officials who have achieved results at the local level.

The President-elect has said that one of the first things he will do when he gets to Washington is grant California and other states permission to control car tailpipe emissions, something the Bush administration denied.

And though congressional action may take time, the incoming Congress will be more inclined to act on global warming. In the House, liberal California Democrat Henry Waxman's unseating of Michigan Rep. John Dingell — a staunch defender of Detroit automakers — as head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee was a sign that global warming will be on the fast track.

Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., vowed to push two global warming bills starting in January: one to promote energy efficiency as an economic stimulus and the other to create a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from utilities. "The time is now," she wrote in a Dec. 8 letter to Obama.

Mother Nature, of course, is oblivious to the federal government's machinations. Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it's thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.

The average global temperature in 2008 is likely to wind up slightly under 57.9 degrees Fahrenheit, about a tenth of a degree cooler than last year. When Clinton was inaugurated, 57.9 easily would have been the warmest year on record. Now, that temperature would qualify as the ninth warmest year.

Associated Press writer Dina Cappiello contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081215/ap_on_sc/global_warming_obama;_ylt=Aj.Fjsx9KM_IBcw9N0k9WOGs 0NUE

[janelle]

Whatever happened to Global Cooling the government was talking about in the 70s? The crops were all going to freeze and we would all starve.

I think it's a 20 year cycle and in 20 years they will all be talking about Global Cooling again.

[Jolie Rouge]

Breaking: Obama to ration oxygen

No, not really. But hell, why not?

This is the actual headline:

E.P.A. Expected to Regulate Carbon Dioxide

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/science/earth/19epa.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: February 18, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.

The decision, which most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States’ negotiating position at United Nations climate talks set for December in Copenhagen.

The environmental agency is under order from the Supreme Court to make a determination whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant that endangers public health and welfare, an order that the Bush administration essentially ignored despite near-unanimous belief among agency experts that research points inexorably to such a finding.

Lisa P. Jackson, the new E.P.A. administrator, said in an interview that she had asked her staff to review the latest scientific evidence and prepare the documentation for a so-called endangerment finding. Ms. Jackson said she had not decided to issue such a finding but she pointedly noted that the second anniversary of the Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. E.P.A., is April 2, and there is the wide expectation that she will act by then.

“We here know how momentous that decision could be,” Ms. Jackson said. “We have to lay out a road map.”

She took a first step on Tuesday when she said that the agency would reconsider a Bush administration decision not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from new coal-burning power plants. In announcing the reversal, Ms. Jackson suggested that the E.P.A. was considering additional measures to regulate heat-trapping gases. The White House signaled that it fully supported Ms. Jackson’s approach, deferring to her to discuss the administration’s response to the Supreme Court case.

Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman, also pointed to statements on the subject during the presidential campaign by Heather Zichal, a top adviser on environmental and energy issues.

Ms. Zichal, who is now deputy to Carol M. Browner, the White House coordinator for climate and energy policy, said last fall that the Bush White House had prevented the E.P.A. from making the endangerment finding “consistent with its obligations under the recent Supreme Court decision.” She also said that while Mr. Obama supported Congressional action on climate change, he was also committed to using the regulatory authority of the executive branch to reduce emissions that contribute to global warming.

Mr. LaBolt said the White House would not interfere with the agency’s decision-making process.

If the environmental agency determines that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant to be regulated under the Clean Air Act, it would set off one of the most extensive regulatory rule makings in history. Ms. Jackson knows that she would be stepping into a minefield of Congressional and industry opposition and said that she was trying to devise a program that allayed these worries.

“We are poised to be specific on what we regulate and on what schedule,” Ms. Jackson said. “We don’t want people to spin that into a doomsday scenario.”

Even some who favor an aggressive approach to climate change said they were wary of the agency’s asserting exclusive authority over carbon emissions. They say that the Clean Air Act, now more than 40 years old, was not designed to regulate ubiquitous substances like carbon dioxide. Using the law, they say, would capture carbon emissions from new facilities, but not existing ones, blunting its impact. They also believe that a broader approach that addresses all sectors of the economy and that is fully debated in Congress would be better than a regulatory approach that could drag through the courts for years.

The finding and proposed regulations would be issued in sequence, with ample opportunity for public comment and not in a sudden burst of regulatory muscle-flexing, Ms. Jackson said. The regulations would work in concert with any legislation and not supplant it, she added.

“What we are likely to see is an interplay of authorities, some new, some existing,” she said.

That is not likely to assuage critics, including many Democrats from states dependent on coal-generated electricity and manufacturing jobs, where such regulation could significantly increase costs. Representative John D. Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who has long championed the interests of the auto industry, said that the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions by the E.P.A. would set off a “glorious mess” that would resonate throughout the economy.

Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, warned Ms. Jackson during her January confirmation hearing that she should not undercut Congress’s authority by using the agency’s regulatory power to address global warming. Mr. Barrasso called the use of the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon “a disaster waiting to happen.”

Many environmental advocates, however, said the E.P.A.’s action was long overdue, but added that it was only as a stopgap until Congress passed comprehensive climate change legislation.

“It’s politically necessary, scientifically necessary and legally necessary,” said David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel at the Sierra Club, a plaintiff in the Supreme Court case.

But, Mr. Bookbinder added, Congressional action is preferable to the agency’s acting on its own. “We are loudly advocating for tailor-made legislation as the best means of addressing carbon emissions,” he said. “Trying to address climate change via a series of rule makings from E.P.A. is a distant second best.”

As Ms. Jackson navigates the complexities of carbon regulation, she will be advised by Lisa Heinzerling, a former law professor at Georgetown who wrote the winning Supreme Court briefs in Massachusetts v. E.P.A. Ms. Heinzerling is now the agency’s lead attorney for global warming matters.

Jeffrey R. Holmstead, the former head of the agency’s office of air and radiation, said that a finding of endangerment from emissions of heat-trapping gases did not initiate immediate regulation but started a clock ticking on a process that typically took 18 months to two years.

“Potentially, it’s a huge mess, not only for E.P.A. but for state regulatory agencies, because the Clean Air Act is second only to the Internal Revenue Code in terms of complexity,” said Mr. Holmstead, now director of environmental strategies at the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani.

He said that under the clean air law any source emitting more than 250 tons of a declared pollutant would be subject to regulation, potentially including schools, hospitals, shopping centers, even bakeries, which has prompted some critics to call it the “Dunkin’ Donuts rule.”

But Mr. Bookbinder and other supporters say the regulations can be written to exempt these potential emitters. Ms. Jackson said that there was no timetable for issuing regulations governing carbon emissions and that her agency would not engage in “rash decision making.”

But she also said that the Supreme Court decision obliged her to act.

“It places E.P.A. square in the center of the discussion on climate and energy,” Ms. Jackson said. “People are waiting.”