Congress has thus far failed to pass global warming legislation due to concerns about its high costs and negative impact on the economy. The debate, however, is not over. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is attempting to bypass the legislative process and regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. According to Ben Lieberman:
The EPA’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) is nothing less than the most costly, complicated, and unworkable regulatory scheme ever proposed. Under ANPR, nearly every product, business, and building that uses fossil fuels could face requirements that border on the impossible. The overall cost of this agenda would likely exceed that of the legislation rejected by Congress, reaching well into the trillions of dollars while destroying millions of jobs in the manufacturing sector. The ANPR is clearly not in the best interests of Americans, and the EPA should not proceed to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and final rule based upon it. . . .
The impact on the overall economy, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP), is substantial. The cumulative GDP losses for 2010 to 2029 approach $7 trillion. Single-year losses exceed $600 billion in 2029, more than $5,000 per household. Job losses are expected to exceed 800,000 in some years, and exceed at least 500,000 from 2015 through 2026. Note that these are net job losses, after any jobs created by compliance with the regulations–so-called green jobs–are taken into account. Hardest-hit are manufacturing jobs, with losses approaching 3 million. Particularly vulnerable are jobs in durable manufacturing (28 percent job losses), machinery manufacturing (57 percent), textiles (27.6 percent), electrical equipment and appliances (22 percent), paper (36 percent), and plastics and rubber products (54 percent). It should be noted that since the EPA rule is unilateral and few other nations are likely to follow the U.S. lead, many of these manufacturing jobs will be outsourced overseas.
Filed under: Culture, Economy, News, Politics | Comments Off




































A group of atheists filed a lawsuit on December 30th to bar prayer and references to God at the swearing-in of President-elect Barack Obama. They argue that the phrase “so help me God,” used consistently in inaugural oaths, should be stricken from the ceremony. The lawsuit targets the oath, the invocation and the benediction. They seem to think that the First Amendment is about “freedom from religion” rather than “freedom of religion.”
Quoting
How many of us can look back over the past year and say that “On January 1, 2008, I predicted everything that happened to me during the past year”? In other words, the last 12 months have held no surprises. There were no unanticipated events.





























