Obama on Absentee Fathers

Obama celebrated Fathers Day today by speaking to a Black Church in Chicago. Various news sources including The New York Times, USA Today and The Associated Press gave accounts of the speech. Here are snippets of the speech:

“Too many fathers are M.I.A, too many fathers are AWOL, missing from too
many lives and too many homes,”
“They have abandoned their responsibilities,
acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker
because of it.”
“More than half of all black children live in single-parent
households.”
“I know how hard it is to get kids to eat properly, but I
also know that folks are letting our children drink eight sodas a day, which
some parents do, or, you know, eat a bag of potato chips for lunch. Buy a little
desk or put that child at the kitchen table. Watch them do their
homework.”
“We need families to raise our children. We need fathers to
realize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception. That doesn’t just
make you a father. What makes you a man is not the ability to have a child. Any
fool can have a child. That doesn’t make you a father. It’s the courage to raise
a child that makes you a father.”

This is a breath of fresh air. The state of the black family is such a sensitive matter that only a Black person can raise the issue.

Top Stories

Maryland Couple Indicted in Fraud Probe

Scam Allegedly Cheated Lenders And Homeowners

By Ovetta WigginsWashington Post Staff WriterFriday, June 13, 2008; B01

Federal authorities charged a Prince George's County couple yesterday with running a $35 million foreclosure rescue operation that duped lenders and unsuspecting homeowners facing foreclosure, in what prosecutors described as one of the largest mortgage fraud schemes in Maryland history.

Joy Jackson, president of Metropolitan Money Store of Lanham, and her husband, Kurt Fordham, were arrested yesterday in North Carolina, U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein said at a news conference at U.S. District Court in Greenbelt. Jackson, 40, and Fordham, 38, are charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, six counts of money laundering, and 15 counts of mail fraud to obtain money and property from homeowners and lenders. (link)

Commentary:

I hope they get the book thrown at them! The maximum sentence they could get is 30 years in prison and a million dollar fine. These scum bags deserve the maximum sentence. This story was not carried in our local paper, and I have not read of any similar prosecution here in Tennessee. That's too bad. Every scam artist in the country should be living in fear of prosecution. If these stories were more widely published, it may have a deterrent effect.

There is plenty of blame to go around for the mortgage crisis. Investors, mortgage companies, loan officers, appraisers, and borrowers are all at fault. A lot of mortgage companies made loans that should never have been made. Loan officers filled out fraudulent documents, and borrowers signed them unaware of what they were signing. Borrowers did not exercise caution and purchased much more house than they could afford and did not care about the details of their loan products. There were a lot of inflated appraisals. A lot of people committed fraud and many were irresponsible.

Now that we have the housing crisis, a new kind of fraud is occurring. The way the scam worked in this story is that the Money Store would use a "straw buyer" to purchase the home and tell the owners that they could continue living there and then buy it back after a year. Instead the scam artist in this story would borrow as much as possible against the home, stripping any remaining equity out of it, then stop making the payments and let it get foreclosed. The owner never got to buy it back.

I have heard of the same thing happening here. Another fraudulent occurrence is when "investors" buy homes at rock bottom prices from homeowners who are in default. Many times the homeowners would not have had to sell their home; There may have been workout options that would let the homeowner keep their home. Even if the homeowner could not keep the house, they may have been able to get the mortgage company to give them additional time to sell it. They could have then sold it at a reasonable, market price and at least gotten their equity out of it. The homeowners, however, are desperate and don't know there are other options are available.

Another thing occurring is there are a lot of phony counseling services. These false organizations contact homeowners who are in default. They tell the homeowners they are entitled to workout options, which can save their home. The organization then convinces the customer that they know how to negotiate settlements with mortgage companies, and for a fee, they will do so. They may charge $800 to open a case! Then, they do nothing at all for the customer. The next month, they call the customer and say they need another $600. The desperate customer pays the "counselor" the last money they have. This is money which could have gone to the mortgage company as part of a legitimate workout, or at least helped the customer move and find a place to rent.

Do not fall victim to these scam artists! I work for a HUD-approved, non-profit, housing counseling agency. If you live in Tennessee, call me and I will help you for free. If you live in another state, go to the HUD website and find a housing counselor in your area. If you have friends or family that may be facing mortgage default, don't let them be scammed. Help is available.

Top Stories

That NAFTA Superhighway

If you get any of your news from any source other than the mainstream press you have probably heard about the NAFTA super highway. For the last couple years bloggers have been blogging about it and almost any political chat group has been chatting about it. I never took it seriously and dismissed it as mere fantasy from the tinfoil hat crowd. I reasoned that if a new roadway connecting Mexico, the US and Canada was being build to facilitate increased trade between our nations, that that would probably be a good thing and was nothing to get upset about.

It seemed that the same people who were alarmed about the NAFTA super highway were the same ones who want us to return to the gold standard, abolish the Federal Reserve and are always worry about the Council of Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergs, and the Illuminati. I was not alarmed. The John Birch Society folks and the other paranoid super patriots are generally harmless, good intentioned, conservative folks who just kind of went off the deep end on certain issues. I don’t get too worked up about them. Then I noticed that the kooky left, the folks who believe 911 was an inside job, started talking about the NAFTA highway also. It is amazing how often the kooky right and the kooky left share a lot of the same concerns.

With the advent of the Ron Paul campaign, the NAFT Superhighway began getting more and more publicity. Ron Paul’s opposition to it became a major part of his campaign. Next thing you know other conservatives, including Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo, were taking positions pledging to stop it. Then the established responsible conservative publication Human Events started reporting on it. Then, CNN’s Lou Dobbs started reporting on it.

According to opponents of this NAFTA Superhighway, a secret organization run by shadowy government figures is in cahoots with foreign corporations who are determined to undermine American sovereignty. This group is supposedly building a ten-lane highway the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines and oil and natural gas pipelines and electric power lines running alongside the roadway. It will run from deep in Mexico all the way into Canada with feeder roads connected to it throughout. That is not the extent of what they have planned however. This superhighway is just part of a bigger plot to form a North American Union with a single currency and open borders. The North American Union would be similar to the European Union. The organization that it putting this all together is something called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” or the SPP.
The SPP does exist but it looks like just another little agency with a small bureaucracy. The purpose of the SPP is to facilitate increased security and prosperity among the US, Canada and Mexico. Other than maybe wasting a little money it appears nothing to be too concerned about.

Another entity that is part of this plot to build this roadway and take away our sovereignty is the America's SuperCorridor Organization (NASCO), which is a partnership of public and private entities. The map you see is their map but it is not showing a new highway at all, but shows the location of existing interstates. NASCO had been referring to these existing highways for years as the "NAFTA Superhighway,” They advocate improvements and promotion of this corridor. You can think of NASCO as a kind of regional Chamber of Commerce.

The Texas legislature has approved the development of a big ten-lane limited access toll road called will Trans Texas Corridor, which would parallel I-35 and stretch from the Mexican border to Oklahoma. I am not so sure what is so sinister about that. It may be a bad idea, but the elected representatives of the people of Texas think it is good idea, so who am I to say they are wrong. Quite frankly, I like the concept of funding new roadways by toll revenue.

I am not going to provide links to document this, if you are interested, just Google the terms, “NAFTA Superhighway”, “SPP”, “North American Union”, “NASCO” and “Trans Texas Corridor” and you will get about a half million hits. Read them. I see no evidence that there is anything to be concerned about. There is not a NAFTA Superhighway. There is nothing to be alarmed about. There is no grand plan to divide America by a roadway that is under the authority of a non-American entity. I do not see a threat to American sovereignty.

With a war in Iraq and the accompanying concern about mid-East stability, with a faltering economy, concern about global warming and energy security, and a housing crisis, I have more important things to worry about other than a fantasy highway.

Top Stories

Smoke Smoke Smoke That Cigarette

City of Loma Linda bans smoking in most public places

LOMA LINDA, Calif. (AP) -- Smokers soon will have far fewer places where they can light up in Loma Linda. Council members on Tuesday passed an anti-smoking law that prohibits tobacco use in most of the city's public places.

The ordinance bans smoking on Loma Linda's public streets and sidewalks, in parks, restaurants, theaters and hospitals, as well as most of the city's motel and apartment units. The fine for a first offense will be $100 or less. The city of nearly 21,000 residents in San Bernardino County was founded in 1905 by Seventh-day Adventists. They typically abstain from alcohol, caffeine and meat.

Commentary

When cigarettes are outlawed, only outlaws will have cigarettes.

Last October a new rule went into effect in Nashville and now most of the honky tonks of Nashville are smoke-free. I smoke a pipe so I don't have a craving to smoke the same way a cigarette smoker does, but sitting in a bar, listening to live county music and drinking a beer is when I most want to light up. Since the ban went into effect I find I have a whole lot less desire to go out. Dim lights, thick smoke and loud, loud music just seem to go together.

If I would have still been in the Metro Council, I would not have supported the ban on smoking in bars. I think it should be left up to the individual bar owner to set his own rules about smoking and the the customer can decide if he wants to visit that establishment or not. Nevertheless, while I don't like it and wouldn't have voted for it, I can understand the second hand smoke argument for banning smoking in enclosed places. Prohibiting smoking outdoors, however, is punitive and discriminatory and I do not see the logic used to ban it, other than people just find it offensive. I don't think we should have the right not to be offended.

Some people just can't stand it if other people are having fun. People like banning activity of which they disapprove. Strip clubs are often banned under the guise of health and safety regulations. Zoning and permitting are often used to prohibit activity that is otherwise legal. Regulations supported by the Baptist and the liquor industry keep wine out of Tennessee grocery stores.

Where are the lobbyist for the merchants of death when you need them. If this ban can stand, then the good citizens of Loma Linda may next ban coffee drinking in public. If the tobacco industry will establish a non-profit entity to legally challenge irrational smoking bans like this, I will donate ten dollars. Maybe smokers ought to converge on Loma Linda and have a massive smoke-in.

Top Stories

Republicans have a "Branding" Problem

Top Stories

Buy your Carbon Off-sets Here

Buy your Carbon Off-Sets Here!

Live Guilt Free, Get Your Certificate Suitable For Framing.
Show your friends how responsible you are.
Makes great Gifts!

$5.50 per Ton, this week only !

For only $5.50, I will give you a certificate saying that you have my permission to spew one ton of carbon into the air and not have a dirty conscience.

Projects funded by purchase of offsets, include the following:

Preservation of the tree in my front yard

Forgoing auto trips from Nashville to Knoxville. I can forgo up to 3 trips a day.

For $42,000 worth of offsets, I will trade my low gas-mileage car for a high mileage hybrid.

Purchase our “Green Elephant Special”:

2 tons of carbon off-set for only $9.50.

Disgruntled Republican Enterprises also has a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. Also we have clients in Nigeria who are looking for Americans who will help them dispose of millions of dollars by putting it in their checking account. Disgruntled Republican Ministries also has miracle prayer cloths for sale. We accept cash, checks, money orders, and paypal.

Top Stories

The great carbon bazaar

By Mark Gregory Business correspondent, BBC World Service, India

Evidence of serious flaws in the multi-billion dollar global market for carbon credits has been uncovered by a BBC World Service investigation. The credits are generated by a United Nations-run scheme called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
The mechanism gives firms in developing countries financial incentives to cut greenhouse gas emissions. But in some cases, carbon credits are paid to projects that would have been realized without external funding.

The BBC World Service investigation found examples of projects in India where this appeared to be the case. Arguably, this defeats the whole point of the CDM scheme, set up under the Kyoto climate change protocol, as these projects are getting money for nothing. The findings reinforce doubts that the CDM is leading to real emission cuts, which is not good news for the effort to combat climate change. (Link)

Commentary:

The Kyoto Protocol has been the world’s most ambitious effort to combat global warming and unfortunately it has been a dismal failure. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 by the United Nations Framework on Climate change and since then 187 countries have ratified the treaty but not the United States.

The Kyoto treaty requires each industrialized county that is a party to the treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level specified for each of them. Collectively they must reduce their greenhouse emissions to 5% less than the 1990 level of emission. While some countries are on track to reduce their emissions to their treaty obligated level, many others are not and with China and India exempt from emission reduction requirements, greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.

Unfortunately even for some of those countries that are meeting their treaty obligations on-paper, their is reason to doubt that they are in actuality having any impact on greenhouse gas emissions. That is because many of them are meeting their reduction level by purchasing carbon offsets.

The logic of this ability to purchase offsets, is that whether you reduce emissions in your own country or you help another country reduce their emissions, the effect is the same. Unfortunately, the Clean Development Mechanism has been riddled with scandal. If you will read the above article, it gives examples of how the program is working in reality.

Carbon offsets sound good in theory. In practice most carbon offsets, whether the foreign CDM offsets or private sector carbon offsets, are a shell game, a scam and a con.

When Congress was debating the recently defeated Cap and Trade legislation, Senator Bob Corker offered an amendment that would delete foreign offsets from the bill. Unless there is a major reform of the CDM, then any American Cap and Trade system must not allow foreign offsets. Before the US considers ratifying Kyoto, the CDM must be reformed.

Top Stories

Environmentalist who Oppose Cap and Trade

I followed closely the arguments about the Lieberman-Warner Cap and Trade bill which was defeated in the U.S. Senate today. One of the things that surprised me was the lukewarm support from environmentalist and liberal activist for this legislation. I would have assumed they would have made a big push to get this bill passed and would have rallied the troops. Instead, what I found was, at best, a half-hearted support. I did not see much passion.

While most of the environmental and liberal organizations did half-heatedly endorse the Lieberman-Warner Cap and Trade bill, not all did so. Among environmentalist there are some who oppose nuclear energy more than they oppose CO2 emissions and do not want any bill passed that would make nuclear energy more attractive as would be the case with a Cap and Trade bill.

Some environmentalists opposed Lieberman-Warner cap and trade because they think the greenhouse emissions cap is not sufficiently stringent. Some liberals opposed the bill because they perceive that the burden of curtailing global warming would fall heaviest on the poor, and their concern for “economic justice” out weighs their concern for the environment. Other environmental groups had the same criticism as did some conservatives and opposed the bill simply because it was a bad bill.

Among the environmental groups opposing the bill were Friends of the Earth, MoveOn.org, CREDO Mobile, Greenpeace, and Public Citizen.

Creedo Mobile is an organization that funds liberal causes by providing cell phone and other services and giving a share of their profits to liberal causes. Since 1985 they have distributed over $60 million dollars to various organizations. Consider the following from Creedo Mobile on why they are opposing Lieberman Warner:

In the end, the goal of a cap and trade system is similar to that of a carbon tax - raise the cost of activities that generate CO2 relative to other activities so that producers and consumers choose to generate less. Many who advocate for a cap and trade system do so over a tax on two grounds - a majority of CO2 emissions come from a relatively small number of producers or companies, and in the American political climate, the notion of imposing taxes is thought to be toxic. But rest assured, a successful cap and trade system only works if it has the economic impact of imposing a tax on CO2.

One of the reasons that many companies like the cap and trade system is that setting it up is a fundamentally political act, subject to all the good and bad that is decision making in Washington, D.C. Coalitions are formed, front groups created, lobbyists hired, Senate campaigns funded. All to ensure that someone else has to pay the tax, or, in the case of cap and trade, to argue over the cap (the lower the cap, the lower the implicit tax, and vice versa). Also to fight over whether or not the initial allocation of CO2 permits are distributed based on current pollution or auctioned off, and if auctioned off, who gets the revenue (the equivalent of who gets to spend the tax revenue). (link)

Creedo is exactly right. A cap and trade is essentially a tax and the Congress picks the winners and losers who pay it. In addition, it creates a massive bureaucracy and may be devastating to the economy. Despite grave misgivings about the efficacy of cap and trade, I was willing to swallow hard and accept it, if the cap and trade could be modified along the lines proposed
by Senator Bob Corker.

I am pleased to see that the environmental community did not all fall in lock-step in support of this flawed proposal. With even liberals agreeing that a carbon tax is superior to a cap and trade, I am thinking that a gas tax may actually be a possibility. Perhaps it is time to hold firm for a gas tax and pull the plug on cap and trade.

Top Stories

Bob Corker on Lieberman-Warner:

"This bill misses the mark."

The 500-plus-page Lieberman-Warner Cap and Trade bill that was defeated in the U. S Senate today was a very complex bill and was fatally flawed. If you are unsure of the features of the bill and what was wrong with it, I urge you to watch this 16 minute clip of Senator Bob Corker’s Senate presentation.

Cap and Trade is dead for this session of Congress, but unless Congress develops the wisdom to offer a Carbon Tax, a Cap and Trade in some form is probably in our future. Everyone who cares about the issue of global warming needs to become conversant about the features of cap and trade. We can only hope that the next version of Cap and Trade is cured of the defects of the Lieberman-Warner bill.

Corker accepts the science of global warming. He does not demigod the bill, but calmly and clearly explains how cap and trade would work and what is wrong with the Lieberman-Warner bill. He explains that, “27% of the allocations in this bill go to entities that nothing to do with emitting carbons.” And, he says, “This bill transfers 6.7 trillion dollars in wealth.”

He argues that the foreign carbon offsets are fraudulent and should be deleted from the bill. “I am open to discussing cap and trade legislation that takes the country in the right direction,” says Corker. “This bill misses the mark.”

Top Stories

Ms Clinton, It is over.

Top Stories

CORKER ANNOUNCES AMENDMENTS TO CLIMATE SECURITY LEGISLATION

Corker Seeks to Return More Money Directly to American Citizens, Prevent Massive Government Expansion, Keep More U.S. Dollars at Home

May 28, 2008, JASPER, TN – U.S. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, today announced his plans to introduce three amendments to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, S. 3036, when it comes to the Senate floor for debate next week. The crux of the Corker amendments is to get more money returned directly to the pockets of the American people who will bear the brunt of the costs associated with cap-and-trade.

“I believe we should return more money directly to the pockets of American citizens, prevent massive government expansion, and keep more U.S. dollars at home rather than sending them overseas,” said Corker.

Specifically, the Corker amendments would (1) provide direct relief to American consumers bearing the brunt of the cap-and-trade program’s costs; (2) increase direct reimbursement to the American people by eliminating free allowances—worth over a TRILLION dollars—to entities that have nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions; and (3) eliminate the use of international offsets to meet emissions reductions.

“Since day one, my goal has been to support a bill that addresses climate security AND energy security in a balanced way. This bill is not that and, in my opinion, is not ready for prime time,” said Corker. “While it does focus on climate change, unfortunately it is also a huge spending bill that uses non-discretionary spending—funded in essence by a tax on the American people—to spend TRILLIONS of dollars on new and existing government programs.

“If a cap-and-trade bill becomes law, every single American will pay more for gasoline, more for electricity, more for food, more for everything they buy as a result. I believe that any money generated from a cap-and-trade system should be put back in the pockets of American citizens burdened with these additional costs. Additionally, I believe we need to increase the amount of allowances that are auctioned, rather than giving them away for free to other entities who are supposed to use the value of those allowances to benefit the public. In my view, American citizens would be better served receiving relief directly rather than relying on middlemen to provide that relief through a massive government expansion."

Corker has joined with U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to offer a third amendment which will eliminate the use of international offsets to meet emissions reductions. “We should eliminate all international offsets as a way for emitters to comply with the U.S. carbon cap,” said Corker. “There are serious questions about the integrity of many of these projects, and it is difficult to determine whether these projects would have occurred anyway. In addition, these offsets would have a distorting affect on the U.S. cap-and-trade market and would lead to even more American dollars being spent overseas in countries like China, instead of in America.”

Noting that climate change and cap-and-trade would be significant issues facing Congress, Corker has spent his first 16 months in office delving into the complexity of the policy. Last May 2007, he traveled to Europe with Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) to meet with European Union officials, carbon traders, representatives from the utility industry, and cement manufacturers. In July, Corker went to Greenland with Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to view the effects of climate change. He has also spent countless hours with Tennessee-based industry, conservation groups, and experts discussing the impacts of climate change legislation, and in April, Corker began making presentations to his colleagues outlining his concerns with the bill.

Commentary
Congratulations to Senator Corker for proposing these common sense amendments to the Cap and Trade bill. Maybe you can make a purse out of a sow's ear.

It is clear that a Cap and Trade bill will not pass this year. The House has not even taken up the measure and President Bush has said he will veto a Cap and Trade bill if it does pass Congress. At this time, their does not appear to be 60 votes in the Senate to bring any Cap and Trade bill to a vote. With gas approaching $4 a gallon and politician talking about cutting the gas tax and with general concern about the economy, we cannot expect politician to have the courage to pass a bill that will acutally increase energy cost. Also, we can expect an outpouring of opposition once the public becomes aware of the pocketbook impact of a Cap and Trade bill. In addition, the environmentalist community has not been aggressive in selling the concept or rallying the trooops.

Despite the grim outlook for this session of Congress, a Cap and Trade bill may very well be in our future. McCain, Obama and Clinton are all supporting some version and Democrats, who have been more friendly to environmental causes, will more than likely gain seats in the next Congress. Working on the bill now, even though it will not pass this year, is an extremely important part of the process so that the final bill is a bill that will actually achieve the goal of reducing greenhouse emissions without destroying the economy.

Cap and Trade as now drafted is not a bill worth passing. It would be extremely costly and probably accomplish little. Also, there are numerous amendments pending which, if passed, would weaken the bill and benefit special interest and actually make this bad bill even worse. One of the major problems with the bill is that it gives away too many credits rather than selling them. Corker's amendmends will correct some of the major defects of the Cap and Trade proposal. It is my hope that the final bill is a bill that is worthy of supporting.

Keep up the good work, Senator.

Top Stories

Five Myths About the Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Legislation

Starting tomorrow the United States Senate will begin debate of the Lieberman-Warner Cap and Trade bill. It is my hope that a good Cap and Trade bill emerges and is passed. Unfortunately, I have doubts that a good bill will emerge. There are too many interests who will want the bill drawn in such a way as to benefit them that I suspect the final product will be flawed. When Congress must pick winners and losers, the pubic usually looses. A simple carbon tax would be much less costly and much less subject to special interest manipulation. Unfortunately a Carbon Tax bill is not before us and a Cap and Trade bill is.

The Heritage Foundation, a respected Conservative think-tank has come out against the Lieberman-Warner bill. Ben Lieberman, a Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation has produced a short analysis of the bill called Five Myths About the Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Legislation. You can expect this study to be the talking points that will be repeated over and over again by the bills opponents. I am posting that report and responding:

Myth #1: LW would not be expensive.

Fact: Simply put, LW works like a massive energy tax. By restricting carbon dioxide emissions from coal, oil, and natural gas--with a freeze at 2005 levels beginning in 2012, to a 70 percent reduction in 2050--the bill forces down supply and thus boosts the price of energy. In fact, if energy prices did not go up, then the targets in the bill would not be met. As energy is the economy's lifeblood, and 85 percent of it comes from these fossil fuels, the impact will be substantial. Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses could reach $4.8 trillion by 2030, according to an analysis conducted by the Heritage Foundation. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Environmental Protection Agency, Charles River Associates, and the National Association of Manufacturers have all conducted studies predicting significant economic burdens on consumers should the bill be enacted.

Response: I think this is exactly correct. Any effective effort to combat global warming is going to be expensive. Also, it does work like a massive energy tax. One of my criticisms of the environmentalist is that they have soft-pedaled the sacrifice and cost that it will take to address the problem.

Myth #2: The costs fall on industry, not consumers.

Fact: Virtually all the burden imposed by LW falls upon consumers. The bill will spur net job losses well into the hundreds of thousands, and possibly nearing one million. Particularly hard hit is the manufacturing sector where over one million jobs will be lost by 2022 and two million by 2027. The losses in household incomes could reach $1,026 per year by 2015. Annual household energy-price increases could hit $1,000 by 2030, including a 29 percent increase in the price of gasoline from 2008 levels.

Response: This is true. Anytime government puts an additional burden on industry, the burden is born by consumers. I do not know the accuracy of the cost to the economy of the bill, but will assume the estimates are correct.

Myth #3: Global warming is a crisis that must be addressed at all costs.

Fact: Global warming is a concern, not a crisis. Both the seriousness and the imminence of the threat are overstated. For example, the recent United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report estimates 7 to 23 inches of sea level rise by the end of the century--far less than the widely popularized claims of 18 to 20 feet and little more than ongoing trends over the past several centuries. The attempt to link Hurricane Katrina with climate change is directly contradicted by the World Meteorological Organization and many scientists. Overall, current and expected future temperatures are far from unprecedented, and are highly unlikely to lead to catastrophes.

Response: Not true. Global warming is a crisis. While there are dissenting voices, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that it is a serious and imminent threat. Read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report. That report clearly says global warming is a serious threat and we have only a few years to do something about it. Global warming is real, and by the time the worse effects occur it may be too late to reverse them. It is only because the consequences of doing nothing are so serious that a costly undertaking like cap and trade or a carbon tax should be contemplated.

Myth #4: LW effectively addresses the threat of climate change.

Fact: Even assuming the worst of global warming, LW reduces the threat by a minuscule amount. The bill reduces emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the United States only. China has overtaken America as the world's largest emitter, and its emissions growth is several times greater than that of the U.S. India and other fast-developing nations are on a similar trajectory. Thus, the unilateral impact of the bill on global emissions would be inconsequential. At most, it would reduce the earth's future temperature by one or two tenths of a degree Celsius--too small to even verify. In other words, LW is all economic pain for no environmental gain.

Response: This is a legitimate problem. If we reduce our own emission, that will do little to curtail global warming unless we can get China and India on board. However, if the US acts responsibly to curtail its global warming emissions, then we can speak with moral authority and attempt to negotiate treaties that will bring China and India on board.

Myth #5: LW's cap-and-trade approach is a proven success.

Fact: Critics of the cap-and-trade approach in LW, in which emissions are capped and regulated entities may trade their rights to emit, point to the European Union's substantial difficulties since initiating its own cap-and-trade program in 2005. Most E.U. nations are not on track to meet their targets, and many are seeing their emissions rise faster than those in the U.S. The program is furthermore plagued by accusations of fraud and unfairness. LW essentially adopts the European approach wholesale.

Response: This is true regarding the European Cap and Trade but not true about Cap and Trade in general. Just because Europe got it wrong does not mean that we cannot get it right. It is not the concept that is flawed, but the design of the final product. We know that a Cap and Trade system can work. If you recall when Acid Rain was a problem, it was solved by the use of a system of Cap and Trade. In addressing the problem of Acid Rain, Cap and Trade was a proven success.

Conclusion: Overall, the Lieberman-Warner bill promises substantial hardship for the economy overall, for jobs, and for energy costs. Given current economic concerns and energy prices, this is the last thing the American people need. At the same time, the environmental benefits would likely be small to nonexistent. The Lieberman-Warner bill fails any reasonable cost-benefit test.

My Conclusion: If passed into law the Lieberman-Warner bill will cause substantial hardship. If the final product has so many loopholes that it is ineffective then it does not deserve to be passed. However, if the final proposal is a good bill that substantially curtails global warming emission then the benefit of avoiding the consequences of global warming makes the cost acceptable.

Top Stories