Palin RIPS Obama regarding His Petulant Presser

Like many of us, Sarah Palin seemed to be taken aback a bit by Obama's press conference today following Speaker Boehner's withdrawal from the debt ceiling negotiations. You know, the one where he summoned Congressional leaders to the White House tomorrow (Saturday 7/23) morning, and where he displayed more of his SUPERIOR TEMPERAMENT!; typical, nay classic, Obama- sanctimonious, disingenuous, demagogic, self-righteous, and arrogant...
This is the same president who proposed an absurdly irresponsible budget that would increase our debt by trillions of dollars, and whose party failed to even put forward a budget in over 800 days! This is the same president who is pushing our country to the brink because of his reckless spending on things like the nearly trillion dollar “stimulus” boondoggle. This is the same president who ignored his own debt commission’s recommendations and demonized the voices of fiscal sanity who proposed responsible plans to reform our entitlement programs and rein in our dangerous debt trajectory. This is the same president who wanted to push through an increase in the debt ceiling that didn’t include any cuts in government spending! This is the same president who wants to slam Americans with tax hikes to cover his reckless spending, but has threatened to veto a bill proposing a balanced budget amendment. This is the same president who hasn’t put forward a responsible plan himself, but has rejected reasonable proposals that would tackle our debt. This is the same president who still refuses to understand that the American electorate rejected his big government agenda last November. As I said in Madison, Wisconsin, at the Tax Day Tea Party rally, “We don’t want it. We can’t afford it. And we are unwilling to pay for it.”
Now the President is outraged because the GOP House leadership called his bluff and ended discussions with him because they deemed him an obstruction to any real solution to the debt crisis.
He has been deemed a lame duck president. And he is angry now because he is being treated as such.
His foreign policy strategy has been described as “leading from behind.” Well, that’s his domestic policy strategy as well. Why should he be surprised that he’s been left behind in the negotiations when he’s been leading from behind on this debt crisis?
Thank you, GOP House leaders. Please don’t get wobbly on us now.
2012 can’t come soon enough.
[emphasis-ed]
Which, I don't think I can, or should, add anything of substance here except for a hearty "Amen!" But for your enjoyment, I'll throw in a link to Protein Wisdom; one where Darleen provides us video of Charles Krauthammer's delicious take on the President's presser. It's worth a few minutes of your time.

What is your opinion, kind reader?
Just a reminder: None of the Senate Democrats Voted to Raise the Debt Ceiling in 2006

Not a single one; many of whom are still in the Senate... It was a strict party line vote...From the Senate's website:
Grouped By Vote Position
| YEAs —52 | ||
| Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chafee (R-RI) Chambliss (R-GA) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) DeWine (R-OH) |
Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Enzi (R-WY) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Kyl (R-AZ) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) |
Murkowski (R-AK) Roberts (R-KS) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) |
| NAYs —48 | ||
| Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Burns (R-MT) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Clinton (D-NY) Coburn (R-OK) Conrad (D-ND) Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) |
Durbin (D-IL) Ensign (R-NV) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) |
Lincoln (D-AR) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Wyden (D-OR) |
Now I don't know about you, kind reader, but I don't recall any of the current hyperventilating that we're hearing these days, now that the shoe is on the other foot-so to speak. Senate Democrats weren't being characterized as RAAAAACIST! h8terz; heartless politicians who wanted to see old people die-and be forced on to a cat food diet until that happened; who were abandoning our troops in the field without bullets or butter; who were denying our college kids the loans and grants they needed; who callously chose to deny poor children school means and the homeless a place to sleep; who were choosing Wall Street over Main Street-doing all these things to benefit "Big Oil" and corporate jet owners...
Help me out here if I'm wrong, but none of this comes to mind. In fact, I remember a very passionate speech by a junior Senator at that time:
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
Who said those stirring words? Why, none other than then-Senator, now-President, Obama. And he was right, we do deserve better...
So next time you hear about how all of this is UNPRECEDENTED!, HYPERPARTISAN! HOSTAGE TAKING! on the part of the TALIBAN RETHUGS!, feel free to remind the speaker of the events of 2006.
In fact, if you live in a deep blue state, it might be handy to have this information at hand when you contact your Senator and ask them to vote FOR cloture on Saturday when the House's Cut, Cap, and Balance legislation is brought up. Because if nothing else, CC&B deserves a fair vote in the Senate.
A call to arms phones and e-mail: Senate to vote on CC&B on Saturday

From our old pal Jeff Goldstein at Protein wisdom comes the news that the Senate will hold a vote on the Cut, Cap, and Balance legislation that was passed in the House of Representatives by a wide margin earlier this week:
Now, here’s the thing: Reid is going to keep the Democrats in line (though ironically, he himself promised to vote for a balanced budget); but the fact is, a number of Democratic senators campaigned on support for a balanced budget and a balanced budget amendment. (Jim DeMint says the tally is 22 Democrats and 1 independent)
We need to target them with phone calls and emails, reminding them that they now have an opportunity to honor their promises.
Jeff is entirely correct about this. Many Senators, on both sides of the aisle, have made promises in recent years, or indicated their willingness, to vote for legislation that mandates balancing the federal budget. But with Obama declaring his distaste for, and opposition to, CC&B you can bet that there will be a lot of pressure on Democrat Senators to hold the line and vote against the measure.
Now is the time to make your wishes known to your Senators. Jeff's post has a list of the contact information for the 23 Senators that DeMint thinks can be swayed. But even if your Senator(s) are not on that list you can find their contact information at the Senate's website, here.
We urge all our readers to contact their Senators, and if you have the time every member of the Senate, and tell them to support the cloture vote on CC&B. The right to govern comes from the consent of the governed in our Republic, so tell them to support your will and allow CC&B to come to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote. Regardless of the outcome of that vote, we'll know which Senators are really serious about balancing the budget.
Your country needs you; DUTY CALLS! Will you answer?
Senator Jeff Sessions: it’s past time for Obama to put his debt plan on the table

Barack "L'etat c'est moi!" Obama
Which he's speaking about a debt reduction plan. Because everyone's already seen the President's plan to increase our debt; that would be the risible "plan", that was not really a plan but a speech, that the MBM allowed him to palaver on about in April in a press op that was more about ripping Paul Ryan and his Roadmap for America,that had been released the day before, than about presenting a serious budget to the American people. From Sessions' Senate website:
After my staff and I have had additional time to analyze the summary, even more questions and concerns have arisen. Serious flaws have been identified.… The production of the Gang’s summary at the last minute also underscores my severe concerns over how this process has unfolded… Senate Democrats and the White House have fiercely resisted formulating an actual debt plan at every step of the way. Instead, the president has pushed for secret meetings—avoiding the public accountability of putting a plan to paper—followed by press conferences at which he asserts his support for broad deficit reduction even when no such plan has been written. The real bluff from the president is the idea that a White House deficit reduction plan exists. It’s time for the White House to lay its cards on the table.
The production of the Gang’s summary at the last minute also underscores my grave concerns over how this process has unfolded. The Republican-led House has fulfilled its responsibilities. The Republican-led House passed a budget more than three months ago. The Democrat-led Senate, by contrast, has refused to pass a budget in 812 days, and refused to make one public this year. If they had presented a budget in public, in the open, we wouldn’t be in the situation we are in right now. The president presented a budget in February, meanwhile, that would have added a stunning $13 trillion to our debt. That remains the only plan he has ever put on paper.
Senate Democrats and the White House have fiercely resisted formulating an actual debt plan at every step of the way. Instead, the president has pushed for secret meetings—avoiding the public accountability of putting a plan to paper—followed by press conferences at which he asserts his support for broad deficit reduction even when no such plan has been written. The real bluff from the president is the idea that a White House deficit reduction plan exists. It’s time for the White House to lay its cards on the table.
[emphasis-ed.]
Sessions makes a good point. The Cut, Cap, and Balance plan passed by the House of Representatives is the only plan that's on the table in writing right now; not to mention that it is a viable piece of legislation waiting for a vote in the Senate. Make no mistake, no matter what anyone thinks of the McConnell "plan B" compromise, Coburn's own plan, or the outline of intent put forth this week by the erstwhile "Gang of Six", they are merely frameworks at best.
Once again the President has been leading from behind, and that's not cutting it for a pressing matter that may be disastrous if not addressed. Instead of trying to "stay above the fray" and appear Presidential, Obama need to actually be Presidential . This isn't like when he was at the Harvard Law Review, or frankly like most of his career in public life; he can't sit back, wait for others to do the heavy lifting for him, and appear at the last minute to take credit .

Try being a leader for a change. Put the dang plan on the table, Mr. President.
I urge all our readers to e-mail or call the White House and give voice to this sentiment.
Wynn not the only CEO unhappy with The Won

Recall the story posted here the other day about Wynn Resorts CEO's epic rant that stemmed from his dissatisfaction with Obama's failed economic policies? Did it seem like something out of the ordinary to you? I mean, generally business leaders tend towards being apolitical; especially since the modern political left in America are devotees of the notion that, "the political is personal", and will call for a boycott of any company which they decide isn't doing business or comporting themselves in the "correct" manner in a proverbial New York second.
That's what makes the statements of some major US CEOs recounted in this article from IBD all that more interesting. While not as long and complete as Wynn's rant, they definitely don't beat around the bush:
-3M's George Buckley, who blasted Obama last February as anti-business. "We know what his instincts are," Buckley said. "We've got a real choice between manufacturing in Canada or Mexico — which tends to be more pro-business — and America," he told the Financial Times.
-Boeing's Jim McNerney, who in the Wall Street Journal last May called Obama's handpicked National Labor Relations Board's suit against his company a "fundamental assault on the capitalist principles that have sustained America's competitiveness since it became the world's largest economy nearly 140 years ago."
-Intel's Paul Otellini, who told CNET last August that the U.S. legal environment has become so hostile to business that there is likely to be "an inevitable erosion and shift of wealth, much like we're seeing today in Europe — this is the bitter truth."
-Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus, who observed to radio host Hugh Hewitt last month that Obama "never had to make payroll," that "nobody has ever created a job in this administration" and that the president is "surrounded by college professors."
There's more. As we often say, read the whole thing...
It's interesting to me how executives are just now starting to speak out against Obama's failed economic policies. And they're not all "Knucke-Dragging, Reich-Wingahz" by any stretch; Wynn, for instance, is a Democrat who supported Harry Reid's re-election. Part of it may be the usual and customary reluctance to alienate potential customers, as I mentioned earlier. But it may be that the weight of these past few years, coupled with the uncertainty about what lies ahead, has finally convinced them that Obama is not the one they were waiting for. Of course, they might have realized this before now if they'd chosen to listen to the opinions of former GE CEO Jack Welch, who hasn't minced words about the disastrous nature of Obamanomics and the O!ministration's hostility to business.
Not to be an I told you so, or anything, but many of these same individuals backed Obama with both the weight of their opinions as well as their cash donations in 2008. My advice to them this time around would simply be not to...

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me...
Paul Ryan brings Obama’s spending history up to date

Alternate headlines: "Timelines of a spending spree", or, "$4 trillion later; how we got here from there". But Paul Ryan calls it what it is, "A Brief History of President Obama's Fiscal Record"; though in my opinion he left out the word "dismal" between "Fiscal" and "Record", most likely in the name of politeness. It can be found at this page on the House Budget Committee's website.
It really is a definitive timeline of not only each major spending bill signed by the O!ministration, but also of each major pronouncement made by the President that was related to, or was meant to influence, fiscal issues; complete through his latest attempts to duck his responsibility to lead the debt ceiling increase debate. Each entry is has links that pertain to that episode, as well as a running tally on the amount of debt held by the American public listed as a sort-of footnote (the amount of debt held by the public is the portion of the total national debt the public owns in the form of securities and bonds, and does not include foreign holdings, individual or sovereign, or Federal Reserve bank holdings-so don't be confused because it is less than the $14+ trillion cited in the press).
With the debt ceiling negotiations reaching a critical phase, and ramping up to a frantic pace, their will be mud slinging and finger pointing a plenty; indeed, I've already had my fill of hearing how all our problems are due to the "Bush tax cuts", medicare part D, and two "unfunded wars of conquest" (the characterization of the war on terror most popular among the far-left)-when the most these things could have added over the last 10 years is on the order of 2.5 trillion on the outside. But I've expected the "I blame BOOOOSH!" brigade to go into action for a while now.
So do what I do; arm yourself with stubborn facts and inconvenient truths, so you can refute this hyperbole with the sober fact that Mr. Obama has increased the national debt by nearly the same amount as Mr. Bush, but sadly has done so in 1/4 of the time. As we often say, read the whole thing. And in this case, bookmark it for future use.

What are your impressions of this recounting? Do you think it a helpful debating tool?
OK, today we have the “gang of six” putting forth their debt ceiling plan

The Gang
Apologies, kind reader, as we bring you yet another permutation of a debt ceiling compromise plan, this time from the Senate's erstwhile "Gang of six". Recently rejoined by the reliably staunch Senator Tom Coburn, who proferred his own plan just yesterday, and therefore fully staffed and reconstituted, the "Gang" has jumped headlong into the parliamentary furball. I know this is all getting very dizzying, but with the witching hour fast approaching plans are being put forth faster than drafts of a slacker undergrad's term paper the night before it's due. From The Hill:
Democratic and Republican senators are rallying behind a $3.7 trillion deficit-reduction plan announced Tuesday morning by the five remaining members of the Gang of Six.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who pulled out of the Gang of Six in May, has rejoined the group and praised the plan as something that could win the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate.
“The plan has moved significantly, and it’s where we need to be — and it’s a start,” Coburn said. “This doesn’t solve our problems, but it creates the way forward where we can solve our problems.”
Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), in saying he would support the gang’s plan, added: “There’s a lot of support for turning the gang into a mob.
Coburn said the plan would reduce the deficit by $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years and increase tax revenues by $1 trillion by closing a variety of special tax breaks and havens.
He also noted, however, that the Congressional Budget Office would score the plan as a $1.5 trillion tax cut because it would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax. It would generate a significant amount of revenue out of tax reform and reduction of tax rates, which authors believe would spur economic growth.
Coburn said he expected a “significant portion of the Senate” to support the plan: “maybe 60 members.”
According to an executive summary, the Gang of Six plan would stabilize the debt by 2014 and reduce publicly held debt to 70 percent of gross domestic product by 2021.
It would involve two separate bills, one implementing $500 billion in immediate deficit cuts and another implementing larger reforms. Conrad said that he has held off marking up a budget in committee to use the normal budget process to move the Gang of Six plan.
On entitlements, the plan would fully pay for the Medicare “doc fix” over 10 years, allowing doctors to avoid a drastic cut in Medicare payments under the law which is regularly avoided but never paid for.
Conrad said 74 percent of the plan’s deficit-reduction goal would come from spending cuts and 26 percent from higher revenues. Conrad said that the framework addresses Social Security but does not use savings for deficit reduction.
The fallback plan being discussed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would include $1.5 trillion in spending cuts and set up a special committee that would put together a larger deficit-reduction package that would come straight to the Senate floor. But some lawmakers see such a committee as a waste of time that would merely replicate the work already done by President Obama's fiscal commission and the Gang of Six.
“I think what happened this morning is that the Gang of Six began to turn into a bipartisan majority of senators who want to solve a national problem rather than play partisan politics,” Lieberman said. “I am ready to sign up.
A lot to take in, I know...But on the upside, at least the controversial McConnell-Reid plan seems to be fading as a broad consensus of Senators come over to this newest scheme. More details on the deal from Politico:
To enact a comprehensive deficit plan, the group calls for congressional committees to report legislation within six months that would “deliver real deficit savings in entitlement programs over 10 years,” the plan says.
It calls on the Finance Committee to permanently reform or replace Medicare’s Sustainable Growth Rate - an outdated formula aimed at determining the amount to reimburse doctors for treating Medicare patients - by $298 billion.
The Finance Committee would be instructed to deliver “real deficit savings” through simplifying the tax code and raise as much as $1 trillion. It would do this by establishing three tax brackets with rates of 8-12 percent, 14-22 percent and 23-29 percent. It would permanently repeal the $1.7 trillion Alternative Minimum Tax. And it calls for establishing a single corporate tax rate, between 23 percent and 29 percent, and to move to a competitive territorial tax system.
Overall, the group claims it would result in a $1.5 trillion net tax decrease.
The group punts many of the specifics to other committees, which would be asked to find savings in discretionary and mandatory spending. This includes: $80 billion out of Armed Services; $70 billion out of Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; $65 billion out of Homeland Security and Government Affairs; $11 billion out of Agriculture; $11 billion out of Commerce; $6 billion out of Energy and Natural Resources. The Judiciary Committee would be asked to find savings through medical malpractice reform.
The tax reform part sounds pretty darn solid to me. Eliminate loopholes? Check. Lower the personal rates? Check. Perhaps more importantly, lower the Corporate rate and eliminate the verdamnt AMT? Check, baby ! Overall, from the tax side it sounds to me like a package that will foster growth by leaving businesses and consumers more of their own money to spend how they see fit; hopefully, at least on the business side, by expanding and creating jobs.
Am I happy with the notion of $500 billion in immediate cuts with another $1.7 trillion to come later. Not at all. Too many times in the past we've had deals that relied on cuts-to-be-named-later, and frankly, later never came; the most glaring examples being as part of the tax deals of 1986 and 1990. As a first impression, though, I'm tempted to trust Senator Coburn's honesty, candor, judgment, and record of dedication to fiscal responsibility and austerity; at least until I can read through the details myself. An executive summary can be found here, in the form of a downloadable scribd pdf file at zerohedge; where Tyler Durden is skeptical that an accounting game is being played, at least in part, by redefining a new CPI index to use in determining social security increases.
That's all for now, kind reader. Isn't it enough? You have this plan by the "Gang of Six", yesterday's plan by Senator Coburn himself, and the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan due to be voted on in the House of Representatives today. While there will no doubt be exhaustive analysis of these offerings done in the next 24 hours, to be sure, we strongly urge you to familiarize yourself with the details so that you can separate the sweetness from the shinola in all the coming blather.
Tell us what you think. As always, we value the insight of our informed commentariat...
How much more “Green Jobs!” success can America stand

Green Vehicle's products: Left-Moose, Right-Triac
When President Obama first began to speak of all the unbridled success that "green jobs" would bring to his crony Jeffery Immelt the American people, folks responded with a cautionary tale of Spain's "all in" experience; one that resulted in the loss of jobs overall and wasted money by the Spanish government-even Hillary admitted this to be the case! In the wake of Solyndra's high visibility failure, and it's concomitant cost to US taxpayers of 535 million dollars, some are questioning what the true cost of green jobs really are, and whether those jobs are as "sustainable" as proponents claim.
This week there is news out of Salinas, California, of what appears to be another "green jobs" failure. From KSBW comes the news that Green Vehicles Inc. is closing their doors for good, at a cost to taxpayers that ins't insignigicant:
A Salinas car manufacturing company that was expected to build environmentally friendly electric cars and create new jobs folded before almost any vehicles could run off the assembly line.The city of Salinas had invested more than half a million dollars in Green Vehicles, an electric car start-up company.
All of that money is now gone, according to Green Vehicles President and Co-Founder Mike Ryan.
The start-up company set up shop in Salinas in the summer of 2009, after the city gave Ryan a $300,000 community development grant.When the company still ran into financial trouble last year, the city of Salinas handed Ryan an additional $240,000. Green Vehicles also received $187,000 from the California Energy Commission.
Salinas Mayor Dennis Donohue said he was "surprised and disappointed" by the news. City officials were equally irked that Ryan notified them through an email that his company had crashed and burned.
City leaders wooed Green Vehicles to jump-start the sputtering local company and turn Salinas into an "electric valley." Donohue and Weir both voiced their high hopes for Green Vehicles.The start-up company promised city leaders that it would create 70 new jobs and pay $700,000 in taxes a year to Salinas.
Now from the outset I'd like to commend Mr. Ryan for trying to start up what he was confident would become a thriving business, no doubt taking advantage of Californians by-and-large heightened concern for the environment, subsidies offered by the Feds for electric vehicle purchases, and projected prices for his products that were a full 1/3 less than either the Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt. It seems though that, by his own admission, he never secured enough private venture capital for the endeavor, and there were rumors that several investors were waiting for Ryan to secure a promised 2 million dollar grant from the California Energy Commission (CEC) before adding their own money to the mix. For their part, of course, CEC dimisses their involvement and actions as a factor in Green Vehicles closure:
"Our grants are paid in arrears and everyone ì we thought ì was fully aware of that. We write the checks only after receiving the proper paperwork and that includes an invoice," Gottleib said. "It would be unfortunate and inaccurate if anyone laid the blame for Green Vehicle's decision [to close] at the feet of the state."
And I'm inclined to agree...
Given California's fiscal crunch over the last few years, a fact well known to residents as well as many Americans, it was unwise for Ryan to depend so heavily on the state's contribution to his start up funds. Unlike a DoD weapons project, where the end user is the US government, this was a private company hoping to manufacture vehicles for sale to the public at large. While it's not unusual for local and state governments to provide businesses with incentives, via grants and tax deferments, it appears that Green Vehicles business plan relied on government funds at nearly every level to be a viable concern. And really, that's where the rub lies in many of these "Green Jobs!" promised panaceas.
The inconvenient truth is that save for a niche market fully electric cars aren't viable yet. Much of the problem has to do with batteries being unable to provide the same level of potential energy density as currently available fossil fuels. But there are many engineering challenges to be solved before EVs are viable for all but the shortest of ranges. Perhaps the most advanced, and viable, are made by Tesla motors; but in the past they too have received grants from the US Department of Energy.
The bottom line really, for all "green energy" technologies, is that while the government can provide some research dollars to universities they can't effectively "jump start" the entire industry and guarantee that it survives in the long term. That will only come when the technology itself reaches a point of profitability, from both a consumer and manufacturer's viewpoint, as it has by-and-large wit hybrid vehicles and is reflected in those types of vehicle sales.
Green products have to be a viable alternative to existing technology on their merits alone and be profitable to produce, otherwise we as a nation are merely subsidizing someone else's "environmentally friendly" lifestyle; either through our tax dollars or via the inherent inefficiency it foists upon our economy. They can't provide a quick fix to our economy, or environment, regardless of what any politicians tell you.
What do you think? What is your opinion of green technology? Would you like to see a more technical analysis of EVs versus conventional autos? Tell us what you think; your opinions are always thought provoking :)
You want a detailed debt reduction plan? Tom Coburn has one.

Senator Coburn tellin' it like it is; can you dig it?
Which he revealed today. A 9 Trillion dollar one; which, you know, is some serious money even in Washington DC...
One of the Senate's staunchest budget-cutters unveiled Monday a massive plan to cut the nation's deficit by $9 trillion over the coming decade, including $1 trillion in tax increases opposed by most of his fellow Republicans.
The plan by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is laced with politically perilous proposals like raising to 70 the age at which people can claim their full Social Security benefits. It would cut farm subsidies, Medicare, student aid, housing subsidies for the poor, and funding for community development grants.
Coburn would also eliminate $1 trillion in tax breaks over the coming decade, earning him an immediate rebuke from Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax organization with which Coburn has had a running feud. He would block taxpayers from claiming the mortgage interest deduction on second homes and limit it to homes worth $500,000. He would also ease taxpayers into higher tax brackets more quickly by using a smaller measure of inflation to adjust the brackets.
Coburn would cut $1 trillion from the Pentagon budget over a decade. He would block military retirees from the Tricare Prime health care plan, the option with the lowest out-of-pocket cost, saving $115 billion, and he would raise the prescription drug copayment under the program, as well as require higher out-of-pocket fees. He also would reduce the fleet of aircraft carriers from 11 to 10 and Navy air wings from 10 to nine.
As you can imagine, I'm no fan of that last provision to be sure, but that's one of the reasons I loves me some Tom Coburn; he's a fair man, and I can guarantee that there will be something in this plan for everyone to hate :)
But overall it's an impressive work. Essentially, in a nutshell, over the next 10 years he achieves $3trillion in discretionary cuts, $3trillion in entitlement cuts, $1 trillion from defense cuts, $1 trillion reduction from tax code reforms, and $1trillion savings from a reduction of interests costs paid over that same time period.
As a member of the President's deficit reduction panel Senator Coburn is well acquainted with the intricacies of this issue, and he's never been afraid of putting it out there-so to speak. Here's a list of where he's getting the 9 trillion dollar figure from:

Now I'm sure in the coming days there will be mountains of analysis, comment, and explanation of this program. As Joy did with CC&B, I strongly urge you to get the facts straight from the source at Senator Coburn's site. You can view the plan there in pieces, or download a PDF of the entire proposal.
Tell us what you think of Senator Coburn's plan kind reader, we truly value your opinions here at The Conservatory.





