WH Science Czar Says He Would Use ‘Free Market’ to ‘De-Develop the United States’ | NewsBusters.org

WH Science Czar Says He Would Use ‘Free Market’ to ‘De-Develop the United States’
By Nicholas Ballasy (Bio | Archive)
Thu, 09/16/2010 - 12:26 ET


In a video interview this week, White House Office of Science and Technology Director John P. Holdren told CNSNews.com that he would use the "free market economy" to implement the "massive campaign" he advocated along with Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich to "de-develop the United States."

In his role as President Barack Obama's top science and technology adviser, Holdren deals with issues ranging from global warming to health care.

"A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States," Holdren wrote along with Paul and Anne H. Ehrlich in the "recommendations" concluding their 1973 book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.

"De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation," Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓

"Resources must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries," Holdren and his co-authors wrote. "This effort must be largely political, especially with regard to our overexploitation of world resources, but the campaign should be strongly supplemented by legal and boycott action against polluters and others whose activities damage the environment. The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being."

CNSNews.com asked Holdren about this passage on Tuesday after he participated in an Environmental Protection Agency forum celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Clean Air Act.

CNSNews.com asked: "You wrote ‘a massive campaign must be launched to restore a high quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States' in your book Human Ecology. Could you explain what you meant by de-develop the United States?"

Holdren responded: "What we meant by that was stopping the kinds of activities that are destroying the environment and replacing them with activities that would produce both prosperity and environmental quality. Thanks a lot."

CNSNews.com then asked: "And how do you plan on implementing that?"

"Through the free market economy," Holdren said.

CNSNews.com also asked Holdren to comment on the declaration he made in 1995 along with co-authors Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily of Stanford University that mankind needed to "face up" to "a world of zero net physical growth" that would require reductions in consumption.

"We know for certain, for example, that: No form of material growth (including population growth) other than asymptotic growth is sustainable," Holdren, Ehrlich and Daily wrote in an essay for the World Bank titled, "The Meaning of Sustainability."

"Many of the practices inadequately supporting today's population of 5.5 billion people are unsustainable; and [a]t the sustainability limit, there will be a tradeoff between population and energy-matter throughput per person, hence, ultimately, between economic activity per person and well-being per person," Holdren, Ehrlich and Daily wrote. "This is enough to say quite a lot about what needs to be faced up to eventually (a world of zero net physical growth), what should be done now (change unsustainable practices, reduce excessive material consumption, slow down population growth), and what the penalty will be for postponing attention to population limitation (lower well-being per person)."

Holdren would not comment Tuesday about this statement, saying he had to get to another engagement.

Crossposted at NB sister site CNSNews.com


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nicholas-ballasy/2010/09/16/wh-science-czar-says-he-would-use-free-market-de-develop-united-st#ixzz0znB1AHWI

Obama’s Plan to Raise Tax Rates | Cato @ Liberty

Obama’s Plan to Raise Tax Rates

Posted by Chris Edwards

President Obama wants to raise the top two individual income tax rates for 2011. The top rates will rise from 33% to 36% and from 35% to 39.6%, unless the president and Congress agree to extend the current rate structure.

Before taking action on this issue, policymakers should consider the following facts and data. (All information is cited in my related congressional testimony).

* President Bush cut the top federal tax rate by 5 percentage points, but the average top rate in the 30 OECD nations has also fallen by 5 percentage points since 2000.
* Unless policymakers extend current tax relief, the combined U.S. federal-state top rate will increase from 41.9% to about 46.5%, based on OECD data. That will give us about the tenth highest rate among the 30 OECD nations.
* The chart shows that the average top OECD rate fell from 46.7% in 2000 to 41.5% in 2009. If we let the Bush tax cuts expire, we won’t be simply going back to our situation in 2000—the world has changed since then as other countries have adopted more competitive tax rates.

* President Obama’s proposed top federal rate of 39.6 percent is 41-percent higher than the 28-percent top income rate achieved in the late 1980s after the bipartisan Tax Reform Act of 1986.
* Higher marginal tax rates will reduce incentives for working, investing, and expanding businesses, and they will increase incentives for tax avoidance and evasion.
* If income tax rates rise, some high-income workers will work fewer hours and retire earlier. Some spouses in two-earner families will stay out of the workforce. Some angel investors will have less cash to invest in start-up ventures. And some small businesses will decide not to buy new equipment or hire new workers.
* Higher-income taxpayers often have a lot of flexibility on their working and investing decisions—tax them more and they will reduce their reported income alot. Robert Carroll finds that this effect of raising the top rate from 35% to 40% would offset about 40 percent of the government’s otherwise expected revenue gain.
* Today’s highest-earners are generally not passive inheritors of wealth, but are usually self-made and entrepreneurial. Glenn Hubbard notes, “when you look at data, you see that people who are rich almost entirely are rich because of entrepreneurial risk taking.”
* Many people with high incomes are angel investors, who help to fuel small business expansion. If their taxes go up, they will have less money and fewer incentives to invest, and they will park more of their money in tax-free municipal bonds.
* More than half of all business income in the United States is reported on individual returns, not corporate returns. This income is reported by proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, and S corporations. If the top two individual income tax rates are increased, it would hit a substantial amount of this business income.
* Robert Carroll looked at individual tax filers who derived more than half of their income from a business. He found that one-quarter of these taxpayers were in the top two tax rate brackets, and thus would be hit by the proposed tax increases.
* The Joint Committee on Taxation found that about 25 million individual tax returns will report about $1 trillion of net positive business income in 2011. Of that total, 44 percent is in the top two income tax brackets and thus would be hit by the proposed tax increase.
* In an empirical study, Glenn Hubbard and William Gentry found that higher marginal tax rates discourage entry into self-employment and business ownership. A study by Donald Bruce and Tami Gurley for the SBA similarly found that marginal tax rates affect entrepreneurship.
* Once a small business is up and running, empirical research by Robert Carroll, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Mark Rider, and Harvey Rosen found that higher individual income tax rates negatively affect hiring, investment, and expansion.


Those are the facts, and here are my views. It’s very sad that a nation that has been a bastion of free market growth and individual achievement has a tax code that is becoming very hostile to high-earners, entrepreneurs, and businesses.

Let’s keep the Bush tax cuts, cut our corporate tax rate from 40% to 20%, and cut government spending. Rather than the government filling its coffers at the expense of families, that policy would make the economy boom, and fill government coffers as a side effect of rising family incomes.

American Thinker: Wasting Clean, Cheap Power

September 13, 2010
Wasting Clean, Cheap Power
By Nancy J. Thorner

Thanks to the Alice in Wonderland world of "green" energy policy, Illinois electricity customers are going to be paying more, while a reliable and inexpensive source of clean clean power will be destroyed. It is now official that what used to be an imposing lake Michigan lakefront landmark for the City of Zion, and a source of most of its local tax revenue, will now be dismantled over the next decade.

On September 1st Chicago-based Exelon Corporation, the nation's biggest nuclear generator and owner and operator of six other Illinois nuclear plants, transferred the dual Zion Nuclear Plant licenses to EnergySolutions of Utah.

Lost forever from the Midwest electrical grid is Zion's massive electrical generating power capacity (2,100 megawatts), even as electric rates were increased by ComEd, the Chicago area utility subsidiary of Exelon, by 17% this summer.

What could have prompted Exelon Corporation to decommission (tear down) the Dual Zion Nuclear Plant, already paid for by rate payers in the billions of dollars to construct in the 70's, along with its $1 billion decommissioning cost, which, according to Exelon, is about half of what it would cost to restart Zion.

Part of the puzzle fell into place when I came across the obit in the Chicago Tribune of James T. Ramey, 95, an advocate for nuclear energy, who was first appointed by John F. Kennedy as a commissioner of the Atomic Energy Commission.

But even before his appointment by Kennedy, Ramey worked with Adm. Hyman Rickover in 1952 to draft the contract for the world first nuclear submarine, the USS Nautilus. Ramey was also instrumental in obtaining the Zion site for Argonne National Laboratory, which began developing reactors for the nation's nuclear program. Throughout Ramey's long career until his retirement in 1974, he was a public advocate of the safety of nuclear generation.

It was Three Mile Island in March of 1979 which put unnecessary fear in the hearts of Americans about the safety of nuclear energy.

Moving ahead to the year 2000 was the publication of Al Gore's book Earth in the Balance. It took until 2006, however, for Al Gore's campaign to take flight. It was then that his documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth, was released as a means to educate citizens about Global Warming by raising public awareness. At the same time Gore re-energized the environmental movement.

By the time of Barack Obama's election in 2008, man-made Global Warming (or Climate Change) had become "fact" and was not open to question, despite thousands of scientists world-wide who disputed the claim that the world is heating up and will self-destruct if there isn't a reduction into the atmosphere of CO2 caused by fossil fuels. Subsequently EPA declared CO2 as a pollutant. Going "green" had now become a fashionable, sexy thing to do.

Now enter Chicago-based Exelon Corporation. As reported in a Tribune editorial on Monday, Sept. 6th, Exelon's John Rowe is one of the leading local advocate for "Cap and Trade." Accordingly, Exelon has made forays in both wind and solar power during this past summer, neither of which would qualify as investments of substance for Exelon if not for federal and state subsidies and local real estate and federal tax incentives. CEO John Rowe is also looking ahead to that time when Exelon Corporation will be able to sell solar and wind renewable energy credits.

Just where does this leave nuclear power here in Illinois with the unnecessary dismantling of the Zion Plant's massive power capacity, given a state mandate prohibiting the building of new nuclear plants until the national storage problem is solved, and with General Assembly legislation which mandates that 25% of electricity be generated from clean, renewable energy sources by 2025?

Exelon Corporation shareholders should care about Exelon's decision to waste Zion, but, as is so often the case, Exelon shareholders seem indifferent to Exelon's business decisions as long as the Corporation is making a profit, even if Exelon's decision to decommission Zion adversely affects the pocket book of Illinois electric rate payers and puts the state at a disadvantage for future energy needs.

Exelon's CEO John Rowe must know that Nuclear Energy is a clean and green form of energy and that it gives the biggest bang for the buck! Because profit margin is all important, Exelon is unwilling to spend the money to restart Zion, but instead is open to accepting government money -- taxpayers' money -- to invest in wind and solar power now and in its future renewable energy deals.

The whole world is nuking up while the USA is nuking down. This nation will have a real energy crisis if the current trend continues.

If renewables were so great, why the need for government subsidies? The present emphasis on green and renewable energy sources as the way of the future, while treating increased nuclear development as a step-child, is certain to keep energy prices inflated and production at a disadvantage, for electric power is the engine that fuels the economy.

DSD :: Resources - Publications - Core Publications

DSD :: Resources - Publications - Core Publications

Insurers Pin Rate Hikes on Health Law - WSJ.com

Health Insurers Plan Hikes
Rate Increases Are Blamed on Health-Care Overhaul; White House Questions Logic

By JANET ADAMY

Health insurers say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats' efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections.

Insurers say they plan to raise premiums on some Americans due to the health overhaul, complicating Democrats' efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before elections. Janet Adamy and Evan Newmark discuss. Also, Justin Lahart discusses the two-track economy for American business, with global players getting boosts from fast-growing foreign markets, while companies focused on the U.S. market are hamstrung by recession-scarred consumers.

Aetna Inc., some BlueCross BlueShield plans and other smaller carriers have asked for premium increases of between 1% and 9% to pay for extra benefits required under the law, according to filings with state regulators.

These and other insurers say Congress's landmark refashioning of U.S. health coverage, which passed in March after a brutal fight, is causing them to pass on more costs to consumers than Democrats predicted.

Insurers say the law mandates free preventive care that raises premiums. A Maryland man gets a flu shot.

The rate increases largely apply to policies for individuals and small businesses and don't include people covered by a big employer or Medicare.

About 9% of Americans buy coverage through the individual market, according to the Census Bureau, and roughly one-fifth of people who get coverage through their employer work at companies with 50 or fewer employees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. People in both groups are likely to feel the effects of the proposed increases, even as they see new benefits under the law, such as the elimination of lifetime and certain annual coverage caps.
Experience WSJ professional
Editors' Deep Dive: Health Care Reform Pressures Bottom Lines

Many carriers also are seeking additional rate increases that they say they need to cover rising medical costs. As a result, some consumers could face total premium increases of more than 20%.

While the increases apply mostly to the new policies insurers write after Oct. 1, consumers could be subject to the higher rates if they modify their existing plans and cause them to lose grandfathered status.

The rate increases are a dose of troubling news for Democrats just weeks before an election in which they are at risk of losing their majority in the House and possibly the Senate.

In an interview with WSJ's Alan Murray, Aetna Chairman and CEO Ronald Williams says that a side effect of the health-care reform bill is that costs will increase. He also criticizes leaders in Washington for the demagoguery of his industry that persisted during the health-care debate.

In addition to pledging that the law would restrain increases in Americans' insurance premiums, Democrats front-loaded the legislation with early provisions they hoped would boost public support. Those include letting children stay on their parents' insurance policies until age 26, eliminating co-payments for preventive care and barring insurers from denying policies to children with pre-existing conditions, plus the elimination of the coverage caps.

Weeks before the election, insurance companies began telling state regulators it is those very provisions that are forcing them to increase their rates.

Aetna, one of the nation's largest health insurers, said the extra benefits forced it to seek rate increases for new individual plans of 5.4% to 7.4% in California and 5.5% to 6.8% in Nevada after Sept. 23. Similar steps are planned across the country, according to Aetna.

Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon said the cost of providing additional benefits under the health law will account on average for 3.4 percentage points of a 17.1% premium rise for a small-employer health plan. It asked regulators last month to approve the increase.

In Wisconsin and North Carolina, Celtic Insurance Co. says half of the 18% increase it is seeking comes from complying with health-law mandates.

The White House says insurers are using the law as an excuse to raise rates and predicts that state regulators will block some of the large increases.

"I would have real deep concerns that the kinds of rate increases that you're quoting... are justified," said Nancy-Ann DeParle, the White House's top health official. She said that for insurers, raising rates was "already their modus operandi before the bill" passed. "We believe consumers will see through this," she said.

Previously the administration had calculated that the batch of changes taking effect this fall would raise premiums no more than 1% to 2%, on average.

CNSNews.com - Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data

Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief


President Barack Obama speaks in Seattle on Tuesday, August 17, 2010. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
(CNSNews.com) - In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

The U.S. Treasury Department divides the federal debt into two categories. One is “debt held by the public,” which includes U.S. government securities owned by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments and other entities outside the federal government itself. The other is “intragovernmental” debt, which includes I.O.U.s the federal government gives to itself when, for example, the Treasury borrows money out of the Social Security “trust fund” to pay for expenses other than Social Security.

At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3 billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration.

By contrast, President Reagan was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 1981 and left office eight years later on Jan. 20, 1989. At the end of fiscal 1980, four months before Reagan was inaugurated, the federal debt held by the public was $711.9 billion, according to CBO. At the end of fiscal 1989, eight months after Reagan left office, the federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion. That means that in the nine-fiscal-year period of 1980-89--which included all of Reagan’s eight years in office--the federal debt held by the public increased $1.4788 trillion. That is in excess of a trillion dollars less than the $2.5260 increase in the debt held by the public during Obama’s first 19 months.

When President Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, the total federal debt held by the public stood at 6.3073 trillion, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. As of Aug. 20, 2010, after the first nineteen months of President Obama’s 48-month term, the total federal debt held by the public had grown to a total of $8.8333 trillion, an increase of $2.5260 trillion.

In just the last four months (May through August), according to the CBO, the Obama administration has run cumulative deficits of $464 billion, more than the $458 billion deficit the Bush administration ran through the entirety of fiscal 2008.

The CBO predicted this week that the annual budget deficit for fiscal 2010, which ends on the last day of this month, will exceed $1.3 trillion.

The first two fiscal years in which Obama has served will see the two biggest federal deficits as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product since the end of World War II.

“CBO currently estimates that the deficit for 2010 will be about $70 billion below last year’s total but will still exceed $1.3 trillion,” said the CBO’s monthly budget review for September, which was released yesterday. “Relative to the size of the economy, this year’s deficit is expected to be the second-largest shortfall in the past 65 years: At 9.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), that deficit will be exceeded only by last year’s deficit of 9.9 percent of GDP.”

RealClearPolitics - Political Fables

September 7, 2010
Political Fables
By Thomas Sowell

President Barack Obama boldly proclaims, "The buck stops here!" But, whenever his policies are criticized, he acts as if the buck stopped with George W. Bush.

The party line that we are likely to be hearing from now until the November elections is that Obama "inherited" the big federal budget deficits and that he has to "clean up the mess" left in the economy by the Republicans. This may convince those who want to be convinced, but it will not stand up under scrutiny.

No President of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and all taxes are voted into law by Congress.

Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the Congressional Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, who did absolutely nothing to oppose the runaway spending. He was one of the biggest of the big spenders.

The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, Bill Clinton was president, so it was called "the Clinton surplus." But Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, for the first time in 40 years. It was also the first budget surplus in more than a quarter of a century.

The only direct power that any president has that can affect deficits and surpluses is the power to veto spending bills. President Bush did not veto enough spending bills but Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats in control of Congress were the ones who passed the spending bills.

Today, with Barack Obama in the White House, allied with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge in Congress, the national debt is a bigger share of the national output than it has been in more than half a century. And its share is projected to continue going up for years to come, becoming larger than national output in 2012.

Having created this scary situation, President Obama now says, "Don't give in to fear. Let's reach for hope." The voters reached for hope when they elected Obama. The fear comes from what he has done since taking office.

"The worst thing we could do is to go back to the very same policies that created this mess in the first place," he said recently. "In November, you're going to have that choice."

Another political fable is that the current economic downturn is due to not enough government regulation of the housing and financial markets. But it was precisely the government regulators, under pressure from politicians, who forced banks and other lending institutions to lower their standards for making mortgage loans.

These risky loans, and the defaults that followed, were what set off a chain reaction of massive financial losses that brought down the whole economy.

Was this due to George W. Bush and the Republicans? Only partly. Most of those who pushed the lowering of mortgage lending standards were Democrats-- notably Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd, though too many Republicans went along.

At the heart of these policies were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who bought huge amounts of risky mortgages, passing the risk on from the banks that lent the money (and made the profits) to the taxpayers who were not even aware that they would end up paying in the end.

When President Bush said in 2004 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be reined in, 76 members of the House of Representatives issued a statement to the contrary. These included Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel.

If we are going to talk about "the policies that created this mess in the first place," let's at least get the facts straight and the names right.

The current policies of the Obama administration are a continuation of the same reckless policies that brought on the current economic problems-- all in the name of "change." Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still sacred cows in Washington, even though they have already required the biggest bailouts of all.

Why? Because they allow politicians to direct vast sums of money where it will do politicians the most good, either personally or in terms of buying votes in the next election.