|
 |
10/18/2010
Why isn't climate change an issue these days?
Supporters of California’s Prop. 23 are working to bring the state’s grand sounding “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) to a screeching halt. As Mark Tapscott of the Washington Examiner says,
Big Green environmental radicals are beside themselves over the prospect of passage of [Prop. 23], the imminently reasonable idea of temporarily suspending draconian anti-global warming regulations until statewide unemployment dips below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters.
I love it – it just makes complete sense. Ok, haggle about whether global warming is even happening. Haggle further about whether evil man is the cause of this evil global warming. But what’s most important – and what conservatives continue to try to get across – is the huge cost of proposed solutions that will ultimately change the temperature of the earth 1/10 of one degree centigrade – or something like that. Reasonable folks asking the reasonable question – please, just stop and figure it out - is it worth it?
So ok, take on global warming. But let’s all get jobs first. And that doesn’t mean argue that the ‘green revolution’ will create jobs out of whole cloth.
On this note, Spanish economist Juan de Mariana throws in his two cents. It’s a great piece.
Barring voter intervention, Californians will soon suffer under full-blown European-style energy policies. These include mandated greenhouse gas emission reductions of a sort achieved to date only through economic collapse, and fantastic mandates for renewable energy that so far have caused economic hardship elsewhere.
Oddly, despite these policies having been tried throughout Western Europe at great cost and for no discernible environmental benefit, Californians are told their laws are the "world's first".
You still say global warming “solutions” are supposed to create jobs? Again, Spain’s de Mariana:
In Spain we found that the economy, in fact, lost a net 2.2 jobs for every "green job" the state claimed credit for, just in an opportunity cost. That is, the private sector creates jobs much more efficiently than the state – less expensively and dedicated to produce goods and services that people really demand. We found the private section would have created that many more "real" jobs had the money not been removed and put toward politically divined ends. Think "stimulus jobs."
…. On net, however, green-economy mandates are job killers. In addition to jobs lost through opportunity cost, jobs are lost from the tougher economic environment for manufacturing in places with green-energy mandates. These make energy prices "necessarily skyrocket," to quote President Obama about cap and trade. For California, this would culminate years of creeping, heavy-handed mandates mimicking Europe.
Kathleen Hartnett White, former commissioner and chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality hits the same meme, but with solutions – “Texas has shown how environmental improvement and economic growth can coexist. Prosperity is a prerequisite for environmental quality…” She screams at the EPA for its absurd and phenomenally overburdening mandates. One example:
EPA nevertheless declared that states must begin regulating CO2 and other greenhouse gases according to the “Tailoring Rule” by Jan. 2, 2011. If states are unwilling or legally unable to meet this deadline, EPA will assert a Federal Implementation Plan over the state…
Through at least eight lawsuits against EPA, Texas has refused to acquiesce. As the Texas attorney general recently wrote to EPA, “Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring, or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gases.” To avoid “tangible injury” and “irreparable harm” to the Texas economy, including 167 major construction projects that are currently planned, Texas recently asked for an emergency stay of the Tailoring Rule, arguing that the rule violates explicit provisions of the CAA [Clean Air Act] which recognize “constitutionally protected states’ sovereign interests.”
Read the whole piece. Excellent. And watch what happens to California’s Prop. 23 election night. Perhaps a semblance of the population has awakened to common sense.
Jo Egelhoff, FoxPolitics.net
COMMENTS
Jo, just for your edification:
>>>will ultimately change the temperature of the earth 1/10 of one degree centigrade – or something like that. <<< Ummm Wrong...
The average surface temperature of the Earth is likely to increase by 2 to 11.5F (1.1-6.4C) by the end of the 21st century, relative to 1980-1990, with a best estimate of 3.2 to 7.2F (1.8-4.0C) (see Figure 1). The average rate of warming over each inhabited continent is very likely to be at least twice as large as that experienced during the 20th century.
Warming will not be evenly distributed around the globe (see Figure 2):
Land areas will warm more than oceans in part due to water's ability to store heat.
High latitudes will warm more than low latitudes in part due to positive feedback effects from melting ice (as discussed above).
Most of North America; all of Africa, Europe, northern and central Asia; and most of Central and South America are likely to warm more than the global average. Projections suggest that the warming will be close to the global average in south Asia, Australia and New Zealand, and southern South America.
The warming will differ by season, with winters warming more than summers in most areas.
Of course this is from a radical group... The EPA
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futuretc.html
Dean Weichmann (Mon Oct 18 07:19:53 2010)
>>>Spain’s de Mariana:
In Spain we found that the economy, in fact, lost a net 2.2 jobs for every "green job" the state claimed credit for, just in an opportunity cost<<<
A matter of opinion. Who is "we". Did we just pull this out of his a$$?
How about opinion by someone with more stature?
>>>Sir Nicholas Stern, is expected to warn the world has underestimated the cost of climate change, and a failure to address it could slash global economic growth by up to 20 per cent.<<<
So, absent some effort the world will suffer a lot more.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1776868.htm
Dean Weichmann (Mon Oct 18 07:52:10 2010)
You and others on this blog get tired of hearing this, Jo, but because of the politicians getting paid off by one side or the other, you and I simply DON'T KNOW whether climate change is real or not. We are even remiss in discussing it, unless you are an unbiased and well educated scientist employed by neither side. I wrote about the issue at Political corruption and climate change
Jack Lohman (Mon Oct 18 08:26:21 2010)
Dean must have gone to the same Universities (2) that Gore flunked out of and nearly high school also.
We have alternate cold, warm, cold, warm seasons. Always have. Determined by the sun and its activity whcih is on a 11 year cycle for many years now. We had much more serious warming problems during the 30's with the dust bowl, etc. Then in the late 30's to 40's we had a cold spell that saw about 10 days in a row one winter (in Menasha) when it was between 20 and 30 below every morning. Now it's a little warmer. In a few years it will be colder again like in the 50's. Up and down, up and down!
Scientists say the glaciers in the Alps have melted away 10 times in the last 10,000 years.
Gore and Obama are expected to make many billions off of this fraud for themselves! That's why they push it!
John Hyland (Mon Oct 18 09:01:43 2010)
John, I just don't know, and I wish I did. I don't give a damn about the politics of this, my kids and grandkids will be greatly affected if we make the wrong decision. I know what the past history tells us, but this world has never experienced the ravages of industrialization that we have created over the past century. To be blind to that would be foolish.
Jack Lohman (Mon Oct 18 09:08:04 2010)
The cause for global warming is a farce. I have good friends who have Ph.D.s in the earth sciences and they've actually written papers on this subject. They, and many other scientists believe the same way.
It's a puzzle to me that so many still believe in this hoax. Citing the EPA as a bona fide source for the truth is like talking to Baron Munchausen and expecting the truth. The EPA has been overrun with "hardline environmentalists" since its inception and having a Republican in office made no difference. It's a team of mad horses with the bits in their teeth, headed for the nearest cliff and we're in the wagon bouncing behind.
Professor Hal Lewis described the global warming hysteria as "the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist".
For every "scientist" Al Gore has managed to get on board with his claim, there are probably 5 times that who are not.
It seems the bending of the "hockey stick" by ignoring the Medieval Minimum and the "Little Ice Age" and accepting the ‘scientists’ reports at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia who controlled the data, the computer models and the press releases mean nothing to believers, but sticking ones fingers in one's ears and humming loudly will not change the facts.
C. R. Stevenson (Mon Oct 18 09:12:03 2010)
I notice that no one except Jack has anything to back up their opinion. How about it, ya got anyone like Sir Nicholas Stern? What about the IPPC?
Read the link, here is another excerpt;
>>>Really what we learn from the work that Sir Nicholas Stern has done is that the world does not need to choose between averting climate change and promoting growth and development.
Indeed the world can do both and indeed must do both if it's going to achieve growth and development because there are going to be significant impacts if we don't move very quickly in the next 10 years to seriously tackling climate change.<<<
Dean Weichmann (Mon Oct 18 09:42:40 2010)
Dean -
Just checking, you're asking us to rely on the IPCC for objective and factual data?
Only asking for clarification ... want to be sure I understand your post.
Thanks!
Jeff R. (Mon Oct 18 09:48:59 2010)
Professor Hal Lewis is a retired nuclear phyisicist not a climatologist.
>>>For every "scientist" Al Gore has managed to get on board with his claim, there are probably 5 times that who are not.<<<
Aw gee this is so easy.
>>>A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[95]<<<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Doran_and_Kendall_Zimmerman.2C_2009
Dean Weichmann (Mon Oct 18 09:54:25 2010)
PLEASE address the huge associated costs - and prioritization of same. However critical you believe the horrendous (or not) effects of global warming, given a limited amount of dollars and the projection of tough times, scaling back - ahead for all - what should the country, the states and our municipalities be spending dollars on? Education, police and fire protection - or carbon sequestration and wind turbines?
Jo (Mon Oct 18 10:01:54 2010)
Jo, how do you know the costs will be huge? According to the Stern report the cost of business as usual is much higher than taking steps to mitigate global warming.
I have advocated a carbon tax to give the marketplace a way to internalize the external cost of CO2 pollution. That tax could be offset by a rebate on a per capita basis or replacement of other taxes such as SS and Medicare. Just adding the cost of pollution to the cost of coal and other fuel will add incentive to reduce waste and encourage non-fossil fuel energy.
Here is a link with more info;
http://www.carbontax.org/
Dean Weichmann (Mon Oct 18 10:17:40 2010)
Certainly not "education, police and fire protection," Jo, those are being cut back so we can afford corporate giveaways.
I would suggest the following...
1) get ALL politicians off the payroll of industry, then
2) study the issue using qualified scientists not employed by either side, then
3) Whatever the costs, the taxpayers must fund the corrections.
I do not favor carbon taxes unless applied worldwide. They will put US companies at a competitive disadvantage and cost jobs.
Jack Lohman (Mon Oct 18 10:27:06 2010)
>>>I do not favor carbon taxes unless applied worldwide. They will put US companies at a competitive disadvantage and cost jobs<<<
An excellent point Jack, however others have thought about it too. Tax imports based on the lack of a similar carbon tax and/or subsudize exports.
Border Adjustments, also known as Border Tax Adjustments or Border Tax Assessments, are import fees levied by carbon-taxing countries on goods manufactured in non-carbon-taxing countries.
>>>The impetus behind border adjustments is the desire to ensure a level playing field in international trade while internalizing the costs of climate damage into prices of goods and services<<<
http://www.carbontax.org/issues/border-adjustments/
Dean Weichmann (Mon Oct 18 10:36:22 2010)
1) Still no answer on us taking the IPCC as a source for objective and factual data. No surprise there.
2) It seems our need to turn our lives and our economy upside down (in Dean's view) should be based on some 'best guesses' ... and I quote:
>>>A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists.
That's a poll - the OPINION of a group of individuals - that's NOT factual data. A poll of any one group is no more basis for public policy and this kind of hysteria than any poll of any other group of people who have a differing OPINION.
3) Where's the science?
I'm all about handing off a world we can live in to my kid and ensuing generations ... but before we spend TRILLIONS and totally re-arrange society without KNOWING this is an issue, I say we dig in and find out for sure whether this is really necessary.
This smacks of 'never let a good crises go to waste'. Is it REALLY a crisis, or are we just amping up a routine cycle to make it look like a crises?
Remember, just 30 years ago we were all supposedly going to be freezing to death in the next couple of generation (based on other 'best guesses' without the science to back it up).
Why exactly ARE we having this conversation? Show us the science, then we can talk about what to do when we know the facts.
Jeff R. (Mon Oct 18 10:54:45 2010)
Science books, for decades, have been teaching us all as children about an era known as the Ice Age. Unless I am mistaken, the Ice Age ended rather a long time ago, thousands of years prior to industrialization - prior to homo sapiens according to most.
Are we capable of destroying our environment? Sure we are. Do we have a responsibility to preserve it for future generations? Of course we do.
But an initiative or movement that characterizes humanity as the cancer of the planet and advocates for population control - that places "mother earth" above humanity as a deity of sorts - but whose proponents aren't themselves willing to make "the ultimate sacrifice" and terminate their own carbon-emitting lives and lifestyles, has pretty obviously got an agenda.
As for the science being propounded on the subject, is there any doubt in anyone's minds that "science" which silences dissention from popular theory - especially that which affords such massive potential for financial gain and centralized power - MUST be doubted? Science is NOT science which insists on selling theory as fact, especially where that science is hell bent on dictating how many children parents should have and how living persons behave throughout their lives.
The global warming debate is ultimately not a debate about science. It is a debate between atheism and theism. If one subscribes to theism, the earth exists for human utility, to be cared for as a resourse but subject to the higher dignity of man. If one subscribes to atheism, humanity is but a mere product of the earth, and exists for earth's utility, and lacking dignity can be destroyed for earth's purported sake.
To answer the question: I suggest that climate change isn't "an issue these days" is because there is a groggy awakening among the masses that it is nothing more than one of many battlefields in the great and underlying war for souls bewteen God and Satan - the latter whose treachery abounds in confounding the human identity, created in the Image and Likeness of God - and the innumerable implications that single Truth has on every possible aspect of our lives; the denial of which, in whole or in part, wittingly or unwittingly, has ramifications in every action a person takes, no matter how large or small, and including the actions of the human will directing our own minds.
The deceipt of the Global Warming agenda had been counting on a long-deadened collective moral consciousness, which much oppressed, seems to be slowly waking from its careless oblivion.
God always makes a greater good come out of every evil. And having every confidence in that, life is beautiful.
Andrew Ellis (Mon Oct 18 11:03:26 2010)
Jeff, I could point you to a few sites that explain the science but you could look for it yourself.
I think it's better to ask the opinion of experts in the feild. Especially if it is complicated.
If your car needs work you go to a mechanic and maybe go to a second for another opinion. You don't ask a nutritionist or a brain surgeon. The survey showed that 97% of climatologists agree. Do you want to spend the time to learn all you can about the subject or listen to the experts?
Dean Weichmann (Mon Oct 18 11:56:41 2010)
Andrew said;
>>>God always makes a greater good come out of every evil. And having every confidence in that,<<<
This kinda reminds of little story of a religious leader who little by little loses it all, property, family, finally his own life in a flood, turning down many opportunities of help with "God will provide". He gets to see God after and asks "why did you not save me and my family?" God says "I provided the opportunities, why did you turn them down?"
Dean Weichmann (Mon Oct 18 12:43:39 2010)
Dean, who selected the "experts" in the survey? How were they selected?
How about these 31,487 scientists?
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Andrew Ellis (Mon Oct 18 12:46:24 2010)
Here, a version of the story:
A farmer in a flood
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 17:44:01 -0500
A farmer is in Iowa during a flood. The river is overflowing, with water surrounding the farmer's home up to his front porch. As he is standing there, a boat comes up, The man in the boat says "Jump in, I'll take you to safety."
The farmer crosses his arms and says stubbornly, "Nope, I put my trust in God."
The boat goes away. The water rises to the second floor. Another boat comes up, the man says to the farmer who is now in the second story window, "Jump in, I'll save you."
The farmer again says, "Nope, I put my trust in God."
The boat goes away. Now the water is up to the roof. As The farmer stands on the roof, a helicopter comes over, and drops a ladder. The pilot yells down to the farmer "I'll save you, climb the ladder."
The farmer says "Nope, I put my trust in God."
The helicopter goes away. The water comtinues to rise and sweeps the farmer off the roof. He drowns.
The farmer goes to heaven. God sees him and says "What are you doing here?"
The farmer says "I put my trust in you and you let me down."
God says, "What do you mean, let you down? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!!!"
Dean Weichmann (Mon Oct 18 12:47:13 2010)
Petition project is a joke, there is no check on credentials or whether these people exist at all.
And you question Doran and Zimmerman?
Look it up yourself.
Dean Weichmann (Mon Oct 18 13:04:00 2010)
When the gentlemen who argue for climate legislation, can get agreement from the Chinese, Indian, and Russian governments to the same criteria and rules as the United State, you have my ear. When all are being reviewed by rotating units of inspectors representing each country by level of production of gases, you have my ear. Until that time what possible benefit will come from unilateral subjection to those with questionable criteria?
Richard Parins (Mon Oct 18 14:20:43 2010)
What possible benefit will come from making a world less habitable?
>>>The Stern Review's main conclusion is that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change considerably outweigh the costs. It proposes that one percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) per annum is required to be invested in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk global GDP being up to twenty percent lower than it otherwise might be. The Review states that climate change is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen, presenting a unique challenge for economics.[2] The Review provides prescriptions including environmental taxes to minimize the economic and social disruptions. It states, "our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes. Tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy for the longer term and it can be done in a way that does not cap the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries."[9][10] In June 2008 Stern increased the estimate to 2% of GDP to account for faster than expected climate change.[11]<<<
Dean Weichmann (Mon Oct 18 14:47:53 2010)
Interesting link:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/10/14/kyoto-fraud-revealed/
EMILY MATTHEWS (Mon Oct 18 16:20:49 2010)
Proof of fraud in the Scientific Community !
You don't have to be a Rocket Scientist, or even a Atmospheric Physicist to prove fraud.
You only have to ask one question:
DO you know what the "Scientific Method is " and why it has been negated by the GW crowd.?
I challenge Dean to answer that.
It is total waste of time to look at Gore's predictions.
It is a total waste of time to look at Mann's hockey stick.
The greatist scientist to have lived during these past 100 years has only a "theory" to his name, but suddenly all this gibberish is "Fact"
Mr Einstein would laugh at the folly of the pseudo scientists runnng around like chicken little.
No my friends , the fact that GW has never undergone the rigors of Scientific Method,proves the hoax.
Voltaire, Aristotle,Kepler and Galileo are laughing at this stupidity
.
This is reminicent of the great "Bird Flu" epidemic a few years ago
Before that it was "Aids"
Each time we are warned that society may be at the end, unless drastic means are met.
We need to demand good Science, not theatrics.
Rich Carlstedt (Mon Oct 18 20:22:19 2010)
>>>DO you know what the "Scientific Method is " and why it has been negated by the GW crowd.?
I challenge Dean to answer that.<<<
Aw gee Rich, thanks. Yes I do know what the scientific method is.
Why would you expect me to try to prove your hypothesis?
Do you know what is meant by theory?
All you have is hot air.
Dean Weichmann (Mon Oct 18 20:35:55 2010)
Thank you for bringing up one of my favorite subjects Jo!
Dean Weichmann (Tue Oct 19 07:49:22 2010)
Dean, nowhere did I suggest, even remotely, that we could sit on our butts and just let God fix our problem. I will be the FIRST to say that God helps those who help themselves - which is part of why I so vehemently oppose socialist policies. I merely said that He always brings a greater good out of every evil. In this case, that the deceipts and oppression of tyranny at large (evil) is resulting in a great awakening (good). Nice try, though.
Andrew Ellis (Tue Oct 19 08:12:54 2010)
Gosh Andrew, I re-read your post and it sure seemed to me that all you wanted to do was trust in god and label anyone that disagreed with you as evil.
Maybe god wants us to help our fellow man and cooperate with each other.
I don't know where socialism came into this, I guess in your head, but socialism can be used by man to do good as well as evil just as any other system.
You said;
>>>The global warming debate is ultimately not a debate about science. It is a debate between atheism and theism.<<<
Just cuz you say it don't make it so. Religion and science can co-exist. It does take a willingness to have and open, flexible, accepting mind.
Dean Weichmann (Tue Oct 19 09:42:13 2010)
This is a great piece from the NY Times this morning- takes a route similar to mine. This community doesn't argue global warming, but rather looks for ways to cut energy costs and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Interesting.
Jo (Tue Oct 19 10:40:40 2010)
That was good Jo, Thanks for the link.
I liked this part;
>>>Invoking the notion of thrift, she set out to persuade towns to compete with one another to become more energy-efficient. She worked with civic leaders to embrace green jobs as a way of shoring up or rescuing their communities. And she spoke with local ministers about “creation care,” the obligation of Christians to act as stewards of the world that God gave them,<<<
Dean Weichmann (Tue Oct 19 11:41:25 2010)
The GOP’s climate-change ostriches
Ronald Brownstein
National Journal
On a recent visit to the U.S., British Foreign Secretary William Hague declared climate change to be “the 21st century’s biggest foreign-policy challenge,” said Ronald Brownstein. Hague is no liberal tree-hugger; he’s a longtime Conservative leader. It may be news to Americans, but prominent conservatives the world over fully accept the “widespread scientific conviction” that climate change is real. French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel also support policies of “vigorous action” against global warming, to head off the droughts, floods, hotter summers, and other extremes a warmer Earth would bring.
Only in America does an entire political party, the Republicans, dispute the “strong, credible body of scientific evidence” that climate change is real. Of 20 serious GOP Senate challengers, 19 have declared that there’s no proof that man-made activities are warming the planet. This is a disturbing trend indeed. How can the U.S. help solve the problem of climate change if one of its major political parties “repudiates even the idea that there is a problem to be solved?”
Jack Lohman (Tue Oct 19 19:59:24 2010)
|
|
Blog Archives
| 2010 |
  December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
• Solberg: Healing After an Abortion
• Basketball fans eyeing extension of Miller Park sales tax
• Nanny sex-ed bill goes to Doyle
• A first. Village limits pension contribution for employees
• Nanny State update: Toothbrushing mandated
• Obama pushes education inflation
• WI Investment Board votes to borrow to juice up returns
• So Republicans have brought nothing to the table?
• You have got to be kidding me
• Nygren: Governor Continues Terms of Failure in State of the State
• Sen. Fitzgerald: Governor down the wrong track at high speed
• Phosphorus is the new CO2. $Billions in Wisconsin
• More Obama giveaways
• A reprimand? Would you keep him on the job?
• Burri: Sarah Palin for Prez troubles me
• Quote of the Day – Obama after the pie-eating contest
• Populism, abused and trampled
• Fitzgerald: Senate Republicans Propose Real Job Creation Agenda
• Stripped down health insurance – it’s about time
• Ok GOP, scrap the Party of NO; time to lead
• No way Feingold is a Coakley. Is Wall a Brown?
• Burri: Conservatives off the chart for a RINO?
• Paltry quid pro quo?
• Doyle says ARRA has ‘created or retained’ 44,000 WI jobs
• Does most of the public fall for this stuff?
• When you get signatures, always get a couple extra
• Blame it on the outmoded computers
• Scott Brown victory does not scuttle health bill
• 8th Congressional Candidate Forum, Jan. 25
• Scott Walker Meet-and-greet, Monday, Jan. 18
• Aren’t consumers taxpayers too?
• MORE taxes on investment income - dreadful and wrong
• Join the blaze orange army and say ‘Enough is Enough’
• The future of government-run health care
• Tax on banks is a really bad idea
• Roth, Savard on the stump, grassroots style
• Savard speaking in Appleton, 8 PM, Wed., Jan. 13.
• Rahmlow: Savard, Bies frontrunners for State Senate
• Burri: Failing Political Correctness 101
• School contracts and Race to the Top
• Senator Feingold worrisome and big red flags
• Psephological?
• This is really important. Contact Rep. Kagen. Now. Please.
• This is exactly what we need from Governor Doyle
• This guy is my hero
• Why am I not surprised?
• Talk health reform with Feingold (Th), Petri (today)
• Give the Mayor power over MPS - if he can break contracts
• Burri: Yup, Dems really are going to bypass a conference
• The $2.7 billion Wisconsin deficit no one told you about
• Walker launches county accountability website
• Rahmlow: Why is Van Hollen dodging the Nebraska deal?
|
| 2009 |
December
|
November
|
October
• The Lawton-Bader files
• Yup, it’s the TAX LEVY, not the tax RATE
• Ellis: costly automobile insurance laws must be rolled back
• If not Barrett, who?
• The subsidy game
• Burri: Bailouts, Banks, Health Care, and the Mob
• Attend Appleton Schools budget meeting tonight
• A public option WON’T increase costs? That’s delusional!
• Appleton Schools budget meeting Monday
• Wisconsin should be screaming for accountability
• Burri: If anything, we need more obstructionism around here
• WI on the leading edge - in the wrong direction
• Rep. Montgomery: Utility Customers Join State’s Crime-Fighting Efforts
• Public Conservation and Recreation Lands Total 16.5% of State
• In the crow's nest of the Titanic, shouting 'Iceberg!'
• Is Rep. Nelson a political hack?
• Health care: The road ahead will be brutal
• Kagen's pandering again
• Birthers - good stuff for you
• How much do we bend over backward for seniors?
• The trouble with health care is paying for it
• Two-parent families: The Gold Standard
• Burri: Kids... the joys and blessings
• Very, very worried about health care
• Rep. Huebsch: Wisconsin is proof government health care isn’t the answer
• School district contracts push up tax levy
• What? Obama, the Peace Prize?
• TODAY - hearing on Campaign Finance Reform
• Appleton School District tax levy up way too much
• CBO report is out - and the bill isn't even written yet?
• So, how much do YOU budget for health care?
• Burri: Copenhagen trip was amateurish
• “Sotomayor, you have blood on your hands...”
• Cap and Trade. Always follow the money
• Rep. Kagen gets (almost) free health services
• I actually agree with Rep. Kagen
• Future Wisconsin Conference for Conservatives, October 10, Wauwatosa
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
|
| 2008 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
• Important votes Tuesday, including Appleton Common Council
• Democrats are becoming supply siders??
• Further debunking Hillary myths
• WEAC has created an unsustainable monopoly
• From Mark Gundrum: One of the greatest honors an American can experience
• 'Operation Chaos' working?
• Joe Martin the best candidate in Appleton's 8th
• State programs to cut? - Volume II
• Oh the naivete of youth
• Not just disingenuous - flat wrong
• Steve - you will be missed
• Make cuts only AFTER you're elected....
• Getting serious: What programs can we cut?
• Rep. Steve Kagen joining me on Jerry Bader Show today
• Rep. Van Roy: Dental Care Pilot Program
• Has Dave Obey turned the corner on earmarks?
• Speaker Huebsch: Governor turns down Federal Aid?
• Mark Rahmlow: "We're Broke."
• As taxpayers, how do we know if it's a Chevy or a Lexus?
• This is trash talk - about a veteran
• Frank Lasee: Take time to get the Compact right
• 'The Gableman Ad' - is it racist?
• Roth thankful, Kagen shaking money tree
• Gov. Doyle's office not enamored with Freedom of Information
• Governor Doyle will never do it
• Leadership on smoking ban? Not Hanna
• Rep. Van Roy speaks out about smear ads
• You're threatening me about potholes?
• Losing the Hastert seat is NOT a trend and NOT curtians for the GOP
• First suggestion for 'slashing' programs
• Big money-saver for municipalities
• More one time fixes. Nuts.
• Any chances???
• I'm doing the Jerry Bader Show, today, the 11th
• Representative Frank Lasee: Final Waltz of the Season
• Guest Blog: It's not the county's business to be in the nursing home business
• Yup, Hillary won Texas and Ohio
• Gableman/Butler race featured - and it isn't pretty
• Lies from Planned Parenthood and NARAL
• He who sacrifices liberty.....
• Duh.
• The Troha sentencing, Doyle and that $200K
• Guns, passion and "originality"
• How hard is it anyway, to shut down a government program?
• Voting is a PRIVILEGE. And so are property taxes....
• Guest Blog: Governor Doyle, cancel your Ireland trip
|
February
|
January
|
| 2007 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
• Lots of ideas. No money.
• The Cigarette Tax - "Poor Policy Instrument?"
• School budget Lite?
• Frankenstein - not in the library, but in the legislature
• A librarian, a legislator, a president
• $1.25/pack - NO, NO, NO, and NO
• Kagen and Reagan in the same breath?
• Menasha: behind the 8-ball, but not biting the dust
• Any way you slice it, Wisconsin government wants (further) in on health care
• The World is Flat...what about health care?
• The PAC - too precious to fail. Day 3
• News follow-ups: Appleton West, Kagen at the White House
• Fox Cities PAC - too precious to fail - Day 2
• Fox Cities PAC - too precious to fail
• New Transit Tax coming your way
• Rep. Petri has his finger in the dike - I guess
• AASD Retirement Costs Burdensome
• Health care, health care, health care, health care
• Water rate increase was no slam dunk
• Education for all is just a bad dream
• New Year's resolutions from a parade snob
|
| 2006 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
| 2000 |
May
|
|
