Rand Paul is once again doing what he does best. Showing his complete ignorance. In his never-ending quest to send America spiraling into anarchy he seeks to attack anything the government does. Unfortunately for him he attacks with idiocy, not facts.
As he is known to do, Paul Krugman is rattling a few Republican cages. These folks always seem to have trouble accepting one thing. Hard truth. Krugman never refrains from dosing it out on economic issues but now he is raising a firestorm over comments made about 9-11 which caused the ensuing, "War on Terror". In retrospect as usual Paul Krugman got it right.
A predictable thing is happening. After Paul Ryan has introduced his "plan" to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, children and the most unfortunate and helpless among us all while giving the wealthy a free pass the blowhards on the right-wing are touting it as "serious". Fortunately everyone is not as brainwashed as the tea-bag masses who worship greed. In fact real economists see this plan for what it is, idiocy.
Greg Palast | Chevron Runs From Judgment in Ecuador Greg Palast, Truthout: "Chevron Petroleum Corporation is attempting to slither out of an $8 billion judgment rendered yesterday by a trial court in Ecuador for cancer deaths, illnesses and destruction caused by its Texaco unit. I've been there, in Ecuador. I met the victims. They didn't lose their shrimp boats; they lost their kids. Emergildo Criollo, chief of the Cofan natives of the Amazon, told me about his three-year-old. 'He went swimming, then began vomiting blood.' Then he died. And, then, I met Chevron-Texaco's lawyers. When I showed Texaco lawyer Rodrigo Perez the epidemiological studies tracing childhood cancers to their oil, he sneered and said, 'And it's the only case of cancer in the world? How many cases of children with cancer do you have in the States, in Europe, in Quito?'" Read the Article Common Cause Asks Court About Thomas' Connection to Koch Brothers Eric Lichtblau, The New York Times News Service: "Discrepancies in reports about an appearance by Justice Clarence Thomas at a political retreat for wealthy conservatives three years ago have prompted new questions to the Supreme Court from a group that advocates changing campaign finance laws. When questions were first raised about the retreat last month, a court spokeswoman said Justice Thomas had made a 'brief drop-by' at the event in Palm Springs, Calif., in January 2008 and had given a talk." Read the Article
I was reading Paul Krugman's column the other day and was dismayed by his argument. According to the Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist, a half-ass, half-hearted measure on curbing carbon emissions is better than doing nothing, but I'm unconvinced. As written in The Washington Post:
On paper, the Waxman-Markey bill puts a cost on carbon dioxide by imposing a ceiling, or cap, on greenhouse gas emissions and then setting up a market for regulated industries -- such as the electric power sector -- to buy and sell allowances to pollute under that cap. As the cap is reduced each year, market participants will exchange allowances in a complex auction market.
If you liked what credit default swaps did to our economy, you're going to love cap-and-trade. Just read Title VIII of the bill, which lets investment banks, hedge funds and other speculators participate in the cap-and-trade market. They don't have emissions to cut; they have commissions to make.
The real hidden catch of the cap-and-trade system, though, is that it will require consumers to pay twice: first for emission allowances and then for the construction of new low- and zero-carbon power plants.
That doesn't sound very good, and the bad news gets progressively worse.
Contrary to assurances from the bill's sponsors that utility customers wouldn't have to pay these costs for the first decade, some coal-dependent utilities would be forced to purchase more than half of their allowances when the program is scheduled to begin in 2012. Would these allowances reduce our greenhouse gas emissions? No; that would come when consumers footed a second bill - for the cost of their utilities either to retrofit coal and gas plants to capture carbon - something that cannot be done today on a commercial scale - or to shut them down and build non-carbon-producing nuclear plants and wind farms instead.