New York Post

The Obama administration just blew the whistle on . . . itself: The Treasury Department has reported that Team Obama’s claims about the “nominal” costs of its cap-and-trade bill aren’t really so nominal, after all.

And Team Obama knew it all along.

Nice. In one fell swoop, the Obama folks broke two separate campaign promises:

* No new taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

* Complete transparency in the legislative process.

How exactly did it break these vows? Look at the Treasury report.

The report shows that the cap and-trade bill the White House is pushing in Congress — in which companies have to buy “allowances” for carbon emissions — is far more expensive for Americans than advertised.

Sure, everyone knew the firms would pass these costs along to customers. But supporters of the bill claimed that consumers would face only “nominal” increases — barely $200 a year.

Wrong. The Treasury analysis puts the actual nationwide cost of cap-and-trade at some $200 billion a year — or $1,761 per household. That figure is very close to the $1,870 amount estimated by the Heritage Foundation prior to the vote in the House

Read More:

By Sam Youngman, The Hill

As Summer heats up, so does the pressure on Obama

The Obama administration, which was flying high a month ago after pushing through a climate change bill in the House, has since been dealt a series of setbacks and is struggling to regain its footing.

After the climate bill passed 219-212 on the afternoon of June 26, there was a feeling that the White House could get much of its agenda through Congress in 2009.

A month later, there are doubts that President Obama will even achieve his number one priority of healthcare reform, much less cap-and-trade, immigration reform and a regulatory revamp of the financial sector.

Since late June – when Democrats defied convention wisdom and passed the climate bill by their self-imposed deadline — the stubborn realities of Washington have blunted and possibly even derailed the president’s signature domestic efforts.

Read More:

By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, Worldnetdaily

Like a Pac Man gobbling up everything in sight, going after folks making more than $250,000 a year is not enough to satisfy Obama’s insatiable appetite for money and power. He wants more. Although it means breaking a campaign promise to tax only the "rich," Obama’s mad rush for revenue to fund his social engineering has transformed his agenda into a war against the middle class.

While Obama rides his luxury 747 around the globe, glad handing with other world leaders discussing "healing the planet" and other grandiose plans, the average American is struggling to find work. As Michelle Obama totes around a $6,000 Italian alligator-skin clutch, the only thing most Americans are "clutching" is their wallets, trying to figure out how to get by this month. Obama is out of touch with Middle America. However, even worse than his overt elitism is the damaging effect his agenda is having on middle class taxpayers.

Obama came to office promising an economic stimulus to help get people back to work and ward off an impending economic disaster. Instead, he pushed through Congress a grab bag of pork projects for his cronies. Obama is using government largesse to try and win votes by making people dependent on his generosity. A recent USA Today analysis revealed counties voting for Obama received twice times the stimulus money per capita as those voting for McCain. This suspiciously looks like payback, not an economic stimulus program.

Read More:

By Byron York, The Examiner

With one word Monday, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele helped the GOP get back in the fight over health care and the entire Obama agenda. The word was “experiment.”

“Candidate Obama promised change,” Steele said in a speech at the National Press Club. “President Obama is conducting an experiment.” Steele went on to accuse Barack Obama of carrying out dangerous experiments with the nation’s health care, with the economy, with taxpayers’ dollars.

“Experiment” didn’t come from nowhere. “The term bubbled up from a set of focus groups we did with swing voters, independents, soft Republicans and soft Democrats,” says one strategist involved in an extensive RNC research effort nationwide and in key states like Virginia, Colorado and Florida. “It’s something that a vast majority of voters believe is true, that Obama is running what amounts to an experiment with our future.”

The RNC researchers came away convinced that Americans are scared. Certainly voters expected Obama to do things. But they are frightened by the sheer scope of the president’s proposals, the fiscal dangers they present and, perhaps most of all, the astonishing speed with which the administration is trying to enact such fundamental and far-reaching changes.

Read More:

By James Lamont in New Delhi, James Fontanella-Khan in Mumbai and Daniel Dombey in Washington, The Financial Times

India on Sunday night rebuffed an appeal by Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, to embrace a low-carbon future in which the two countries would work together to devise new ways of consuming and producing energy.

Mrs Clinton, on a five-day visit to the country, said that low-carbon emissions would not jeopardise India’s high economic growth rates and its goal of lifting millions of people out of poverty. She offered a technological partnership to secure the fast growing nation’s energy supplies and help boost the livelihoods of its farmers.

“There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have been among the lowest emissions per capita, face to actually reduce emissions,” Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister told Mrs Clinton. “And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours.”

In spite of the two countries’ battles in global trade talks and fears of India’s slipping down the US’s priority list, Mrs Clinton vowed that Washington would not do “anything” to stand in the way of the world’s largest democracy’s economic progress.

Read More:

Eric Maqrtell, Orlando properties

Cap & Trade will have detrimental impacts on homeownership

Among other provisions that control nearly every aspect of our lives, the Waxman-Markley energy bill has a requirement that forces the entire United States to use a National Building Code based on the green building standards of California. Regardless of whether your house is in Miami, Florida or Bangor, Maine, you’ll have to adhere to the standards used in a state that has one of the most moderate climates in the U.S. The construction industry is really going to suffer.

The bill forces sellers to have an energy inspection prior to being able to sell their home. Windows, appliances and insulation will have to be inspected and approved by a government inspector and modifications would have to be made for compliance before you can close the sale.

Basically, you won’t be able to sell until you go through the expense of bringing your house up to the new code. This will cost a prohibitive amount in many cases. For example, let’s say that you own an older house which you bought in 2003 for $250,000 and you now need to sell. Not only has the value fallen to or below the level of the mortgage due the the drop in prices, but you are now faced with re-insulating the entire house, installing new windows, and changing the HVAC & other appliances. The total cost for this type of renovation might easily come to well over 10% of the house’s value.

It begins to look as if defaulting on the mortgage might become even more common. The real tradegy is that low income families are more likely to live in older houses which won’t meet the new standards and which will require major upgrades. I thought that we weren’t going to see any new taxes on people who make less than $250,000. What a cruel joke!