White House Dossier: The Obama Morning News

Keith Koffler live streams the press conferences every day at White House Dossier.  He also had the President's speech live streamed but I was tied up as usual and didn't catch what he had to say because frankly it will just be blaming someone else because Obama never takes responsibility for anything.

Why did Obama want Geithner to stay as the Secretary of the Treasury.  Two schools of thought, Obama will throw him under the bus later in the campaign as it is all his fault or he is afraid to nominate anyone else and have the Senate take a good look at what the Treasury Secretary has been doing that has helped tank the markets.

Looks like Obama is still going to be going on a campaign bus ride on the taxpayers nickle.  Only Obama would be this dumb after a downgrade to spend more taxpayers dollars for him to campaign against some Republican opponent yet to be named.  We could could cut the deficit if he would stay home in the White House and quit using Government resources like Air Force, all the security vehicles required to protect him, etc.

It is now called the "Tea Party Downgrade" -- guess they have given up on blaming Bush but how can it be the Tea Party when they wanted more deficit cuts and the Senate Democrats and Obama refused to listen.  There is a bill in the Senate, Cut, Cap, and Balance that Obama had Reid table without a vote and yet Democrats blame the Tea Party?  Excuse me but where is the Senate Budget and that magic plan of Obama's -- both seem to be MIA!

Next big announcement that will affect the GOP Primary -- Governor Rick Perry announces he is getting in the Presidential race and a lot of us can breath a huge sigh of relief.

The Obama Morning News || August 8, 2011by Keith Koffler on August 8, 2011, 7:35 am

Treasury Secretary Geithner announced that he will stay at Treasury. 

August is, as usual, the worst month for President Obama. So Obama is stumping with a new urgency. But his mid-month Midwestern bus caravan might not be the smoothest of rides.

In a sign of the narrative the White House will offer, outside Obama adviser David Axelrod and Sen John Kerry (D-Mass.) each said said S&P had performed a ”Tea Party downgrade.” 

Former Obama economic adviser Christina Romer says the downgrade is a sign the country is “pretty darn fucked.”

Whatever happens in Thursday’s debate and Saturday’s straw poll in Ames, the Republican field is likely to be narrowed, writes POLITICO. 

The Tea Party and a seething discontent with the establishment make Mitt Romney’s perch atop the GOP field a precarious one. The $1 million Romney donor stepped forward. 

And Texas Gov. Rick Perry led thousands of Christians in prayer at a Texas rally.

Recession Fears increase with S&P Downgrade of US Credit

There is something about the S&P downgrade of the US Credit rating which makes us wonder what is the real story behind this and who is pulling the strings as S&P pushes for the end of the Bush Tax Cuts which should be a red flag to anyone.  Is there a conflict of interest with S&P?  They are not asking for the Government to spend less and if you read between the lines, they want the Government to spend more and get the revenue from allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire it looks like across the board.  The S&P comments in their press release look like they come straight of the DNC.

S&P laid blame for its decision to assign the AA+ rating directly on the political process in Washington. Even though lawmakers reached a decision on Aug. 2 to raise the government's debt ceiling and avoid a potentially disastrous default, the deficit-reduction package that accompanied the deal won't sufficiently improve the government's fiscal health in the coming years, S&P said in a release Friday. A factor in that projection, S&P said, is that Republicans seem unwilling to allow the Bush-era tax cuts to expire. 

From across the Atlantic comes these questions which frankly most should be asked  of S&P by members of Congress.  Hearings need to held into what went into this downgrade since the S&P release was so much like Democrat Talking Point paper.  These are legitimate questions that need answers but why once again is our media like crickets?

10 Questions About S&P Downgrade

By Barry Ritholtz - August 6th, 2011, 7:34AM

The downgrade from TripleAAA to AA+ by Standard & Poors raises many questions. Here is my list of most important issues the downgrade raises:

1. The change in trajectory of US debt was in service of Banks: It began with TARP, and continued with every other bailout/stimulus/economic plan. What was S&P’s role in creating that crisis? 

2. How will non-US investors (Private and Central Banks) view the downgrade? 

3. What is S&P’s methodology of rating sovereigns beyond Probability of Default? How does this differ from other rating agencies? 

4. What does the downgrade do to US currency — is that the true impact of the credit downgrade? 

5. Will borrowing costs likely increase for the US? What about consumers? 

6. Will the downgrade of US spill over to other agencies, states, municipalities? 

7. Will private sector holders of US Treasuries — insurers, pension, foundations, etc. — be downgraded as well? 

8. Why did the rating agency not wait until the special committee / debt ceiling deal was completed later this year? 

9. The Rating Agencies were downgraded by Dodd-Frank, with all regulatory and legal references to be removed. Was S&P’s move retaliatory? 

10. How will US markets open on Monday in response to the downgrade?

Thanks to Josh Rosner, Scott Frew, and other anonymous participants

Why is it that every time we have something to do with the economy, banking, etc., that it always goes back to the Dodd-Frank bill.  Even today, do most of us have a clue what is in that bill that was used to pay back their big donors?  That may be right up there with Obamacare for being a bad bill.

Going to MIT instead of the Ivy League for comments made me stop and notice this article on AOL this afternoon.  How many Ivy League guru's who helped get us in this mess are going to talk about stuffing money in your mattress where it would be safe?  Bet there are none!  

Word is coming out that Geithner has agreed to stay on as Treasury Secretary which we do not find is good news.  One more reason to send Obama and his whole Administration to the Unemployment Line on 6 November 2011.

William Alden Alden@huffingtonpost.com 

U.S. Credit Downgrade By S&P Darkens Economic Outlook, Stokes Recession Fears 
First Posted: 8/6/11 03:56 PM ET Updated: 8/6/11 04:40 PM ET NEW YORK --

With the United States government now shorn of its top credit rating by Standard & Poor's, experts are increasingly worried that the American economy is headed back into recession, while Europe appears vulnerable to another shock. 

The announcement that the rating agency had reduced the U.S. government's AAA rating for the first time in history came after days of punishing declines in the stock market, and has now cast a shadow over economic prospects in the months ahead. A recent stream of indicators has provoked concern that the economy could be headed for another recession, with the growth rate slowing considerably, unemployment stubbornly elevated and the stock market swooning. Some experts say the downgrade could be the final trigger, making credit more expensive and sowing broad unease. 

"People will be pulling money out of equity markets, out of commodity markets, and putting it into cash -- essentially, stuffing money in your mattress," said Andrew Lo, a professor of finance at the MIT Sloan School of Management, in an interview Saturday. "This is the worst thing to have happened, given the weak economy we already have." 

"Some straw has to break the camel's back," he added. "This may be the straw." 

The psychological impact of the downgrade might cause stocks to fall Monday and could exacerbate the sovereign debt crisis in Europe, experts say. Over time, it could raise the interest rates on 10-year and 30-year Treasury debt, making it more expensive for the federal government to borrow money, further worsening the deficit. The downgrade could also push up the cost of loans that are tied to the Treasury rate, making it more expensive for Americans to get funds to buy a car or a house. 

The effects could reach Europe, where nations that share the euro currency are contending with a debt crisis that seems to deepen by the week. While S&P didn't announce plans to reduce the ratings of European countries following its U.S. Treasury downgrade, experts said European downgrades might be inevitable, to maintain consistency in the rating system. That in turn could spark a new round of panic. 

S&P's decision comes at a time of critical economic weakness, as the American economy seems increasingly vulnerable to another contraction just two years after the official end of the recession that began in December 2007. Gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of just 0.85 percent in the first half of the year, the government announced in July. Seen in relation to population growth, GDP actually shrank in the first three months of the year. 

After other data releases showed the manufacturing sector weakening and consumer spending drying up, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 513 points on Thursday, in the biggest one-day drop since the depths of the financial crisis. 

It remains unclear what the precise effects of S&P's downgrade will be, or when they might materialize. Some experts believe the global economy will be able to absorb the downgrade without much turmoil. But others, like Lo, take a more pessimistic view. 

(snip) 

Although interest rates on long-term U.S. Treasury debt might rise as a result of the downgrade, rates on short-term debt could fall, as investors throw money at safe-haven assets. The yields on Treasury bills, which have the shortest lifespans of the government's debt securities, could fall below zero, if investors turn to U.S. debt that is keeping its rating intact. 

Interest rate movement in bond markets, moreover, might be minimal at first. Investors' attitudes about the economy influence their demand for Treasury debt; with the outlook grim, investors have been fleeing from risk, eager to lend money to the U.S. government and happy to accept low compensation. Yields on 10-year Treasury notes neared 2.4 percent, a low not seen since last fall, as the Federal Reserve was beginning a second massive economic stimulus. 

But over the next few years, yields on a variety of investments that are influenced by the Treasury rate might rise, implying that a whole range of assets would be treated as riskier. 

"When there's more demand for credit, that's when we're likely to see a re-pricing of risk," Mark Vitner, a senior economist at Wells Fargo, said Saturday. "In the very near term, our borrowing costs are going down, due entirely to economic weakness."  

Excerpt:  Huffington Post AOL

No one knows for sure what will happen tomorrow but it could get really nasty or the markets could look at S&P as an anomaly as the other two credit rating agencies, Fitch and Moody's, left the United States credit rating at AAA. Moody's is also pushing that the deficit be tackled and gotten under control versus raising tax rates. Now we wait for the markets to open worldwide to see the fallout while world leaders have been working the phones:

World leaders race to head off Monday stock market turmoil

August 7, 2011

World leaders and finance chiefs raced Sunday to head off spiralling tension triggered by eurozone debt contagion and a US rating downgrade as the clock ticked on the opening of the markets Monday.

Officials from the Group of 20 and Group of 7 economies held emergency conference calls Sunday as leaders of major powers conferred by phone and European Central Bank (ECB) governors readied for talks before the opening of the New Zealand market, the first to trade in Asia.

No details emerged from the talks, with officials in European doggedly tight-lipped.

In a sign of a possible storm ahead, the Israeli market fell seven percent Sunday and Gulf markets tumbled on opening but later trimmed some losses as investors reacted to Standard & Poor’s unprecedented cut in the the US rating to AA+ from the top notch triple-A.

“Until the stock markets open (Monday) the extent of earthquake caused by the downgrade of the US. debt rating will not be known,” said Spain’s El Pais daily newspaper. “But everything points to a black Monday which may intensify the attacks on the euro.”

Excerpt: Read more a Vancouver Sun

Just turned on the Bloomberg Channel on Cox and they are reporting that France could be next in line to be downgraded from AAA to AA. Tomorrow is shaping up along with the rest of the month to not be good days for those in the stock market unless they have been smart traders.

Verizon Workers Go On Strike -- Object to Paying Anything for Healthcare

They couldn't have picked a worse time to strike.  One hang up by the unions seems to be over healthcare:

... Verizon said its wireline business has been in decline for more than a decade, and that it is asking for changes in the contract to strengthen the unit. The company said union employees contribute nothing to their health care premiums.

Union employees of Verizon are contributing nothing to their health care premiums while many of us are paying hundreds of dollars a month for healthcare -- over $400 if you have the Federal Employee Blue Cross/Blue Shield family plan.  How did the unions ever pull it off that they would not have to contribute to their own healthcare?  The attitude that we are all owed health insurance without having to pay is a socialistic attitude with unrealistic expectations in today's world.  Nothing like health insurance is free as someone has to pay in the end.  In most cases, it is the consumer as the companies raise the price of the goods and services.

When unions were formed it was a safety issue but now it seems to be all about how much they can rip off a company through threats of strike and now a strike.  Take a look at Boeing workers in Seattle who go on strike every three to four years or the ones in Chicago striking the Congress Plaza Hotel for eight years. The union pay to workers when they strike in a lot of cases is slightly less than what they get paid when they work.  They have no incentive to settle anything.  Now the unions object to paying more for health benefits when some have paid zero.

Verizon has made contingency plans using non-union workers who make up the majority of their company.  Maybe they will discover they don't need so many union members or any at all.  Going on strike in today's economy is short sighted but since Obama took office the unions have been getting bolder and think with the DOJ behind them, they can do whatever.  They may be in for a shock one of these days when more states go Right to Work and the union leaders who call the shots have taken them down the wrong path. 

Verizon Workers On Strike Over Contract

By CRISTIAN SALAZAR 08/ 7/11 12:58 AM ET

NEW YORK -- Tens of thousands of unionized Verizon Communications Inc. workers from Massachusetts to Washington, D.C., went on strike early Sunday after they failed to agree on a new labor contract with the telecommunications company. 

The Communications Workers of America said negotiations in Philadelphia and New York stalled Saturday night after Verizon continued to demand more than 100 concessions from workers and the unions refused to budge. 

Mark C. Reed, Verizon's executive vice president of human resources, called the outcome of the unions' actions "regrettable" for customers and employees. 

"We will continue to do our part to reach a new contract that reflects today's economic realities in our wireline business and addresses the needs of all parties," he said in a statement. 

The contract that expired midnight Saturday covers 45,000 workers, including 10,000 represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who serve as telephone and repair technicians, customer service representatives, operators and more. 

"Even at the 11th hour, as contracts were set to expire, Verizon continued to seek to strip away 50 years of collective bargaining gains for middle class workers and their families," CWA said in a statement Sunday. 

Verizon, the nation's largest wireless carrier, has 196,000 workers; 135,000 are non-union.
At the center of the contract negotiations, which began June 22, are the costs of health care, pensions and work rules. 

The CWA said the concessions are unjustified and harsh, given that Verizon is highly profitable – the company's revenue rose 2.8 percent to $27.5 billion in the second quarter. Its growth was largely attributed to its wireless business. 

Excerpt:  Read More at Huffington Post AOL 

Downgrade turns up heat on Congress which is a good thing

Will someone please explain to me why Obama went out fundraising and partying to his huge birthday extravaganza in Chicago with the S&P set to downgrade the US credit rating from AAA to AA? 

Why did the Senate adjourn?  When your work is not finished, you certainly don't take a vacation.  The Senate has not passed a budget in over two years so they should have taken no vacation and be in daily sessions to finish the job of passing a budget so the two budgets could go to Conference Committee.  The House has passed a budget and has their affairs in order.   In fact the House has passed bill after bill dealing with the budget and economy that the Senate tabled so they wouldn't have to take a vote.

Do the Democrats plan on passing no budget in 2012 as well which would mean four years of the Senate passing NO budgets and relying on continuing resolutions to keep Government functioning?  If that is not a campaign issue, nothing is.  What a worthless bunch of Democrats in the United State Senate who put politics over what is good for America.  Looks like Reid is still taking orders from Obama to do nothing that might hurt his campaign.

While the Senate leadership has continued to play political games with House passed bills including a budget bill, our credit rating has been downgraded due to lack of action of getting the deficit under control.  The House had made deficit a reduction a priority while Obama and the Democrats continue to look for more ways to spend money including a second stimulus when the first one failed miserably.  

Unless the Democrats in the Senate and Obama get serious about deficit reduction, we could see another downgrade.  As I heard someone on Neil Cavuto this morning say, Obama will be known for the first President to allow a downgrade of credit of the United States not the first black President.  While the fires have been burning in DC with partisan bickering and stubbornness out of the Senate Democrats to cuts, Obama has been out raising money for his reelection. 

The goal of Obama is to raise $1B to run his campaign and he doesn't even have a primary opponent.   That seems to be more of a priority to Obama then getting the financial house of the United States in order.  Is he doing this on purpose to tank the United States to help his overseas buddies in the Arab World bring the United States to its knees?   The other option that comes to mind is that he doesn't care what happens as long as he can fly around the Country on AF One waving his magic wand to raise more dollars for his campaign and grace the little people with his presence. 

One thing is certain, Obama has not had the best interests of the Unites States at heart since he took office and it has not changed except to get worse.  All he cares about is raising money for HIS campaign and be on the campaign trail using the resources of the US taxpayer.  No incumbent President without an opponent would be out raising money and campaigning this early especially when the Federal Government is facing such a financial crisis but Obama is not like other Presidents as we have witnessed.  His agenda to move the Country way left toward socialism has not worked but he has tanked our economy big time in the process. 

Time to send him to the Unemployment line in November 2012.

Downgrade turns up heat on Congress

By Charles Riley @CNNMoney

August 5, 2011: 11:39 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The downgrade of the United States' AAA credit rating will apply even greater pressure on Congress to follow through on plans to tame the nation's debt.

Over the next few months, Washington is set to engage in a series of battles over the fiscal course of the federal government.

And that debate will largely be carried out through a new bipartisan "super committee." The 12-member panel -- six Democrats and six Republicans -- will have until Nov. 23 to propose how to cut between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion in deficits.

Congress will then take an up-or-down vote on the proposals by Dec. 23.

In its downgrade announcement on Friday, credit rating agency S&P said it could "stabilize" the country's rating if the committee's work helps lead to debt-reduction measures "beyond the minimum mandated."

The committee was established by the debt ceiling deal signed by President Obama this week. The law put caps in place on domestic and defense spending, resulting in cuts of $917 billion over 10 years.

What's wrong with the debt ceiling deal


Members will be tasked with finding ways to cut the deficit while navigating tough issues that have festered in Washington for decades: taxes, along with cuts to entitlements, defense and discretionary spending.

The members of the committee will face intense pressure from lobbyists and special interest groups, as well as their fellow lawmakers -- who have to run reelection campaigns and want their views represented.

A dispute has, of course, already erupted over whether the committee will tackle taxes, and which baseline should be used to measure cuts.

While the committee -- once appointed -- faces a series of tough choices, they also have a powerful incentive to finish their work on time, and on budget.

The committee's goal is to cut at least $1.5 trillion in debt. If it fails to do that or deadlocks, the sword of Damocles will fall on most forms of spending in the federal budget.

Specifically, as much as $1.2 trillion in across-the-board cuts would kick in -- evenly divided between defense and non-defense spending.

The battle over 2012: The super committee won't be the only budget game in town. Lawmakers will also have to decide on agency spending levels for fiscal year 2012, which starts Oct. 1.

As part of the debt ceiling deal, Congress decided to cut spending for the year, but not which programs and agencies will receive less money.

The deadline for making those tough choices is just around the corner.

Excerpt:  Read More at CNN Money

Breaking News from NY Times: S&P Downgrades US Long Term Debt Rating

Thanks to Obama and the Democrats in the Senate who refused to allow more cuts, S&P has downgraded the United States for the first time.  Another first for the Obama regime who in two years of runaway spending got us into the mess.  Then he gets us into Libya where we are spending unknown sums of money a day on a Country that makes no difference to the US.

Maybe instead of heading to Chicago to celebrate his birthday and rake in campaign funds, he should have stayed in DC and tried to head this off instead of partying.  Personally think he could care less no matter what he has to say or he wouldn't have gone to Chicago with this being a possibility.  Why didn't he demand that Congress stay in session to find more cuts -- oh wait, Obama doesn't like cuts because he wants to tax and spend.

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Friday, August 5, 2011 -- 8:41 PM EDT
-----
U.S. Long-Term Debt Downgraded by Standard & Poor’s 

Standard & Poor’s removed the United States government from its list of risk-free borrowers on Friday night, citing concern about the rising burden of long-term federal debt. 

The ratings agency had threatened the downgrade if the government did not act to reduce the federal debt by at least $4 trillion over the next decade. Earlier this week, Congress instead passed a plan to reduce the debt by at least $2.1 trillion. 

Two other ratings agencies, Moody’s and Fitch, both have said that they have no immediate plan to downgrade the country’s credit rating, giving the government more time to make progress on debt reduction. The split verdict limits the impact of the S.&P. downgrade as many consequences would only be triggered by a reduction by at least two agencies. 

Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na

Governor Rick Perry Bid Could Hurt Rove's Influence

Would say the headline says it all and it is about time.  In 1998 when Rick Perry ran for Lt Governor against Democrat John Sharp, this Republican always felt that Rove wanted Sharp to win so he could switch parties after he was elected with Governor Bush running for President as they would have more control.  Rove seemed to do everything he could not to help Perry but with the help of the Perry team he beat Sharp.  Then during last year's primary, Bush 41 got Rove to support Kay Bailey for Governor against Perry along with Bush 41 cronies like Baker and Cheney, and then got Mitt Romney to endorse Kay Bailey which was a stupid move on the part of Bush 41 and Rove.  Bush 41 also tried to pry Carney, Perry's consultant, away from Perry to Kay Bailey which was another move that backfired and poisoned the water even more between the Perry and Bush people.

Supported GW Bush in 2000, but also supported Rick Perry in 1998 and every election after that even though we lived in Oklahoma.  Thought some of the Bush people were too arrogant and treated Perry like he was a nobody at times which frankly disgusted me.  It has not set well since the 2004 election and especially after 2006 when the Democrats took over Congress with the reactions out of the Bush's to not only the Democrats but to Bill Clinton.  All the while Gov Perry is working to make Texas a leader in job growth and there are the Bush's along with Rove sniping at Perry.  Guess you could me a former Bush supporter because I support Rick Perry all the way to the White House.

Perry Bid Could Hurt Rove's Influence
Friday, 05 Aug 2011 12:10 PM
By Dan Weil

The relationship between top Republican strategist Karl Rove and Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been a frosty one dating back to the 1990s. And if Perry enters the presidential race, as now appears likely, the animosity between the two could have a major impact on how Republican money is doled out for next year’s election campaigns, Politico reports. 

Rove is leading a Republican effort to raise millions of dollars to defeat President Barack Obama and other Democrats. He was instrumental in building outside fundraising groups such as American Crossroads and Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (Crossroads GPS).

But wealthy Texans, including some big-time Perry donors, have played a major role in bankrolling Rove’s cause. So what happens if Perry jumps into the presidential fray?
One donor to both American Crossroads and the Texas governor told Politico that if Perry wins the presidential nomination, his donors will stop giving to Rove. “Perry winning would be a deathblow for Rove,” the person said. 

Read more on Newsmax.com: Perry Bid Could Hurt Rove's Influence 

Inhofe Calls on Obama EPA to Halt Ozone Standard Announcement ...

Inhofe Informant Email starts out with the EPA which frankly under Lisa Jackson is more out of control now then it has ever been.  Those new Ozone Standards would be enforced in smaller communities like mine that really don't have a problem but if you lower the Ozone Standards enough, the middle of nowhere will have a problem.

Will someone please answer me why officials in Oklahoma and Texas are the ones fighting the EPA versus some of the other states who are content to sit back.  EPA is a job killing organization and where it the outcry.  Wall Street Journal and the Detroit News both have editorials about these new job killing ozone rules.  Where is the MSM on these new rules?  Covering for Obama?

Inhofe Calls on Obama EPA to Halt Ozone Standard Announcement Given Scientific Integrity Concerns

Following an investigation by the Republican staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works into the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) science panels on ozone and particulate matter, Senator Inhofe called for the Obama EPA to put a halt to its plan to reconsider the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. EPA is expected to announce within days its decision to tighten the ozone NAAQS, which is largely based on the recommendations of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC). Yet findings from a new Senate investigation put the impartiality of CASAC in question. 

Link to Letter from Senator Inhofe to EPA IGLink to Politico Pro: Inhofe seeks probe of EPA science panelsLink to National Journal: Rumors Fly About OMB Delay Request on EPA Ozone Rules 

"Today I am calling on the Obama-EPA to halt its plan to move forward with the reconsideration of the ozone standard," Senator Inhofe said. "EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has repeatedly said that she is basing her decision on the recommendations of CASAC. Yet an investigation by my staff has uncovered an apparent lack of impartiality and financial conflicts of interest among the members of EPA's science advisory panels. EPA is clearly politicizing the science, all in the name of an environmental activism that will destroy jobs. This further undermines the scientific integrity of the Obama Administration, and in particular, the EPA. 

"These findings cannot be taken lightly: EPA estimates that the cost of compliance for the ozone standard could be $90 billion a year, making it the most expensive environmental regulation in history. Additional studies have projected that the rule could cost upwards of a trillion dollars and destroy 7.4 million jobs. With such an enormous price tag and so many jobs at stake, it is absolutely unacceptable for this rule to be based on dubious science. 

"President Obama does not have to go through with this: his EPA is bound neither by science nor law to revise this standard. In 2008, the Bush EPA tightened the standard significantly from 0.084 ppm to 0.075 ppm, and state and local communities are already making great strides in air quality as they work to meet that standard. Instead of acknowledging this progress, EPA is showing its decision to be purely political by further tightening the standard in order to appease the environmental left. 

"Given that the Obama EPA is not obligated to act and is apparently basing its rulemaking on the advice of those who lack scientific objectivity, the Agency is showing itself to be bent on creating needless economic pain, killing jobs and stifling economic growth at a time when our nation can least afford it. EPA should halt this agenda at once and make it a priority to restore the balance between environmental progress and economic growth." 

Senator Inhofe sent a letter to the Inspector General of the EPA Arthur A. Elkins asking him to investigate further whether EPA's management of two Clean Air Act Advisory Committees has resulted in panels that lack impartiality and serve as a "rubber stamp" of EPA's policy objectives, circumventing both the law and Administration policy. 

Importantly, these committees played a key role in the advisory process for the pending tightening of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and particulate matter (PM). Senator Inhofe has requested that the EPA IG report back to Congress with its findings by September 19, 2011. 

The investigation by EPW Republicans of EPA's management of its advisory committees found: 

- Lack of Impartiality: EPA has violated its own Peer Review Handbook by selecting members who have publicly taken sides on the issues in question and thus lack the required impartiality. In direct conflict with the recommendations of the National Academies, EPA has also repeatedly asked authors of key studies to opine on their own work by including them on panels that are reviewing reports based on their research.

- Failure to Balance Perspectives: EPA has also violated the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) by failing to assure the resulting panels are balanced in terms of the viewpoints presented. In the two cases examined, no experts with publications supporting a contrary view were selected to balance the 30 to 40 percent of the members included on the panels who have taken public positions. 

- Failure to Rotate Members: EPA has disregarded Administration policy to rotate membership on standing panels to avoid creating "regulars". On key panels, members are now serving 12 year terms. 

- Financial Conflict of Interest: EPA has repeatedly selected panel members who are benefiting from millions of dollars in EPA research grants, creating both the appearance and likelihood of a conflict of interest.

******

Inhofe Welcomes Growing Agreement Among NRC Commissioners

Senator Inhofe welcomed a growing agreement expressed at Tuesday's EPW hearing among members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regarding the recommendations of the near-term task force. 

Link to Inhofe Hearing Statement: NRCs Near-Term Task Force Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st CenturyLink to Politico Pro: NRC commissioner: No need to panic over Fukushima 

"I commend the growing support among NRC Commissioners for implementing the task-force's recommendations in a way that realizes the need to move quickly while also taking the time to ensure that we get this right," Senator Inhofe said. "As today's hearing clearly showed, there is a strong agreement that we need to learn the right lessons from the Fukushima accident so that regulatory changes achieve the maximum safety benefits. The Commissioners' votes strike the right balance. 

"In order to move forward as quickly as possible, I call on Chairman Jaczko to vote on the report immediately so that the NRC can turns its attention to a more reasonable and effective approach."

******

Wall Street Journal EditorialThe Cost of Lisa Jackson
Why the EPA doesn't consider job losses when it creates new rules 

August 3, 2011 

Link to Editorial 

The White House lookback on "excessive" regulation has concluded and-breaking news-there's more work left to do. So let's commend those in Congress trying to force the Administration to conduct a credible cost-benefit test. 

Last month the House Energy Committee passed a bill that reforms the Environmental Protection Agency's process for creating new rules and mandates, which it has been doing with a special fervor under administrator Lisa Jackson. Known by the acronym the Train Act, the bill would help expose some of the true costs that the agency is trying to hide.One major improvement is that the Train Act broadens the definition of costs. Under the status quo, the EPA can define almost anything as a benefit, and does. But the EPA rarely considers more tangible economic consequences, like its effects on employment, the price and reliability of energy, or the competitiveness of U.S. companies. 

The Train Act would also require the EPA at least to gesture at the costs of its larger agenda. The agency is now tightening nearly every eco-regulation in existence, abusing in particular traditional air pollutant laws to shut down coal-fired power plants. This cluster of overlapping rules will cause far more cumulative damage than merely one or another rule would by itself. 

A utility, for instance, might be able to comply with a single new rule, but under the EPA firehose it might be forced to retire some of its operations. Beyond the direct costs to the utility, plant closures would lead to job losses and higher prices for consumers and business, with their own knock-on effects. 

This cost-benefit bias may explain why Ms. Jackson could claim at a "green jobs" conference in February that under the Clean Air Act, "For every $1 we have spent, we have gotten $40 of benefits in return. So you can say what you want about EPA's business sense. We know how to get a return on our investment." 

Ponder that insight into the bureaucratic mind. What Ms. Jackson means by "spent" are merely the direct costs that she or her predecessors have imposed on the private economy. Ms. Jackson went on to call the EPA "one of the most economically successful programs in American history." No wonder her EPA won't do genuine cost-benefit analysis. She thinks all regulatory costs are benefits. This certainly helps explain the weak recovery. 

The Train Act is not a cure-all, and one weakness is that it applies only to the EPA, rather than applying the same cost-benefit approach across the government. But it does provide more information about regulation. Republican sponsor John Sullivan of Oklahoma has worked to build support among moderate Democrats; the bill passed committee 33 to 13, with five Democratic votes. 

In a recent Joan of Arc interview with the New York Times, Ms. Jackson said that "The only thing worse than no EPA is an EPA that exists and doesn't do its job." Try that one on the people who don't have a job because of Ms. Jackson's grandiose view of hers.

******

Detroit News EditorialNew ozone regulations should wait for scienceEPA is pushing to put tighter mandates in place before completing its own scientific research 

August 4, 2011 

Link to Editorial 

In a rare, if temporary, victory of pragmatism over ideology, the Environmental Protection Agency decided not to press ahead with the release of new smog standards. At least for now. 

The agency had indicated the new regulations would be issued recently, despite pleas from local communities and businesses to wait until the EPA completes its own scientific review of ozone emissions in 2013. 

That seems a reasonable request. Mandates that threaten to choke the economy ought to at least be based on the most complete scientific analysis available. A deep assessment of the economic impact would be welcome as well. 

But the EPA makes policies as much on assumption as it does on science, and has been oblivious to the cost and consequence of its regulations. It most recently pushed through tighter emissions standards for coal-fired power plants despite warnings that it would drive up energy costs and limit production capacity, and over the expressed objection of Congress. 

The tougher air quality standards for ozone would reduce allowable emissions to a level that would put 85 percent of the counties currently monitored by the EPA in "nonattainment status." That would set in motion an array of federal and state mechanisms to limit the emissions. Most of those steps involve throttling industry. 

Former Michigan Gov. John Engler, now chief executive of the Business Roundtable, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that air quality has been improving without the tighter mandates, and urged President Barack Obama to delay a decision on implementation until after the scientific studies are complete. 

Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris sent a letter to the White House warning the new standards would seriously impede economic growth and job creation. 

A county ruled to be in non-attainment would have difficulty attracting new investment, particularly in manufacturing industries, and would have to put limits on expansion of existing businesses. 

Last week, the EPA said it would allow its self-imposed July 20 deadline to pass. But perhaps not for long. A spokesman said the rules would be finalized "shortly."
Imposing regulations that have the real possibility of slowing the economic recovery without waiting for its own scientific research reveals a stunning arrogance and indifference on the part of the EPA. 

The expressed goal of the president is to get the economy moving and Americans back to work. Agencies of the federal government should not be working against that mission.
There's a narrow window of opportunity to return the ozone regulatory process to a more rational timetable. Obama should insist that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson wait for the science before imposing regulations that might do little to improve air quality, but could do great damage to the economy. 

******

Rasmussen Reports
69% Say It's Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research 

Wednesday, August 03, 2011 

Link to Article 

The debate over global warming has intensified in recent weeks after a new NASA study was interpreted by skeptics to reveal that global warming is not man-made. While a majority of Americans nationwide continue to acknowledge significant disagreement about global warming in the scientific community, most go even further to say some scientists falsify data to support their own beliefs. 

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it's at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don't think it's likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it's Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here .) 

The number of adults who say it's likely scientists have falsified data is up 10 points from December 2009. 

Fifty-seven percent (57%) believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009. One in four (25%) believes scientists agree on global warming. Another 18% aren't sure. 

Republicans and adults not affiliated with either major political party feel stronger than Democrats that some scientists have falsified data to support their global warming theories, but 51% of Democrats also agree. 

Men are more likely than women to believe some scientists have put out false information on the issue. 

Democrats are more likely to support immediate action on global warming compared to those from other party affiliations. 

The national survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on July 29-30, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC . See methodology. 

Voters have been almost evenly divided on whether human activity or long-term planetary trends are to blame for global warming since May of last year . 

Regardless of the cause of global warming, adults remain divided on whether to take action or not. While 40% believe Americans should take immediate action to stop global warming, 42% suggest waiting a few years. Americans were just as divided back in February 2009 . 

But 47% now believe the media makes global warming appear to be worse than it really is, down from 54% in February 2009 . Nineteen percent (19%) say it makes the situation look better than reality, while the same percentage (19%) thinks the media presents an accurate picture of global warming. Another 15% are undecided. 

Out of three scenarios, 30% of Americans say a period of dangerous global warming is likely to occur, while just four percent (4%) say a dangerous ice age is more likely. Half of adults (50%) say something in between is most likely to happen. Another 16% are not sure. These findings are little changed from past surveys. 

Sixty-seven percent (67%) are following news stories on global warming at least somewhat closely, while 32% are not. 

While a majority of U.S. voters still feel discovering new sources of energy is more important than reducing energy consumption, the number who feel this way has fallen to a new low. Voters also continue to believe there's a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection . 

An overwhelming majority of voters (72%) also believe that the United States is not doing enough to develop alternative sources of energy . 

But Americans are no more enthusiastic than they were a year ago about buying a car that runs on alternative fuel.

Shelf Life of Canned Goods

Today when it is already 106 degrees out and heading higher, decided that it was time to donate items from my pantry which were about ready to expire to the food pantry as they are fast running out of canned goods.  As I was going through the pantry, I started putting cans on the counter top that their dates had already passed when I realized that I had just purchased some of the cans.  Other cans had no dates.  Decided I had better check out those dates before tossing them in the trash.

Turns out the date I was using stamped on the bottom or top of the cans was the date there were canned not the date to throw out as I found out when I went on line.  That meant grabbing a jar of peanut butter out of the waste can I had not opened but I thought had expired on June 30, 2011.  The first site I visited, Food Reference had the details I was looking for:

One of the most frequently asked questions about canned food is its shelf life and "use-by" dates. The codes that are stamped on canned food are manufacturers' codes that usually designate the date the product was packaged. The codes vary from manufacturer to manufacturer and usually include coding for time and place of canning. Most manufacturers offer a toll-free number to call for questions about canned food expiration dates. For a sampling of how to read product codes, See at the Food Reference website. 

Remember, the code stamped on the can is when it was packaged. The general rule of thumb is that canned food has a shelf life of at least two years from the date of purchase. It is recommended that all canned food be stored in moderate temperatures (75° F and below). 

Many canned products now have a "for best quality use by" date stamped on the top or bottom of the can. "Expiration" dates are rarely found on canned food.

It turns out that even the date "for best quality use by" doesn't mean the food is not safe even though it may have a different texture.

Since I am an avid reader and would read things like food safety, I totally missed that most dates on the cans was when they were canned not an expiration date which is found on very few canned goods.  How many people have thrown out cans because we thought the date was the expiration date?  I know I am one of them but it is not going to happen again.  If you have a hurricane package put together, forget about throwing out the canned goods by date.

Who benefits the most from all of us tossing our canned food periodically?  The canning industry, growers, groceries, state governments who collect taxes on groceries, etc.?   Seems to me in this time of people trying to be frugal with their money, this would be well advertised in the groceries so we don't toss out food unnecessarily, but I have not seen an

Here is some more info from the Ohio State Extension Office:

Chow Line: Meaning of dates on canned goods varies (for 8/29/10)8/20/2010
Most canned goods seem to have dates or codes on the bottom of the can. Are these expiration dates? If so, how do I read the ones that are in code?
Canned goods don't really have expiration dates. Most canned products have a "best if used by" date, after which the quality of the food may deteriorate, but it still would be safe to eat. Other products may have the date that the product was packaged, or a code indicating its packing date. That and other information, such as which plant manufactured the product, can be used to track the item in case of a recall or other problem.
Unfortunately, there's no standard method for dating or coding used by all canned good manufacturers. If you're curious about the products on your pantry shelves, probably the easiest thing to do is to call the company and ask. Almost all companies that produce canned goods put a toll-free number right on the can.

Most canned goods remain safe and retain their quality for several years. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), low-acid canned foods such as meat, poultry, fish and most vegetables will keep fine for two to five years; high-acid foods, such as tomatoes, grapefruit and pineapple, have a shorter shelf-life -- about 12 to 18 months. After that time, you may notice deterioration in color, texture or flavor.

A few things to keep in mind:

• If a can shows any signs of bulging or leaking, throw it away immediately. Bulging indicates the food has the deadly botulinum toxin. The toxin is extremely rare in commercially canned foods, but it's been known to happen. Don't let curiosity or frugality cloud your better judgment -- just get rid of it.

• Don't let canned foods freeze. The food could expand and break the can's seal, letting microbes in. While few people would put a canned food item in the freezer, a can could roll out of a grocery store bag in your trunk, and if it's in the middle of winter and there's a chance the food inside the can froze, then pitch it.

• Slight dents in cans aren't unusual and, as long as the can isn't leaking and the product seems fine, it's safe to consume. But steer clear of severely dented cans -- they're not worth the risk.

• Pay strict attention to "use-by" dates on infant formula and baby food. That ensures the products have retained their nutrients and remain high quality. According to the FSIS, formula stored too long can separate and clog the nipple on a baby bottle.

Consider this a public service announcement for the day and hopefully saves someone some money from not tossing out canned goods due to the date stamped on the bottom or top that is the canning date.

Stocks plunged more than 500 points on fears of a global economic slowdown

Stocks suffered the worst sell-off Thursday since the 2008 financial crisis. The Dow plunged more than 500 points on fears of a global economic slowdown.


U.S. markets were already sharply lower on widespread worries, including the weak job market. But the selling gained momentum as Japanese and European policymakers stepped in with dramatic measures to shore up their financial markets.


All three major indexes tumbled more than 4% Thursday and erased all their gains for the year. The indexes have also pushed into 'correction' territory - defined as a 10% drop from their highs earlier this year. Over the past 10 days alone, the Dow, S&P 500 and Nasdaq have dropped about 8%.

Source:  CNN Breaking News

FAA going back to work under temporary funding agreement!

Does this mean that airlines who raised their fares to cover the fact that the Federal Government was not taking out taxes, will lower them again?   Love they are getting temporary funding which they have been getting since September 2007 when the Democrat Senate decided not to do a complete budget package.

Congressional leaders have reached "a bipartisan compromise between the House and the Senate" to fully fund the Federal Aviation Administration, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says.

The deal will "put 74,000 transportation and construction workers back to work," Reid says.

"This agreement does not resolve the important differences that still remain," Reid said in a written statement. "But I believe we should keep Americans working while Congress settles its differences." 

Source:   CNN Breaking News