Is Trump Planning On Staying In Paris Climate Agreement?

There’s lots of chatter going on as to whether Mr. Trump will keep his campaign promise to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement. Some in his administration are recommending he pull out, some to stay in. Some elected Republicans are recommending he stay in, even after they were dead set against it. You know, the normal squishiness from Republicans

(AFP)  Signs are mounting that US President Donald Trump’s administration may stay in the landmark Paris climate change accord of 2015, under pressure from big business and public support for the agreement.

But experts say the final decision, expected next month, is anything but certain, and staying at the table could come with significant caveats, like a weakening of US commitments to curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

“Given the unpredictability of decision-making by this administration, I am very reluctant to predict,” said Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.

“But there does seem to be a growing convergence around a strategy of staying in the Paris Agreement but lowering the US target.”

The agreement would pretty much do nothing in terms of stopping the Earth from hitting the magical 2C mark, and many Warmists want more, to keep it to 1.5C. Surprise. This will harm economies, hurt jobs, and no one profits but the big wig rich people who push it.

The latest word on the administration’s stance came from Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who said Tuesday he would not advise Trump to abandon the deal but rather renegotiate it.

That statement aligned Perry, the former governor of Texas, with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who formerly headed ExxonMobil and has spoken in favor of honoring the US commitment to the Paris deal, struck in 2015 and signed by more than 190 countries.

Now, that’s truly upsetting. And the establishment GOP wonders why the voters do not trust them. They backtrack, heck, break promises, entirely too much.

We’ll have to see what Trump’s decision ends up being, but, considering this would have been an easy one to make early, I have little confidence.

Read: Is Trump Planning On Staying In Paris Climate Agreement? »

If All You See…

…is an evil fossil fueled machine which doom, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Political Clown Parade, with a post on no tangos for Trump.

Read: If All You See… »

‘Climate Change’ Could Change The Way We Exercise Or Something

The other day we learned that ‘climate change’ could make people more fit. Obviously, cold water needs to be thrown on that notion

Climate change could affect the way we exercise

The extreme changes of weather recently – from a seemingly endless heatwave to seemingly endless rain – affect more than the environment; they also affect the way we move.

For months it has often felt too hot or too wet to exercise. Long walks and runs have been replaced by cabin fever, indoor yoga classes and finally trying out some of the new livestream fitness classes you can do from your lounge (some Australian ones worth checking out include Varlah, Voome, Yogaholics and The Robards Method).

In other words, this is a 1st World Problem of people getting wimpy.

But, generally, for many of us during times of extreme weather conditions, we simply become more sedentary, exchanging the walk to work with the car or swapping the bicycle for the bus. Whether it’s lethargy from heat or an instinct to bunker down from the wet, we sit more and do less.

If we do that for too long, there is an impact on our health.

“At a physiological level, too little exercise can produce costly health outcomes like obesity, cardiovascular disease and diabetes, and insufficient physical activity is a leading cause of death in the United States [it is the fourth-leading cause of death worldwide and the second biggest contributor to cancer in Australia],” say the authors of a new study, published in Nature Human Behaviour.

“Extreme weather” has not increased, no matter how much scaremongering the Cult Of Climastrology performs. And this is simply a continuation of the doom and gloom prognostications from the CoC. Sure, rain and heat affect people going outside. That’s always happened. It gets hot in North Carolina. That’s the norm, shockingly. Instead of biking or jogging during the heat of the day, I’ll do it in the evening (though I prefer going to the gym anyhow, as I can read while on an exercise machine). Get this: people adapt. If some people can’t deal with a measly 1.4F increase in average temperatures since 1850, well, they should wonder why they are so wimpy.

“Ultimately, most of the social impacts of climate change are likely to be negative,” Obradovich and Fowler conclude.

“Climate change may reduce economic output, amplify rates of conflict, produce psychological distress, increase exposure to the social effects of drought and increase heat-related mortality and morbidity, among other illnesses. However, climatic changes are unlikely to be uniformly costly to society, and it is important to investigate both costs and benefits. Here we uncover a possible beneficial effect of climate change for the United States…

So, future doom. I wonder how past people survived the previous Holocene warm periods? Must have been made of hardier stuff than modern Warmists.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Could Change The Way We Exercise Or Something »

DHS Launches Office To Help Victims Of Illegal Alien Crimes

What a novel idea, allowing those who have been victimized by those who are unlawfully present in the U.S. to track what’s going on

(Fox News) Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly announced on Wednesday the official launch of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s office for victims of illegal immigrant crime, and a program to help track the custody status of violent, illegal perpetrators.

ICE’s Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement Office (VOICE) was created in response to President Trump’s executive order to enhance public safety, which directed the Department of Homeland Security to create an office to support victims of crimes committed by criminal aliens.

“All crime is terrible, but these victims are unique — and often too ignored,” Kelly said on Wednesday. “They are casualties of crimes that should never have taken place — because the people who victimized them often times should not have been in the country in the first place.”

Kelly outlined objectives of VOICE, including a “victim-centered approach” to support victims and their families, along with promoting awareness of available services to crime victims, such as the new automated service, DHS-Victim Information and Notification Exchange, which was created to help victims track the immigration custody status of those illegal alien perpetrators of crime.

Part of this is to make sure the victims are kept in the loop on enforcement and deportation status of the illegal(s) who victimized them.

Even before it was officially announced, the editorial board of the USA Today was having a hissy fit. You can bet the ranch that more leftists will come out against supporting victims of illegal alien crime in favor of the illegal aliens committing the crimes.

Read: DHS Launches Office To Help Victims Of Illegal Alien Crimes »

Trump’s Tax Plan Is, Unshockingly, Deemed A Tax Cut For The Rich By Media

Liberals are pretty much one trick ponies. Like the NY Times

White House Proposes Slashing Tax Rates, Significantly Aiding Wealthy

President Trump on Wednesday proposed sharp reductions in individual and business income tax rates and a radical reordering of the tax code that would significantly benefit the wealthy, but he offered no explanation of how the plan would be financed as he rushed to show progress before the 100-day mark of his presidency.

Here’s the question: so what? Why would people keeping more of their own money so they can do things like invest more in their business, use profits to pay their workers work rather than having to give it to the government, and simply have more of the money from the fruit of their hard work? Why is this a concern? Oh, right, Leftists have been taught to hate The Rich, even though most of their leaders are The Rich. How many of them love Rachel Maddow? She makes around $8 million a year for her MSNBC show.

The proposal envisions slashing the tax rate paid by businesses large and small to 15 percent. The number of individual income tax brackets would shrink from seven to three — 10, 25 and 35 percent — easing the tax burden on most Americans, including the president, although aides did not offer the income ranges for each bracket.

Wait, it would “ease the tax burden on most Americans”? I thought this was only about helping out The Rich? No?

Mr. Trump wants to double the standard deduction for individuals, essentially eliminating taxes on around $24,000 of a couple’s earnings. That proposal was met with alarm by home builders and real estate agents, who fear it would disincentivize the purchase of homes. The proposal would scrap most itemized deductions, such as those for state and local tax payments, a valuable break for taxpayers in Democratic states like California and New York.

That’s an interesting paragraph. First, we see it helping out the middle and lower classes. Second, compare it to the draft that Hot Air used of the article

The Trump administration would double the standard deduction, essentially eliminating taxes on the first $24,000 of a couple’s earnings. It also called for the elimination of most itemized tax deductions but would leave in place the popular deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions. The estate tax and the alternative minimum tax, which Mr. Trump has railed against for years, would be repealed under his plan.

They apparently had to make the plan more scary by removing the section about keeping the mortgage interest deduction and charitable contributions. In fact, according to Newsdiffs, there have been 10 versions of this same story, including headline changes. The 9:44pm change was virtually a complete rewrite.

Another Times article points out the winners and losers. One of the winners

People who still fill out their tax returns by hand. Administration officials said the plan would simplify paying taxes, particularly emphasizing plans to eliminate the alternative minimum tax. The A.M.T. can definitely be annoying, and costly, but if you use an online tax preparation service, the software does most of the work.

So, mostly middle and lower income who do not have massive amounts of itemization.

And losers

Upper-middle-income people in blue states. The plan would eliminate the federal tax deduction for state and local income tax. If you are in a place where such taxes are high, like New York or California, you would lose a valuable deduction.

That says more about the taxation issues in those states. And

Deficit hawks. The Trump plan doesn’t come with any estimates of its impact on the federal deficit. But his campaign plan, to which the new document is distinctly similar, was estimated by the analysts at the Tax Policy Center to reduce federal revenue by $6.2 trillion over a decade. That implies either a very large increase in the national debt or huge reductions in federal spending.

Well, what has been seen by previous cuts is that more money flows into the government coffers because economic activity increases. But, this should be still paired with not only a reduction in federal spending, starting with a majority of non-essential things and waste, but a reorganization of how money is allocated and spent to reduce necessary spending waste.

For instance, here’s how this often works. An agency was allocated $1 billion last year. This year, they ask for $1.3 billion. Congress says “well, you were very good in spending all your money last year, so, we’ll give you $1.1 billion.” What’s unsaid, though, is that the agency pissed away $200 million because their true operating costs were only $800 million, so, they overpaid for things, they spent it on unneeded things, they overpaid contractors, overpaid bonuses, and so forth. They paid on cost over-runs for contractors, even though a contractor said they would do X for a specific amount of money. They paid for research on shrimp on treadmills.

Instead, the agency is given $700 million and told to get lean, do more with less, just like happens in the private sector. If they truly need more for an emergency, there would be a method to do so. They would have to truly prove that they need the initial money, though.

Regardless, the last people who should be complaining about deficits and the debt are Democrats.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump’s Tax Plan Is, Unshockingly, Deemed A Tax Cut For The Rich By Media »

Everybody Panic: ‘Climate Change’ Will Transform Your Garden

In the future, of course. Maybe. Possibly.

(BBC) Artificial lawns, plants from arid countries and flower beds designed to cope with floods are among future features of UK gardens outlined in a major new report.

As the world warms and weather patterns shift, the study by the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) concludes that British gardens will need to adapt.

Traditional designs with “immaculate, well-watered lawns” and “Edwardian” borders may be too hard to maintain if the weather becomes more volatile.

What did the British do during the previous warm periods? Lay down astroturf?

Read: Everybody Panic: ‘Climate Change’ Will Transform Your Garden »

If All You See…

…is a forest dying from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Powerline, with a post on the insane left hitting rock bottom (no worries, they can still go lower)

Read: If All You See… »

Al Gore Group Calls For Other People To Invest $15 Trillion To Fight Hotcoldwetdry

Isn’t it funny how the Cult of Climastrology always wants to spend Other People’s money?

(Daily Caller) A group of executives who want to fight global warming has published a new report calling for countries to spend up to $600 billion a year over the next two decades to boost green energy deployment and energy efficiency equipment.

The Energy Transitions Commission’s (ETC) report claims “additional investments of around $300-$600 billion per annum do not pose a major macroeconomic challenge,” which they say will help the world meet the goals laid out in the Paris agreement.

ETC is made up of energy executives, activist leaders and investment bankers, including former Vice President Al Gore, who would no doubt get a piece of the trillions of dollars they are calling for.

And, of course, they want carbon taxes to “decarbonize” and reduce the use of fossil fuels. And many of the people involved, such as Gore, would make money off the sale of carbon permits and the taxes. It’s all one big scheme, using junk science to enrich themselves. Which is why they never want to invest their own money.

Or make changes in their own lives to practice what they preach.

Read: Al Gore Group Calls For Other People To Invest $15 Trillion To Fight Hotcoldwetdry »

U.N. Claims Repealing Obamacare Violates International Law Or Something

From the same body that has just placed Saudi Arabia on the Women’s Rights Council, and has featured numerous human rights offenders on the Human Rights Council. The same body that has consistently excused the terrorism from Palestinians against Israel, and typically takes the side of hardcore Islamist regimes, such as Iran over Israel. Which constantly has scandals where their peacekeepers are raping women and children. Which wants to make blasphemy against Islam an international crime. Which sees aid money go to dictators rather than citizens. Which wants to restrict inexpensive, easy to obtain energy sources from usage by people in poverty. Dana Milbank, in his opinion piece, forgets to mention things like that

Apparently repealing Obamacare could violate international law

We’ve already seen that repealing Obamacare is politically perilous. Now there’s a new complication: It may also violate international law.

The United Nations has contacted the Trump administration as part of an investigation into whether repealing the Affordable Care Act without an adequate substitute for the millions who would lose health coverage would be a violation of several international conventions that bind the United States. It turns out that the notion that “health care is a right” is more than just a Democratic talking point.

A confidential, five-page “urgent appeal” from the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights in Geneva, sent to the Trump administration, cautions that the repeal of the Affordable Care Act could put the United States at odds with its international obligations. The Feb. 2 memo, which I obtained Tuesday, was sent to the State Department and expresses “serious concern” about the prospective loss of health coverage for almost 30 million people, which could violate “the right to social security of the people in the United States.”

If healthcare is such a right, why is the UN not demanding that Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Islamic nations that run on Islamic law, stop whipping and hanging gays and women who have been raped?

None of this, of course, will deter President Trump and congressional Republicans, who are again attempting to get a repeal bill through the House. They scoff at lectures from U.N. bureaucrats, particularly on domestic affairs, and the world body has no practical way to impose its will on Congress. There’s also a logical question: If repealing Obamacare violates international law, wasn’t the country in violation before Obamacare? Puras addresses this by writing that the U.N. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights “notes that there is a strong presumption that retrogressive measures taken in relation to the right to health are not permissible.”

Of course, most elected Republicans, elected since 2010 on a platform to repeal Ocare, and since 2014 on replacing it with ideas that increase access, reduce costs, and get the government out of our health decisions, are being their usual squishy, idiot selves. They said “give us the House, and we’ll tank this bill.” Then “well, we need the Senate to Do This.” Then “oh, well, we also need the White House.” They’ve had years to craft a good plan, and there are plans out there. The GOP elected leaders have just chosen not to use the ones that would work.

As for the United Nations, they can go pound sand. We should stop providing funds for a body that consistently violates its own mores and rules on human rights.

Read: U.N. Claims Repealing Obamacare Violates International Law Or Something »

Trump Tax Reform Would Give Americans More Money To Spend

Is there anything wrong with a tax plan that would put more money in the pockets of Americans, money that citizens, and businesses, have earned? The NY Times has found a way

Trump’s Tax Plan: Low Rate for Corporations, and for Companies Like His

President Trump plans to unveil a tax cut blueprint on Wednesday that would apply a vastly reduced, 15 percent business tax rate not only to corporations but also to companies that now pay taxes through the personal income tax code — from mom-and-pop businesses to his own real estate empire, according to several people briefed on the proposal.

They really just can’t help showing their Trump Derangement Syndrome by making it a lede regarding Trump’s businesses saving on taxes. Guess who else who save on taxes? The four article writers, as well as the NY Times! Surprise!

Then we have the Washington Post, which takes a little more realistic and adult approach

Trump plan would raise tax deductions, lower corporate and small business rates

President Trump on Wednesday plans to call for a significant increase in the standard deduction people can claim on their tax returns, potentially putting thousands of dollars each year into the pockets of tens of millions of Americans, according to two people briefed on the plan.

The change is one of several major revisions to the federal tax code that the White House will propose when it provides an outline of the tax-overhaul pitch Trump will make to Congress and the American people as he nears his 100th day in office.

Trump will call for a sharp reduction in the corporate tax rate, from 35 percent to 15 percent. He will also propose lowering the tax rate for millions of small businesses that now file their tax returns under the individual tax code, two people familiar with the plan said.

White House officials think these changes will give Americans and companies more money to spend, expand the economy and create more jobs.

That’s pretty good, wouldn’t you say? Shouldn’t you be able to keep more of the money you earn? Republicans are discussing passing this through reconciliation, since Democrats are apparently not on-board with changing tax law so that citizens keep more of their own money and increase jobs.

Asked whether the 15 percent target was workable, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) told reporters: “It is, if you want to blow a hole in the federal budget and cut a whole lot of things like Meals on Wheels and Lake Erie restoration and then lie about the growth rate of the economy.”

He said that the Trump administration would have to do something “huge” such as scrapping mortgage interest deductions, adopting a border adjustment tax or relying on “outrageously inaccurate projections.”

Obviously, Democrats will scaremonger over having to *gasp* reduce overall federal government spending. And recommend raising taxes on citizens elsewhere. Of course, if people, and companies, are spending more, if more people are working and paying taxes, then more money flows to the government. Perhaps it is time for government to learn to do more with less, to live within its means, like citizens and private entities do.

It’s mostly a well written, rather neutral, informative article, well worth the read.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump Tax Reform Would Give Americans More Money To Spend »

Bad Behavior has blocked 4886 access attempts in the last 7 days.