Warmists Are Suddenly Super Enthused By Federalism When It Comes To Paris Climate Agreement

By William Teach June 3, 2017 – 7:36 am

Leftists have long been annoyed by the notion of the 10th Amendment, which states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” They would prefer that all powers go to the federal government, rather than the states and the People. Except when it interferes with their Progressive notions, then they’re all for pushing their own Rights. Which is what we’re seeing in the aftermath of Trump being elected, and since he announced he’s done with the Paris Climate Agreement

Oregon Will Join Climate Change Coalition To Meet Paris Goals

Gov. Kate Brown said Friday she is confident that Oregon and other progressive states can still meet the Paris climate goals for the U.S. — despite President Donald Trump’s decision to pull the country out of the international accord.

The Democratic governor told the City Club of Portland that Oregon will join a coalition of states led by California, Washington and New York working to reduce carbon emissions.

The new coalition was quickly announced after Trump held a White House ceremony Thursday to announce that he would begin the process of pulling out of the 195-nation accord. The president said the accord could hurt the U.S. economy, and he said he would seek to negotiate a better deal.

Brown told reporters after her talk that states representing a significant share of the country’s population and economic activity are ready to step up in the place of the federal government. And she said she was “absolutely” confident they could meet the climate goals laid out in the accord.

Again, they are more than welcome to do this. This is part of what makes up States’ Rights. Not too give a civics lesson, but, there’s a reason they are called states. The original 13 colonies were essentially the size of most Old Europe nations, and what do we call the leader of a nation? Head of State. Chief of State. They’re arrive on a state visit. We have the State Department. Countries are often referred to as nation-states. The federal government was supposed to bind us together, but, never be as strong as it is. State, county, and local governments were meant to be the primary government in people’s lives, as they would be more responsive. I’ll give it a rest there.

So, let them do this. We can laugh at them as their economies are damaged, but, there is one big question none of the state and city leaders are failing to answer: what about all the money involved in the Paris agreement? All that taxpayer money that Obama promised to redistribute? Will these same Warmists pony up the money, as well? Paris wasn’t just about reducing carbon footprints.

Let’s see these states and cities pony up their own money and give it to the United Nations to spread around to “developing nations” and 3rd world dictators. The citizens won’t mind that, right? Because this is really the Number 1 thing in the Paris Agreement.

Read: Warmists Are Suddenly Super Enthused By Federalism When It Comes To Paris Climate Agreement »

Posted in Global Warming, States Rights | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

California Continues March Towards Single Payer, With Still No Means To Pay For It

By William Teach June 3, 2017 – 7:14 am

Remember when Democrats used to screech about unfunded mandates during the George W. Bush years? Good times, good times.

(LA Times) A proposal to adopt a single-payer healthcare system for California took an initial step forward Thursday when the state Senate approved a bare-bones bill that lacks a method for paying the $400-billion cost of the plan.

The proposal was made by legislators led by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) at the same time President Trump and Republican members of Congress are working to repeal and replace the federal Affordable Care Act.

“Despite the incredible progress California has made, millions still do not have access to health insurance and millions more cannot afford the high deductibles and co-pays, and they often forgo care,” Lara said during a floor debate on the bill.

So, wait: you mean the Democrat Party passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, didn’t work? Even in California, which 100% embraced this government plan? Huh.

“We don’t have the money to pay for it,” Sen. Tom Berryhill (R-Modesto) said. “If we cut every single program and expense from the state budget and redirected that money to this bill, SB 562, we wouldn’t even cover half of the $400-billion price tag.”

The plan was, unsurprisingly, passed on a party line, and leaves it up to the California House to figure out just how to fund it. Good luck with that, champs. Coming up with a few million is one thing: around $200 billion or more? Even if California is provided a waiver for the $200 billion in Medicare through a federal waiver (question: which way would Trump go?) and uses their own $25 billion Medi-Cal funds, that still leaves a reported $106 billion to create, under the best case. But, we know this is government, and that the cost would balloon.

The Central Valley track for California’s bullet train is around $3.6 billion over budget and 7 years behind schedule. The latest estimate for the whole high speed train project is a mere $24 billion over initial cost. Think on that.

Why did Senate Dems do this?

(CBS News) The measure would have died if it failed to clear the Senate this week. Democrats said they wanted to keep it alive as the Assembly tries to work out a massive overhaul of the state health care system.

And what happens when doctors and medical facilities realize their reimbursements are going down down down? (Via Ed Morrissey)

(LA Times) “Doctors would no longer have to deal with…hundreds of payers,” Lighty said. “You now have a single payer who will pay reliably or swiftly.”

Depending on how the program decides to reimburse for care, that could affect how much providers get paid. Lighty said the program would likely use the same rates as Medicare, which is less than what commercial insurers pay but more than Medi-Cal.

“Imagine what will happen if physician reimbursements fell by 15 to 20%, and those same reimbursements did not fall in Washington, Oregon, Arizona — [states that] are not implementing single-payer,” Lakdawalla said. “What happens to the population of doctors practicing in California?”

How many leave? How many increase their appointments but decrease the time spent with patients in order to make up that money? And we all know government is swift in payment, right?

But, hey, this is their choice. That’s one of the things States’ Rights is about. I hope they don’t expect the rest of us to pay for this boondoggle.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: California Continues March Towards Single Payer, With Still No Means To Pay For It »

Posted in Healthcare, Liberal World | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: There’s No Constitutional Right To Marry A Laptop

By William Teach June 2, 2017 – 3:52 pm

At least not in Utah. The 9th Circuit could probably find a way to make this happen

Utah says there is no constitutional right to marry your laptop

There is no constitutional right to marry a laptop, the Utah Attorney General’s Office said in a new court filing.
Responding to a lawsuit filed against Governor Gary Herbert, Attorney General Sean Reyes, and Utah County Clerk Bryan Thompson, lawyers for the state asked a federal judge to dismiss it.

Chris Sevier sued the state of Utah, arguing that if same-sex marriage is legal he should be allowed to marry his computer. He recently amended his lawsuit to include John Gunter, Jr., and Whitney Kohl, who are arguing for the right to enter into a polygamous marriage.

Sevier has a history of filing similar lawsuits in other states. He is acting as his own attorney in this lawsuit, and has been barred from practicing law in Tennessee.

“Plaintiffs contend that because the courts have recognized same-sex individuals’ right to marry, this Court should further expand the right to marry to include unions between a person and a laptop computer and unions between multiple partners,” assistant Utah Attorney General David Wolf wrote in the filing, adding:

“These claims are untenable as a matter of law because Plaintiffs lack standing to bring these claims and the right to marry has not been indefinitely expanded, nor should it be. Simply put, marrying a laptop computer or multiple partners are not rights protected by the Constitution.”

This is, in fact, a real story. This is not the Onion or other satire site. You can make the case that if gay marriage is allowed under the Constitution, because love, then bigamy and polygamy should be allowed. An inanimate object? No. Well, maybe a smartphone, considering how hooked people are on them, but, really, they fall out of love about ever 1 1/2 to 2 years.

Read: Good News: There’s No Constitutional Right To Marry A Laptop »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 2, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful bike trying to fight off desertification, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on feminist insanity at taxpayer expense.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Leaving The Paris Agreement Is Already Saving The Planet

By William Teach June 2, 2017 – 11:17 am

Irony?

From the link

It was supposed to be a boon for Boston, one more big get as City Hall courts high-profile events and promotes Boston on an international stage. But now, with a science-averse administration in the White House, Mayor Walsh says the major climate summit slated to be held here this summer is off.

At a news conference where Walsh urged Trump to reconsider withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, the mayor also announced that the federal government has been mum on the 2017 U.S. China Climate Leaders Summit. The event was going to be sponsored by the State Department and “bring thousands of leaders from around the world to Boston,” according to City Hall. But it’s not working out that way. They’re not even taking our calls.

Think of the reduced carbon footprint without all those fossil fueled jets (how many would take commercial and how many private?) coming to Boston.

Read: Leaving The Paris Agreement Is Already Saving The Planet »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

San Antonio Sues Texas In Order To Continue Violating Federal Law On Illegal Aliens

By William Teach June 2, 2017 – 7:21 am

The headline, and others, are framed as San Antonio suing. It’d be easier, and less costly, to simply stop being a sanctuary city and comply with the law, but, hey, if San Antonio want to blow their budget on a silly lawsuit protecting criminals, so be it

(NBC News) The city of San Antonio is suing the state of Texas and its governor to stop the state from implementing its new immigration enforcement law known as SB4.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed the lawsuit Thursday in federal district court in San Antonio on behalf of the city, three non-profit organizations and San Antonio City Council Member Rey A Saldaña.

MALDEF is arguing in the lawsuit that the law, signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott last month, is unconstitutional on many fronts, threatens to unleash arbitrary and inconsistent law enforcement across the state and is discriminatory.

The lawsuit names the state, Abbott and Ken Paxton, Texas’ attorney general, as defendants.

For all their caterwauling and excuse making, this is all about arbitrarily protecting people who have chosen to violate federal law, and to make sure that cities can continue doing so.

The three non-profit groups also suing are La Union de Pueblo Entero, founded by civil rights leader César Chávez and based in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, Texas Association of Chicanos in Higher Education and Austin-based Workers Defense Project, which represents low-income workers.

Illegal immigration hurts low-income workers the most. The mayor of San Antonio is not on board with this

As the Express-News first reported, Mayor Ivy Taylor is now publicly opposing the lawsuit the City of San Antonio plans to file over the state’s new immigration law. Here’s a prepared statement her office just sent us:

“I believe it was premature for the majority of City Council to give direction for city staff to join in a lawsuit against the SB4 legislation. In this case, the prudent course would be to wait until a decision has been made on whether a special session will be called. Additionally, I believe that any decision to join this lawsuit should be made in coordination with other major Texas cities, which is why I have consulted with Mayors Adler (Austin), Turner (Houston) and Rawlings (Dallas). We should be certain that litigation is the measure of last resort and that the city is bearing its fair share of any legal burden. None of these conditions have been satisfied, which is why I continue to oppose City Council’s decision to join this lawsuit.”

But, the City Council joined in, apparently wanting to protect people who are unlawfully present in the United States over the legal citizens and residents.

Read: San Antonio Sues Texas In Order To Continue Violating Federal Law On Illegal Aliens »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Pulling Out Of Non-Binding Paris Accord Will Cause The Planet To Fry Or Something

By William Teach June 2, 2017 – 7:06 am

When it comes to Donald Trump pulling the U.S. out of the foolish Paris Climate Agreement that Obama agreed to, Liberals are sounding like their normal high school drama queen selves. Case in point: here’s CNN’s Mark Lynas

Trump’s stupidity on climate change will galvanize environmentalists

Withdrawing from the Paris climate accord is about the only predictable — even rational — move that President Trump has made since taking office.

Following embarrassing reversals on the Mexican wall, the Muslim immigration ban and other signature policies, he sees rejecting accepted orthodoxy on climate change as an easy deliverable to please his populist base.

Too bad it fries the planet. He was elected on this pledge, and he plans to deliver.

Fries the planet! From tiny increases in CO2. Despite there being essentially statistically insignificant warming for almost two decades in opposition to 95% of the computer models, and very little over the past few years, which is still not in agreement with the models. In fact, virtually nothing that’s been predicted has materialized. Wildfires are not worse, nor are thunderstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, rainfall, droughts, snow has not become a thing of the past (of course, Warmists are now blaming snow on warming.) The Arctic hasn’t melted down, nor has Greenland, and the area which is showing big calving in Antarctica is from volcanic activity under the ice.

World leaders, who are super enthused to implement more Big Government and taxes/fees, are condemning Trump. Let them ruin their own economies. Suddenly, Liberals like Goldman-Sachs for slamming the move. Well, let GS implement their own company killing climate rules. Democrats are plotting revolution or something. Al Gore and his oversized carbon footprint had hissy fits, as did John Kerry and all his McMansions. The moonbattery has been epic

U.S. states, major companies break with Trump’s decision to exit the climate deal

Thirty states and scores of companies said Thursday that they would press ahead with their climate policies and pursue lower greenhouse gas emissions, breaking sharply with President Trump’s decision to exit the historic Paris climate accord.

In a pointed rebuttal to Trump’s announcement in the rose garden of the White House, New York’s governor unveiled a plan to invest $1.5 billion in renewable energy and energy efficiency on Thursday, the largest ever procurement of renewable energy by an American state.

Meanwhile, more than two dozen big companies — including Apple, Morgan Stanley, and Royal Dutch Shell — urged Trump not to exit the Paris treaty on Thursday.

Of course, California is doing their nutty part. Not sure where they’ll get the money, since their single payer health system plan will bankrupt them. Many cities have Big Plans. Guess what? That’s the way it should be, per the Constitution. If states, municipalities, and private entities want to Do Something, go for it. This has no place in the federal government.

Of course, what will they actually do? It certainly won’t be voluntarily practicing what they preach. Don’t expect most companies to make big changes which hurt their productivity and bottom dollar. But, hey, if they create the next big clean energy, great! That’s the way it shoudl work. Cities and states will use the carrot and stick approach. The stick is lots of restrictive rules, regs, and laws (which never seem to bother the rich people who push this the hardest) along with taxes and fees (again, they don’t bother the rich who push it), then the carrot, which is a percentage refund back to citizens who’ve seen their energy and living costs rise. Which makes them more dependent on Government. Funny how that works out, eh?

In reality, it’s probably 16 states or less, since 33 are controlled by Republican governors, 16 by Dems, and 1 independent. But, hey, let’s see those Dems work their magic. Show us the way. Practice what they preach. Act like it’s a crisis, rather than an excuse to implement Progressivism (nice fascism).

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Pulling Out Of Non-Binding Paris Accord Will Cause The Planet To Fry Or Something »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

It’s Official: Trump Announces Pullout From Non-Binding Paris Agreement

By William Teach June 1, 2017 – 3:52 pm

Good news

(CNN) President Donald Trump announced his decision to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord Thursday, a major step that fulfills his campaign promises while seriously dampening global efforts to curb global warming.

The decision amounts to a rebuttal of the worldwide effort to pressure Trump to remain a part of the agreement, which 195 nations signed onto. Foreign leaders, business executives and Trump’s own daughter lobbied heavily for him to remain a part of the deal, but ultimately lost out to conservatives who claim the plan is bad for the United States.

“In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord but being negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction under terms that are fair to the United States,” Trump said from the White House Rose Garden. “We’re getting out.”

In triggering the official withdrawal procedures, Trump will spark a lengthy process that won’t conclude until November 2020 — the same month he’s up for reelection, ensuring the issue becomes a major topic of debate in the next presidential contest.

Except, no one will really care, just like no one really cared in 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, etc. CNN, nor most members of the Cult of Climastrology, are taking this well. Here’s one hot-take

I’ll have more on it later, hopefully with a transcript. I have a Twitter moments embedded in the single post

Read More »

Read: It’s Official: Trump Announces Pullout From Non-Binding Paris Agreement »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Donald Trump, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 1, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon pollution bike in an area that will soon!!!! be flooded by rising seas, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on 2 more reasons Trump was elected.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Californian’s Are Super Enthused For Single Payer Healthcare, Right Up Till They Have To Pay For It

By William Teach June 1, 2017 – 10:30 am

California continues its push to establish a single payer health system, and, hey, that’s their right. It’s why we have a federalist system, one of State’s Rights. But, um, there’s a bit of a problem. It would cost double the California state budget, to start

Single-payer healthcare is popular with Californians — unless it raises their taxes

Almost two of every three Californians in a new statewide poll said they like the idea of a single-payer, government healthcare system, but far fewer support the idea if it includes a tax increase.

The poll released Wednesday night by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found that 65% of adults surveyed support the creation of a single-payer state healthcare program to cover all of the state’s residents, and 56% of likely voters approved of the idea. Opinion was sharply divided between Democrats (75% support) and Republicans (66% oppose) who were surveyed.

The single-payer proposal under consideration in the state Capitol, Senate Bill 562, assumes at least $50 billion in new taxes to fund the healthcare system. Asked about taxes, support drops to 42% of the adults surveyed and 43% of likely voters. While a majority of Democrats in the PPIC poll continued to support the idea if it means more taxes, support drops substantially among unaffiliated “independent” voters.

Yeah, remember this one from the original Ocare debate?

“I was laughing at Boehner — until the mail came today,”….

“I really don’t like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family’s pocket each year, that’s otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy.”

“Of course, I want people to have health care,” Vinson said. “I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”

Everything’s super duper awesome!!!!!!! right up until you have to pay out the ying yang for it.

The state Senate is expected to consider the single-payer bill before the end of the week. A legislative analysis put the estimated total cost of a new healthcare system that covers all Californians at $400 billion, while an analysis released on Wednesday by supporters provided a $331-billion estimate. The pending legislation by state Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) does not identify what taxes would be raised but makes the enactment of the plan contingent on a full funding proposal.

They have absolutely no idea how they are going to pay for this. The state would have to essentially come with hundreds of billions of dollars. Even if they take all the money that employers pay for health insurance, that still leaves them several hundred billion short. One report supposedly says that single payer will save Californian’s money, but, it’s just shoddy Government Math

The new study estimates it would cost California $331 billion to provide health care to everyone living in the state — less than the $368.5 billion spent today in a system that leaves millions without coverage. To pay for it, they say, the state needs to find $106 billion in annual tax revenue — far less than the Senate committee’s estimate of $200 billion.

So, they estimate it’ll still cost a ton, just less of a ton! Government Math.

Personally, I’m all for the implementation of single payer in California. Let them lead the way in showing how bad the system is. And, as far as the money goes, they’re on their own. When the system collapses, let them deal with the mess.

Read: Californian’s Are Super Enthused For Single Payer Healthcare, Right Up Till They Have To Pay For It »

Posted in Democrats, Healthcare | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove