I’m glad my Republican friends are so interested in high gasoline prices, and we’re going to give them the opportunity in the coming days to stand up to those causing oil prices to be so high.
This is a very important start, but in my view, and in view of most scientists, this bill must be strengthened in a number of ways.
Runs through the basic IPCC conclusions. What does unchecked emissions of greenhouse gases mean? An increase in human misery and death. Major decrease in fresh-water availability around the world. Spain is desertifying.
The world is crying out American leadership.
The problem is solvable, and it’s not as hard as many people believe.
We know what has to be done. It is not a mystery. What must be done?
In a meeting on the economy in Washington this Monday, President Bush made a pointed speech arguing for the extension of his first-term tax cuts that are set to expire in 2010. Sounding more like a campaign event than a policy message, Bush was operating under the false premise that the 2008 candidates are calling for a full reform of his tax cuts, claiming that “overall 43 million families with children will face a tax increase of $2,323 on average.”
If Bush is going to talk about repealing the tax cuts bestowed upon a middle class American family of four making $50,000, in terms of the 2008 election, he’s the only one having that discussion. None of the three remaining presidential candidates — Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain — propose eliminating the tax breaks for those in the lower tax brackets.
CNN’s Ali Velshi hits the nail on the head by explaining that, “So while it was quite grand for President Bush to talk about the 43 million people getting hit by elimination of tax cuts, there’s nobody out there who’s thinking of eliminating those tax cuts for 43 million people.”
The best way to deal with uncertainty is to let people keep more of their money [...] Tax cuts have been an engine for economic vitality. Given the fact that tax cuts have worked, what will be the Congress’ response?
Does Bush really consider the American economy to be full of “economic vitality?” The Bush presidency has been plagued with stagnant wage growth, increased household debt, a bleak job market and a sharp rise in personal bankruptcy filings. Maybe Bush has a different definition for a tax plan that “works,” because he seems to be ignoring the fact that American income disparity is comparable to what we saw in the years leading up to the Great Depression.
Speaking at AIPAC yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) mocked the idea of direct talks with Iranian leadership, specifically rejecting “sitting down unconditionally with the Iranian president or supreme leader in the hope that we can talk sense into them.”
This morning, top McCain adviser Steve Schmidt also ridiculed the notion of talking to Iranian leaders, disingenuously claiming that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is “arrogant” and would be trying to “charm” Iran to change its ways:
Iran is supplying deadly munitions used to kill Americans in Iraq. … Is Senator Obama so arrogant that he believes that he will charm his way into getting the Iranians to change their policies, supporting terrorist organizations?
Today, however, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced that next week, he will be making his “second trip in a year’s time” to Iran. Maliki will meet with Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad to discuss “the security pact between Iraq and the U.S.”
Maliki will also address one of McCain’s major complaints — “growing concerns among Iraqis and Americans that Iranian agents are training and arming Shiite militants in Iraq.” Just last week, Adel Abdul Mahdi, Iraq’s Shi’ite vice president, also sat down with Ahmadinejad and discussed “bilateral relations and security issues.”
“[I]t’s hard to see what such a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain,” McCain remarked yesterday. “Such a spectacle would harm Iranian moderates and dissidents,” he added. Will McCain publicly ridicule Maliki and senior Iraqi leaders as “arrogant” and claim they are trying to “charm” Iran?
This is not a Democrat issue, this is not a Republican issue, this is not a liberal issue, this is not a conservative issue.
It is a planetary issue, a moral issue.
One of the most consequential issues of this century
We cannot afford the option of inaction any longer.
Just this last week, the United States government issued report saying the climate change is affecting the nation’s ecosystem, causing water scarcity, reducing snowpack, increasing insect infestation and wildfires.
This debate is no longer a question of science. It is a question of our political will.
Norma Perez, a VA psychologist who wrote an e-mail discouraging diagnosing veterans with post-trauamtic stress disorder, says she did not make the suggestion out of financial concerns. “My intent was unequivocally to improve the quality of care our veterans received,” she writes, in prepared testimony for tomorrow’s Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing. Her May 1, 2008 e-mail warned against “compensation seeking veterans,” and advised diagnoses of “adjustment disorder.” The less severe diagnosis “could save the VA millions of dollars in disability payouts,” the AP reports.
Climate change is contributing to food insecurity and helping to drive higher food prices now.
To do nothing on global warming would in my judgment be immoral.
Opponents keep pointing to gas prices. I have to ask them — frankly it won’t do that, over time it will bring down the cost of gasoline — if they are so concerned about gas prices, why don’t they support measures to provide relief to low-income families, a windfall profits tax. But it seems the other side just wants to talk about bringing gas prices down, but not actually do anything.
The Climate Security Act will reduce emissions.
CORKER REBUTTAL: This bill will cause gasoline prices to continue to rise. All we’re trying to do is cause this bill to be more pure.