Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Saturday, March 1, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 758)

power-plant-emission-regulations

Jan. 20, 2015: A coal-fired power plant, Merrimack Station in Bow, N.H. (Photo: AP)

Time to drop this “war on coal” talk. Time to ignore the hollering by coal country politicians over President Obama’s beefed-up plan to combat global warming.

No, the Clean Power Plan will not ruin their local economies, because coal has already done that, certainly in Appalachia. Look at those barren flats where majestic mountains once stood. The coal industry lopped off the mountaintops and fouled the streams, depriving West Virginia and eastern Kentucky of a key recruiting tool for modern employers prizing a healthy environment.

But let’s not go overly negative here. Coal did its job. It powered 20th-century America. The Appalachian coal regions gave and gave. We honor their sacrifice.

So rather than call the new plan a war on coal, let us call it a retirement party for coal. Coal is the largest source of planet-warming gases. It must make room for 21st-century power.

Mother Nature has already offered us a foretaste of what she has in mind should global warming go unchecked. Higher temperatures have worsened drought in the West, igniting large swaths of California, Washington and Oregon.

Glacier National Park in northern Montana may sound like a cool, watery place. But tourists there have been abandoning their cars to flee wildfires. The glaciers themselves are melting and may be gone in 30 years.

Flooding in other parts of the country is part of the same climate phenomenon.

Natural gas emits about half as much carbon as does coal and can transition us to truly clean power. But the future is clearly renewable energy from such sources as the sun and wind.

The new rules push us in that direction. They will require utilities to generate at least 28 percent of their electric power from renewable sources by 2030. (Renewables accounted for only 13 percent last year.)

This is not mission impossible. In 2011, California mandated that 33 percent of its electricity come from renewable energy sources by 2020. California’s economy is booming — aided no doubt by all that clean-energy venture capital (almost 60 percent of America’s total) flowing into the state.

Obama’s plan promotes a cap-and-trade system. States place a limit on greenhouse gases and let businesses buy and sell permits to emit them. This market-based approach started off as a conservative idea. Do remember that when the opposition rails against the idea as “cap and tax.”

California already has a cap-and-trade system, and 10 other states have followed suit. At least 30 other states also have mandates for renewable energy.

Foes will no doubt bash the Clean Power Plan as radical, but the public should know that even these stricter regulations will not save us from global warming. They will only stop a free fall into planetary catastrophe.

What about other countries? A reasonable question. The plan will give Obama something serious to unfurl at the climate change summit this December in Paris. When the United States offers a plausible blueprint to meet the challenge, other countries, notably China, will be pressed to follow suit.

And what about the coal regions? Appalachia has considerable natural beauty left, a great location and plenty of water. Coal-producing Wyoming has its own attractions, some quite magnificent.
Coal is yesterday’s fuel. Give it a respectful goodbye and dry the tears.

Time to drop this "war on coal"

Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz-Democrat-vs-Socialist

For the second time in a week, DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., refused to explain the difference between Democrats and socialists.

At the risk of upsetting a certain type of feminist, I’m going to openly admit that I believe in chivalry. And that means more than just holding open doors for women or giving up my seat on a bus. Because of my old-fashioned values, I also believe in helping out when there’s a damsel in distress.

And Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is in distress. The lawmaker (who also serves as Chair of the Democratic National Committee) has now been asked two times to explain the difference between a Democrat and a socialist.

As reported by the Free Beacon (and PPD), she gets a deer-in-the-headlights look on her face and resorts to empty talking points rather than giving a real answer.

Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.) could not take advantage of a second opportunity Sunday on Meet the Press to explain the difference between Democrats and far-left socialists. Schultz was flustered by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Thursday when asked the same question during a discussion of the popularity of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders… Amazingly, despite the clip of her non-answer going viral this week, Schultz gave almost the same answer to host Chuck Todd. He played the clip of her with Matthews and asked her to respond. …Schultz went on to her usual playbook about Republican extremism and that Democrats were the party to help people enter the middle class. Todd, for his part, did not note at the time that Schultz completely failed to answer his direct question.

Here’s the video clip if you want to see Ms. Wasserman Schultz helplessly flounder and she dodges the question.

[brid video=”12610″ player=”1929″ title=”Debbie Wasserman Schultz Wont Explain Difference Between Democrats and Socialists Again”]

Painful to watch, right?

And just imagine how much worse it would have been if Todd had been a real journalist and put a stop to her filibuster and actually asked her to answer the question!

So, like Sir Galahad from the Knights of the Round Table, I feel compelled to come to the aid of Ms. Wasserman Schultz. When asked again about the difference between socialists and Democrats, here’s what she should say.

There’s a big difference. As pointed out by my good friend Dan Mitchell, socialists technically believe government should own the means of production, which means government-owned and operated steel mills, car companies, railroads, banks, etc. Democrats, by contrast, believe in nominal private ownership of the means of production, but with lots of subsidies, handouts, redistribution, protectionism, intervention, regulation, and bailouts. The bottom line is that Bernie may call himself a socialist and his rhetoric may be rather heated, but his views – and voting record – make him a conventional Democrat.

See how easy it would be for her to give a good and honest answer. And because of my chivalry, I don’t even expect a $10,000-per-month consulting contract from the DNC.

I offer this advice out of the goodness of my heart (and my belief in honest portrayals of economic policies).

P.S. I also would advise Ms. Wasserman Schultz not to use Thomas Sowell’s description of the left’s economic views. It’s quite accurate, but the term has a wee bit of baggage nowadays.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is in distress and

Josh-Earnest

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest defends the administration’s stance on the Planned Parenthood videos when pressed by CNN anchor Chris Cuomo on Monday. Undercover videos revealed the abortion provider traffics in the harvesting and sale of baby body parts. (Photo: Video Screenshot)

CNN anchor Chris Cuomo called out White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest Monday on the Planned Parenthood videos revealing the organization’s role in the illegal harvesting and sale of baby body parts. Earnest repeatedly affirmed the Obama administration’s support for Planned Parenthood in the wake of the controversy.

Cuomo began the interview by asking Earnest whether it’s time to “take a look at” the so-called nonprofit’s activities and health care organization. Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider, and President Obama was the first American president ever to speak at the organization’s national annual event.

[brid video=”12705″ player=”1929″ title=”Cuomo to Earnest on Planned Parenthood Videos “You Saw Them Josh Ugly Stuff””]

“I don’t have a whole lot of insight into the specific policies and procedures that Planned Parenthood follows,” Earnest responded. “But what they say, they say they follow the highest ethical standards in the industry.”

Cuomo wasn’t buying it and quickly interrupted, calling out Earnest on what many in the media have found simply unbelievable.

“You saw the videos though, Josh. You saw the videos,” Cuomo said. “No high ethical standards at play there. Base stuff, ugly stuff.”

Earnest again attempted to convince the CNN host that he hasn’t yet seen the Planned Parenthood videos — which is interesting, considering he has already condemned them — suggesting they only surfaced because of the “shock value” and not their “news value.” Earnest went on to question whether the four videos — which are heavily edited — released so far are actually authentic.

“I haven’t seen the videos. I can’t render my own judgment on that. People who have looked at the video have raised significant concerns about that, and I think anybody would question the source. I think that’s legitimate,” Earnest said.

Following the videos, eight state governments (including the latest, Florida) and three House committees have opened investigations into Planned Parenthood. The House Energy and Commerce Committee called PPFA’s Senior Director of Medical Services to testify this month about the organization’s fetal tissue harvesting, but the organization refused to produce the star of the first video. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kty., a physician by profession, vowed to defund Planned Parenthood by any means necessary after the shocking videos were released. Last week, Sen. Paul fast-tracked his legislation by invoking Rule 14, and now the Senate vote to halt federal aid is expected Monday.

CNN anchor Chris Cuomo called out White

James-Holmes-Verdict

A jury has decided whether to sentence convicted Colorado theater shooter James Holmes, pictured above, to life in prison or death. (Photo: AP)

UPDATE: A Colorado jury ruled that James Holmes qualifies for the death penalty for the Aurora movie theater massacre, and now must decide whether to sentence Holmes to death or life in prison without parole.

EARLIER: In a few hours, James Holmes, who was convicted in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting will learn whether he will spend life in prison or be sentenced to death. The jury, which deliberated for a total of just under 2.5 hours, is scheduled to reveal its decision in the penalty portion, or Phase 2, of the Holmes trial at 2:30 p.m. ET.

If jurors unanimously concluded that beyond a reasonable doubt the mitigating factors the defense presented do not outweigh the aggravating factors proven by the prosecution in Phase 1 of the trial, the sentencing phase moves on to the phase when Holmes will either be sentenced to death or spend the rest of his life in prison. In the state of Colorado, if jurors did not unanimously agree that the aforementioned mitigation outweighed aggravation, Holmes will automatically be sentenced to life in prison for murdering 12 people and wounding 70 others in 2012.

Worth noting, Jurors have already rejected Holmes’ claim of insanity during the trial, but defense lawyers have urged the jury of three men and nine women deciding Holmes’ fate to consider mental illness as a factor when levying a sentence. Whether they did or not within such a short time period, is yet to be seen. The prosecution rejected the defense attorneys’ attempts to paint Holmes as a troubled man who was not in control of his actions.

“He made a decision to massacre, and he did; 12 dead from the community. Can anything outweigh that? No,” District Attorney George Brauchler said on Thursday.

In Part 1 of the penalty phase, the jury decided that Holmes’ crime justified death penalty consideration. The jury began deliberating for a short time Thursday before breaking for a long weekend.

In a few hours, James Holmes, who

workers-manufacturing-factory

(Photo: Reuters)

A closely watched survey by the Institute for Supply Management finds the pace of growth in the manufacturing sector slowed in July, missing Wall Street’s expectations. The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) said its index of national factory activity fell to 52.7 from 53.5 measured in the month of June.

The reading was below economists’ expectations that the pace would remain unchanged at 53.5, according to a poll of economists conducted by Reuters. A reading above 50 indicates expansion in the manufacturing sector, while readings below 50 indicate contraction.

The report was all pessimistic, as new orders rose to 56.5, up from 56.0 in June and marking the highest reading since December. However, the prices paid index fell to 44.0 from 49.5, compared to expectations for 49.0.

The employment index slipped to 52.7 from 55.5, also short of expectations for a reading of 54.7, while the imports index hit its lowest level in a year at 52.0.

A closely watched survey by the Institute

consumer-spending-consumer-sentiment-reuters

(Photo: Reuters)

The Commerce Department reported on Monday that personal income rose 0.4 percent in June, beating Wall Street expectations for a 0.3 percent gain. The the Bureau of Economic Analysis said personal income increased by $68.1 billion and disposable personal income (DPI) increased by $60.6 billion, or 0.5 percent.

Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) increased $25.9 billion, inching up by 0.2 percent and matching the median forecast. In May, personal income increased $66.3 billion, or 0.4 percent, while DPI increased $53.8 billion, or 0.4 percent. PCE increased $90.8 billion, or 0.7 percent, based on revised estimates.

The Commerce Department reported on Monday that

Obama-Biden-Oval-Office

President Barack Obama talks with Vice President Joe Biden, in the Oval Office, July 29, 2015. (Photo: White House/Pete Souza)

“He’s thinking about it,” was the White House response following multiple reports that Vice President Joe Biden is considering a presidential run in 2016. PPD has confirmed that early reports from FOX News claiming Biden has been testing the primary waters for weeks.

“Vice President Biden is going to have to make up his own mind,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday morning. “He’s thinking about it.”

Biden had initially decided against running for president in 2016, but two factors have reportedly begun to change his mind. First, Hillary Clinton continues to face sagging poll numbers, ongoing questions about her use of a private email server and an upcoming hearing of her handling of the 2012 Benghazi attack during her tenure as secretary of state. Clinton may be holding on in some polls to a nationwide lead over her lesser-known potential GOP rivals, but she has now begun to trail at least Gov. Scott Walker, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in key battleground states. According to the PPD average of polls, Hillary now has a favorability rating of only 39 percent in the eight states most likely to decide the outcome of the presidential race in Election 2016.

Second, Beltway pundits had thought the death of Biden’s son in May, former Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, would further discourage the vice president. However, the Beau Biden, as well as his brother, Hunter Biden, had previously urged their father to jump into the 2016 presidential race. PPD is not the only outlet to report on the development.

An adviser close to Biden, who is familiar with the vice president’s exploration process, told the Boston Herald that Biden will “more likely than not” jump into the 2016 race. Democrats in Massachusetts and early voting states welcomed the news and prospect of a spirited Democratic primary. “We have staff on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire, and we are bringing more people on in South Carolina,” Will Pierce of “Draft Biden 2016” told the Herald. Pierce also said he expects Biden to decide by September.

“What is happening with the emails and all the other issues around Hillary’s campaign has not been helpful to her,” said former Massachusetts Democratic Party chairman Phil Johnston. “If anyone is in the position to beat her for the nomination, I would say it’s Joe.”

The president’s press secretary rattled off pre-determined talking points that appeared to suggest the White House was supportive of the vice president’s run. President Obama has been walking and talking on a fine line respecting Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, particularly since revelations she broke the president’s directives on keeping government records and communications.

“President Obama, then-Sen. Obama, chose Vice President Biden, then-Sen. Biden, as his running mate and the president has described that as the smartest political decision he has ever made,” Earnest said. “He chose somebody who has a long career of fighting for the middle class. He chose somebody who, when he was in the Senate, established relationships around the globe that have been useful in advancing the interests of the United States.”

“The fact is Vice President Biden has used both those sets of skills to advance our interests,” Earnest added. “And that’s why he has been an excellent vice president. He’ll have to make up his own mind about whether he wants to run for the presidency.”

When asked if the president would support his vice president if he decided to challenge Hillary, who has most recently come under scrutiny by two inspector generals for sending classified email over her private server, Earnest gave what was perhaps most the clear diplomatic answer as press secretary he has ever given.

“The president believes that Democratic voters ultimately need to decide, but he believes a spirited contest would be in the best interests of our party and our country,” he said. “Vice President Joe Biden has certainly earned the right to make that decision on his own schedule.”

"He's thinking about it," was the White

Chuck-Schumer

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., talks with reporters after the Senate policy luncheons in the Capitol, May 5, 2015. (Photo: Getty/Tom Williams)

Polls on Iran Deal Continue to Show Declining Support

PPD has been tracking support for both a generic Iran nuclear deal and the specific agreement announced by President Obama in July. For Democratic lawmakers on the fence, particularly those up for reelection in 2016 and 2018, the numbers aren’t getting any better. According to a new poll from Quinnipiac University, American voters oppose the Iran nuclear deal by a 57 – 28 percent margin, which includes only weak support from Democrats and overwhelming opposition for Republicans and independent voters.

Jessica Rosenblum, a spokeswoman for the liberal Jewish group J Street, said Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., will “have the support of the majority of American Jews” if he backs the deal. However, this statement is not backed by data from the recent Quinnipiac Poll or the average and aggregate polling data tracked by PPD.

Do you support or oppose the nuclear deal with Iran?
                     Tot    PPD    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom
 
Support              28%    31%    03%    52%    29%    30%    27%
Oppose               57%    55%    86     32     55     58     56
DK/NA                15%           11     16     16     13     17 
68. Do you think the nuclear deal with Iran would make the world safer or less safe?
                     Tot    PPD    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom
 
Safer                30%    26%    04%    54%    30%    30%    29%
Less safe            58%    54%    87     32     58     59     56
DK/NA                12%           09     14     12     10     15

“There’s not a lot of love for the proposed nuclear deal with Iran. Only a bare majority of Democrats support the pact,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. As has been the case with previous surveys, Americans voters say by a wide margin (58 – 30 percent) the nuclear pact will make the world less safe. On average, just 26 percent of American voters believe the Iran deal will make the world or region a safer place. Among the worst of results on this question was seen in a recent Rasmussen Reports survey, which found an abysmal 22 percent agree.

The latest Quinnipiac Poll, which was the first taken since administration officials attempted to defend details of the deal to lawmakers, has now tanked average support for the deal to just 31 percent, while 55 percent are now opposed. With respect to the claim made by Rosenblum regarding Jewish voters, majority support for the Iran deal is found only among black voters.

A wealthy New York City Jewish donor who spoke to PPD over the weekend on the condition of anonymity said he didn’t need a poll to tell him Sen. Schumer would be listening to Rosenblum at potentially high cost — his own political peril.

“Mr. Schumer has been billing himself to me and other New York Jews as the defender of the Jewish state for years,” he said. “For the first time in his career, we are truly going to test that sales pitch. If the polls mean anything to me, it’s that the voters are prepared to test it, too.”

New polls on Iran deal continue to

[brid video=”12610″ player=”1929″ title=”Debbie Wasserman Schultz Won’t Explain Difference Between Democrats and Socialists, Again”]

For the second time in a week, DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., refused to explain the difference between Democrats and socialists. Bernie Sanders, the self-described democratic socialist senator from Vermont, is currently the second choice of Democratic primary voters in the PPD nationwide average.

Yet she could only attempt to deflect to Republicans when NBC’s Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd pressed her on the question. On Hardball with Chris Matthews Thursday night, the MSNBC host first tripped Schultz up on the question of what the difference is between a Democrat and a socialist.

“What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?” Matthews asked, leaving Wasserman Schultz at a loss for words.

Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz-Democrat-vs-Socialist

For the second time in a week, DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., refused to explain the difference between Democrats and socialists.

“I used to think there is a big difference. What do you think it is?” Matthews tried again. “A Democrat like Hillary and a socialist like Bernie Sanders.”

Wasserman Schultz again was unable to answer and instead tried to tell Matthews what the difference between a Democrat and a Republican is.

“The more important question is what is the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican,” she said.

“What’s the big difference between a Democrat and a socialist?” Matthews again asked.

“You’re chairman of the democratic party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist,” Matthews reminded her.

“The relevant debate that we’ll be having this campaign is what’s the difference between a Democrat and a Republican,” Schultz said.

Schultz, however, was able to tell the difference between a Democrat and a Republican.

“The difference between a Democrat and Republican is that Democrats fight to make sure everybody has an opportunity to succeed and the Republicans are strangled by their right-wing extremists,” she said.

For the second time in a week,

2016-Presidential-Candidates

A compilation of the 2016 presidential candidates in both the Republican Party and Democrat Party fields.

As far as I’m concerned, a key gateway test of whether someone might be a libertarian is whether they get upset when ordinary people are mistreated or brutalized by government.

Though admittedly any decent person should get upset by those examples.

So perhaps we need something more detailed to identify supporters of limited government, individual freedom, and personal responsibility. So, when one of my friends sent me the “definitive political orientation test,” I immediately was tempted to see my score.

I don’t know if this or others are the “definitive” quizzes they claim to be, but it seems reasonably accurate. As you can see, I’m about as libertarian as you can be without being an anarchist who wants zero government.

Political-Orientation-Test

Though I should point out that there aren’t any questions on anarchism. I think the test probably assumes anarchism if your answers are both anti-welfare state and anti-defense.

This “circle test” is probably a simpler way of determining where you are on the big government-some government-no government spectrum.

But the most more sophisticated measure of libertarianism is Professor Bryan Caplan’s test. I only got a 94 out of a possible 160, which sounds bad, but that was still enough for my views to be considered “hard-core.”

political philosophy libertarian test

And since we’re looking at online surveys, here are my results from the “I Side With” quiz. I don’t endorse candidates (as if anyone would care), but this quiz suggests that Rand Paul is closest to my views, followed by Scott Walker and Marco Rubio.

Candidate-quiz

For what it’s worth, I’m not exactly shocked to see Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders at the bottom. By the way, since we’ve shifted to a discussion of the 2016 race, I was the warm-up speaker for Governor Jeb Bush at a recent “Road to Reform” event in New Hampshire sponsored by Americans for Prosperity. Here’s what I said about fixing the budget mess in Washington. You can watch the entire event and also see what the governor said by clicking here. And for folks in Nevada, I’ll be the warm-up speaker for a similar event with Ted Cruz on August 14.

P.S. The most inaccurate political quiz was the one that classified me as a “moderate” with “few strong opinions.”

Dan Mitchell shares two "definitive" political orientation

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial