Welcome to the end result of Obamacare folks! Anything that could be deemed a health "crisis" will be harshly dealt with by the bureaucrats who think they know better than you do. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.Happy Meal Toys Could be Banned in California County
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
County supervisors in California have proposed that toys included in fast-food restaurant meals for kids be banned, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Officials in Santa Clara are convinced that luring kids into eating foods with high sugar, sodium and fat by using toys will make them overweight and cause long term health problems.
This proposal is believed to the first of this type, and would ban the inclusion of a toy in any kids meal with more than 485 calories, 600 mg of salt, or high amounts of sugar or fat. These guidelines would cause all McDonald’s happy meals—even those with apple sticks instead of French fries—to be served without a toy.
Supporters of the ban argue that it will force restaurants to offer nutritious foods to kids. Others have said this is another case of the government getting too involved in parenting decisions.
Click here to read more from the Los Angeles Times
27 April 2010
Happy Meal Toys Could be Banned in California County
25 April 2010
G.O.P. Threatens Seats Long Held by Democrats
Mr. Obey is one of nearly a dozen well-established House Democrats who are bracing for something they rarely face: serious competition. Their predicament is the latest sign of distress for their party and underlines why Republicans are confident of making big gains in November and perhaps even winning back the House.
The fight for the midterm elections is not confined to traditional battlegrounds, where Republicans and Democrats often swap seats every few cycles. In the Senate, Democrats are struggling to hold on to, among others, seats once held by President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Democrats are preparing to lose as many as 30 House seats — including a wave of first-term members — and Republicans have expanded their sights to places where political challenges seldom develop.
24 April 2010
Running on the Promise to Repeal Obamacare is Short Sighted and Dangerous Strategy for Republican Candidates
Before I start getting hate mail/comments or being told I am not a true conservative, hear me out. I didn’t support Obamacare and would like to see it repealed as much as anyone. However, it isn’t going to happen anytime soon for two BIG reasons.
Kerry, Graham, Lieberman to Unveil Climate Bill (Update: Unveiling on Hold After Sen. Graham Balks Over Immigration Reform)
Update: This just in from Politico.com. "The planned Monday unveiling of a bipartisan climate bill was postponed after one of its three authors, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), said that he couldn’t support the legislation if Democrats moved it to the backburner to focus first on immigration reform. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) announced the postponement Saturday evening, saying that 'external issues have arisen that force us to postpone only temporarily.'”
Kerry, Graham, Lieberman to Unveil Climate BillIn their last and best shot at enacting a climate bill this year, Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) plan to unveil a draft Monday that will provide a streamlined system for capping greenhouse gas emissions from the utilities and transport sector but still aims to reduce the nation's carbon dioxide output by 17 percent in 10 years.
The measure offers numerous concessions to businesses, including allowing manufacturing and energy-intensive industries four years before they would be subject to the carbon cap; provisions for offshore oil drilling; $10 billion for the coal industry to capture and store its carbon emissions; and enough loan guarantees and incentives to provide for the construction of 12 nuclear power plants.
"Because of the broad-based industry support that I expect the bill will garner, both at the rollout as well as beyond, I think this is the best path forward," said Fred Krupp, who heads the Environmental Defense Fund.
In a telephone briefing Thursday for business supporters, Kerry said the Edison Electric Institute -- whose members generate the bulk of the nation's electricity -- would endorse the measure, along with three of the nation's five biggest oil and gas companies. He did not name the three oil companies, but a source familiar with the negotiations said Shell, BP and ConocoPhillips would support the bill.
Significant sections of the bill remained blank as of Friday evening, according to several sources, and that lack of specificity could deter some senators and many business interests from endorsing the measure at the outset.
"I'd like to support it, but I have to look at it," said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), adding that she was concerned about what it would do to home heating oil and gas prices. "In this economy, we have to see how much we can do."
One of the most complex areas has been the question of how to limit carbon emissions from transportation. Initially the senators had hoped to create a linked fee on fuels that would be tied to the price of carbon, but that idea came under attack last week as a gas tax.
"If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck," said Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.). "I don't care whether you call it a linked fee. It is a tax on energy."
To avoid that pitfall, the bill's authors are going to require oil and gas producers to buy special, non-tradable emissions allowances, at a price set by the Environmental Protection Agency. It would be pegged to the carbon market and must be retired at a certain date.
"We're not going to raise gas prices," Graham said.
To keep utility costs from rising too high, two-thirds of the revenue generated by auctioning off pollution allowances for utilities would be returned to consumers through local electricity distributors.
And in an effort to win over moderate Republicans, such as Sen. George V. Voinovich (Ohio), the bill will preempt both the states' and the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, as long as emitters comply with the standards outlined in the measure. The agency will monitor and enforce compliance with the law.
The measure aims to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels in a decade and 80 percent by 2050.
Thomas J. Gibson, president of the American Iron and Steel Institute, said inclusion of the emissions cap means that someone in the business sector would suffer because the number of pollution allowances the federal government could give away are limited. "If the utilities and refineries are going to be the winners, who are going to be the losers?" he asked.
Jeremy Symons, senior vice president of the National Wildlife Federation, said the bill constituted the kind of compromises that often take place when crafting major legislation.
"The bill is ultimately about the grand bargain of pulling together national security interests with environmental concerns, and an economic job program to create clean-energy jobs," he said, adding that his group was still evaluating its position on the measure.
Surprisingly, according to this article, the Senate bill appears to be less draconian than the House bill. But then again Rep. Waxman is the prime sponsor of the House version and he is not known for using common sense in this area. The big question is what are the blank spots going to say when they are filled in. We shall see, but either bill will be bad for the economy and America while being good for government growth.
Kerry, Graham, Lieberman to Unveil Climate Bill
In their last and best shot at enacting a climate bill this year, Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) plan to unveil a draft Monday that will provide a streamlined system for capping greenhouse gas emissions from the utilities and transport sector but still aims to reduce the nation's carbon dioxide output by 17 percent in 10 years.
The measure offers numerous concessions to businesses, including allowing manufacturing and energy-intensive industries four years before they would be subject to the carbon cap; provisions for offshore oil drilling; $10 billion for the coal industry to capture and store its carbon emissions; and enough loan guarantees and incentives to provide for the construction of 12 nuclear power plants.
"Because of the broad-based industry support that I expect the bill will garner, both at the rollout as well as beyond, I think this is the best path forward," said Fred Krupp, who heads the Environmental Defense Fund.
In a telephone briefing Thursday for business supporters, Kerry said the Edison Electric Institute -- whose members generate the bulk of the nation's electricity -- would endorse the measure, along with three of the nation's five biggest oil and gas companies. He did not name the three oil companies, but a source familiar with the negotiations said Shell, BP and ConocoPhillips would support the bill.
Significant sections of the bill remained blank as of Friday evening, according to several sources, and that lack of specificity could deter some senators and many business interests from endorsing the measure at the outset.
"I'd like to support it, but I have to look at it," said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), adding that she was concerned about what it would do to home heating oil and gas prices. "In this economy, we have to see how much we can do."
One of the most complex areas has been the question of how to limit carbon emissions from transportation. Initially the senators had hoped to create a linked fee on fuels that would be tied to the price of carbon, but that idea came under attack last week as a gas tax.
"If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck," said Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.). "I don't care whether you call it a linked fee. It is a tax on energy."
To avoid that pitfall, the bill's authors are going to require oil and gas producers to buy special, non-tradable emissions allowances, at a price set by the Environmental Protection Agency. It would be pegged to the carbon market and must be retired at a certain date.
"We're not going to raise gas prices," Graham said.
To keep utility costs from rising too high, two-thirds of the revenue generated by auctioning off pollution allowances for utilities would be returned to consumers through local electricity distributors.
And in an effort to win over moderate Republicans, such as Sen. George V. Voinovich (Ohio), the bill will preempt both the states' and the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, as long as emitters comply with the standards outlined in the measure. The agency will monitor and enforce compliance with the law.
The measure aims to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels in a decade and 80 percent by 2050.
Thomas J. Gibson, president of the American Iron and Steel Institute, said inclusion of the emissions cap means that someone in the business sector would suffer because the number of pollution allowances the federal government could give away are limited. "If the utilities and refineries are going to be the winners, who are going to be the losers?" he asked.
Jeremy Symons, senior vice president of the National Wildlife Federation, said the bill constituted the kind of compromises that often take place when crafting major legislation.
"The bill is ultimately about the grand bargain of pulling together national security interests with environmental concerns, and an economic job program to create clean-energy jobs," he said, adding that his group was still evaluating its position on the measure.
Surprisingly, according to this article, the Senate bill appears to be less draconian than the House bill. But then again Rep. Waxman is the prime sponsor of the House version and he is not known for using common sense in this area. The big question is what are the blank spots going to say when they are filled in. We shall see, but either bill will be bad for the economy and America while being good for government growth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
