Posted on 01/20/2011 11:46:26 AM PST by WildSnail
Moving aggressively to make good on election promises to slash the federal budget, the House GOP today unveiled an eye-popping plan to eliminate $2.5 trillion in spending over the next 10 years. Gone would be Amtrak subsidies, fat checks to the Legal Services Corporation and National Endowment for the Arts, and some $900 million to run President Obama's healthcare reform program.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
I’m very conscious of water conservation, even though I have a well and price is a small thing, but I want to see laundry being agitated in enough water to cover it-otherwise, it just doesn’t seem clean to me-and the top loading washer is kinder to my back, too.
NEA, National Endowment for the ARTS
EEOC, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
HEADSTART
All funding to public schools
Fannie Mae
Freddie Mac
NIH, National Institues of Health
And so on.....
HOW BOUT NPR??? HOW BOUT NPR????
i’m so proud of Jim Jordan, my congressman, and can honestly say i knew him when
Good bye PEACE CORPS!!!!!!
Hello MARINE CORPS!!!!!!!!
The FCC had it's purpose and now they're pretty much a rogue agency, like most of the other agencies. They could roll the thing way back.
The FCC's legitimate job (issuing and making sure licenses don't step on each other's frequencies) could be done now by less than 100 live people and web based programs.
How Much of Your Money Wasted on ‘Climate Change’? Try $10.6 Million a Day
Pajamas Media ^ | January 15, 2011 | Art Horn
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-much-of-your-money-wasted-on-climate-change-try-10-6-million-a-day/?singlepage=true
Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:21:45 AM by Kaslin
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2657373/posts
While reading the budget requests for FY 2011, remember to be “civil.”
Seems everyone is talking about the massive United States federal deficit and how it has now reached an unfathomable $14 trillion.
Is there any way to comprehend such a bloated number? Try this: the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. At that speed a photon of light starts at the surface of the Sun and reaches the Earth in 8 minutes. On Star Trek, the speed of light is warp one at that speed the Enterprise would travel about 6 trillion miles in one year. If each dollar of the deficit is represented by one mile, it would take the Enterprise more than two years traveling the speed of light to go 14 trillion miles.
So what can we cut out of the federal budget to make any kind of dent in this enormous pile of borrowed money?
We could start with the vast sums of cash being wasted on climate change research.
This year, your government will spend in the neighborhood of $4 billion on global warming research, despite the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, and despite all of the billions that have been spent so far yielding no conclusive evidence that using fossil fuels to make energy has any significant effect on Earth’s temperature.
The human component of carbon dioxide that is injected into the air each year is very small, on the order of 3%.
Half the carbon dioxide emitted into the air by human activity each year is immediately absorbed into nature. Carbon dioxide is 8% of the greenhouse effect; water in the air is 90% of the greenhouse effect.
By volume, carbon dioxide is currently at about 390 parts per million in the atmosphere, increasing at about 2 parts per million annually. In other words, carbon dioxide is increasing at a rate of .5% per year.
Since human activity adds 3% of the carbon dioxide that gets into the air each year, the human component of the increase in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year is 3 % of .5%, or just .015%.
Here is what the federal government thinks is happening with the Earth’s climate due to the burning of fossil fuels the following quote is from chapter 15 of the Advancement of Science’s 2011 budget request:
Past scientific research demonstrates that the Earth’s climate is changing, that humans are very likely responsible for most of the well-documented increase in global average surface temperatures over the last half century, and that further greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, will almost certainly contribute to additional widespread climate disruption. This climate disruption poses considerable risk to society because it can be expected to cause major negative consequences for most nations and to a wide range of species.
The first sentence is obvious: of course the Earth’s climate is changing; it always has and always will no matter what we do.
The next statement “humans are very likely responsible for most of the well-documented increase in global average surface temperatures over the last half century” is speculation. The statement completely ignores any natural variability in the climate. Apparently all of nature’s power to regulate the Earth’s temperature, which has been going on for millions of years, stopped 50 years ago, and now carbon dioxide is the principal driver of the climate. This is political and social advocacy, not science.
Then, this statement: “further greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, will almost certainly contribute to additional widespread climate disruption.” The implication is that there has already been widespread climate disruption there has not. There is no more extreme weather going on now than anytime in the last 2,000 years. Per the complex Orwellian world of government-speak, we have now moved on from “global warming” to “climate change” to “climate disruption.”
Climate change wasn’t frightening enough! What’s next?
My money’s on “climate disintegration” that should keep the money flowing so we can figure out who and what will be disintegrated.
The statement then reads: “This climate disruption poses considerable risk to society because it can be expected to cause major negative consequences for most nations and to a wide range of species.” And that is the key to all of this: the fear factor. Pitching rising sea levels and other catastrophic consequences to keep the research money coming.
If you want to know where to save money in the budget, cut the vast sums of redundant funding headed to redundant federal agencies doing redundant climate change research. Four billion dollars to study climate change and that’s just for this year!
Check the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s 2011 budget request, and go to chapter 15: Climate Change in the FY 2011 Budget. The numbers are staggering. In 2011, your government will spend $10.6 million a day to study, combat, and educate about climate change.
The big winner in the climate change money train is the National Science Foundation they are requesting $1.616 billion. They want $766 million for the Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability program, a 15.9% increase from their last budget. They also need another $370 million for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an increase of 16%. They say they also need another $480 million for Atmospheric Sciences, an increase of 8.1%, and Earth Sciences, up 8.7%.
Oh, and $955 million for the Geosciences Directorate, an increase of 7.4%.
The second largest request for money in 2011 comes from the Department of Energy. They say they need $627 million for things like funding for renewable energy. The request represents a whopping 37% increase from last year! They want a 12% increase for energy efficiency programs. They want to eliminate $2.7 billion of subsidies for industries that emit large amounts of carbon dioxide.
Let’s get NASA in on the parade! For 2011, NASA wants $438 million to study climate change, an increase of 14%. NASA’s total Earth Sciences budget request is actually $1.8 billion. Some $809 million of that is for satellites, some of which are specifically put in orbit to study climate change. It is difficult to separate out which ones are for climate monitoring and which ones are not, so I won’t include this number in the overall climate change money train. But make no mistake: a significant percentage of the $809 million is exclusively for climate change satellites.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is looking for $437 million for climate research. This is an increase of 21.4% from the previous budget. This includes funds for regional and national assessments of climate change, including ocean acidification. Once again, another meaty bag of money to tap into for researchers, who have nice cars and big houses and need to keep up the payments.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) is also interested in robbing the climate change vault they say they need $244 million in 2011. Of this total, $171 million is for the Climate Change Adaptation initiative. This program identifies areas and species that are most vulnerable to climate change, and implements coping strategies. Another $73 million is needed for the New Energy Frontier initiative. The goal of this program is to increase solar, wind, and geothermal energy capacity.
Solar and wind power don’t survive without this government funding.
Is that $14 trillion making sense yet?
Of course, there’s more. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants $169 million to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, an increase of 1%. Do you believe that next year greenhouse gases will be reduced by the EPA spending $169 million? I would bet the ranch that greenhouse gases will continue to increase next year, and the year after that, and the year after that despite EPA spending your money.
Is there any government agency that does not get some climate change funding?
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) wants $338 million for climate change programs. They want $159 million for climate change research, up a whopping 42%. They also want another $179 million for renewable energy, an increase of 41%!
The USDA’s climate change efforts are supposed to help farm and land owners adapt to the impacts of climate change. Yes, really.
Redundancy on top of redundancy, piles of money on top of piles of money. All to study climate change, which, according to the theory, should be warming us rapidly, but, according to the data, has stopped. How much of the requested money these government agencies actually get is not yet known. The way they spend money in Washington, you can rest assured they’ll get most of it.
If you’re looking to cut the budget, climate change is a good place to start.
If we don’t get a handle on Washington’s spending soon, and I mean very soon, climate change will be the least of our problems.
bttt
Looks like they are cutting Legal Service Corporation funds. Just did some research on them, they were trying to propose HR 3764 eliminating language from the revised bill which would pay trial lawyers to engage in civil suits. It would allow lawyers to defend violent and drug related criminals to fight to live in public housing if the complex did not want them, would use funds for migrant workers, citizens of marshall islands and micronesia, defend criminals in the prison system. Pretty messed up stuff.
These changes in the Legal Service Corp were not passesd in HR 3764, but the Admin has been preparing for it by starting a new office called Access to Justice. LSC funds are already misused, then to open up the funds to trial lawyers for law suits, OM Gawd.
Planned Parenthood.
I’m beginning to notice who my budget balancing FRiends are here on FR.
Our publicly held debt is $9T. Our GDP is $14T. Countries typically have to default when their Debt to GDP ratio equals 100%. We will be in default in five years if we run these Republican proposed $1T deficits.
Here is my pet peeve du jure though (and some have said it). This congress can’t speak for future congresses. The only thing they can speak to is what they do. We shouldn’t be distracted by what they say congress will do after 2013.
Bring home all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP, but put 25,000 troops on Mexican border. Eliminate the Departments of Energy and Education. Sell Amtrak and the Post Office. Cut the State Department budget in half. Fire the 500,000 federal employees added since Obama took office. Cut off all funding to UN. Cut off all aid to the so-called “Palestinians”. Cut the EPA budget in half. Cut all federal aid to children of illegal immigrants. Fire half of the TSA’s 52,000 employees. Sell federal land, particularly in the Western U.S. Enact the Fair Tax, which would eliminate the entire federal income tax system and the IRS. Cut all Congressional staff expenses by 50%. Fire all of Obama’s “Czars” and their staffs. Cut off all funding for AIDS in Africa, etc. that Bush pledged. Confiscate the bank accounts of Muslim “charities”, which are subversive.
Right,
so they should go with Rand Paul’s idea. $500 Billion in one year.
Ethanol subsidies remain. Let’s bump it to 3 Trillion $.
I am convinced that the Energy Star rating is a complete hoax.
It is. Last year the GAO did an investigation, submitting Energy Star applications for some fictitious — and outrageous — products, like a gasoline-powered alarm clock, which was approved! See this NY Time article from last March:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/science/earth/26star.html
Dept. of Energy-we still need it’s nuclear research.
Are you drunk? The DoE was formed during the Carter administration, and we have closed more nuclear power plants than have been started since the DoE came to power. The US once was a leader in nuclear technology, now we trail everyone including the Russians who gave us Chernobyl. The DoE is the enemy of the energy industry - especially nuclear.
EPA Dept - We still need them
We need their leadership swinging from lampposts. Most states have their own EPA, and most states already have environmental agreements with their neighbors. We need the Federal EPA as bad as one needs terminal cancer.
Not just cut, but eliminate from the budget, incarcerate the leadership, sell the furniture and lease out the buildings
$2.5 trillion in spending over the next 10 years. Gone would be Amtrak subsidies, fat checks to the Legal Services Corporation and National Endowment for the Arts, and some $900 million to run President Obama's healthcare reform program.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.