California's Green Agenda Being Pushed Through Despite Falling Economy

State considers ban on big screen TVs
March 23rd, 2009, 3:00 am
posted by BRIAN JOSEPH
Sacramento Correspondent

In their continuing quest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, state regulators have uncovered a new villain in the war on global warming : your big screen TV

Couch potatoes, beware.

The California Energy Commission is considering a proposal that would ban California retailers from selling all but the most energy-efficient televisions. Critics say the news standards could take 25 percent of televisions off the market — most of them 40 inches or larger.

“The larger the television, the more at risk it is of being banned unnecessarily in California,” said Douglas Johnson, senior director of technology police for the Consumer Electronics Association.

Association officials say the standards are not only unnecessary –  because the federal government already regulates energy efficiency through the voluntary Energy Star program — but also ill-timed. The last thing our economy needs now is products taken off the market, they say.

Furthermore, they say that with a weak economy, consumers are going out less and watching TV more.

“This is really about regulating entertainment, not energy use,” Johnson said.

Poppycock, says the commission.

Affordable big screen TVs will still be available under the new standards, spokesman Adam Gottlieb said. In fact, he said the regulations will save you money.

The commission calculates that if you buy televisions meeting the proposed standards it’ll cut your annual energy use by — drum roll, please — $18 to $30.

“I don’t know anyone who doesn’t like to save money,” Gottlieb said.

Gottlieb said the commission is exploring the regulations to reduce the strain on the energy grid and to avoid building new power plants.

Televisions are the fastest growing consumer appliance in California. Californians are buying bigger TVs, and more of them. If something doesn’t happen, televisions are going to devour a bigger and bigger piece of the state’s power grid, which means we’ll need more power plants. More power plants mean more greenhouse gas emissions.

“Consumers aren’t aware of the hidden cost of powering these things,” Gottlieb said.

Gottlieb insisted that the regulations wouldn’t eliminate big screens from California stores. But the commission’s own draft report says TV energy use is “proportional to the screen size.” And there’s no doubt the regulations will limit energy use.

So if you’re in the market for big screen TV, now might be the time to buy. The regulations are expected to be approved this summer.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/03/23/state-considers-ban-on-big-screen-tvs/12993/
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

This is just what this country needs. The new regulations will decrease the sales of the TVs. This in turn will lead to layoffs all the way from the TV manufacturing plants to electronics stores. Unemployment will go even higher with the added layoffs.

Couldn't they wait until we get the economy back on track before putting these kind of unneeded limitations on our businesses?

CNN's Heidi Collins: Today's Overspending Still Bush's Fault

CNN's Heidi Collins: Monstrous Spending Bill 'Is a Hold-Over From the Last Administration'
By Michael M. Bates
March 6, 2009 - 14:58 ET

On this morning's CNN Newsroom, anchor Heidi Collins gave Barack Obama some cover by characterizing the omnibus spending bill, larded with thousands of earmarks, as left over from the Bush administration:

A controversial $410 billion spending bill hits a snag in the Senate. This is the bill we've been talking about with about $8 billion in earmarks. Republicans and a few Democrats are mad about all that pork barrel spending. That led members from both parties to push President Obama to veto the bill.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid says the measure will be opened up for changes next week in an effort to gain more support. The bill is a hold-over from the last administration.

Collin's reporting comes straight from the Obama playbook.  Last Sunday on "This Week," Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag defended his boss's support for the measure:

"This is last year's business.  We want to just move on.  Let's get this bill done, get it into law and move forward."

It was originally drafted last year, but congressional Democrats didn't want to send it to President Bush, so it will only fund the government from April through September.

Paul Kane at The Washington Post points out that the bill is "leftover from last year's congressional agenda."

And the Associated Press reported yesterday on Senator John McCain's attempts to defeat the spending bill:

McCain took aim at the $410 billion spending bill to keep the government running, specifically Obama's willingness to accept thousands of pet projects that it would fund. Orszag, McCain noted, called the so-called earmarks "last year's business."

"Last year's business? Does that mean last year's president will sign this pork barrel bill?" McCain railed from the Senate floor. "It is the president's business. It is the business of the president of the United States."

No, Heidi, the omnibus bill working its way through Congress isn't a hold-over from the Bush administration.  Your saying so is evidence of what's become increasingly apparent: When it comes to covering up for Obama, the news readers at CNN are shovel ready.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/michael-m-bates/2009/03/06/cnns-heidi-collins-monstrous-spending-bill-hold-over-last-administr
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Michael pretty well said it all. The left can't keep blaming everything on Bush. The American people aren't stupid. They'll see it for what it is, subterfuge.

How can they blame today's spending bill on Bush? Obama is president not Bush. It is true they wrote the bill last year, but they didn't dare try and pass it. Why? The Democrats knew damn well that Pres. Bush would have vetoed it in a Gotham second. It was always written with Pres. Obama in mind not Bush.

Unless Obama wants to resign and appoint W. the president again, it isn't Bush's bill. It never really was. The Obama administration and the Democrats better start acknowledging their own culpability for the beginning of the recession and the continuous downward slide of the economy. They are not going to be able to hide behind W. for much longer.

Pelosi Channels the VP; Has "Bizzaro" Biden Moment

At a press conference today:

PELOSI: The package is going too fast and maybe it won't be ready by the President's Day recess.

PELOSI: Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/21053/
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts
Wow, Nancy! 500 M lost jobs per month. That's amazing considering that the entire population of the US is only 300 M and most of those are minors or elderly. So, about 140 M are actually in the American workforce. Apparently according to Pelosi, everyone loses two jobs per month. That's horrible. Either she misspoke or it's just another scare tactic to get the "porkulus" bill rammed down our throats, so we won't know what is in it before it's passed and too late.