President Obama announced today that his administration will begin stamping an emblem on projects funded by the economic stimulus package so that people can easily recognize the effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
All projects will be stamped with the ARRA logo (short for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) and lists the recovery.gov website on the emblem.
Here's what the emblems will look like:
Seems like a waste of money to me. But it makes sense politically. Obama is basically covering the country with permanent signs advertising for his reelection campaign in 2012.
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said Sunday that Rush Limbaugh is the face of the GOP.
"He is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party, and he has been up front about what he views, and hasn't stepped back from that, which is he hopes for failure," Emanuel said on CBS's Face the Nation.
"He said it, and I compliment him on his honesty," Emanuel said. "But that's their philosophy that's enunciated by Rush Limbaugh and I think that's the wrong philosophy for America."
Limbaugh has to be a Democratic plant. He just has to be.
Yes, people should take responsibility for living energy efficient lives. But attempting to sell people on voluntarily embracing a lower standard of living is bound to fail. One of the biggest causes of pollution is a lack of sufficiently advanced technology. We can only get out of the current climate crisis by forging ahead in our technological advancement as a species, not by retreating into a technologically deficient past.
Energy efficiency is a crucial front in the struggle against climate change, but building a more advanced energy infrastructure and mandating tough efficiency standards for all future technology are far more effective strategies than everyone turning their thermostats down a couple of degrees. Furthermore, there's nothing inherently problematic about using large amounts of energy. The problem is just that our power source is destroying the planet by drastically altering the contents of its atmosphere. In order to secure further advances in average living standards, we will likely need far more electricity thirty years from now than we currently even come close to generating. But we can get all of that energy from clean, renewable sources such as the sun, wind, and waves.
Environmentalism need not and ought not be Luddism. In fact, it's the opponents of developing advanced renewable power sources who are the enemies of progress. Insisting that our civilization continue to rely on burning coal instead of move on to never-ending sources of energy is profoundly shortsighted. It's the equivalent of those who were upset by the horse's replacement with the automobile.
Finally, I'm well aware of how problematic government involvement in any aspect of the economy can be. However, the status quo is far from laissez faire. The government currently subsidizes bad energy practices do to its corrupt infrastructure spending. But there are serious collective action problems that prevent private enterprise from effectively providing for transportation and energy distribution services without any governmental involvement. And there are also externalities (such as CO2 emissions) that the current energy market doesn't take into account. For these reasons, government involvement in deploying new, green infrastructure is necessary. These changes need to be made and the government is the only agent capable of making them. Investing in more sophisticated energy and transportation systems will provide the lattice on which private sector ventures can grow and flourish.
Update:
Another way to make green policies look bad--the Times reports (via Jeff Yager):
Couples who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.
Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.
Porritt's approach is dumb mainly because this tends to happen on its own when women are educated and families freed from the bonds of impoverishment. Thus, the best way to control populations is to educate women and empower people through the power of the market.
Amidst the countless political poles being thrown at us from all directions, one particularly disappointing one has recently taken hold of the Democratic spotlight.Despite the lack of any significant policy disagreements between the Democratic candidates, many supporters of each campaign have decided that, come November, it’s going to be all or nothing. That is, Democrats on both sides have made it clear that, if their candidate doesn't win, they'll either vote McCain, or not vote at all.
It has never been disputed that the policies of Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have much in common.Nor has it been disputed that this lack of substantive difference is likely the reason for which the nomination race is rapidly becoming the largest, most expensive popularity contest in history.However, in allowing themselves to become so beguiled by the peaks and valleys of this ongoing personal squabble, these supporters have reached a level of obstinacy so unwavering as to put the success of a candidate before that of his or her party.Wasn’t the underlying objective of this Democratic nomination to cauterize the contemporary wounds that have been inflicted by Bush, Cheney, and the like?Perhaps the indisputable damage caused by the current administration left Democrats believing that a Presidential victory was all but certain.Very likely, though it may be, such is a prediction that can only be affirmed if Democrats actually go out and vote—and vote for the candidate of their own party.
Supporters on both sides would do well to limit their considerations to the four years after the Presidential election.Even the most stubborn Democrats will admit that the policies set to be put in place by the candidates are remarkably similar; that is, the things these candidates would actually do as President are nearly indistinguishable.Considering the obvious and widespread regret at having allowed George W. Bush to take office, it seems that these are the things Democrats ought to be considering.Because, without a doubt, most liberals would admit that a second-choice Democrat is greatly preferable to an extended conservative reign.
