"Climate Change" or "Immigration Reform"? Either Way, We Lose.

[WhiskeyGirl]

"Climate Change" or "Immigration Reform"? Either Way, We Lose.

How often has the Leader and his cohorts on the Hill told us about the importance of making “hard choices” — while running away from those choices as fast as he can? In fact, the burgeoning federal deficit has afforded Mr. Obama the latest occasion for sounding off on the unwillingness of others to make “hard choices.” Having met with his bipartisan (read: “Republicans will give me some cover”) commission to address the debt, the New York Times reports that Mr. Obama emerged to proclaim:

“This alone will not make up for the years in which those in Washington refused to make hard choices and live within their means.”

“The years”? Mr. Obama, perhaps you mean this year, with yet another annual federal deficit exceeding $1 trillion? There is plenty of dark humor in a bipartisan commission to reduce the deficit when it has been both parties that have been responsible for reckless, often unconstitutional, appropriations. But that the Candidate of Change — who has pursued ballooning the deficit as if it were his motivating purpose in life — could deliver such a line while maintaining his composure is breathtaking.

Apparently it would be the “choice” between the legislative process which turns millions of illegal aliens into Democratic voters (presumably in time to save the Leader in 2012), or further destroying the American economy through expenses inflicted as part of “climate” bill. Thus far, it would appear that the “climate bill” may be the “choice” on the Hill — if the pesky debt doesn’t get in the way.

As the New York Times reported on April 23,

The Senate Budget Committee yesterday hamstrung the chamber's ability to move climate change legislation through the filibuster-proof reconciliation process on its way to passing a budget resolution that also freezes spending for most domestic programs....

Even if the budget resolution does clear the chamber, it continues to appear highly unlikely that its reconciliation portion will be used as a vehicle to pass sweeping climate and energy legislation.

The committee easily approved, 16-6, an amendment from ranking member Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) that would establish a point of order against using reconciliation for any new program whose spending exceeds 20 percent of the amount of the reconciliation instruction to the committee. In essence, that would mean that any far-reaching legislative program -- including climate legislation -- would likely violate the provision.

"One would hope that you're not going to put energy in reconciliation, but if you are it would definitely trip this point of order," Gregg said.

more here -

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/6231-qclimate-changeq-or-qimmigration-reformq-either-way-we-lose

Before the 2008 election, I had no idea how greedy politicians in Washington can be. 

Who makes more money when cap & trade passes?

Who makes more money when amnesty becomes law?

The 'money' has to come from somewhere.  Where does the money come from? 

Main Street.  Hardworking families. 

At some point, taxation becomes theft.

jmho