A nucear power plant costs $15-20 billion to build two units - need a grant to build it...it should not cost the taxpayers, but it is a federal loan. We are working to build more in Tx - and it takes 5-6 years to build. But now, it is emission-free technology and the fuel costs are minimal. It is economically sustainable for 50-some-odd years.
Texas has more wind generation than any other states, but the problem with wind is volitility and storeage. Wind blows at night and in W TX but it blows when demand is the least. The challenge for the legislatuer and PUC is to create the right incentive programs for storeage, and the right storeage.
We have a huge opportunity for renewable in Texas.
- Phil Wilson, SVP, Public Affairs, Luminant (on panel "Outlook for the Economy"
Friday, March 19, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
SEE HOW RONALD REAGAN SHAPED THE 1980's
With the Social Studies curriculum and Texas textbook wars raging, most conservatives are eager to make sure young people are taught about American Exceptionalism and the virtues of free enterprise.
Written by Peggy Venable, director of the 1984 Republican National Convention, one way to teach about America's virtues is to study the Reagan era.
Venable's presentation takes a deep and detailed look into Ronald Reagan's years as president of the United States. Examine the man who led the country throughout the 1980s and delve into the policies, strengths, and weaknesses of the Reagan Administration. Includes a detailed biography of Reagan as well as an overview of 1980s pop culture. Written for high school students. Purchase at Teachers Discovery ($31.95)
http://www.teachersdiscovery-socialstudies.com/item_details.php?item=171+1800+E000310S&SBJ=SocialStudies
Written by Peggy Venable, director of the 1984 Republican National Convention, one way to teach about America's virtues is to study the Reagan era.
Venable's presentation takes a deep and detailed look into Ronald Reagan's years as president of the United States. Examine the man who led the country throughout the 1980s and delve into the policies, strengths, and weaknesses of the Reagan Administration. Includes a detailed biography of Reagan as well as an overview of 1980s pop culture. Written for high school students. Purchase at Teachers Discovery ($31.95)
http://www.teachersdiscovery-socialstudies.com/item_details.php?item=171+1800+E000310S&SBJ=SocialStudies
Monday, March 15, 2010
Anticipation - America Unplugged
We are here at the Americans for Prosperity booth hearing the song "Anticipation" in our heads as we prepare for the 2,000 citizens to storm the Eismann Center in Richardson to hear the magical Mike trio -- Michael Reagan, Michael Medved and Mike Gallagher talk about the difference between the first of the Reagan Administration and the Obama Administration. And as if thaht weren't enough to moderate the event - TX Gov. Rick Perry, hot off his primary victory against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Debra Medina.
AFP-Texas is pleased to be a co-sponsor and look forward to seeing hundreds of our members here and singing up others.
Richardson is THE place to be tonight for Reaganites and other conservatives.
Stay tuned and we'll be posting updates. - Peggy V.
AFP-Texas is pleased to be a co-sponsor and look forward to seeing hundreds of our members here and singing up others.
Richardson is THE place to be tonight for Reaganites and other conservatives.
Stay tuned and we'll be posting updates. - Peggy V.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Global Warming debate cools
On Thursday of last week, I spoke at a Chamber of Commerce meeting outside Houston and talked about AFP’s major federal issues – health care reform and the EPA’s attempt to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. One judge there wanted to start a debate – he challenged me, asking if I had read the Houston Chronicle on Sunday. I didn’t live in Houston but read it online and asked what article he was referencing from the Holy Grail of the Left. It was an article which claimed the university scientists in the Houston area all claimed that – surprise -- global warming is happening.
I said I had ead the article, and that there are scientists and climatologists who don’t agree. As long as the debate is raging, we should not allow the EPA to end-run the public debate and regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA. Nope, Congress needs to do its job.
Houston – the Houston Chronicle is open enough to allow the debate – shouldn’t Congress and this Administration?
Climategate: You should be steamed
By NEIL FRANK
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Jan. 2, 2010, 4:28PM
Now that Copenhagen is past history, what is the next step in the man-made global warming controversy? Without question, there should be an immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by “Climategate.”
If you have not heard, hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. CRU is one of the top climate research centers in the world. Many of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. who are closely associated with the authoritative (albeit controversial) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases
Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic. The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.
Climate alarmists would like you to believe the science has been settled and all respectable atmospheric scientists support their position. The believers also would like you to believe the skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil and that they are few in number with minimal qualifications.
But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people's endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming.
The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel's report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.
Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to “strongly reconsider” her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS' true position.
What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.
Second, skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. Numerous field experiments have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor.
Third, and most important, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world.
The revelation of Climate¬gate occurs at a time when the accuracy of the climate models is being seriously questioned. Over the last decade Earth's temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?
Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.
Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6795858.html
Houston Chronicle - March 11, 2010
LETTERS: Cool to global warming
Dr. Neil is right
The university professors seeking government grants by being politically correct must not read the Chronicle. To support their case, they make the statement, “To the best of our knowledge, there are no climate scientists in Texas who disagree with the mainstream view of climate science.” The Chronicle published a very good article in January by Neil Frank, distinguished meteorologist, who vigorously disagreed. Obviously they did not read it, or else they are using the common ploy to state there is no disagreement when there is actually an abundance from concerned scientists.
The believers use Earth history for the last 100 years as a temperature baseline. Why not the last 100,000 or 100,000,000 years? The reason is obvious. These alternative years show that the earth is cooler now than it was throughout most of its existence. The warming case is not supported by the history of the earth. They completely ignore the fact that the Earth's temperature has cycled from cool to warm throughout its history,
The true fact about greenhouse gases is that they are 95 percent water vapor. Of the remaining 5 percent, approximately 4.6 percent is from natural sources and only 0.4 percent is from human activities. So how much can we actually affect this even with draconian measures that will impoverish the entire world?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6909341.html
I said I had ead the article, and that there are scientists and climatologists who don’t agree. As long as the debate is raging, we should not allow the EPA to end-run the public debate and regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA. Nope, Congress needs to do its job.
Houston – the Houston Chronicle is open enough to allow the debate – shouldn’t Congress and this Administration?
Climategate: You should be steamed
By NEIL FRANK
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Jan. 2, 2010, 4:28PM
Now that Copenhagen is past history, what is the next step in the man-made global warming controversy? Without question, there should be an immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by “Climategate.”
If you have not heard, hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. CRU is one of the top climate research centers in the world. Many of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. who are closely associated with the authoritative (albeit controversial) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases
Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic. The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.
Climate alarmists would like you to believe the science has been settled and all respectable atmospheric scientists support their position. The believers also would like you to believe the skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil and that they are few in number with minimal qualifications.
But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people's endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming.
The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel's report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.
Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to “strongly reconsider” her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS' true position.
What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.
Second, skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. Numerous field experiments have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor.
Third, and most important, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world.
The revelation of Climate¬gate occurs at a time when the accuracy of the climate models is being seriously questioned. Over the last decade Earth's temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?
Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.
Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6795858.html
Houston Chronicle - March 11, 2010
LETTERS: Cool to global warming
Dr. Neil is right
The university professors seeking government grants by being politically correct must not read the Chronicle. To support their case, they make the statement, “To the best of our knowledge, there are no climate scientists in Texas who disagree with the mainstream view of climate science.” The Chronicle published a very good article in January by Neil Frank, distinguished meteorologist, who vigorously disagreed. Obviously they did not read it, or else they are using the common ploy to state there is no disagreement when there is actually an abundance from concerned scientists.
The believers use Earth history for the last 100 years as a temperature baseline. Why not the last 100,000 or 100,000,000 years? The reason is obvious. These alternative years show that the earth is cooler now than it was throughout most of its existence. The warming case is not supported by the history of the earth. They completely ignore the fact that the Earth's temperature has cycled from cool to warm throughout its history,
The true fact about greenhouse gases is that they are 95 percent water vapor. Of the remaining 5 percent, approximately 4.6 percent is from natural sources and only 0.4 percent is from human activities. So how much can we actually affect this even with draconian measures that will impoverish the entire world?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6909341.html
Friday, March 12, 2010
Cong. Jeff Flake - One Principed Leader
To provide some historic perspective on the earmark reforms passed by the Republican caucus.
It is a story of how one principled elected leader can make a difference.
Cong. Jeff Flake from Arizona forced earmark vote after vote in 2005 and 2006 and 2007. His own party hated him for it and the then Speaker of House Hastert stripped him of his best committee as punishment. But he did not quit. Sometimes only 10 or 20 members would vote with him but he kept fighting. He shined a light on this practice more than anyone. Loneliest place in Congress was the seat next to Flake in the House Cafeteria.
Cong. Flake was fighting to keep taxpayers like you and me from having to pay for things like the Teapot Museum in North Carolina and other pork-laden "bacon" which Congressional members could tout in their districts. It is a system fraught with corruption.
Thanks to that light of public scrutiny, the House GOP came around and the Republican caucus passed earmark reforms...something the Democrats had promised to do as they were draining the swamp in D.C. (remember that promise?) It appears that on the way to draining the swamp, Democrats rememberd why they benefitted from wallering in the murky, stinky swamp.
Americans for Prosperity Foundation had traveled the country cheering Cong. Flake on. AFPF held the 50-stop Ending Earmark Express RV tour hitting 37 states.
Congratulations, Cong. Flake (and thanks, AFP Foundation) but the real winners will be the American taxpayer who deserves for any spending measure to be fully vetted.
It is a story of how one principled elected leader can make a difference.
Cong. Jeff Flake from Arizona forced earmark vote after vote in 2005 and 2006 and 2007. His own party hated him for it and the then Speaker of House Hastert stripped him of his best committee as punishment. But he did not quit. Sometimes only 10 or 20 members would vote with him but he kept fighting. He shined a light on this practice more than anyone. Loneliest place in Congress was the seat next to Flake in the House Cafeteria.
Cong. Flake was fighting to keep taxpayers like you and me from having to pay for things like the Teapot Museum in North Carolina and other pork-laden "bacon" which Congressional members could tout in their districts. It is a system fraught with corruption.
Thanks to that light of public scrutiny, the House GOP came around and the Republican caucus passed earmark reforms...something the Democrats had promised to do as they were draining the swamp in D.C. (remember that promise?) It appears that on the way to draining the swamp, Democrats rememberd why they benefitted from wallering in the murky, stinky swamp.
Americans for Prosperity Foundation had traveled the country cheering Cong. Flake on. AFPF held the 50-stop Ending Earmark Express RV tour hitting 37 states.
Congratulations, Cong. Flake (and thanks, AFP Foundation) but the real winners will be the American taxpayer who deserves for any spending measure to be fully vetted.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Republicans reveal who the real reformers are
House Republicans adopted an earmark reform. That's right -- House Republicans went further than Democrats when they promised Thursday not to stuff any of this year's spending bills with pet projects for their districts. Didn't Pelosi promise to drain the swamp?
Ending earmarks has been a project of Americans for Prosperity Foundation. Federal spending should go through the appropriatios vetting process and we need to end the practice of "buying" votes by providing pork for congressional members to "bring home" to their districts.
We must change the culture of corruption in Congress -- remember that rallying cry?
Send to Arizona newspapers and Townhall and other places
Pelosi - poor baby (as she said on Charlie Rose today) -- poor baby indeed. `
Ending earmarks has been a project of Americans for Prosperity Foundation. Federal spending should go through the appropriatios vetting process and we need to end the practice of "buying" votes by providing pork for congressional members to "bring home" to their districts.
We must change the culture of corruption in Congress -- remember that rallying cry?
Send to Arizona newspapers and Townhall and other places
Pelosi - poor baby (as she said on Charlie Rose today) -- poor baby indeed. `
Monday, March 8, 2010
Taxpayer-funded lobby league grows -- at your expense
Frank Sturzl, who has headed the lobby association Texas Municipal League, is joining a binaries lobby firm – Hillco Partners. He will be director of municipal practices.
Yes, taxpayers, our opposition to taxpayer-funded lobbying has resulted in firms beefing up their gravy train practice. Taxpayers – you are funding this effort.
Hillco Partners is only one of a number of lobby firms along with individuals who lobby using your tax dollars...often lobbying to raise your taxes.
Hillco Partners last session earned as much as a million dollars or more lobbying the state legislature on behalf of local governments.
AFP has a solution -- rely on your elected officials at the local and state levels to communicate with one another and act in your best interests. We should not be paying lobbyists from public funds. Period.
BTW - Frank Sturzl is the individual who referred to Americans for Prosperity's taxpayer tour as an "Anti-City Jihad".
Yes, taxpayers, our opposition to taxpayer-funded lobbying has resulted in firms beefing up their gravy train practice. Taxpayers – you are funding this effort.
Hillco Partners is only one of a number of lobby firms along with individuals who lobby using your tax dollars...often lobbying to raise your taxes.
Hillco Partners last session earned as much as a million dollars or more lobbying the state legislature on behalf of local governments.
AFP has a solution -- rely on your elected officials at the local and state levels to communicate with one another and act in your best interests. We should not be paying lobbyists from public funds. Period.
BTW - Frank Sturzl is the individual who referred to Americans for Prosperity's taxpayer tour as an "Anti-City Jihad".
Forget Reconciliation - the fight is in the House
Never matter what the ObamaCare addicts call it -- reconciliation, nuclear option, or "a simple majority", the Senate isn't where the action will be. The action will happen in the House.
As AFP Policy Director Phil Kerpen wrote on FoxNews.com:
Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether or not the Senate passes changes to its health care bill via reconciliation. That's because the reconciliation process cannot even begin until after the House passes the Senate bill exactly as it passed the Senate on Christmas Eve. That means it must pass with the abortion language already rejected by Rep. Bart Stupak and others still intact. It also must pass with the outrageous pork barrel spending deals cut for Nebraska, Louisiana, Connecticut, and others. In other words, the bill must pass the House with everything in it that the American people have already made clear they hate.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/04/phil-kerpen-obama-health-care-reconciliation-house-senate-fight-vote/
As AFP Policy Director Phil Kerpen wrote on FoxNews.com:
Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether or not the Senate passes changes to its health care bill via reconciliation. That's because the reconciliation process cannot even begin until after the House passes the Senate bill exactly as it passed the Senate on Christmas Eve. That means it must pass with the abortion language already rejected by Rep. Bart Stupak and others still intact. It also must pass with the outrageous pork barrel spending deals cut for Nebraska, Louisiana, Connecticut, and others. In other words, the bill must pass the House with everything in it that the American people have already made clear they hate.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/04/phil-kerpen-obama-health-care-reconciliation-house-senate-fight-vote/
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Good Policies result in Good Politics
Gov. Rick Perry walked away with the Republican nomination without a run-off as he captured over 51% of the vote. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison graciously conceded and threw her support to Perry. KBH garnered 30% while Debra Medina got over 18% of the vote. Gov. Perry ran on Texas’ good job growth and on his support for government spending limits. It appears good policy results in a good economy and makes for good politics!
No surprise, former Houston Mayor Bill White walked away easily with the Democratic nomination for Governor. However, Houston’s over $5 billion debt may prove a detriment to his bid for Governor in November. White claimed to have lowered tax rates 5 times in Houston, but has any Houston taxpayer seen lower tax bills?
Republicans had five ballot initiatives which are not binding, but provide a gauge for support. Photo ID for voting, controlling the growth of government and cutting federal income taxes were all winners with over 92% but the biggest winner was public acknowledgement of God, which garnered 95%. The sonogram initiative got 69%. Legislators would need to enact laws before any of these measures would be binding.
In a real upset, Railroad Commissioner Victor Carrillo lost to challenger David Porter who got over 60% of the vote. Porter will face an opponent in November.
In the spirited race for Texas Supreme Court Place 5, former legislator Rick Green and former Reaganite Jim Mosley head to a runoff.
The State Board of Education had some surprises as former Chairmen lost their bids – Don McLeroy in place 9 and Geraldine “Tincy” Miller in place 12. McLeroy lost to a lobbyist.
Two more surprises: trial lawyer and teacher lobby-funded Lance Gooden beat incumbent Betty Brown in the Republican House Dist 4 primary race. He ran saying he may want to raise property taxes, but has not paid property taxes himself. There is no Democrat in the November election. What were the voters thinking there?
Republican Tommy Merritt lost his bid for re-election to David Simpson who has no Democratic opposition on the November ballot.
No surprise, former Houston Mayor Bill White walked away easily with the Democratic nomination for Governor. However, Houston’s over $5 billion debt may prove a detriment to his bid for Governor in November. White claimed to have lowered tax rates 5 times in Houston, but has any Houston taxpayer seen lower tax bills?
Republicans had five ballot initiatives which are not binding, but provide a gauge for support. Photo ID for voting, controlling the growth of government and cutting federal income taxes were all winners with over 92% but the biggest winner was public acknowledgement of God, which garnered 95%. The sonogram initiative got 69%. Legislators would need to enact laws before any of these measures would be binding.
In a real upset, Railroad Commissioner Victor Carrillo lost to challenger David Porter who got over 60% of the vote. Porter will face an opponent in November.
In the spirited race for Texas Supreme Court Place 5, former legislator Rick Green and former Reaganite Jim Mosley head to a runoff.
The State Board of Education had some surprises as former Chairmen lost their bids – Don McLeroy in place 9 and Geraldine “Tincy” Miller in place 12. McLeroy lost to a lobbyist.
Two more surprises: trial lawyer and teacher lobby-funded Lance Gooden beat incumbent Betty Brown in the Republican House Dist 4 primary race. He ran saying he may want to raise property taxes, but has not paid property taxes himself. There is no Democrat in the November election. What were the voters thinking there?
Republican Tommy Merritt lost his bid for re-election to David Simpson who has no Democratic opposition on the November ballot.
Cong Hensarling and Pence call for spending controls
At a time when Texas Republicans call for controlling the growth of government, Texas Cong. Jeb Hensarling and Indiana Cong. Mike Pence call for federal controls in spending also. Their article appeared in the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704231304575091622911663494.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion One portion of the article reads:
The situation is dire, but don't take our word for it. "U.S. fiscal policy is on an unsustainable path to an extent that cannot be solved by minor tinkering," Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf said recently. Former Comptroller General David Walker called the rising costs of government entitlements a "fiscal cancer" that threaten "catastrophic consequences for our country."
The situation is dire, but don't take our word for it. "U.S. fiscal policy is on an unsustainable path to an extent that cannot be solved by minor tinkering," Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf said recently. Former Comptroller General David Walker called the rising costs of government entitlements a "fiscal cancer" that threaten "catastrophic consequences for our country."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)