They initially had the support of Republican senator Lindsey Graham, who thankfully retreated from his folly.
According to climate scientist Chip Knappenberger, the new bill, like its predecessors, “will have no meaningful impact on the future course of global warming.” The APA has “identical” long-term benchmarks to the Waxman-Markey bill, and while the APA relaxes Waxman-Markey’s near-term reduction target slightly from 20 percent to 17 percent below 2005 emissions levels by 2020, both bills include targets of 42 percent below by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050. Moreover, like Waxman-Markey, the “global temperature ‘savings’ of the Kerry-Lieberman bill is astoundingly small—0.043ºC (0.077ºF) by 2050 and 0.111ºC (0.200ºF) by 2100. In other words, by century’s end, reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 83% will only result in global temperatures being one-fifth of one degree Fahrenheit less than they would otherwise be”—a “scientifically meaningless reduction.” 41
Similarly, the Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels argues the APA “mandates the impossible, will not produce any meaningful reduction of planetary warming, and it will subsidize just about every form of power that is too inefficient to compete today.” The bill will allow the average American the same carbon dioxide emissions enjoyed by “the average citizen back in 1867, a mere 39 years from today.” The bill’s sponsors, he says, have “no idea how to accomplish” their goals. “Instead, they wave their magic wands for noncompetitive technologies like carbon capture and sequestration (clean coal), solar energy and windmills, and ethanol among many others.” Ultimately, Michaels says, the bill is “yet another scheme to make carbon-based energy so expensive that you won’t use it.” 42
Now that’s something our coal industry-destroying president can support—and indeed, he is hyping the bill with the same propaganda flourish he’s employed for the rest of his disastrous agenda. Michaels presents two charts, one using his projections for APA climate impact by 2050 and the other by 2100. Each illustrates three different scenarios: the first assumes the APA or its equivalent is not enacted (“business as usual”), the second that it’s passed only in the U.S., and the third, that it’s passed in “Kyoto countries.” Michaels concludes, “As you can plainly see, APA does nothing, even if all the Kyoto-signatories meet its impossible mandates.”
OBAMACARE
Obama promised he would bend the cost curve down with his healthcare reform plan. He promised he would “not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits—either now or in the future.” Even as he signed ObamaCare in March 2010, he declared it would “lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government.”
We’ve already detailed in chapter six the gimmicks and deceits the administration used to secure a favorable, but ultimately fraudulent, CBO scoring for the bill. And lo and behold, we learned a month after the bill was passed that the CBO said the bill would cost an additional $115 billion due to discretionary spending that wasn’t counted in the initial scoring. Plus, a study inside his administration showed the bill was going to cost substantially more. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a report finding that ObamaCare would not only fail to reduce the deficit, but the bill would actually raise spending by about 1 percent and cause healthcare costs to rise $311 billion over the next decade—and that’s without even factoring in the CBO’s $115 billion discretionary spending revelation or the other gimmicks and distortions in the administration’s accounting.
Another study following the bill’s passage estimated ObamaCare will add more than $500 billion to the deficit over the next ten years and $1.5 trillion in the following decade. 43 And, as far as could be determined, none of these