Eastaustinvoice’s Weblog

Austin Independence Rally, Friday July 3rd

July 2, 2009 · Leave a Comment

 

We’re back!

We are the true grassroots movement – WE ARE NOT FUNDED BY ANY POLITICAL PARTY, LOBBYIST OR ORGANIZATION.  Over 5,000 gathered for our

Tax Day Tea Party on the south steps of the Capitol and proudly marched down Congress

for a re-enactment of the Boston Tea Party!

 

Join us for our Independence Rally

Friday, July 3rd (it’s a holiday)

 9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

 

This rally will be held in the shadows of the infamous

Stimulus-funded $886,000 Frisbee Golf Course…

That’s correct! Right here in Austin at the Zilker Park Polo Field

[Barton Springs Road and MOPAC]

 

Our special guest is none other than

 

Joe the Plumber

 

Our rally will be emceed by

KLBJ morning talk show host

 

Sgt. Sam

 

 

We’ll have prominent speakers on national healthcare

and local patriots speaking about our American values.

 

At the request of the People, politicians will no longer be allowed to speak at Tea Party Patriots rallies.

We invite them to attend in support of our events, which reflect our central message of “fiscal responsibility, limited government, free markets, and support of the Constitution.” Our united front is critical for enlightening and encouraging Americans to inform the federal government that

the government that governs least often governs best.

 

Bring your friends, signs, water and Independence Day attitude!

[Parking $3.00 per car - so pack that car to the max!]

Websites: havinganaustinteaparty.com

texasteapartypatriots.org

teapartypatriots.org

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

Ban Is Advised on 2 Top Pills for Pain Relief – NYTimes.com

July 1, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Ban Is Advised on 2 Top Pills for Pain Relief – NYTimes.com.

 

Published: June 30, 2009

ADELPHI, Md. — A federal advisory panel voted narrowly on Tuesday to recommend a ban on Percocet and Vicodin, two of the most popular prescription painkillers in the world, because of their effects on the liver.

Skip to next paragraph

Multimedia

 The Takeaway With Donald G. McNeil Jr.

The two drugs combine a narcotic with acetaminophen, the ingredient found in popular over-the-counter products like Tylenol and Excedrin. High doses of acetaminophen are a leading cause of liver damage, and the panel noted that patients who take Percocet and Vicodin for long periods often need higher and higher doses to achieve the same effect.

Acetaminophen is combined with different narcotics in at least seven other prescription drugs, and all of these combination pills will be banned if the Food and Drug Administration heeds the advice of its experts. Vicodin and its generic equivalents alone are prescribed more than 100 million times a year in the United States.

Laureen Cassidy, a spokeswoman for Abbott Laboratories, which makes Vicodin, said, “The F.D.A. will make a final determination and Abbott will follow the agency’s guidance.”

The agency is not required to follow the recommendations of its advisory panels, but it usually does.

The panel’s 20-17 vote to recommend a ban on the combination drugs was one of 11 it took at a meeting called to advise the F.D.A. on problems arising from the extraordinary popularity of acetaminophen. In 2005, American consumers bought 28 billion doses of products containing the ingredient.

While the medicine is effective in treating headaches and reducing fevers, even recommended doses can cause liver damage in some people. And more than 400 people die and 42,000 are hospitalized every year in the United States from overdoses.

In hopes of reducing some of these accidents, the committee voted 24 to 13 to recommend that the F.D.A. reduce the highest allowed dose of acetaminophen in over-the-counter pills like Tylenol to 325 milligrams, from 500. And members voted 21 to 16 to reduce the maximum daily dosage to less than 4,000 milligrams.

But they voted 20 to 17 against limiting the number of pills allowed in each bottle, with members saying such a limit would probably have little effect and could hurt rural and poor patients. Bottles of 1,000 pills are often sold at discount chains.

“We have no data to show that people who overdose shop at Costco,” said Dr. Edward Covington, a panel member from the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.

Dr. Lewis S. Nelson, a toxicologist from the New York University School of Medicine who served as the panel’s acting chairman, said experts had been warning of the dangers of combination painkillers like Percocet, which is made by Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Vicodin for years.

Still, the recommendation is likely to come as a shock to many patients, who may be unaware of the dangers of high doses of acetaminophen — even if they know the drugs contain the ingredient.

Some doctors already avoid prescribing pills that combine acetaminophen with narcotics like oxycodone (found in Percocet) and hydrocodone (in Vicodin).

“It ties the doctor’s hands when you put the two drugs together,” said Dr. Scott M. Fishman, a professor of anesthesiology at the University of California, Davis, and a former president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. “There’s no reason you can’t get the same effect by using them separately.”

Dr. Fishman said the combinations were prescribed so often for the sake of convenience, but added, “When you’re using controlled substances, you want to err on the side of safety rather than convenience.”

Still, some doctors predicted that the recommendation would put extra burdens on physicians and patients.

“More people will be suffering from pain,” said Dr. Sean Mackey, chief of pain management at Stanford University Medical School. “More people will be seeing their doctors more frequently and running up health care costs.”

In a statement, Johnson & Johnson, Tylenol’s maker, said it “strongly disagrees” with the proposed restrictions on acetaminophen, adding that they would be likely to “lead to more serious adverse events as consumers shift to other over-the-counter products,” like Advil and aspirin.

Linda A. Suydam, president of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, said the committee had ignored studies showing that doses sold by her members — two pills of 500 milligrams, up to four times a day — were safe. “I think this is a very effective dose and one needed for individuals who experience chronic pain,” she said.

The committee also turned its attention to over-the-counter children’s medicines containing acetaminophen, voting 36 to 1 to limit them to a single formulation. Right now the liquids are sold in two different concentrations, leading to confusion among doctors and parents.

“I don’t think it’s safe to have two formulations out there,” said Dr. Nelson, the acting chairman.

The members were divided over which formula to recommend, the concentrated or the less concentrated one. F.D.A. officials suggested that they would likely settle on the less concentrated formula so that if parents make a mistake, they would be less likely to overdose.

Acetaminophen is included in a vast array of over-the-counter cough and cold products, including Nyquil, Excedrin and many others. A small share of accidental poisonings result when people take two or more of these combination products without understanding the risk.

The F.D.A. asked the committee whether it should ban combination products that include acetaminophen. The vote was 24 to 13 against such a ban, with many members saying consumers saw the products as valuable.

“Based on the data provided, the combination O.T.C. medications really contributed very little to overall poisonings,” said Dr. Osemwota A. Omoigui, a panel member from the Los Angeles Pain Clinic.

A 2005 study found that most poisonings resulted from patients’ taking Vicodin and similar products that combine a narcotic with acetaminophen.

“I think this is the one place where we can engineer in safety,” said Dr. Judith M. Kramer, a panel member and an associate professor of medicine from Duke University Medical Center who voted to ban the combination prescription medicines. “We’re here because there are inadvertent overdoses that are fatal, and this is our one opportunity to have a big impact.”

Consumers need to be better educated about the risks of popular medicines, most panel members agreed.

“If you keep track of what you’re taking, none of this is an issue for you,” Dr. Jan Engle, a panel member and head of the Department of Pharmacy Practice at the University of Illinois in Chicago, said in an interview after the meeting.

Donald G. McNeil Jr. contributed reporting from New York.

An earlier version of this article misspelled, in one instance, the surname of Dr. Scott M. Fishman.

 

→ Leave a CommentCategories: News · Politics
Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

Republicans in the Wilderness by Thomas Sowell on Creators.com – A Syndicate Of Talent

June 28, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Republicans in the Wilderness by Thomas Sowell on Creators.com – A Syndicate Of Talent.

A Gallup poll last week showed that far more Americans describe themselves as “conservatives” than as “liberals.” Yet Republicans have been clobbered by the Democrats in both the 2008 elections and the 2006 elections.

In a country with more conservatives than liberals, it is puzzling— in fact, amazing— that we have the furthest left President of the United States in history, as well as the furthest left Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Republicans, especially, need to think about what this means. If you lose when the other guy has all the high cards, there is not much you can do about it. But, when you have the high cards and still keep taking a beating, then you need to re-think how you are playing the game.

The current intramural fighting among Republicans does not necessarily mean any fundamental re-thinking of their policies or tactics. These tussles among different segments of the Republican Party may be nothing more than a long-standing jockeying for position between the liberal and conservative wings of that party.

The stakes in all this are far higher than which element becomes dominant in which party or which party wins more elections. Both the domestic and the foreign policy direction of the current administration in Washington are leading this country into dangerous waters, from which we may or may not be able to return.

A quadrupling of the national debt in just one year and accepting a nuclear-armed sponsor of international terrorism like Iran are not things from which any country is guaranteed to recover.

Just two nuclear bombs were enough to get Japan to surrender in World War II. It is hard to believe that it would take much more than that for the United States of America to surrender— especially with people in control of both the White House and the Congress who were for turning tail and running in Iraq just a couple of years ago.

Perhaps people who are busy gushing over the Obama cult today might do well to stop and think about what it would mean for their grand-daughters to live under sharia law.

The glib pieties in Barack Obama’s televised sermonettes will not stop Iran from becoming a nuclear terrorist nation.

Time is running out fast and we will be lucky if it doesn’t happen in the first term of this president. If he gets elected to a second term — which is quite possible, despite whatever economic disasters he leads us into— our fate as a nation may be sealed.

 

Unfortunately, the only political party with any chance of displacing the current leadership in Washington is the Republican Party. That is why their internal squabbles are important for the rest of us who are not Republicans.

The “smart money” says that the way for the Republicans to win elections is to appeal to a wider range of voters, including minorities, by abandoning the Ronald Reagan kinds of positions and supporting more of the kinds of positions that Democrats use to get elected. This sounds good on the surface, which is as far as many people go, when it comes to politics.

A corollary to this is that Republicans have to come up with alternatives to the Democrats’ many “solutions,” rather than simply be nay-sayers.

However plausible all this may seem, it goes directly counter to what has actually happened in politics in this generation. For example, Democrats studiously avoided presenting alternatives to what the Republican-controlled Congress and the Bush administration were doing, and just lambasted them at every turn. That is how the Democrats replaced Republicans at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Ronald Reagan won two elections in a landslide by being Ronald Reagan— and, most important of all— explaining to a broad electorate how what he advocated would be best for them and for the country. Newt Gingrich likewise led a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives by explaining how the Republic agenda would benefit a wide range of people.

Neither of them won by pretending to be Democrats. It is the mushy “moderates”— the “kinder and gentler” Bush 41, Bob Dole and John McCain— who lost disastrously, even in two cases to Democrats who were initially very little known, but who knew how to talk.

To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: News · Politics
Tagged: , , , ,

Terrorists Keep U.S. Aviation Licenses | Judicial Watch

June 27, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Last Updated: Fri, 06/26/2009 – 3:28pm

At least half a dozen men suspected or convicted of terrorism have been allowed by the U.S. government to keep their federal aviation licenses, including two who appear on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List and a Libyan sentenced to nearly three decades in prison by a Scottish court for the 1980s bombing of an American airliner.

Reported by a major newspaper this week, the appalling story illustrates the government’s never ending incompetence when it comes to national security. This, despite strict antiterrorism measures enacted after the September 2001 terrorist attacks requiring the aviation license revocations of such individuals.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) were unaware that the terrorists were actively licensed pilots, mechanics and flight dispatchers until the reporter who wrote the piece started snooping around. Incredibly, neither agency noticed that two of the individuals (Abdel Basset Ali Al-Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhima) are wanted by the FBI for the 1988 Lockerbie airline bombing.

Others include an Iranian convicted of trying to ship jet fighter parts to Iran and a Lebanese living in Michigan who was convicted for trying to provide military equipment to the Muslim terrorist group Hezbollah. The FAA even reissued the commercial pilot license of a southern California man jailed for trying to send thousands of aircraft parts to Iran and a Maryland man convicted of manufacturing ricin, a powerful poison favored by terrorists.

A little family-owned company in a small New York town discovered the federally licensed terrorists by using software it developed to scour lists of bank customers who might have links to terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security, which supposedly preempts, detects and deters terrorism threats, claims it’s conducting a comprehensive review to see why its system failed to identify these people.

via Terrorists Keep U.S. Aviation Licenses | Judicial Watch.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: News · Politics
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

For sale on eBay: Obamas Kenyan birth certificate

June 27, 2009 · Leave a Comment

For sale on eBay: Obamas Kenyan birth certificate.

BORN IN THE USA?
For sale on eBay: Obama’s ‘Kenyan birth certificate’
Seller claims Mombasa document ‘certified copy’


Posted: June 27, 2009
12:40 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

With dozens of lawsuits filed over access to Barack Obama’s certified long-form birth certificate, many more lawyers working on his behalf to keep it secret and the validity of the U.S. Constitution hanging in the balance, guess where a “certified copy” of the original Mombasa “document” has been found?

On eBay.

Item No. 160344374585, at least as of today, is described as “a certified copy of President Barack Obama’s Kenyan Birth Certificate.”

The seller, identified by the user name ” colmado_naranja,” states, “President Barack Hussein Obama II was born in The Coast Provincial Hospital at Mombasa in Kenya at 7:24 PM on August 4th, 1961.”

 

The suspicion that Coast Provincial is, in fact, Obama’s birth hospital is not new, with the subject having been discussed on both Internet blogs and forums already.

But the seller, who according to the eBay rankings has completed dozens of transactions on the behemoth auction site without difficulties, said this is the real deal.

The seller, who did not respond to a WND request for an interview, said online he was traveling in Kenya and repeatedly heard stories that Obama actually was born in Kenya.

Click on the link above to read more….

→ Leave a CommentCategories: News · Politics
Tagged: , ,

YouTube – Our Judeo-Christian Nation

June 26, 2009 · Leave a Comment

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Uncategorized

Iran’s Ahmadinejad Demands Apology From Obama – washingtonpost.com

June 26, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Iranian Warns Against Further Criticism

After a hotly contested election pitting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against leading challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi, the government declared Ahmadinejad the winner on June 13. Mousavi’s supporters took to the streets to protest the results.

Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, June 26, 2009

TEHRAN, June 25 — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lashed out at President Obama on Thursday, warning him against “interfering” in Iranian affairs and demanding an apology for criticism of a government crackdown on demonstrators protesting alleged electoral fraud.

This Story
View All Items in This Story
View Only Top Items in This Story

// <![CDATA[

var rn = ( Math.round( Math.random()*10000000000 ) );
document.write('') ;
//
]]>

Despite an increasingly harsh response to the protests, opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi pledged to continue challenging official results that showed a landslide victory for Ahmadinejad in Iran’s June 12 presidential election. He vowed to resist growing pressure to end his campaign and said he remains determined to prove that those who rigged the election are also responsible for the violence unleashed on opposition protesters.

The two rivals issued their dueling statements — neither mentioning the other by name — a day after security forces broke up the latest demonstrations, then temporarily detained university professors who had met with Mousavi.

Two grand ayatollahs, leading figures in Iran’s predominant Shiite Muslim faith, also waded into the fray, as did European foreign ministers from the Group of Eight world powers at a meeting in Italy.

In a speech at a petrochemical plant in southern Iran, Ahmadinejad said Obama was behaving like his predecessor, George W. Bush, and suggested that talks with the United States on Iran’s nuclear program would be pointless if Obama kept up his criticism. Obama, who has expressed interest in talking to the Iranian leadership about the nuclear issue, said at a news conference Tuesday that he was “appalled and outraged” by recent violence against demonstrators, and he accused the Iranian government of trying to “distract people” by blaming the unrest on the United States and other Western nations.

“Do you want to speak with this tone?” Ahmadinejad responded Thursday, addressing Obama. “If that is your stance, then what is left to talk about?”

He added: “I hope you avoid interfering in Iran’s affairs and express your regret in a way that the Iranian nation is informed of it.” He asked why Obama “has fallen into this trap and repeated the comments that Bush used to make” and told the U.S. president that such an attitude “will only make you another Bush in the eyes of the people.”

Ahmadinejad also praised Iran’s election as demonstrating “the great capabilities and grandeur of the Iranian nation” and declared that his country is practicing true “freedom,” as opposed to “this unpopular democracy which is governing America and Europe.” Americans and Europeans “have no right to choose and are restricted to . . . two or three parties” in voting for their leaders, he said.

In Washington, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs dismissed Ahmadinejad’s criticism. Obama has said “that there are people in Iran who want to make this not about a debate among Iranians in Iran, but about the West and the United States,” Gibbs said. “And I would add President Ahmadinejad to that list of people trying to make this about the United States.”

Iran’s government has declared that Ahmadinejad decisively won the election with nearly 63 percent of the vote, while Mousavi received less than 34 percent and two other candidates trailed far behind. Mousavi immediately challenged the results, charging that massive fraud “reversed” the outcome and cheated him of victory.

The 67-year-old former prime minister posted a statement on his Web site Thursday saying he was being pressed to withdraw his challenge and had been severely restricted in his ability to communicate with supporters.

“However, I am not prepared to give up under the pressure of threats or personal interest,” he said.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: News · Politics
Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

Obama’s Conflicting Signals by Eric Cantor on National Review Online

June 26, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Obama’s Conflicting Signals by Eric Cantor on National Review Online.

With Iran and North Korea testing missiles, why is Obama cutting missile defense?

By Eric Cantor

Do we as a nation take seriously enough the threat posed by rogue regimes — such as those in North Korea and Iran — that brazenly develop, test, and proliferate their ballistic-missile programs?

Is it a high-priority threat to the homeland that must be met with resolve and determination? Or is it a secondary concern? Given the administration’s conflicting signals on the matter, it’s tough to tell.

Consider the two very different tracks the administration is pursuing simultaneously as North Korea threatens to test-fire a long-range — and potentially nuclear — missile in the direction of Hawaii around the July 4 holiday.

President Obama has appropriately described North Korea as “a grave threat” to the world. With Pyongyang eager to build on its test of a long-range missile in April, the administration has activated our missile-defense system and moved additional radars and shoot-down systems closer to Hawaii. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated that our ground-based interceptor missiles in Alaska and California are “clearly in a position to take action.” Meanwhile, Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he was 90 percent certain we could interdict a North Korean missile.

Sadly, this kind of forthrightness from President Obama on the threat is the exception rather than the rule. On the legislative front, the administration has gutted $1.2 billion from missile-defense funding. This, even as its exorbitant $3.6 trillion fiscal year 2010 budget request cranks up spending for seemingly everything else.

Yesterday the wisdom of these cuts was debated on the House floor during consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act. I joined Rep. Trent Franks, Rep. Pete Sessions, Rep. Paul Broun, and Rep. Peter Roskam to offer an amendment to restore full funding to missile defense, because we believe the president’s cuts will leave us more vulnerable in an ever-more-dangerous world. The amendment was defeated, largely along party lines.

The president’s timing couldn’t be worse. Iran — its brutality on full display for the world to see — is ramping up its ballistic-missile development. Tehran’s test last month of a surface-to-surface missile with a range of 2,000 km should be a red flag. And should North Korea’s forthcoming test prove successful, the regime would feel emboldened to produce more missiles. The prospect of these countries attaching nuclear payloads to their missiles grows with each passing month.

Obama has also cut funding for the research and development of critical programs that could pay major national-security dividends down the road. Two particularly bad decisions, for example, were to eliminate funding for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor and to reduce funding for the Airborne Laser program by 53 percent. KEI and ABL offer the potential to bring down an Iranian or North Korean missile in its earliest stages of flight.

President Obama and his allies in both chambers of Congress argue that these programs are nonessential because they will not be operational in the immediate future. This is a remarkably short-sighted refrain that only delays the date when we will be able to safeguard against emerging threats. The same arguments were made years ago against the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), an Army system designed to take out missiles in their final stage of flight. Today, THAAD has one of the highest performance rates in anti-missile tests. And as we prepare for the upcoming North Korean launch, the military has rushed an additional THAAD unit to Hawaii as insurance.

Near-term defenses are not immune either. The administration will cut 89 percent of funding from the planned “Third Site” in Europe, which would host long-range interceptors to guard against missile attacks from Iran. Even the Ground-based Midcourse Defense Program — which includes the interceptors in Alaska and California — will see a 35 percent reduction.

These decisions have severe consequences for national security. If President Obama grasps the importance of taking the North Korean missile threat seriously, it shouldn’t be hard for him to see the folly in reducing our financial commitment to a robust missile defense.

— Rep. Eric Cantor, of Virginia, is the Republican whip in the House of Representatives.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: News · Politics
Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

Cap and Trade: Greenhouse Gas Regulations and the Impact on Texas

June 26, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Cap and Trade: Greenhouse Gas Regulations and the Impact on Texas.

Cap and Trade: Greenhouse Gas Regulations and the Impact on Texas

Global warming has a price. So does turning down the world’s thermostat. The question is, who pays for reducing greenhouse gases? And is the burden shared — or shifted unfairly?

U.S. Congress is acting now on regulatory legislation that would enlarge the federal budget, eliminate jobs and increase food and energy prices. This cap and trade proposal also would create a commodities market for Wall Street to help companies buy and sell pollution rights.

The legislation would penalize Texas because it is the nation’s energy capital and a manufacturing center.

Texas could lose 135,000 to 277,000 jobs in 2012, the first year of the proposed cap-and-trade regulation. The average Texas household could pay up to an extra $1,136 on household goods and services over a year with a total potential cost to Texas families of 6.9 billion.

Is this the best approach? How can we fully mitigate the impact? Will Congress have the money to stimulate a green economy to replace lost jobs?

Join the Conversation

  1. Learn more about cap and trade, the proposed federal legislation and what it could mean.
  2. Track steps Texas is already taking to address energy efficiencies and reduce greenhouse gases.
  3. Stay informed on this important issue: join our cap and trade e-mail list and share this information with others who care about the future of Texas.
  4. See how you can do your part to be efficient to help Texas reduce its energy consumption.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: News · Politics
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

UN Admits Cap and Trade is Harmful: Congress Should Discuss Border Tax Adjustments » The Foundry

June 26, 2009 · Leave a Comment

UN Admits Cap and Trade is Harmful: Congress Should Discuss Border Tax Adjustments » The Foundry.

Posted June 26th, 2009 at 1.39pm in Ongoing Priorities.

A paper released today by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Trade Organization acknowledged that cap and trade legislation would be expected to have significantly harmful economic consequences, likely including a serious loss of international competitiveness. In response, governments considering such a policy would likely want to consider a border tax adjustment (BTA) system to mitigate the loss of competitiveness. The report goes on to say that such a BTA system would be permissible under the world trading system.

While it’s shocking in and of itself that a group like the UN Environmental Program is admitting that cap and trade is economically harmful, the report raises a good point concerning the BTA system that should be addressed by Congress.

A BTA system allows a tax to be levied on imports and an export rebate to be given on exports to reflect the influence of a tax on the relative prices in the domestic economy. Most countries with Value-Added Taxes (VAT), such as those found in Europe, employ BTA systems to prevent the VAT from putting their countries at a competitive disadvantage at home or abroad. Page 22 of the report states:

 

A number of WTO rules may be relevant to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems and related border measures, including core trade disciplines, such as the non discrimination principle. The provisions of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures SCM) may also be relevant to emission trading schemes for instance if allowances are allocated free of charge.

Moreover, detailed rules on border tax adjustments (BTAs) exist in the General Agreement on Tariff s and Trade (GATT) and the WTO SCM Agreement. These rules permit, under certain conditions, the use of BTAs on imported and exported products. Indeed, border adjustments on internal taxes are a commonly used measure with respect to domestic indirect taxes on the sale and consumption of goods, such as cigarettes or alcohol. The objective of a border tax adjustment is to level the playing field between taxed domestic industries and untaxed foreign competition by ensuring that internal taxes on products are trade neutral.”

The release of this report is a stunning development for two very important reasons:

1) It acknowledges de facto that cap and trade has harmful economic consequences. Again, this is co-written with the UN Environment Program, an adamant supporter of emission reduction targets, a firm believer in the IPCC report and that manmade emissions are significantly contributing to global warming and a firm believer that all nations, especially the developed ones should be “combating global warming.” If cap and trade is a jobs program, as President Obama and certain policymakers purport it to be, why are the harmful consequences on net so extensive that a country would need to offset their anti-competitive effects?

2) It raises a major new consideration that has previously escaped domestic debate. The House of Representatives is currently debating a massive, 1,200 page cap and trade bill on the floor. Whether one supports or opposes the bill, all participants in the debate have an interest in addressing this important new dimension of the debate. Before debating an incomplete bill, the House should consider whether a BTA regime is needed, and if so, task the appropriate Committees with its design. Legislators should seriously address this new development before debate concludes.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: News · Politics
Tagged: , , , , , ,