He Probably Speaks Klingon Too. . .

Sigh.
.
There is no “growing controversy” over the OMB documents. There is only GOP lies, a media willing to say there is a “growing controversy” and a guy at a keyboard trying to refute the liars and their enablers in the media.
.
The guy at the keyboard probably would prefer to be doing something more productive than dealing with lies. Sadly he can’t rely on the media to be anything more than stenographers for the GOP.

choska
.
Exactly. Especially when the “growing controversy” was started by the Dow Jones and the AP reporting some bullsh*t.

You should have written this:

As a start, Peter Orszag uses his blog today to try to, uh, DEAL WITH THE FAKE CONTROVERSY SPUN UP BY A DELIBERATE MISREADING OF OMB DOCUMENTS. WE’LL BE CHECKING WITH THE GOP TO FIND OUT WHY THEY ARE TRYING TO GET US TO REPORT FALSE INFORMATION THAT ULTIMATELY ONLY MISLEADS OUR READERS AND WASTES THE TIME OF PEOPLE LIKE PETER ORSZAG.

What the hell is this, Corporate Slave Tuesday? First Social Security is careening towards oblivion like a bus with no brakes, and now we can’t fight global warming or we’ll all be living in shanty towns?

The OMB comes up with a creative solution for Orszag’s lazy eye – two monitors. Or are we not doing a caption competition?

Cliff, you and I both know that the first job of a big-time DC journalist is to make sure they keep their jobs. The easiest way to do that is to make sure they remain “fair and balanced.”
.
Write what Tim Geitner says without questioning why he is saying it or checking to make sure it is true.
Write what a “source” at the GOP says without question why he or she is saying it or checking to make sure it is true.
.
Facts are abstract. Truth is unknowable. If a Democrat says the sky is blue, find a Republican to say it is green. File your story. Head to the bar to have a drink with the very same people who spent the day filling your head with nonsense.

bortaS bIr jablu dIH reH QaQQu nuy.
-
(Sorry, I just had to, but kudos to anyone who understands that!)
-
I can’t watch the video at work, so I’m not getting the Klingon reference. Did Orszag get his undergrad and Berkeley and minor in it? (it’s true!)

Hmmm….
.
I don’t know about Klingon but his Governmentese is impeccable. No trace of a human accent anywhere to be found.
.
I’m just glad you waited until the non-newsness of the event was determined before you posted on the subject. You certainly know how zombie lies can take on a life of their own if not treated early.

Snarky and wrong.
.
The one-two punch of cutting-edge journalism. Feh.

So an ex-Bushie starts a wildfire within the Obama admin over serious policy matters, thus embarrassing the White House in the process? Hmmm…

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Do you guys seriously think that cap and trade won’t cause economic issues? Barack Obama has specifically stated that energy prices would go up (how else are you going to get people to stop consuming), and higher energy prices means a lot of economic pain. Of course, the arrogant Obama jacked his heat up to 75 degrees.

Wait, the WSJ is attempting to tank cap-and-trade? WHO’DA THUNK!?!

cap and trade won’t cause economic issues?
.
Of course it will. That’s the point.
Energy use choices should reflect their ACTUAL cost and not bury the downsides in a haze of wishful thinking. I don’t personally believe that glogal climate change will be reversible but that’s becuase we’ve wasted the last 40 years pretending that the problem doesn’t exist. Only in a instances of extreme denial could a Hummer ever have been considered a sensible vehicle choice.

spob:
.
Fuel A costs 1 dollar right now but will increase by 1 dollar every year for the foreseeable future.
.
Fuel B costs 10 dollars right now but can only get cheaper.
.
Fuel A is carbon based non-renewable fuel that will eventually be a drag on our economy.
.
Fuel B is a renewable green fuel that is expensive when compared to Fuel A but doesn’t carry any hidden future costs.
.
Which fuel do you choose?

Do you guys seriously think that cap and trade won’t cause economic issues?
.
CFC regulation caused serious issues in the CFC market, but it sure saved the ozone layer.
.
Carbon fuels cause serious damage to our environment and their prices need to reflect that. Cap and trade is one way of doing it. I personally prefer a carbon tax, but it definitely has less flexibility than cap and trade.

The only reason you are arguing with a cap and trade system is because you don’t think it’s necessary. You think Global Warming is a hoax. If you actually realized the true cost of carbon fuels, you’d be clamoring for regulation like the rest of us. If you have a better idea for regulating carbon fuels, cutting emissions, and spurring development of renewable energy, then please let us all know…

In 1900, it was probably pretty obvious to anyone that the horse and buggy era was over soon. What would have been the result had horse use been severely restricted in 1900?
.
And is someone comparing CFCs to energy? You cannot be serious.
.
And no, I don’t think AGW is a “hoax”, although I think people stretch the science. I think it not proven, and the idea of (a) spending trillions and (b) giving government so much power on the basis of something that’s charitably labeled as a “consensus” isn’t the smartest of ideas.

spob, the difference is that horses weren’t all that detrimental to the environment, and acquiring more horses or their feed didn’t require dealing with quasi-hostile foreign entities.
.
It’s apples and oranges.

hammerlock, perhaps you’re not familiar with the history of infectious disease . . . .

>em>hammerlock, perhaps you’re not familiar with the history of infectious disease . . . .
.
spob,
.
Perhaps you’re not familiar with the history of changing the subject to avoid a point.

I think there’s probably some overattribution of political intent to this action by the SBA Office of Advocacy, and apparently some misunderstanding of the standing of this “impact on small entities” issue within the Federal rulemaking process (EPA is not in a rulemaking stage here, but will get there). Since the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, all significant federal rulemakings have to give consideration to the impacts of the proposed or final rule on small entities (businesses, governments, local entities of various forms) — SBA has definitions of what a small entity is for most industries and activities — it’s usually driven by employee counts or annual revenue levels. Each rulemaking has to include a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (a “reg flex”) as part of its broader Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), and if the reg flex analysis shows that a significant proportion of small entities within an affected industry or sector are adversely affected (usually due to the cost of compliance or to an impact to their revenues), the rulemaking agency has to identify possible changes in the rule that could ameliorate these impacts, and then explain why it has chosen not to enact those changes in the final rule. The Office of Advocacy at SBA is the birddog on these issues and has been a very energetic advocate for meaningful analysis by rulemaking agencies of these kinds of impacts and how they might be mitigated. What happened is a normal part of the run up to a very significant rule; that it was misrepresenteded and blown out of proportion is probably partly due to malice and partly due to ignorance in the press and elsewhere of this part of the rulemaking process and the interactions between rulemaking agencies and other independent agencies like SBA.

Meanwhile, back in Iraq . . . .

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023545.php
.

And guys, certainly the costs of cap and trade need to be evaluated, do they not? Doesn’t the public have a right to know?

Yes I’m serious. Industry had this exact same debate about CFC’s. But the science is not all there! But the regulation will be too costly! But there’s no real evidence that CFC’s are to blame!
.
The only difference between CFC’s and greenhouse gas emissions is the scale of the problem. The continued release of CFC’s would have severely damaged our protective ozone layer. The continued release of C02 will severely damage our climate.
.
Carbon emissions must be regulated like any other pollutant would be regulated. It has to be done.