As the first ever Tea Party Convention kicks off, Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue has announced he would like to take away Georgia citizen’s ability to hold 4 state agency heads responsible for their actions.
The Tea Party movement’s core values are Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.
Governor Sonny Perdue announced that Senator Bill Heath, the Governor’s Floor Leader in the Senate, is introducing legislation and a Constitutional Amendment to create a cabinet form of government. Under the proposal the heads of the state’s Agricultural, Insurance, Education, and Labor departments would be appointed by the Governor, subject to Senate confirmation.
“This proposal will result in better government for Georgians,” Governor Perdue said. “It will ensure that agency heads are focused on good policy, and not bogged down with the politics of running for re-election.”
This, of course, would make these positions political appointees, accountable to the governor, rather than to the people of Georgia. Isn’t that exactly what has helped create half the country’s concern with the federal government? Bigger, less responsible government is not better.
If the General Assembly approves, the Constitutional Amendment would be on the ballot this November for approval by the voters. Those currently running for these offices would be able to serve a full term upon winning, and the positions would be appointed by the Governor that is elected in 2014.
This announcement really caught my eye because of a statement from Gerry Purcell, running for Insurance Commissioner.
This is not an endorsement, but his statement points out this new requirement.
———— from Gerry Purcell ————–
Last March, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted a “mandatory requirement” that insurance companies disclose to regulators the financial risks they face from climate change and the actions they are taking to respond to those risks.
All insurance companies with annual premiums exceeding $500 million would be required to complete and submit an Insurer Climate Risk Disclosure Survey every year, starting in 2010.
Regrettably, Georgia has only a few insurance companies with headquarters within our state, but those that are should not be subjected to mandates that are motivated by the conjecture and hysteria of the questionable “science” of climate change. Until we separate truth from hyperbole regarding climate change, we should avoid punishing Georgia’s businesses and consumers with costly regulatory requirements.
As a general rule, I question the legality and appropriateness of any federal mandate on our state insurance markets, much less a mandate coming from a non-governmental association such as the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). The NAIC does some very good work, but they should refrain from dictating state mandates. I will vigorously oppose these types of mandates as Georgia’s Next Insurance Commissioner.
Finally, given the economic climate, on which we do have reliable data, this is no time to impose additional administrative burdens on Georgia’s companies.
I call on Commissioner Oxendine(who is running for governor) to follow Indiana’s lead and reject this unfunded mandate.
According to a December Rasmussen Poll
“50% of voters now believe that global warming is caused primarily by long-term planetary trends, a high for the year. Only 34% say climate change is due primarily to human activity, even as the UN summit tried to limit the human activity they blame for global warming.”
Politics, rather than facts, seem to continue the push to do something NOW about the so called Global Warming, now Climate Change. Even according to the EPA, based on the now very questionable IPCC reports,
“What’s Not Certain?
Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms.”
Now, in the face of
“Health Care Reform”, which says the intent is to reduce health care costs, and the
Lack of Job Growth, primarily due to the uncertain costs the federal government will impose on businesses,
larger insurance companies have this costly survey-based on hysteria.
The required Insurer Climate Risk Disclosure Survey includes
-Describe your company’s process for identifying climate change-related risks…
-Summarize the current or anticipated risks that climate change poses to your company.
-Discuss steps, if any, the company has taken to engage key constituencies on the topic of climate change.
“If you say something long enough and loud enough and often enough, the people will believe it.”
And more expense is coming for business. The EPA will continue its quest to punish anyone that is not carbon neutral (carbon neutral=send money). Assuming the Cap and Tax bill will not pass, the current administration’s EPA will by administrative order accomplish all that this bill would have if not opposed by the majority (July 09- 63% rate creating jobs as more important) of the citizens in the country.
All politicians need to begin listening, or they will find plenty of time to listen after the next election.
“This is about the people” Palin stated, and “it’s a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter,”
“We need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lecturn.” and asks
“How’s that hopey-changy stuff working out for you?”
From Wall Street Journal – “After seven nonstop months ObamaCare is failing, just as ClintonCare failed after a year’s effort in 1994. It’s clear there is something inherently wrong in what the Democrats have been trying to do here. What is it?” See Article
I just came across a new website titled: http://www.TheTeaPartyIsOver.org
It is paid for by the American Public Policy Committee. Well, according to opensecrets.org, the two donors for American Public Policy Committee this year are Patriot Majority and Patriot Majority West.
However, according to opensecrets.org, the 2nd largest contributor in 2008 to Patriot Majority was SEIU and other top Unions around America. I imagine the diversion of Union money gets much deeper than this. Please spread the word before they start getting their message out now. Thanks.
by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
President Obama was disingenuous when he said that the budget deficit he faced “when I walked in the door” of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.
As Joe Wilson said, “You lie.”
Here are the facts:
In 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started on Oct.1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was $600 billion. That was the real Bush deficit.
But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass TARP in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan, and $500 billion of it has already been repaid.
So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.
Then … he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. And falling revenues and other increased welfare spending pushed it up to $1.4 trillion.
So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.
His program of fiscal austerity in this new budget is a joke. If he wanted to lower the deficit, here’s what he could do:
— Cancel the remaining $500 billion of stimulus spending.
— Cancel the $300 billion of spending in stimulus II.
Presto! The deficit is cut in half.
Those are the real numbers.
Cato Institute scholars address several items in President Obama’s first official State of the Union Address. Scholars include Daniel J. Mitchell, Mark A. Ca.
The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C.
The Institute’s stated mission is “to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace” by striving “to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, lay public in questions of (public) policy and the proper role of government.”
Cato scholars conduct policy research on a broad range of public policy issues, and produce books, studies, op-eds, and blog posts. They are also frequent guests in the media.
The Cato Institute is non-partisan, and its scholars’ views are not consistently aligned with either major political party. For example, Cato scholars were sharply critical of George W. Bush’s administration (2001 – 2009) on a wide variety of issues, including the Iraq war, civil liberties, education, agriculture, energy policy, and excessive government spending.
However, on other issues, most notably health care Social Security, global warming, tax policy, and immigration, Cato scholars had praised Bush administration initiatives. During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Cato scholars criticized both major-party candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama.
Politicians throughout the Country should be well aware