Soda taxes are becoming every politicians “go-to” revenue source.
John Kyl (R-Arizona) has rightfully acknowledged that the stimulus plan is not stimulating the economy. Nor, should we have expected that it would have. The $787 billion stimulus bill was a pork-laden spend-fest with more than half of the spending not even occurring for 2 years. Even for those analysts that believe government spending is stimulative (it is not) spending billions of dollars in 2011 surely cannot increase economic growth in 2009. In fact, it creates real and significant economic damage.
President Obama has correctly identified that Americans spend a great deal more on health care than any other developed nation.
Throughout his first 100 days President Obama has amply demonstrated his fundamental belief that government knows best.
Lost for what to do, there appears to be only one cure-all the government will consider for the current economic crisis: spend, spend, spend.
Now in power, President Obama and the democratic Congress are moving with great haste to spend an additional $850 billion of taxpayers’ hard-earned money (perhaps more) on top of the nearly $1 trillion that the government has already thrown at the current economic crisis, which not coincidentally, was also allocated in great haste.
Perhaps the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) movement of the late 1990’s and early 2000’s was simply a fad – an expendable corporate distraction that companies entertain during fat times.
Learning from history requires a thoughtful analysis of what actually happened, not endlessly parroting a politically convenient slogan.
Herbert Simon once remarked “"That which cannot continue forever – won’t." If only Secretary Paulson applied that wisdom to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the GSEs).
Gas prices may have retreated from their recent peak, but they are still outrageously high. More worrisome, current gas affordability levels (perhaps un-affordability level is more apt) may be just the beginning.
Thankfully, cap and trade – aka the Warner-Lieberman “America's Climate Security Act of 2007” – suffered a quick death in the Senate this year.
In the “Ship of Fools”, Sebastian Brant remarked: “The world wants to be deceived”.
Bill Gates wants businesses to be more responsive to society’s greatest concerns. Mr. Gates faults capitalism for not caring about the world’s poor and disparages the “heartless” economic system.
Whoever the Democrats choose as their candidate for president, they will impose “Kyoto Protocol” energy restrictions on the economy; require health care for all; and, further increase the burden on Corporate America.
Unfortunately, CSR activists do not want the free-market to decide who wins or loses in the global warming and energy debate.
Bio-fuels, the transformation of corn, sugar, soybeans and other crops into motor fuels, have taken on a new sense of urgency due to, in part, the global warming consensus.
Today Corporate Social Responsibility is synonymous with environmental responsibility. Environmental responsibility, of course, means that a company accepts that global warming is occurring; man (particularly modern business) is the primary reason why global warming is occurring; the consequences of global warming will be disastrous for planet Earth; and consequently, businesses should be willing to sacrifice anything in the name of environmental responsibility.
Concerns about global warming, and its potentially devastating impact on the planet, has caught Congress’ attention. Global warming may well be serious, but so are the consequences from combating global warming.
In April of this year, the Wall Street Journal ran a front page story on Denmark titled “How Denmark Paved Way To Energy Independence”. The article claims that “Through a wide variety of government-driven initiatives, this small northern European country has overcome one thorny challenge of global warming: how to dramatically reduce energy consumption while maintaining a solid growth rate and low unemployment rate”.
Closing our eyes to the costs of global warming regulations will not make these costs disappear. And yet, the debate on global warming is progressing as if these costs do not exist. For instance, many leaders of the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) movement are calling for the United States to implement a carbon emissions cap on U.S. industries – or a "cap and trade" system. One example is the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) – a coalition of environmental organizations and corporations including major corporate members such as GE, Alcoa, BP, Caterpillar, DuPont, Lehman Brothers, and PG&E.