This post contains additional media. Click here to view the full post.

And Stewart didn’t pull any punches on former Senator John Sununu who is part of the bipartisan committee that will sort out the details of how the economic stimulus package is spent. Watch it:

This post contains additional media. Click here to view the full post.

The conservative blogosphere, led by up and coming right wing-nut Michelle Malkin have been frantically pushing to label the stimulus bill the “Generational Theft Bill,” and impressionable republicans on the hill are echoing this ill-conceived branding quip. Generational Theft? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Apparently in the eyes of these pundits and politicians all debt is not created equal…

When Bush nearly doubled the national debt from 5.7 trillion to almost 11 trillion dollars to fund the Iraq war and give tax cuts to the wealthy, that wasn’t “Generational Theft.” Even though we’ll be paying for his policies for years to come, he was investing in our future, and making the world a better, safer place.

>>See also: Who Wins with Passage of Stimulus? Google, of Course

Read more of this story »

How much will it take to get the economy back on its feet?

President-elect Obama’s team has begun working on a plan to spend up to $500 billion in new funds if the economy continues to worsen. President-elect Obama promised to create 5 million new green jobs in the alternative energy sector. However with the economic outlook worsening daily, will he be able to put his money where his mouth is?

“The situation in the economy is the biggest impediment to any strategy,” said Christine Tezac, an energy and policy analyst at the Stanford Group Co. in Washington, D.C.

There is speculation that some of Obama’s ‘green plans’ might need to give way to more pressing economic issues like rescuing the housing market and creating jobs in other (not necessarily green) sectors. That could cost not just green job creation but also funding for the green economy. Obama might have a tough time passing the much-anticipated climate change bill, whose higher costs for utilities would ultimately mean heftier electricity bills for consumers. Failure to pass a bill that would create a system to sell carbon credits would also dry up one key source of funding for Obama’s $150 billion in promised alternative-energy investments.

And what about his proposed climate legislation that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% over the next four decades? Implementing a cap-and-trade program that would assign a cost to carbon dioxide emissions potentially provide funds for alternative energy initiatives.

What do you think?  Do we have a case of economy vs. green or will we see the green economy that Obama has promised?

President Bush said, “They’re smart enough to figure out whether they’re going to drive less or not…the consumer’s plenty bright.”

The President explained the justification for his position by saying, “It’s a little presumptuous on my part to dictate how consumers live their own lives.”

But past examples show that President Bush has had no problem dictating how “consumers live their own lives,” at least when it syncs with his own political agenda. Surely you remember December of 2006, when teetering on the brink of a national economic recession, the President implored Americans to shop more:

“As we work with Congress in the coming year to chart a new course in Iraq and strengthen our military to meet the challenges of the 21st century, we must also work together to achieve important goals for the American people here at home. This work begins with keeping our economy growing. … And I encourage you all to go shopping more.”

Of course, there was also the notorious Bush call to go shopping in the time after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when President Bush insisted:

“Americans must get back to work, to go shopping, going to the theatre [sic], to help get the country back on a sounder financial footing.”

I am not arguing that it is necessarily the President’s job to recommend that consumers drive less, nor urge us to find other ways to conserve gasoline (though that would be nice). I am not looking for my government to become a so-called “nanny state” that micromanages all the details of my daily economic life.

I am arguing that the President of the United States is supposed to be a leader - sort of a ‘first citizen,’ if you will - that has the ability to send signals (both subtle and overt) that can have an appreciable impact on what we do and how we do it. Even a Lame Duck President with a 28 percent public approval rating has the ability to influence someone, right? Yes, the American people are smart, but economically determined aggregations of individual rational choices do not always work out to be the “best” ones at the collective level.

The problem is that President Bush cannot reconcile our need to cut carbon emissions with his belief that we cannot do so without “crippling the economy.”  And remember we are talking about a (former) Texas oilman. Perhaps President Bush’s affinity for “product,” as he sometimes refers to it, creates an internal conflict that prevents him from suggesting that we somehow use less of it, when all he wants to do is drill for more of it.

The fact that Mr. Bush can’t recognize Americans may need some political leadership to help stabilize energy consumption and rein-in carbon emissions has stood in the way of any substantive action on climate change in the seven and a half years President Bush’s tenure.

Related Posts:

• “Bush Lifts Ban on Offshore Drilling: Why it Matters and Why it Doesn’t”
• “Just Like Bush, McCain Doesn’t Know the Price of Gas”
• “McCain Calls for More Offshore Drilling - What Else Would He Say in Houston?“
• “How Many Hours do You Have to Work to Fill Your Gas Tank?”

Photo: © Patricia Marroquin | Dreamstime.com