GOP Rep Clashes with Bill Nye, David Gregory over How to Address Climate Change

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) appeared on Meet the Press on Sunday to debate former television host Bill Nye about the effects of climate change and how best to address those impacts through public policy. Blackburn also spent much of the interview debating Meet the Press host David Gregory who asked a series of pointed questions of the GOP representative which challenged her underlying assumptions.

Gregory began by citing a post in The Atlantic which summarized the Republican position on man-made global warming as acknowledging it exists but being wary of the proposed remedies which would negatively impact economic growth. “The fix can be very expensive in the short-term for long-term gain,” Gregory said.

Blackburn countered by asserting that “there is not consensus” that a slight increase in carbon in the atmosphere has resulted in widespread environmental effects. She cited a series of academic reports that challenge the notion of consensus.

Gregory interrupted the congresswoman and insisted that there is, in fact, consensus and that energy providers are actively attempting to manage their emissions. “The issue is what actions are taken and would they really work,” Gregory insisted.

RELATED: Bill Nye, Maher Tear Into Creationism: We Can’t Have ‘Scientifically Illiterate’ Kids

“The congresswoman is trying to introduce doubt,” Nye insisted, “in the whole idea of climate change.”

Gregory agreed and said that the east coast is regularly dealing with “the realities” of climate change after a series of weather events. He asked how those governments should deal with those weather events which are the result of climate change.

Blackburn said there are “social costs” of carbon emissions, but there are also benefits relating to agricultural production. She concluded by noting that U.S. carbon emissions are as low as they have been since 1994, but they are on the rise in other nations and any solution to that issue must be a global one.

Source: Mediaite
This blog is sponsored by: http://8070132083.acnshop.eu

S.E. Cupp Challenges David Plouffe on Obamacare Report This Spin on This Is Incredible

CNN contributor S.E. Cupp was not impressed with former White House senior advisor David Plouffe’s response to the Congressional Budget Office’s report this week on Obamacare’s influence on the labor market, which projected that new healthcare incentives would cause a reduction of hours equivalent to 2 million jobs.
“The spin on this is incredible,” Cupp said on This Week With George Stephanopoulos. “What has never been controversial in the past is that disincentivizing work is bad, economically and culturally and socially. Economists have made it their project for the past century to develop welfare programs that disincentivize work the least, because disincentivizing work has been a bad idea. Now for Democrats it’s suddenly ‘freedom.’ I think the American public sees through that. It’s a pretty transparent effort.”
RELATED: Pretty Much Everybody Messed Up the CBO’s Report on Obamacare
“If you’re running for office,” Plouffe advised. “You say, ‘Here’s what the CBO report said: it would reduce the deficit, it’s gonna reduce unemployment, it helps the economy, and it gives workers more flexibility.’ It’s not that complicated.”
ABC News political correspondent Jeff Zeleny thought it might be. “I went up to a few Democrats who were running, in trouble, Mary Landrieu (D-LA), possibly, Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) from New Hampshire. The look on their face when you ask them about the CBO report, is a look that just validates the fears out there.”

This blog is sponsored by: http://visitwebpages.info/paypalchecks

David Brooks Has Already Decided That President Hillary Clinton Isn't Leading

Anybody who’s ever read David Brooks knows he hangs every other column on the hook that all would be fine President Barack Obama would just “lead,” a nebulous concept by which Obama proposes exactly what he has already proposed but in such a way that the obstinate GOP House magically drops its ideological intransigence.
You may have gotten the sense that this was less a substantive critique of Obama than a portable, one-size-fits-all complaint meant to resolve the tension between Brook’s wonky policy prescriptions and his party’s hair-on-fire extremism. Brooks’ hypothetical on Meet the Press this morning of how Hillary Clinton becomes president should confirm that:
She’s got the process right. She’s got all the campaign staff, all the money. But that’s all relatively unimportant in the campaign. She doesn’t have the substance yet. How is she going to govern so it looks different than under Obama? How is she going to work with a Republican Congress?
Not “How is the legislative branch with the lowest approval ratings in its history, one-half of which is controlled by the party with the lowest approval ratings of its history, going to work with the enormously popular candidate?” but, “How will Clinton propose 10:1 entitlement cuts to revenue increases in a way that will make Tim Huelskamp happy?”
Thus are four-to-eight years of “Why won’t Hillary lead?” columns born.

This blog is sponsored by: http://visitwebpages.info/paypalchecks