"I Don't Know" -- "I'm Sorry" -- "We're Not Broke!"

Henry Waxman -- Enough Already!

Congressman Henry Waxman has been in Congress for 38 years.

38 years of tax and spend statism, and still there is no subway to the sea.

38 years of badgering and bullying hyperpartisanship,  and corruption and waste are as rampant as ever.

When confronted about legal and illegal use of steroids, money earmarked for steroid education (a  matter of oversight during his chairmanship on the Oversight committee), and even the core elements of his Cap and Trade bill, Waxman said, “I don’t know”.

In the face of the $16 trillion national debt, Waxman says, "We're Not Broke!"

Not one, but NINETEEN green tech companies that took taxpayer loan guarantees have failed, guarantees which Waxman supported. Waxman says, "I'm sorry!"

Enough already!

I don't know about you, but I'm sorry that we are broke, and Waxman has been a big part of it all.

End the reign of Henry Waxman!

Bill Bloomfield for the 33rd!

Waxman the Taxman: Abbreviated

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/California/Henry_Waxman/Views/Taxes/

Henry Waxman has consistently voted against tax relief for the struggling middle class in this country. For over a decade, the long list of tax cut proposals have met stiff opposition from one of the most oppositional members of Congress. For a number of bills, he voted against a sizable minority and even a majority of his Democrat caucus. Waxman is a marginal politician who opposes many bills which will keep the American people's money in their hands.

In 2000, Waxman voted against eliminating the Death Tax and Marriage Tax.

Waxman has a penchant for taxes on everything, even the important rites of passage like Marriage and death. Would he also impinge on births, baptisms, and bar mitzvahs?

Waxman voted against Death Tax Elimination Act of  2001, even though one fourth of the Democratic caucus supported the bill.

Two sure things in this life: death and taxes, and Waxman is ensuring that this country has a lot of the latter.

He voted against the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, which included a phased-in reduction in income tax rates and an eventual repeal of the estate tax.

In 2004, the house voted on a bill to fix the marriage penalty tax. The bill increased the standard deduction for married taxpayers. The bill got wide bipartisan support, yet Henry Waxman voted against ending the marriage penalty.

 Holy matrimony should not leave a hole in a married couple's wallet, purse, or bank account. Our Congressional representatives should understand this, but Waxman apparently does not.

Waxman opposed the bipartisan American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, which allowed individuals to claim a deduction for state and local sales taxes paid, in lieu of deducting state income taxes. It also increased tax credits for foreign investment abroad and increased the expensing provisions for corporations.

Waxman the Taxman opposed tax cuts for job relief, a hyper-partisan habit once again out of step with both parties in Congress.

Henry Waxman voted against the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004. Even with wide support for this measure, Waxman said "No!" I wonder how many working families in the West LA region and the Santa Monica Bay would have benefited from this tax write off?

Waxman voted against the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, an extension of previously lowered dividend income and capital gains through 2010, and made an increase to the AMT exemption. It also eliminated income restrictions for converting traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs. The bill passed in a 234-197 vote with the support of both parties.

Henry Waxman voted against the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, which contained tax cut extensions for house improvements, state and local sales tax exemptions, and a provision for health savings accounts.

If Mr. Waxman really wanted to improve health care access in this country, why did he vote down a provision permitting consumers to purchase health savings accounts? The initiative for individuals to invest in their own health, and maintain the fund as a tax credit would help control costs without taxes or rationing.

Henry Waxman voted against the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which allows higher contributions to IRAs. The bill got wide support from both parties. Congressman Waxman has demonstrated such a stiff resistance to easing the tax burden on Americans, that much of the time he even votes against his own Democratic caucus!

The residents of the 33rd Congressional District command a great deal of wealth and investment. The aerospace industry and small businesses throughout the South Bay cannot afford to send to Congress a politician who never met a tax increase he never liked and who has yet to meet any tax relief which he has not rejected.

Congressman Waxman would be out of a job if he endorsed any tax breaks for the American people, apparently. Waxman is a taxing choice not worth the taking

No More Taxes -- No More Waxman -- Retire the Taxman November 6, 2012!

Bill Bloomfield for the 33rd!

Another Claim from Waxman's Campaign

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lICnGq0Udpg


"Moved clean energy legislation that creates thousands of jobs"


Is Waxman talking about and taking credit for Solyndra? The House Energy Committee just finished a mark-up for the "No More Solyndras" Act.


The federal loan guarantees from Congress for these and other green companies have been sunk and lost in bankrupt firms which had first given the impression of financial insolvency.


How many other firms have gone bust in the quest for efficient, green energy?


Let's consider European firms, which have not received American taxpayer dollars:


The firm was carrying more than $500 million in debt and was unable to reach an "amicable solution" with its debtors and investors. In August, we reported that the company shut down its 60-megawatt module manufacturing facility in Tucson, resulting in the loss of around 60 jobs. The firm has about 800 employees, according to Die Welt. Solon is also the lead investor in Global Solar Energy, a maker of CIGS flexible solar panels. The impact that the Solon insolvency will have on GSE is unclear.


Solon joined Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, and SpectraWatt in 2011's bankruptcy pool. ECD joined that team in 2012, along with a number of other firms yet to be announced, the victim of plunging prices, overcapacity and a rough economy in an uncertain time for solar policy.
(http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Solon-Bankrupt-German-Solar-Vendor-Acquired-by-UAEs-Microsol/)


Companies in Austria are also failing: http://austrianindependent.com/index.php?id=5437
In large because of complex tax and regulation structure, the same policies supported by Waxman, these companies cannot thrive. Of course, the immense cost of production and sale diminishes their profitability. More importantly, Americans are losing jobs from these abortive green tech investment.
However, contrary to Waxman's empty assertion that green investment creates green jobs, there is ample evidence that taxpayers are losing money, too:


The company, Ener1, received a $118 million grant from DOE [Department of Energy] in 2010 as part of the president’s stimulus package,” writes the Heritage Foundation’s Lachlan Markay. “The money, which went to Ener1 subsidiary EnerDel, aimed to promote renewable energy storage battery technology for electrical grid use.” (http://strokesofcandor.com/the-watchdog/another-government-green-energy-company-files-for-bankruptcy-as-obama-announces-more-loans/)


Beacon Power, which manufactures flywheel energy storage technology, received a $43 million loan guarantee from the same stimulus program that funded Solyndra [emphasis added],” Markay writes. “Despite having used $3 million marked for loan repayment to continue funding its daily operations, Beacon filed for Chapter 11 in November.”


For more information on Solyndra, please vist: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/26/another-green-tech-stimulus-recipient-files-for-bankruptcy/


“Evergreen Solar Inc. said it has failed to find a buyer for its Devens, Mass., plant and plans to walk away from the facility, which was launched with some $50 million in state aid,” the The Wall Street Journal’s reports.


In case you don’t remember, Evergreen Solar Inc. is the Massachusetts-based “green tech” company that filed for bankruptcy last August — even after receiving million in state aid.


(http://www.theblaze.com/stories/failed-green-tech-company-abandons-450m-plant/)


This week, yet another clean energy company heavily underwritten by federal loans, Abound Solar in Colorado, declared bankruptcy, leaving the taxpayers on the hook for $70 million.


And the problem with these massive federal loans supporting failed operations is not limited to solar projects. Nevada Geothermal Power, which has received $98.5 million in federal loan guarantees, is running into serious difficulties paying its bills after having operated at a loss for several years.
(http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/energy/item/11976-bankruptcies-of-federally-backed-green-energy-companies-continue)


While these companies were failing, their top executives were receiving six figure salaries.


Two electric car (including Fisker) companies also are going up in smoke. The Fisker company invested the money in Finland, no jobs were created in the United States. Tesla received 500 million. Will start next year -- the model S Sedan. $57,000-- they claim that there is a robust market -- but for wealthy Americans. Fortune Magazine has indicated that the company will have nothing but losses. Celebrities have championed these cars, but they were not worth the risk, yet the taxpayers have been left holding the bill.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/green-firms-fed-cash-give-execs-bonuses-fail/story?id=15851653
Here's another list with a curt and cutting rundown of the sheer failures associated with green subsidies from the federal government:
http://news.thomasnet.com/green_clean/2011/11/11/government-investments-in-green-technology-a-scorecard/


Here is another list:


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/green-scam-80-of-green-energy-loans-went-to-obama-donors-19-companies-went-bust-video/


Is this fair, Mr. Waxman? Is it fair for taxpayer dollars to be wasted in these wasteful and disgraceful green investments, loan guarantees which are guaranteed to lost?


Is this fair, Congressman?

Rich Claims on "Poverty" Expansion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lICnGq0Udpg

"Expanded number of working poor eligible 24 times under Reagan"


While the embattled Presidential incumbent says ""Forward", Mr. Waxman apparently wants voters to go backward. Mr. Waxman's blast from the past does not provide ballast for an impoverished present. Instead of celebrating the number of people who receive state assistance, what has Congressman Waxman done to reduce regulations, end governmental waste and fraud, and cut the damaging national debts and deficits which throttle job creation in this country?


Under President Obama's tenure in office, there are more people on food stamps and federal subsidies than any time in this country.


Our leaders in government should be prided and praised for expanding wealth and promoting job creation, not expanding the welfare rolls.
Voters in this country want a recovering economy, not a sputtering recovery which has failed to engage a growing segment of the working poor in this country.


Congressman Waxman, only you would promote your stay in office by selling the country on the handouts to the poor. I think that more people would rather get help not being poor instead of receiving aid for their poverty.


The sooner Waxman leaves office, the richer this country will be.

Waxman on "Stabilizing the Climate"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lICnGq0Udpg

Another claim from Waxman's YouTube campaign ad:

"Wrote the first bill in Congress to stabilize the climate in 1992"

Does Congressman Waxman really intend to impress on prospective voters that he, all five feet of him, commands such power through government force as to "stabilize" the atmosphere? If Waxman is referring to "climate change" or "global warming" -- which he attests to vociferously as "science" -- he has as thousands of scientists who dispute manmade global warming. The science is hardly settled on the issue, and Waxman's blatant, self-informed arrogation of power through legislation should be enough to give voters pause before considering him reelection.

This kind of arrogance is enough to send Waxman packing!

Climates, like economies, stabilize themselves much better without our help. We can help ourselves by putting Waxman out of office.

Hospital Closures in Southern California

From ObamaCare to Cap and Trade, Congressman Henry Waxman has supported massive legislative initiatives without bipartisan support. Extensive invasions into individual liberty and state sovereignty, Waxman's signature pieces of legislation threatened businesses, access, and economic recovery. ObamaCare has forced providers and insurers to offer more care, but at what cost to the diminished supply of care givers and materials. Hospitals around the country are already threatening to close down because they are expected to offer services without the requisite compensation to stay open.

The LA Times provide an exhaustive and disturbing list of hospital closures in the Southern California region:

http://projects.latimes.com/hospitals/emergency-rooms/no/closed/list/

This trend is made worse, not better, with ObamaCare.

No Serious Debate on Climate Change

The Real Warming: The Independent Challenge to
Waxman's Withering Worries about the Weather

As long as Henry Waxman continues to cry out that Republicans are ignoring "science" when it comes to climate change, there can be no serious debate about climate change.

Congressman Waxman contends that the fierce firestorms which have erupted in New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado indicate that the earth's temperature is heating up considerably, and to our peril.

Yet let's take another look at this problem.

Regarding the horrendous wildfires that ripped through Colorado, the Huffington Post offers an alternate theory as to why the fires took over as they did:

"The number of fires and total acreage burned in the West this summer is roughly within range of the past decade's average. But the fires are bigger, they're burning with greater severity, and they are burning areas where the potential impacts are greater." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/colorado-wildfire-recover_n_1725445.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green)

"Aha!" -- climate change advocates would trump. The blazes are getting worse. Yet the same article articulates that raining downpours wipe out the seeds and forestry restoration in the area. The lack of recovery to regions charred in 1996 and 2002 not only frustrated the revegetation of the region, but in all likely may have contributed to the more fiery outbreak which exploded in the region.

The science is quite diverse and divisive on the matter of global warming. The following experts, intellects, and the rest testify that the problem of "man-made" climate change remains rigorously disputed.

Oreskes and Peiser

Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis). (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm)

Of course, academic consensus is marred by the growing group-think that dominates the Ivy Tower of American Academia.

John Stossel interviewed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrH1jEt7sHw) a number of academics who dispute manmade global warming:

"The earth is warming -- but we dispute is it because of mankind," commented one scientist. The other three intellects on Stossel's program also acknowledged that there is a rise in temperature, but whether it is due to man-made causes or larger, more gradual changes is still in great dispute. Dismissing the notion that they were bought by large corporate interests to advance their global warming skepticism, one scientists even shared that he had been threatened for sharing his findings.

That the earth is warming is not open for debate. The potentially dangerous effects of global warming have not been determined yet, nor should politicians in Washington use the fiery blazes in the Mountain states as the final pretext for commandeering more segments of the country just to protect against the incremental rise in the earth's temperature.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is composed of activists nominated from select governments, not just scientists or climate experts. Their cries for more state and international action to curb climate change stem more from a desire to advance their own agendas.

One factor remains constant: state power to decrease the emission of "green house" gases will not protect the environment but will harm the people living in the environment.

The growing consensus among many voters in this country is that the global warming "crisis" is just another extreme argument for expanding state power and concentrating wealth and worth in the hands of a progressive elite. Congressman Waxman can declare as freely as he pleases that "science" indicates that the global temperature is rising. Whether this phenomenon is a good thing, a bad thing, or something that man can control remains open for debate, a debate which should not be silenced or dismissed because of environmental alarmism.

The 33rd Congressional District deserves better than a Congressman who refused to hear the growing, glowing debate and dispute surrounding global warming. If the science, the opinion, the research indicate more skepticism than certainty, perhaps the federal government and our representatives should spend less time controlling the weather and more time controlling spending and cutting costs.