There may be hope for the party yet. This is better, IMHO, than the Max Borders Global Warming strategy that I linked to above, but is even more at odds with current Republican leadership:

Republican lawmakers back carbon tax

Reps. Bob Inglis of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona on Wednesday became the first Republican lawmakers to introduce legislation imposing a carbon tax on producers and distributors of fossil fuels.

The bill, co-sponsored by Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois, would set a tax of $15 a ton of carbon dioxide produced in its first year in effect, with the tax rising to $100 a ton over three decades.

...

Inglis and Flake call their measure "tax neutral" because it would reduce payroll taxes by however much revenue the carbon tax raises, with employers and employees splitting the payroll tax cut equally.

...

The bill puts the two lawmakers at odds with Republican congressional leaders, who've criticized the Democrats' cap-and-trade plans as carbon taxes in disguise.

I don't know all the details, but it seems like a decent idea. Unfortunately, I doubt it will get much support, with most Dems lining up for cap & trade, and most Reps lining up against anything at all.

In April 1999, they purchased a Chicago condo and obtained a mortgage for $159,250. In May 1999, they took out a line of credit for $20,750. Then, in 2002, they refinanced the condo with a $210,000 mortgage, which means they took out about $50,000 in equity. Finally, in 2004, they took out another line of credit for $100,000 on top of the mortgage.

Tax returns for 2004 reveal $14,395 in mortgage deductions. If we assume an effective interest rate of 6%, then they owed about $240,000 on a home they purchased for about $159,250.

This means they spent perhaps $80,000 beyond their income from 1999 to 2004.

H/T - S&L

...or policies.

"As a tool for understanding the thinking of Obama, [Saul] Alinsky's most famous book, Rules for Radicals, is simultaneously edifying and worrisome. Some passages make Machiavelli's Prince read like a Sesame Street picture book on manners. After Obama took office, the pundit class found itself debating the ideology and sensibility of the new president -- an indication of how scarcely the media had bothered to examine him beforehand. But after 100 days, few observers can say that Obama hasn't surprised them with at least one call. ... Obama is a pragmatist, but a pragmatist as understood by Alinsky: One who applies pragmatism to achieving and keeping power. ... Moderates thought they were electing a moderate; liberals thought they were electing a liberal. Both camps were wrong. Ideology does not have the final say in Obama's decision-making; an Alinskyite's core principle is to take any action that expands his power and to avoid any action that risks his power. As conservatives size up their new foe, they ought to remember: It's not about liberalism. It's about power. Obama will jettison anything that costs him power, and do anything that enhances it.... It's not about the policies or the politics, and it's certainly not about the principles. It's about power, and it has been for a long time."

Read more from columnist Jim Geraghty

These just seem to be getting progressively worse;

Vice President Joe Biden, well-known for his verbal gaffes, may have finally outdone himself, divulging potentially classified information meant to save the life of a sitting vice president.

According to a report, while recently attending the Gridiron Club dinner in Washington, an annual event where powerful politicians and media elite get a chance to cozy up to one another, Biden told his dinnermates about the existence of a secret bunker under the old U.S. Naval Observatory, which is now the home of the vice president.

The bunker is believed to be the secure, undisclosed location former Vice President Dick Cheney remained under protection in secret after the 9/11 attacks.

Eleanor Clift, Newsweek magazine's Washington contributing editor, said Biden revealed the location while filling in for President Obama at the dinner, who, along with Grover Cleveland, is the only president to skip the gathering.

I think it's disgraceful that Obama has refused to release the torture photos, and that the idea that releasing the photos will inflame pre-existing anti-American sentiment abroad and put our troops in even more danger  would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerously stupid and irresponsible.  In fact, our troops, not to mention untold numbers of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan have been in grave danger for a long time, and anti-Anerican sentiment abroad, which has existed for the past 50 some odd years, was furthur stoked already by reckless policies by the G. W. Bush Administration, which Obama seems to be vindicating by his actions so far.  It's equally disgusting and disgraceful that Obama's not only keeping American troops in Iraq, but extending our war into Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan.  Total hypocrisy on his part.  I don't like or trust Obama very much, which is why I wrote in my own ticket instead of voting for him at the polls at the  POTUS election last November.

I also might add that part of the reason that the American public ultimately turned against our Viet Nam war was the fact that pictures and all were released, and the carnage the USA was creating over there was coming home to our living rooms.