Friday, June 26, 2009

White House Admits Cap-And-Trade Tax Costs Triple Their Official Estimate


March 17th, 2009 5:06 PM Eastern

By Phil Kerpen

I’ve already explained here on the Forum how the cap-and-trade energy tax works, and would be the biggest tax increase in the history of the country. Now, amazingly, the White House is telling something closer to the truth about this tax hike, admitting that the official budget estimate of $646 billion over 8 years—already a mighty steep price to pay—is far, far lower than the real cost.

The deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, Jason Furman, is giving us a glimpse at the real number, telling Senate staff the energy tax scheme would actually raise “two-to-three times” the budget’s official $646 billion revenue estimate. Dow Jones reports that 5 people at the meeting confirmed the statement—we can be pretty sure he said it.

It make sense, because the budget estimate was only half the official score from the Congressional Budget Office for last year’s Lieberman-Warner bill, even though the Obama version is designed to have much steeper costs because it requires steeper emissions cuts.

If Furman is right that the real tax hike would be two or three times the official budget estimate—and it’s likely still a lowball—that would mean the actual tax hike would run well into the trillions, roughly between $1.3 trillion and $1.9 trillion between fiscal years 2012 and 2019 by Furman’s own estimate.

The White House claims that this massive gusher of new tax revenue would be dedicated to tax relief, but judging by the budget that’s just a PR gimmick. More than 42 percent of the “tax cuts” in the Obama budget—according to its own official estimates—go to people who don’t pay taxes. Call it a handout; call it a welfare check; call it social spending; don’t call it a tax cut, though, because it means the burden of the federal government on people who actually work, save, invest, and build wealth will be higher than ever before.

Remember that these staggering costs of $1.3 to $1.9 trillion are for just the first 8 years of a 40 year program that gets much more expensive over time. This would be the final knock-out blow for a wobbly U.S. economy, and we can only hope that as people learn the facts they’ll oppose it strongly enough to force Congress and the White House back to the drawing board.

Kerpen is policy director for Americans for Prosperity.


Pelosi will profit from Obama-Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade energy bill

By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
06/24/09 5:07 PM EDT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has vowed to bring the Obama-Waxman-Markey (OWM) anti-global warming cap-and-trade energy bill to the floor for a final vote Friday, which raises an interesting question: How much money will Pelosi make if the measure becomes law, as seems quite likely?

Pelosi, of course, is not the only member of Congress to own significant shares of energy companies. Senators and representatives from all over the country do, not just the "oilies" from energy states like Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana.

But as House Speaker, Pelosi's ownership of an unknown number of shares in the Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE) valued at between $15,000 and $50,000, may deserve particular attention.

Shares of CLNE have gone up and down in value in recent years, thanks to the fluctuations in the price of natural gas and changes in the oil industry worldwide. And a Pelosi spokesman told The Washington Examiner last year that her husband takes care of their stock portfolio, so she has no knowledge of how any of her family investments will be affected by any particular piece of legislation before Congress.

Another prominent public figure with an interest in OWM is CLNE's major domo, T. Boone Pickens, best known of late as a wind-energy investor and the man behind the largest-ever single donation to a state university, $165 million to Oklahoma State University for its athletic programs three years ago. CLNE is a cog in Pickens massive plan to create a giant wind farm in West Texas to generate electricity.

Pelosi will profit because OWM will boost the price of natural gas on the market. This is because natural gas burns with significantly less carbon emissions than other fossil fuels. For companies trying to get under OWM limits for greenhouse gases emissions, burning more natural gas instead of, say coal, will be a no-brainer. That will drive up demand for natural gas, which in turn will create upward price pressures.

For more thoughts on this issue, see this post by Bill Collier at


Thursday, June 25, 2009

Tilting at Green Windmills


By George Will

WASHINGTON -- The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating "green jobs" in "alternative energy" even though Spain's unemployment rate is 18.1 percent -- more than double the European Union average -- partly because of spending on such jobs?

Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report which, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.

Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" -- gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain's economy.

The president's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, was asked about the report's contention that the political diversion of capital into green jobs has cost Spain jobs. The White House transcript contained this exchange:

Gibbs: "It seems weird that we're importing wind turbine parts from Spain in order to build -- to meet renewable energy demand here if that were even remotely the case."

Questioner: "Is that a suggestion that his study is simply flat wrong?"

Gibbs: "I haven't read the study, but I think, yes."

Questioner: "Well, then. (Laughter.)"

Actually, what is weird is this idea: A sobering report about Spain's experience must be false because otherwise the behavior of some American importers, seeking to cash in on the U.S. government's promotion of wind power, might be participating in an economically unproductive project.

It is true that Calzada has come to conclusions that he, as a libertarian, finds ideologically congenial. And his study was supported by a like-minded U.S. think tank (the Institute for Energy Research, for which this columnist has given a paid speech). Still, it is notable that, rather than try to refute his report, many Spanish critics have impugned his patriotism for faulting something for which Spain has been praised by Obama and others.

Judge for yourself: Calzada's report can be read here. And here you can find similar conclusions in "Yellow Light on Green Jobs," a report by Republican Sen. Kit Bond, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy.

What matters most, however, is not that reports such as Calzada's and the Republicans' are right in every particular. It is, however, hardly counterintuitive that politically driven investments are economically counterproductive. Indeed, environmentalists with the courage of their convictions should argue that the point of such investments is to subordinate market rationality to the higher agenda of planetary salvation.

Still, one can be agnostic about both reports while being dismayed by the frequency with which such findings are ignored simply because they question policies that are so invested with righteousness that methodical economic reasoning about their costs and benefits seems unimportant. When the president speaks of "new green energy economies" creating "countless well-paying jobs," perhaps they really are countless, meaning incapable of being counted.

For fervent believers in governments' abilities to control the climate and in the urgent need for them to do so, believing is seeing: They see, through their ideological lenses, governments' green spending as always paying for itself. This is a free-lunch faith comparable to that of those few conservatives who believe that tax cuts always completely pay for themselves by stimulating compensating revenues from economic growth.

Windmills are iconic in the land of Don Quixote, whose tilting at them became emblematic of comic futility. Spain's new windmills are neither amusing nor emblematic of policies America should emulate. The cheerful and evidently unshakable confidence in such magical solutions to postulated problems is yet another manifestation -- Republicans are not immune: No Child Left Behind decrees that by 2014 all American students will be proficient in math and reading -- of what the late Sen. Pat Moynihan called "the leakage of reality from American life."


Friday, June 19, 2009

Obama Initiatives Hit Speed Bumps On Capitol Hill

High Price Tag For Reform Bill Prompts Sparring And a Delay

By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 19, 2009

President Obama's hopes for quick action on comprehensive health-care reform ran headlong this week into the realities of Congress, as lawmakers searching for the money to pay for a broad expansion of coverage discovered that it wasn't easy to find and descended into partisan -- and intraparty -- bickering.

A set of unexpectedly high cost estimates -- arcane data that nevertheless carry enormous import in the legislative process -- sent shockwaves along Pennsylvania Avenue and forced one key committee to delay action on its bill, probably until after the July 4 recess.

In a high-level meeting at the White House yesterday, Obama conveyed his concern over early pronouncements by the Congressional Budget Office that a bill drafted by the Senate health committee would cover just 16 million additional people at a cost of $1 trillion, (that’s $62,500 per person – Just how is this going to save us money Mr. Obama?  Just who is going to pay for this???) said one official with knowledge of the session who was not permitted to talk to reporters and so spoke on the condition of anonymity.

"That is not his idea of good, affordable, universal coverage," said this adviser. The preliminary estimate, pounced on by Republicans, "has rattled everyone."

House Democratic leaders, meanwhile, said they will wait until next month to unveil plans for financing their bill.

"All I know is that health-care reform is on life support because the Senate can't figure out how to pay for it," said Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), who was touting his bipartisan bill.

Obama has imbued the health-care debate with a sense of urgency, pressing party leaders to conclude action on the House and Senate floors by Labor Day. But progress has slowed because of the realization that any attempt to provide coverage to the bulk of the nation's 46 million uninsured people will cost an enormous amount of money, even when factoring in potential long-term savings from modernization and efficiencies.

In a speech to the American Medical Association on Monday, Obama bragged that he had spelled out $950 billion worth of budget cuts and tax increases over the next 10 years -- an amount, he said, that takes "us almost all the way to covering the full cost of health-care reform."

But the independent CBO estimated that a draft bill by the Senate Finance Committee would cost $1.6 trillion, (That’s 1 million dollars per person, and these are only initial estimates people!!! We all know it’s a lie!!!)  a figure that Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) described as "a jolt of reality."

"That was a wake-up call that we have to approach this reform with some caution," she said.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel acknowledged that $1.6 trillion "is a big number" that forced administration aides and congressional staff to rework the plan. "Everybody now is going to take these bills back and come in below $1 trillion," he said yesterday.

But Emanuel described haggling over cost estimates as a routine part of lawmaking. "Since it's the first inning, I wouldn't call the game," he said.

Late yesterday, Finance Committee members began reviewing the outlines of a more modest approach in the hopes that scaling back some of their plans to cover the working poor could save money.

Though early in the process, administration allies are divided over the timetable.

Ralph Neas, a veteran liberal advocate who runs the National Coalition on Health Care, said a thorough debate is likely to continue through Thanksgiving or Christmas.

But John Podesta, who oversaw the Obama transition and now leads the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, said the most promising window of opportunity is before Labor Day.

"If this languishes into the fall, there's every reason to believe the attempts to make this bipartisan will be overwhelmed by the attacks coming from partisans in particular," he said.

The arduous task of overhauling the nation's entire $2.2 trillion health system has been further complicated by the absence of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), chairman of the health committee, who is arguably the most knowledgeable lawmaker on the issue. He is battling brain cancer.

"His absence has an enormous impact," said Sheila Burke, a health-policy expert and longtime aide to former Senate majority leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.). Still, she said, tackling sweeping health reform would be difficult even with Kennedy on the job full-time.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, under the temporary leadership of Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), began work on a partial bill crafted largely by Kennedy aides. Republicans complained of being left out.

"I am personally somewhat -- well, actually, very -- disappointed," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). "I wanted a thoughtful bipartisan compromise that could have become a lasting legacy for my dear friend, Ted Kennedy."

Like Obama, Sen. Mike Enzi (Wyo.), the panel's ranking Republican, said he was distressed by the CBO report showing that the bill would cost $1 trillion and cover just 16 million more people.

In addition, the draft did not include some of the most costly and controversial sections of the bill. That situation "does nothing to advance the cause," said Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager of the labor-backed pro-reform group Health Care for America Now.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said the price tag could easily reach $2 trillion, prompting Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) to reply that Gregg was throwing "sand in the gears."

A frustrated Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) blamed the delays on Republicans.

"I'm sorry to say they have subscribed to more of the same stalling strategy that the American people are sick and tired of," he said in a floor speech yesterday.

But there was disagreement within his own party.

As Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) assembled a bipartisan group of senators dubbed the "coalition of the willing," Dodd played down the need to negotiate with the other side. "My goal is to write a good bill," he said. "My goal is not bipartisanship."



Tuesday, June 16, 2009

What's a Trillion Dollars Among Friends?

If you’re Barack Obama, money is no object. The national debt exceeds $11 trillion. We’ve had about $13 trillion worth of bail-outs over the last year. The deficit this year will run nearly $2 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office warns of a cumulative deficit of some $10 trillion over the next decade.

Now Obama-style health care “reform” will add another $1 trillion in increased spending over the same period. And the ultimate cost likely would be higher, perhaps much higher. Reports the Congressional Budget Office:

According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals (Including 12 million illegal aliens) would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.

These new figures do not represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the draft legislation, for several reasons. The estimates provided do not address the entire bill—only the major provisions related to health insurance coverage. Some details have not been estimated yet, and the draft legislation has not been fully reviewed. Also, because expanded eligibility for the Medicaid program may be added at a later date, those figures are not likely to represent the impact that more comprehensive proposals—which might include a significant expansion of Medicaid or other options for subsidizing coverage for those with income below 150 percent of the federal poverty level—would have both on the federal budget and on the extent of insurance coverage.

Then there is the more than $100 trillion in unfunded Medicare and Social Security benefits.

Just who is going to pay all these bills?

Don’t worry, be happy.



Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Little Boy

A little boy wanted $100.00 very badly and prayed for weeks, but nothing happened    


Then he decided to write God a letter requesting the $100.00 


When the postal authorities received the letter to:  GodUSA ,   they   decided to send it to the President.


The president was so amused that he instructed his secretary to send the little boy a $5.00 bill  


The president thought this would appear to be a lot of money to a little boy. 


The little boy was delighted with the $5.00 bill and sat down to write a thank-you note to God, which read:


Dear God: Thank you very much for sending the money. However, I noticed that for some reason you sent it through  Washington , DC ...


and those assholes deducted $95 in taxes!



Thursday, June 4, 2009

Ballmer Says Tax Would Move Microsoft Jobs Offshore

June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Microsoft Corp.

Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said the world’s largest software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Barack Obama’s plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companies’ foreign profits.

“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,” Ballmer said in an interview. “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S.


Duh???  High taxes kills jobs….


Stimulated Yet???



Burke and Obama

By Thomas Sowell


 | The other day I sought a respite from current events by re-reading some of the writings of 18th century British statesman Edmund Burke. But it was not nearly as big an escape as I had thought it would be.

When Burke wrote of his apprehension about "new power in new persons," I could not help think of the new powers that have been created by which a new President of the United States — a man with zero experience in business — can fire the head of General Motors and tell banks how to run their businesses.

Not only is Barack Obama new to the presidency, he is new to running any organization. One of Burke's fears was that "we may place our confidence in the virtue of those who have never been tried."

Neither eloquence nor zeal was a substitute for experience, according to Burke. He said, "eloquence may exist without a proportionate degree of wisdom." As for zeal, Burke said: "It is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance that it is directed by insolent passion."


The Obama administration's going back and forth on the question whether American intelligence agents who forced information out of captured terrorist leaders will be subjected to legal jeopardy, even though they were told at the time that what they were doing was not only legal but a service to the nation, came to mind when reading Burke's warning about the dangers of continuing to change the rules and values by which people lived.

Burke asked how we could expect a sense of honor to exist when "no man could know what would be the test of honour in a nation, continually varying the standard of its coin?"

The current drive to take from "the rich" for the benefit of others came to mind when reading Burke's warning against creating a situation where "any one description of citizens should be brought to regard any of the others as their proper prey."

He also warned that "those who attempt to level, never equalise." What they end up doing is concentrating power in their own hands— and Burke saw such new powers as dangerous, even if they were used only sparingly at first.

He said, "the true danger is, when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients and by parts." He also said: "It is by lying dormant a long time, or being at first very rarely exercised, that arbitrary power steals upon a people."

People who don't like "the rich" or "big business" or the banks may be happy that President Obama is sticking it to them. But such arbitrary powers can be turned on anybody. As Robert Burns said: "Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." There was a lot of wisdom in the 18th century.

The Constitution of the
United States set out to limit the powers of the federal government but judges have greatly eroded those limitations over the years and the dispensing of bailout money has allowed the Obama administration to exercise powers that the Constitution never gave them.

Edmund Burke understood that, no matter what form of government you had, in the end the character of those who wielded the powers of government was crucial. He said: "Constitute government how you please, infinitely the greater part of it must depend upon the exercise of the powers which are left at large to the prudence and uprightness of ministers of state."

He also said, "of all things, we ought to be the most concerned who and what sort of men they are that hold the trust of everything that is dear to us." He feared particularly the kind of man "whose whole importance has begun with his office, and is sure to end with it"— the kind of man "who before he comes into power has no friends, or who coming into power is obliged to desert his friends." Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and others came to mind.

The biggest challenge to
America — and to the world — today is the danger of Iran with nuclear weapons. President Obama is acting as if this is something he can finesse with talks or deals. Worse yet, he may think it is something we can live with.

Burke had something to say about things like that as well: "There is no safety for honest men, but by believing all possible evil of evil men, and by acting with promptitude, decision, and steadiness on that belief." Acting — not talking.


Scientists, Economists Challenge Global Warming Alarmism

By SOP newswire2


Third international conference attracts SRO crowd to Washington, DC

Washington, DC- Global warming skeptics, who for a decade have emphasized hard-science evidence to refute doomsday predictions from alarmists, added new ammunition to their arsenal Tuesday at the third International Conference on Climate Change.

More than 250 people crowded into Washington Court hotel meeting rooms to hear a dozen elite scientists refute the claim that global warming is either man-made or would have harmful effects on Earth.

But The Heartland Institute, a 25-year-old think tank that produced the three international climate conferences, also recruited seven elite economists to focus on the devastating personal and broad economic impact of legislation, sponsored by Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and headed for approval in the U.S. House, to put a cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Businesses, commercial structures, farms, and other emitters could purchase and trade the permits to emit carbon dioxide and other gases that exceed the cap.

While the scientists reported on a vast array of peer-reviewed literature that cast doubt on the causes and severity of global warming, the economists produced data that showed the cap-and-trade scheme not only wouldn`t halt the release of greenhouse gases, but would add huge costs to business activity that inevitably would be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Dr. Jeff Kueter, an economist and president of the George C. Marshall Institute, referred to Waxman-Markey as "a dismal down-payment on injuries more intrusive into our lives and economy" than ever seen before.

Kueter cited independent economic studies that showed the diversion of capital to emission permits from the investment in new plant and equipment in the U.S. economy would:

reduce employment by 1.1 million jobs a year from 2012 to 2030, and more than double that job-loss in 2035.

slash gross domestic product by an average of $491 billion a year from 2012 to 2035, and hit $662 billion in 2035 -- a total evaporation of productive output of goods and services worth more than $9.4 trillion.

reduce average global temperatures by an insignificant 0.36º Fahrenheit by 2100 and by 0.09º F by 2050.

Similar costs with negligible benefits in Waxman-Markey were cited by other economists and public officials, including Dr. David Tuerck, president of the Beacon Hill Institute and chairman of the economics department at Suffolk University in Boston, and U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla).

U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a veteran global warming skeptic, urged attendees to call Waxman-Markey a "cap-and-tax plan" that amounts to "unilateral disarmament in the economic sphere" for American businesses and workers.

Another long-time skeptic, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (D-Calif.), provoked sustained applause when he declared that the partisans of Waxman-Markey are "stampeding the public and elected officials in the biggest power grab in the history of human kind."

Economist Dr. Gabriel Calzada of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid reviewed the dismal performance of cap-and-trade mandates in Spain, where unemployment has reached a daunting 18 percent, carbon emissions are higher today than before cap-and-trade was installed, and fraud and misrepresentation of emission abatement programs are rampant.

Calzada dismissed claims that such policies have created "green jobs" in the Spanish economy and presented data that showed Spanish businesses have spent billions of dollars on carbon credits and abatement programs, resulting in two jobs being lost in the regular economy or never being created for every one job created in the "green economy."

Energy industry scholar Ben Lieberman of The Heritage Foundation rounded out the economists` dire projections by showing that by 2035, the added costs stemming from Waxman-Markey would add 58 percent to the price of gasoline at the pump, 90 percent to the typical family of four`s annual cost of electricity, 55 percent to the price of natural gas, and 56 percent to the price of heating oil.
In all, Lieberman said, the tax impact for a family of four would average $4,618 a year through 2035, creating a total additional outlay of more than $110,000 with no added benefit to the family`s quality of life or personal consumption.
Additionally, a parade of climatologists and scientists during the conference challenged the science, causes, and severity of global warming.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT professor of meteorology, reiterated premises underlying global-warming alarmism, such as dangerous increases in carbon dioxide emissions since the Industrial Revolution, rising global mean temperatures, and the slackening of the sex drive in butterflies. Such questions, he said, "are meaningless except in the propaganda war" being waged by a compliant mainstream media and a scientific community that finds it easier "to accept authority than disputing questions that are at issue."

Dr. Patrick Michaels, a Cato Institute scholar and research professor of environmental studies at the University of Virginia, blamed some of the success of doomsday alarmism on the absence of fact-checking in mainstream media when alarmists go on a sortie.

Citing recent television and print coverage, Michaels noted faulty assertions such as Al Gore`s statement that 49 percent of the United States is in drought conditions; U.S. Sen. Harry Reid`s statement that California wildfires are a manifestation of global warming; several alarmist predictions of a three-foot rise in sea levels; and a decline in agriculture yields.

Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who has closed each of the two previous international climate conferences, once again brought the crowd to its feet in a cheering standing ovation when he concluded his typically witty speech, "... the highly placed conspirators who seek to ride the climate scare to world domination have reckoned without one thing. You. You are here, and you will not let the truth go.

"Thanks to you, it is becoming evident that the rent-seeking promoters of this great boondoggle, through the very scientific ignorance that they had sought to exploit in others, have merely deluded themselves.

"In the end, it will be here, in the United States, that the truth will first emerge. ... Not in Europe, for we are no longer free. ... It is here, in this great nation founded upon liberty, that the battle for the world`s freedom will be won."

 For more information about the Third International Conference on Climate Change, visit the event`s Web site at or contact Dan Miller, publisher, or Tammy Nash, media relations manager, at 312/377-4000, email or


Venezuela Chavez says "Comrade" Obama more left-wing

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday that he and Cuban ally Fidel Castro risk being more conservative than U.S. President Barack Obama as Washington prepares to take control of General Motors Corp.





Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Snow White, Superman & Pinocchio

Pinocchio, Snow White, and Superman are out for a stroll in town one day. As they walked, they come across a sign: "Beauty contest for the most beautiful woman in the world."

"I am entering!" said Snow White. After half an hour she comes out and they ask her, "Well, how'd ya do?"
First Place !" Snow White.

They continue walking and they see a sign: "Contest for the strongest man in the world."

"I'm entering," says Superman. After half an hour, he returns and they ask him, "How did you make out?"
First Place ," Superman. "Did you ever doubt?"

They continue walking when they see a sign: "Contest! Who is the greatest liar in the world?" Pinocchio enters.
After half an hour he returns with tears in his eyes.
"What happened?" they asked.

"Who in the world is Nancy Pelosi?" asked Pinocchio.