Psst-Congress Means To Stick It To You, *Again*, And You'll Just Have to Like It
And they're not even going to kiss you first-or send you flowers and a thank you note
By haystack Posted in Bad Policy | Cap and Trade | Congress | Energy Bill | Global Warming | Screwing the little guy — Comments (34) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I know we're all much too busy with the American POTUS Idol runoff (err, I mean Primaries) to care much about policy stuff...it can be fairly boring, even when bill after bill after ever-lovin' bill puts the screws to us. But you might want to raise an eyebrow and take a closer look at what the Senate has in mind for your wallets and your livelihoods today:
According to a study released by the National Association of Manufacturers earlier this year, Lieberman-Warner would cause 1.8 million job losses, as much as a $210 billion gross domestic product reduction and possibly a 33% increase in electricity prices by 2020.
How awesome is that? Don't let the facts about how crippling this legislation will be to ALL of us get in the way of years of hard work from boisterous and well-funded PACs, and former Vice Presidential (and Nobel prize-winning) hysteria over an issue we aren't completely sure exists, let alone whether we actually caused, OR even whether we can really do much to effect a significant change. [Remember, folks, much to the chagrin of our greenie friends cave men really DIDN'T have Escalades.]
Congress means to stick it to businesses and individuals...and stick it to us GOOD...just because they can.
It's worth noting, before we delve into the dirty little details, that our Political heroes understand just how much their mistreatment of their constituents goes toward forcing control over our lives. They seem to relish the thought that they can exert so much influence..whether we like it or not.
[addendum: Funny how Congress would have you believe it's the evil Oil companies that are sticking it to us when you consider who the REAL Carbon Power Brokers are, or will be soon enough...just sayin']
More "thank you sir, may I have another" below the fold...
There are a bunch of links in what follows, so if you get tired of clicking through, just suffice it to say there is plenty of coverage about the badness of this brainstorm. Also, it's worth reminding everyone here that a majority in the Senate are likely to support it because they can run for re-election on their insistence that they fought the good fight to save the environment...while knowing it will probably not become law this year anyway. Again, from Forbes:
Few expect the House of Representatives to take up the issue seriously this year, and President Bush would likely veto it in its current form.
So, why would I take the time to mention this issue? Because you folks out there aren't cynical enough yet, and I mean to make you more so [smiling].
Let's start here shall we? Titled "Cap and Spend" the WSJ gives us our first booster shot of cynicism:
As the Senate opens debate on its mammoth carbon regulation program this week, the phrase of the hour is "cap and trade." This sounds innocuous enough. But anyone who looks at the legislative details will quickly see that a better description is cap and spend. This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax.
Sponsored by Joe Lieberman and John Warner, the bill would put a cap on carbon emissions that gets lowered every year. But to ease the pain and allow for economic adjustment, the bill would dole out "allowances" under the cap that would stand for the right to emit greenhouse gases. Senator Barbara Boxer has introduced a package of manager's amendments that mandates total carbon reductions of 66% by 2050, while earmarking the allowances.
When cap and trade has been used in the past, such as to reduce acid rain, the allowances were usually distributed for free. A major difference this time is that the allowances will be auctioned off to covered businesses, which means imposing an upfront tax before the trade half of cap and trade even begins. It also means a gigantic revenue windfall for Congress.
Ms. Boxer expects to scoop up auction revenues of some $3.32 trillion by 2050. Yes, that's trillion. Her friends in Congress are already salivating over this new pot of gold. The way Congress works, the most vicious floor fights won't be over whether this is a useful tax to create, but over who gets what portion of the spoils. In a conference call with reporters last Thursday, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry explained that he was disturbed by the effects of global warming on "crustaceans" and so would be pursuing changes to ensure that New England lobsters benefit from some of the loot.
Of course most of the money will go to human constituencies, especially those with the most political clout. In the Boxer plan, revenues are allocated down to the last dime over the next half-century. Thus $802 billion would go for "relief" for low-income taxpayers, to offset the higher cost of lighting homes or driving cars. Ms. Boxer will judge if you earn too much to qualify.
There's also $190 billion to fund training for "green-collar jobs," which are supposed to replace the jobs that will be lost in carbon-emitting industries. Another $288 billion would go to "wildlife adaptation," whatever that means, and another $237 billion to the states for the same goal. Some $342 billion would be spent on international aid, $171 billion for mass transit, and untold billions for alternative energy and research – and we're just starting.
Ms. Boxer would only auction about half of the carbon allowances; she reserves the rest for politically favored supplicants. These groups might be Indian tribes (big campaign donors!), or states rewarded for "taking the lead" on emissions reductions like Ms. Boxer's California. Those lucky winners would be able to sell those allowances for cash. The Senator estimates that the value of the handouts totals $3.42 trillion. For those keeping track, that's more than $6.7 trillion in revenue handouts so far.
The bill also tries to buy off businesses that might otherwise try to defeat the legislation. Thus carbon-heavy manufacturers like steel and cement will get $213 billion "to help them adjust," while fossil-fuel utilities will get $307 billion in "transition assistance." No less than $34 billion is headed to oil refiners. Given that all of these folks have powerful Senate friends, they will probably extract a larger ransom if cap and trade ever does become law.
There's a little more in that piece, but you get the idea. Congress sees revenue streams and redistribution ponzy schemes from so many angles, their heads are spinning-dizzy with delight at all they can accomplish with a little tax money from their friends...you and me.
Not cynical yet?
Well, instead of calling it "Cap and Spend" howzabout we call it "Cap and Tax"?
Carbon-based fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) provide about 85 percent of U.S. energy and generate most greenhouse gases. So, the simplest way to stop these emissions is to regulate them out of existence. Naturally, that's what cap-and-trade does. Companies could emit greenhouse gases only if they had annual "allowances" -- quotas -- issued by the government. The allowances would gradually decline. That's the "cap." Companies (utilities, oil refineries) that needed extra allowances could buy them from companies willing to sell. That's the "trade."
[...]
Reviewing five economic models, the Environmental Defense Fund asserts that the cuts can be achieved "without significant adverse consequences to the economy." Fuel prices would rise, but because people would use less energy, the impact on household budgets would be modest.This is mostly make-believe. If we suppress emissions, we also suppress today's energy sources, and because the economy needs energy, we suppress the economy. The models magically assume smooth transitions. If coal is reduced, then conservation or non-fossil-fuel sources will take its place. But in the real world, if coal-fired power plants are canceled (as many were last year), wind or nuclear won't automatically substitute. If the supply of electricity doesn't keep pace with demand, brownouts or blackouts will result. The models don't predict real-world consequences. Of course, they didn't forecast $135-a-barrel oil.
As emission cuts deepened, the danger of disruptions would mount. Population increases alone raise energy demand. From 2006 to 2030, the U.S. population will grow 22 percent (to 366 million) and the number of housing units 25 percent (to 141 million), the Energy Information Administration projects. The idea that higher fuel prices will be offset mostly by lower consumption is, at best, optimistic. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that a 15 percent cut of emissions would raise average household energy costs by almost $1,300 a year.
That's how cap-and-trade would tax most Americans. As "allowances" became scarcer, their price would rise, and the extra cost would be passed along to customers. Meanwhile, government would expand enormously. It could sell the allowances and spend the proceeds; or it could give them away, providing a windfall to recipients. The Senate proposal does both to the tune of about $1 trillion from 2012 to 2018. Beneficiaries would include farmers, Indian tribes, new technology companies, utilities and states. Call this "environmental pork," and it would just be a start. The program's potential to confer subsidies and preferential treatment would stimulate a lobbying frenzy. Think of today's farm programs -- and multiply by 10.
Funny how Congress has apparently overlooked the increase in demand for energy by a growing population, presuming to just drive consumption down by making it too expensive to have access to in the first place. And this article doesn't even take into account the increased population numbers once Congress gets that nagging little amnesty thing worked out.
Hmm-not cynical yet? Well, OF COURSE there's more...:
And for the most part, the politicians favor cap and trade because it is an indirect tax. A direct tax – say, on gasoline – would be far more transparent, but it would also be unpopular. Cap and trade is a tax imposed on business, disguising the true costs and thus making it more politically palatable. In reality, firms will merely pass on these costs to customers, and ultimately down the energy chain to all Americans. Higher prices are what are supposed to motivate the investments and behavioral changes required to use less carbon.
The other reason politicians like cap and trade is because it gives them a cut of the action and the ability to pick winners and losers. Some of the allowances would be given away, at least at the start, while the rest would be auctioned off, with the share of auctions increasing over time. This is a giant revenue grab. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that these auctions would net $304 billion by 2013 and $1.19 trillion over the next decade. Since the government controls the number and distribution of allowances, it is also handing itself the political right to influence the price of every good and service in the economy.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that this meddling would cause a cumulative reduction in the growth of GDP by between 0.9% and 3.8% by 2030. Add 20 years, and the reduction is between 2.4% and 6.9% – that is, from $1 trillion to $2.8 trillion.
These estimates assume that electricity prices will increase by 44% above what they would otherwise be by 2030. They also assume that existing coal-fired power plants, which currently provide about 50% of U.S. electric power, will be shut down – to be replaced with at least 150% growth in new nuclear facilities, plus other "alternatives." Yet there are only 104 current U.S. nuclear plants, and the industry itself says it's optimistic to think even 30 more can be built by 2020.
In fact, it is pointless to project so far out over multiple decades, since no one knows how markets and consumers would respond, whether the rules would remain constant, or what new technologies might come along. While moralizing about America, most of Europe has failed to meet its mandatory cap and trade goals under the Kyoto Protocol. But the U.S. isn't Italy; we will enforce our laws. So our guess is that these cost estimates are invariably far too low.
So far, we have the plan. Bloat Government logarithmically. Raise taxes everywhere and anywhere that behavior can be modified (and thusly controlled). Drive people out of work while dramatically increasing their energy costs (and ultimately every OTHER cost associated with living) so they will have to turn back to the Government, hat in hand, for handouts and entitlements and public assistance. Am I on the right track here?
The Editors over at NRO take the sensible, pragmatic approach to reviewing just where it is Congress means to take us. The highlight:
[T]here is a group of people conspiring to make energy more expensive for Americans. That group is the U.S. Senate, and this week it will debate a bill that would impose a cap-and-trade system on greenhouse-gas emissions. By rationing the use of fossil fuels, the bill would lead to higher coal, natural-gas, and petroleum prices, even though the prices of those commodities are already at historic highs. Everybody knows about oil prices; less well known is that the price of natural gas recently reached its highest point since Hurricane Katrina disrupted supplies in September of 2005. Coal prices have tripled in the past year due to global shortages.
In short, now would be an exceptionally bad time for Congress to make energy more expensive. Yet that is precisely what the cap-and-trade bill sponsored by Sens. Joseph Lieberman and John Warner would do.
[...]
It is difficult to believe that at a time when the U.S. economy is struggling to adjust to record-high energy prices, the Senate is debating a bill that would make prices even higher. If you want to know why a group of responsible politicians would support such an idea, look no further than an analysis of the revenues the federal government stands to gain from a cap-and-trade program. The EIA estimates that by 2030 the federal government will be auctioning 84 percent of the program’s carbon allowances, with total revenues of anywhere from $326 billion to $853 billion. If you think that money will go toward deficit-reduction, dream on.The Lieberman-Warner bill will probably fail, and it deserves to. But with three presidential candidates who support a cap-and-trade system for carbon, this fight is only beginning. The CFTC is investigating oil-price fixing, but where is the agency that will protect Americans from the conspiracy to drive up energy prices that’s brewing on Capitol Hill?
If you're still with me after all this...let's remember something about America. Our Government is supposed to be of, by, and for "we the People" yet this is increasingly not the case. Consider the two most painful words our Government uses in our name (and allegedly best interest):
Comprehensive Reform
Think Medicare, Social Security, Immigration, Energy, Farm, Healthcare, and Education. Each one of these that have been thrust upon us and our wallets sound terrific as a stand-alone crisis our Political heroes need to ride in on their trusty white steeds and save us from. Collectively, they only serve to grow Government, destroy free-markets, crush individual lives and lifestyles, and force behavior changes on "we the People" under some notion of taking "care" of us...or doing FOR us what they have come to believe we can no longer do for ourselves.
Big Government, bureaucracy, red tape, regulations, heavy tax burdens, and our rights to freedom and individual liberty is what's at stake here.
They seem hell-bent on taking those last two away from us, and shoving the first 5 down our throats. This bill won't pass, but this is where they're taking us over the next several election cycles...and elections DO matter, folks.
Get a little more cynical, and get them outta Washington before it's too late.
« Democrats Have Forgotten Their Forefathers — Comments (19)
Psst-Congress Means To Stick It To You, *Again*, And You'll Just Have to Like It 34 Comments (0 topical, 34 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
1.) How is McCain voting on this thing? Lieberman, you'll remember, is his good friend and some have suggested early on that Lieberman might have even been his running mate. (I doubt that'd happen now)
2.) [Remember, folks, much to the chagrin of our greenie friends cave men really DIDN'T have Escalades.]
nope, but Al Gore has a fleet of them that meets him wherever his private fuel-guzzling jet flies. You know, because he cares about the Environment. Al Gore is actually what cemented my belief that there is NO Man-Made Global Warming. If he believed HALF of the crap he spewed, he wouldn't be as wasteful as he is. We live in an age in which you can give large presentations like he does via the Internet, yet he still flies out there in his fuel guzzling jet to be met by a fleet of SUVs and Limos.
3.) regarding this:
Funny how Congress has apparently overlooked the increase in demand for energy by a growing population, presuming to just drive consumption down by making it too expensive to have access to in the first place. And this article doesn't even take into account the increased population numbers once Congress gets that nagging little amnesty thing worked out.
That is how the anti-gun groups are also going after firearms. Can't ban them, so they're working with OSHA to pass crazy regulations on the distribution and storage.
I'm waiting for them to work with the ATF to require yearly permits to reload.
4.) Lastly...
So far, we have the plan. Bloat Government logarithmically. Raise taxes everywhere and anywhere that behavior can be modified (and thusly controlled). Drive people out of work while dramatically increasing their energy costs (and ultimately every OTHER cost associated with living) so they will have to turn back to the Government, hat in hand, for handouts and entitlements and public assistance. Am I on the right track here?
I know people on the left (on another blog) that not only recognize this, but WELCOME it. Such is the hatred of private industry by the Left. They welcome total dependence upon the government because, you see, business is evil. They really believe that government has the right and duty to tell us how to live. So much so that they're disgusted by the idea of the individual having a say. They will have this feeling until the government keeps them from doing something THEY want to do, of course.
By then it will be too late.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
If so, can someone PLEASE explain to me how McCain is not just a Pro-War Democrat?
Weak on border security, weak on amnesty, weak on gun control, weak on healthcare, weak on taxes, weak on global warming (Look, whether it is happening or not, it is NOT the job of the government to regulate our daily lives)....
He's the 'best' we had, eh?
Maybe I should start watching reality. Apparently it rots your brain enough that you don't care about moving to the left.
...
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
he's the nominee. For the sake of your sanity, replace the word "weak" with moderate. You'll feel better. McCain is unapologetically a moderate. He is a far cry better than far left wing liberal...America has spoken-they're in the middle of late, and McCain serves that far better than either of the Dem candidates.
If the GOP is to move farther right (and no poll currently indicates this to be what, by and large, Americans want from their government right now) it will be over several election cycles and at the House and Senate level...not on Pennsylvania Avenue. McCain actually serves us better in the short term-at least he can keep us in the middle instead of WAY LEFT.
I know, I know...but it's better than the alternatives my friend.
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
I'm not convinced that he'll do anything to actually move us to the right, or even to stand for the things he says he stands for.
What I see is a Senator who wants to be president, who will 'reach across the aisle' to pass whatever the dems want for assurances that they'll pass war funding (which they won't, but they'll dangle it in front of his face in order to get gun control, universal healthcare, amnesty, etc. etc.)
I just wish there was an electable Conservative.
Too many good conservatives believe that they are obligated to vote Republican. Such enabling will only cause our choices to become worse and worse.
Give it a half dozen election cycles and the REPUBLICAN will be calling for universal healthcare for illegals and the Democrat will be calling for a revocation of property rights.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
On what issues is McCain less reliable a Republican than Bush?
BCRA? nope.
McCain/Kennedy? nope.
AGW? nope.
Medicare? that's a big nope.
Pork? nope.
WoT? nope.
I can think of one issue: the "torture" thing. Is that really your litmus test of Republicanism?
If it's not, I think President McCain as leader of the Republican party is automatically going to be an upgrade over President Bush.
On what issues is McCain less reliable a Republican than Bush?
First, you assume that I am happy with President Bush's domestic policy. But, placing that aside:
1.) Gun Control. McCain favors some sort of Gun Control and agreed that it would be good to ban 'cheap guns' some assault rifles and some types of ammunition. Since running for president, he has changed his words on this issue.
2.) Amnesty. He won't call it amnesty, but he supports giving special treatment for those who are here illegally 'if they have not broken laws.' (Except that being here illegally is... well, illegal...) He wants them to be given a 'fast track' to citizenship. That is amnesty. Sorry. Since running for president, he has mostly become silent on this issue, but it is important to note that not too awfully long ago he was given an award by La Raza for his refusal to want English to be the primary language of this country.
3.) Border Security. He has offered no solutions to actually secure all four of our borders. In this respect he may be better than President Bush, who's administration is letting two border agents rot in prison, unprotected (one beaten almost to death), for doing their job.
4.) Universal Healthcare. He has a history of supporting governmental healthcare for children who's families "can't afford" healthcare. That's too close to universal healthcare for me to give him the helm when the Democrat Congress is itching for a universal healthcare bill.
5.) Taxes. He opposed President Bush's plan to lower taxes, then said that it was a bad idea but needed to be supported, now he says he favors them and would want them made permanant. When Kerry did something like that regarding a vote in iraq, we called him a 'flip flopper.'
6.) Global Warming. He supports measure to have the government enforce global warming-fighting standards. It is not the government's job to tell you or I how to live our daily lives.
I've linked to these stances of his before, and I don't feel like doing it again. You've previously called me a liar for saying these things about McCain and after linking to the information, you did not respond.... or apologize for calling me a liar.
President Bush is about as liberal of a President as I think America can afford, and we're sitting here talking about how McCain is the answer because the alternative is too horrible to imagine.
And, I quite agree, McCain is MUCH better than Hillary or Obama. That does not, however, provide enough reason for me to 'like' McCain as President when we have a Democrat-controlled congress.
If Republicans, conservative ones, held Congress, I wouldn't care. McCain would be a fine choice with me. But at a time with a Democrat congress, we really need someone who will butt heads with the Democrats and I really don't see McCain doing that.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
So I still maintain that any moaning that McCain will drag the party left is entirely unfounded in fact. It makes *emotional* sense, given his peculiar ways of speaking up or going silent, but if you look at his record it just doesn't hold up.
Your last paragraph shows how emotional this whole reaction to McCain is getting. McCain has butted heads with Democrats many-a-time. Remember that letter he sent Obama, slamming him for being an unfaithful legislative partner?
That's more than Bush ever did. He's an upgrade, just admit it.
So I still maintain that any moaning that McCain will drag the party left is entirely unfounded in fact.
I do not say that McCain will drag the party to the left. I say, time and time again, that McCain is the evidence that the RNC is moving to the left.
President Bush got quite a bit of scorn from me as well. I just wasn't here at the time. After President Clinton's Administration, President Bush WAS, indeed, a welcomed relief, but I was not overly excited over some of his plans. You'll remember that two of the first things he worked for was the education reform and amnesty. Amnesty was shot down by the American Public, and then came 9/11 and his focus changed to defending America (Which I feel he doesn't do strongly enough, given some of the things he's said and done, but I am overall much more content than I would have been with a President Gore).
No, I don't view there to be much of a difference between McCain and President Bush, except that I believe that McCain will veto less.
As for McCain's words against Obama, I'm afraid they pale in comparison to McCain saying that the North Carolina GOP, who was spending money to Push McCain in North Carolina, was 'out of touch with reality' for not refusing to discuss Obama's connections to radical racists like Wright.
McCain isn't why the RNC is moving left. The RNC moving left is why we have McCain. The voters themselves (not getting into any democrat version of 'operation chaos' that may or may not have gone on early on in the primaries) have voted for McCain. They want McCain, and that's fine, that's how elections work.
However, I'm not going to gloss over his negative points and call him a conservative when he is not.
My opposition to McCain is not because of McCain, but because of Congress. We can't let a moderate in there (and yes, a liberal republican is a moderate), who is all too willing to work with the Left, during a time when the Democrats control Congress.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Points:
- Nobody said he was a conservative. Quit waving that strawman around.
- The RNC doesn't pick who wins the nomination. The primary voters and caucus goers do.
- McCain isn't evidence of the party going left, if McCain is right of Bush, which I just demonstrated above. Saying you didn't like Bush either is non-responsive to that point.
If anything, he's a rejection of National Greatness and "Compassionate Conservatism," and the third furthest right candidate we've had since Eisenhower.
- Nobody's talking about glossing over anything. Quit waving THAT strawman around, too.
Keep trying though.
- Nobody said he was a conservative. Quit waving that strawman around.
Sorry, but many DO suggest that he is a conservative and that 'right wing' people like myself are trying to paint him as a liberal. This happens in personal conversations, over the internet and I even see references to it on cable tv news shows. I do talk to more people than just you.
- The RNC doesn't pick who wins the nomination. The primary voters and caucus goers do.
Which is why I referenced the voters as well. You snipe others for 'reading comprehension' . . interesting.
- McCain isn't evidence of the party going left, if McCain is right of Bush, which I just demonstrated above. Saying you didn't like Bush either is non-responsive to that point.
IF McCain is to the right of President Bush, you might have a point. But, he isn't. They're about the same, they just have different issues upon which they are liberal (and a couple they have in common... i.e. amnesty)
Though, I don't remember President Bush calling for universal healthcare for children. I do remember McCain calling for a form of that.
If anything, he's a rejection of National Greatness and "Compassionate Conservatism," and the third furthest right candidate we've had since Eisenhower.
I'd love to see the two that are further to the right. I'm guessing you'll put Reagan in there. Who is the other? President Bush Sr.? Possibly further to the right than McCain. However, once again, you're comparing him to mostly Democrats..... he'd better be more conservative than Democrats, or he needs to swap parties. Saying McCain is a conservative because you've compared him to a list of people that contains the likes of Clinton and Carter is kind of misleading.
When I think "Conservative" I think Duncan Hunter, Tom Cole, Istook, Goldwater, Watts, etc...
People that are often demonized or blankly ignored by the left-leaning media.
- Nobody's talking about glossing over anything. Quit waving THAT strawman around, too.
Oh, but you are. You openly and directly called me a liar when I suggested the points I did above, just a few days ago. When I backed them up with links and proof, there was never a rebuttal or apology from you. Here's the post:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/bartertown/2008/may/27/the_bob_barr_proble...
Now, please note, I'm not doing anything except being consistant. I don't find McCain to be a conservative voice, and anytime people like myself start to discuss that, we are shouted down and called liars.
So yes, as I see it, we are being asked to gloss over McCain's liberal points because, after all, "He's more conservative than obama!"
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
As I said, you have much to learn. How old are you?
If you're around 20, when I think of how little I knew just 10 years ago... I'm lucky RS wasn't around back then, or I'd have been making post just like yours.
Uh, I listed both Hunter AND Goldwater as people I think of when I think of Conservatives.
Are you just openly NOT reading my posts? I mean, holy crap!
Secondly, I find this personally offensive and rather below what I expected to find at a good and conservative blog as this one:
How old are you?
If you're around 20, when I think of how little I knew just 10 years ago... I'm lucky RS wasn't around back then, or I'd have been making post just like yours.
I'd have hoped that you would have been above such petty pecking order games like this. How arrogant, droll and pathetic.
If you were 20 just 10 years ago then we're pretty much the same age. Unlike you, I grew up. You seem to be content making fun of people who disagree with you.
In my ENTIRE post, all you were able to do was make fun of me and suggest that I haven't heard of Goldwater. (even though I specifically reference him in my post as someone I think of when I think of a Conservative)
Really? I mean.... Really? and you're 30ish?
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
When you asked me who the two Republican nominess for President to the right of McCain were, and could only name Reagan, I realized I'm dealing with someone not up on the history of modern conservatism.
Good day.
And still no reference to anything else in my posts.
But no, we're not glossing over McCain's liberal points, are we?
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
was to the left of the McCain 2008 campaign.
I know that Bush surrendered on many conservative stances, but he did campaign on many conservative stances.
We can interpret "compassionate conservatism" to be to the left of McCain on spending. That is definitely how things turned out (although I would argue that Bush's weakness on spending were a calculation that resulted largely from a post 9/11 Presidency desire to keep unity for the war). Add in another point for the prescription drug benefit.
Bush has slid to the left as President, but McCain's starting point will be to the left of Bush's starting point.
McCain could end up being a more conservative President in the aggregate (I am sooooooo doubtful of that), but to say that his starting off point is more conservative than Bush's starting off point.
I would agree that excluding Cap & Trade, McCain's 2008 campaign is more conservative than the post-SS reform part of Bush's second term.
No one who is about lower government spending and lower taxes can even think about supporting this trash. If McCain is for it, he's a pro-tax big-government believer. End of Story.
This whole issue should be the Stamp Act of our time. I am not sure why it has not become so. If folks want government to take care of everything, then there;s a island 90 miles from KeyWest where they can go, and leave their worries to the government there. Freedom from choice is not freedom.
We cannot take pitchforks and torches to DC because we don't make pitchforks in USA anymore and we cannot get a carbon credit for the torches.
-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Rapture: real separation of church and state --
... because Congres is running out of other things.
Perhaps Ms Boxer could start a "good-faith" effort by reducing the number of vehicles in her home state by 66%
And I'm sure Ms Pelosi wouldn't mind turning off the heat and air conditioning in four of her six homes.
This whole scam quite literally revolves around making money out of thin air.
Now now, let's not get hasty.... such bills shouldn't call for consistancy or any action on behalf of our leaders, for they are royalty.
One law for us, another for them, that's the way of the Oppressive.
Didn't we fight a war (or two) over such shady tax practices? I seem to think that we have..
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Oh How Terrible to have to Cutback On green House gases will over 12 years we will have:
1.8 Million mfg jobs lost.
33% Increase in Electricity prices.
Since 2000, Bush Presidency:
3.0 Million mfg jobs lost
80%-100% Increase in Electricity prices.
The economy is dynamic. The losses due to cap and trade will be in addition to some things that are not avoidable:
--technological advances
--globalization
--market conditions (supply/demand for oil)
The losses due to cap and trade will be in addition to some things that are man made (unlike global warming):
--tax increases (expiration of the Bush tax cust)
--anti-business regulations
--inability to drill for oil (even the Europeans are laughing at us)
--devalued dollar
Your analysis is just like the liberal ANWR analysis. Drilling in ANWR won't solve ALL the oil needs, so we might as well not do anything.
Cap and Trade won't be the ONLY cause of job losses, so go right ahead.
Not practical. Not prudent.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
First of all, before anything else -- government mandated cutting down on ANYTHING should be viewed with suspicion. It should be rejected out of hand if there is not a compelling reason to infringe on the liberties of the people. Period.
Second, I don't give a flying rat's rear how many jobs have been lost in Sector So-n-So (in this case the Mfg sector). There has been an OVERALL net increase in jobs of 3Million, and THAT's after Bush inherited Clinton's recession, and 9/11 Nobody owes some sector of the economy anything. The high-teching of America will by the force of gravity mean less manufacturing jobs. What do you propose exactly? Try to stop the free market from gravitating toward efficiency and high-tech advances? You're not using a 286 anymore, are you? Do you talk to long-distance operators when you make that call our of your area code?
Third, you should know why ele prices are going up. Democrat thwarting EVERY possible means of energy production. No domestic drilling anywhere (ANWR, offshore), no new refineries. Can't build nuke plants because the lawsuits by the eco-green terrorists go on for 30 years.
Blame the Dems. And do NOT propose taking away my freedoms because you think that magically it's all Bush's fault.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Let's get it straight.
Your 3 million manufacturing jobs lost is a quote from the Brookings Institute.
Between 1995 and 2005, the United States lost more than 3 million manufacturing jobs
and ignores the same article saying
productivity in the manufacturing sector increased by 38 percent between 1997 and 2004
Not to mention, statistics going back into the Clinton years (the President who presided over the collapse of the tech industries throughout 2000) that gave us budgets in force until weeks after 9/11.
But lets put all that aside, and remember that the Bush Presidency didn't start until January 20, 2001, and had no influence on national budgets until after October 1, 2001.
Somehow, you neglect to mention that the fuel costs for electricity have increased far over 100% since 2000 ... and the hedge funds and commercial bankers that actually bid up fuel prices (the cost of production hasn't gone up much), have contributed $50-$100 million each political year to both parties.
But it's all ok. Let's cut the number of automobiles manufactured in half. Put what's remaining of the auto and steel industries out of business. And turn off our air conditioners and heaters 12 hours out of every day.
as productivity increases. You can automate and produce more with less payroll.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Automation, to me, takes second to Unions in terms of what causes layoffs in manufacturing.
Hard to afford to run a Union shop and be profitable AND competitive.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
unions = reduced productivity.
Truer words are rarely spoken.
Unions served a good purpose. Once.
Once.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
I like to think that I'm not a black helicopter kind of guy, but this is like something out of science fiction (Larry Niven's "Destiny's Road" and "World out of Time", to name two).
This really looks to me like an attempt to create a "water empire". By seizing control of a critical resource (energy in this case, the Romans used to use water), and reserving to itself the right to portion out all or part of that supply at it's whim, the government creates a situation in which it can not only create a massive revenue source, but can also punish enemies and reward friends. Theoretically, it allows the government to control or even eliminate any domestic opposition. To be truly effective, the government will even occasionally create an artificial shortage in order to make it's control felt (sound familiar?).
Truth be told, this is some seriously scary stuff, folks, coming from the very people who spend so much time claiming that the Bush administration is eroding our civil rights.
George Orwell must be laughing in his grave.
____________________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
nt
So what are WE doing about it?
I think everyone needs to put their energy into fighting Congress on this RIGHT now.
(202) 224-3121 is the number to call to voice your opinion on the Boxer-Warner-Lieberman.
I know our school board is going to hold a special meeting to discuss transportation for summer and next school year. WHAT? Increase in fuel price has an effect on schools-who would have thunk it?
I hope everyone takes this seriously and encourages their friends and families to take this seriously. We must demand Congress to come up with a plan (one that includes government getting the he!! out of the way) that will benefit, oh I don't know the PEOPLE of this country.
MelZ
Which is likely the goal of Democrats. As much as I believe they would be happy to destroy American industry, I don't think they want to face the music on increasing prices and decreasing employment, particularly if they really believe they are going to carry the election.
This effort is much like their intention to stop the war in Iraq. The real intention was to create news, not stop the war. They want to be on the correct side of the debate, but not create the losses that will lose them the election.
Kinda like Iraq. Even the Obamanites are making noises about re-evaluating Iraq.