Change You Can Scoff At
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
For months now, I've listened to Obama talk about change.
But will the most liberal member of the United States Senate really bring us change?[[In-content Ad]]From what I've heard, he wants to bring us a pile of budget-busting new programs, from health care to education and beyond.
And how to pay for all this? Well, first, we need to eliminate some of those horrible tax cuts.
That's not change. That's what every liberal politician since the New Deal has done. Show me the change.
Just take a look what's going on in Congress right now. It's a classic case of liberal versus conservative ideology.
(Before I go any further, let me express my extreme displeasure - from a conservative standpoint - with the way W conducted his administration.
I think he got it right on the tax policy side of things by cutting taxes and leaving more money in the economy. Revenue to the treasure increased to record levels year after year.
But on the spending side, he blew it. He broke the bank, spending wildly and bringing us huge new government programs like the prescription drug benefit, No Child Left Behind and the USA PATRIOT Act.
He never vetoed anything.
Frankly, I don't see why liberals hate W so much. He pretty much acted like one on the spending side.)
Anyway, back to Congress and the Climate Security Act.
This might be the worst piece of legislation to be debated in Congress in modern history.
Essentially, it's an economically ruinous attempt to achieve a minimal reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Here's how it works.
A vast new government bureaucracy would be put into place to monitor and establish new pollution standards, industry by industry. These are the standards or "caps" that emitters of carbon dioxide - power plants, manufacturers, auto companies - must live by.
The new standards will be far more stringent than those in place today and the emitters of carbon dioxide would likely not be able to comply.
No problem.
The legislation calls for a carbon auction system where industries can buy the right to exceed the caps. Those rights, once purchased from the government by an industry, can be bought, sold or traded. It's a "cap and trade" system.
Since companies will be forced to buy carbon credits from the government, there will be a huge windfall paid to the government by these industries.
The money flowing to the government would be used to foster alternative energy programs.
How much money?
Estimates vary, but it's clear the plan will cost Americans trillions in job losses, energy prices, taxes and resultant pork barrel projects.
Utah senator Orrin Hatch released a statement, saying, "At a time when we are already seeing dramatic increases in gas and food prices, it would border on immoral to pass legislation that would effectively levy a $6.7 trillion regressive tax on all Americans."
Since the bill would limit sources of energy, the price of energy would rise. Analysts say the bill would add $1 to the price of a gallon of gas and boost electric bills 44 percent by 2030.
The Wall Street Journal called the bill "easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax."
Even the most alarmist environmental groups concede the bill will drain up to $3 trillion from U.S. gross domestic product by 2050.
Meanwhile, places like China and India emit all the carbon they want even as they manufacture goods headed for the U.S. So the bill, essentially, would "cap" U.S. energy use and "trade" it to countries that pollute more than we do.
This would likely increase carbon emissions worldwide while forcing American factories - unable to compete - to shut down.
Good plan, eh?
And what do liberals like Hillary Clinton and Obama think about this legislation?
Associated Press reports "the legislation is not as strong as some Democrats, including presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like."
That's right. They want it to be even more draconian.
The Washington Post reported John McCain does not support the bill and would not come to the floor to vote on it.
There is some good news. The U.S. House of Representatives is cool toward the bill and W has vowed to veto it, so it basically has no chance of becoming law.
Coincidentally, W last week formally applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for permission to finish the nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain.
This was a project that started in 1978. That's not a typo. 1978. It was supposed to have been completed in 1998. It's still not finished, largely because of the efforts of liberals in Congress.
Having no place to store waste has been the main obstacle standing in the way of building nuclear power plants, even though nuclear power is the most practical method of generating electricity with no greenhouse gasses.
Seems to me any attempt to reduce greenhouse gases has to take nuclear energy into account. Right now, nuke power makes up about 20 percent of U.S. power generation. No reactors have been built in the U.S. since 1996 because regulations have made it too expensive for power companies to build them.
Liberals won't let U.S. companies build nuke plants, drill for oil or build refineries, but they'll trade carbon credits to China and wreck the U.S. economy.
Now there's change you can believe in.
For months now, I've listened to Obama talk about change.
But will the most liberal member of the United States Senate really bring us change?[[In-content Ad]]From what I've heard, he wants to bring us a pile of budget-busting new programs, from health care to education and beyond.
And how to pay for all this? Well, first, we need to eliminate some of those horrible tax cuts.
That's not change. That's what every liberal politician since the New Deal has done. Show me the change.
Just take a look what's going on in Congress right now. It's a classic case of liberal versus conservative ideology.
(Before I go any further, let me express my extreme displeasure - from a conservative standpoint - with the way W conducted his administration.
I think he got it right on the tax policy side of things by cutting taxes and leaving more money in the economy. Revenue to the treasure increased to record levels year after year.
But on the spending side, he blew it. He broke the bank, spending wildly and bringing us huge new government programs like the prescription drug benefit, No Child Left Behind and the USA PATRIOT Act.
He never vetoed anything.
Frankly, I don't see why liberals hate W so much. He pretty much acted like one on the spending side.)
Anyway, back to Congress and the Climate Security Act.
This might be the worst piece of legislation to be debated in Congress in modern history.
Essentially, it's an economically ruinous attempt to achieve a minimal reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Here's how it works.
A vast new government bureaucracy would be put into place to monitor and establish new pollution standards, industry by industry. These are the standards or "caps" that emitters of carbon dioxide - power plants, manufacturers, auto companies - must live by.
The new standards will be far more stringent than those in place today and the emitters of carbon dioxide would likely not be able to comply.
No problem.
The legislation calls for a carbon auction system where industries can buy the right to exceed the caps. Those rights, once purchased from the government by an industry, can be bought, sold or traded. It's a "cap and trade" system.
Since companies will be forced to buy carbon credits from the government, there will be a huge windfall paid to the government by these industries.
The money flowing to the government would be used to foster alternative energy programs.
How much money?
Estimates vary, but it's clear the plan will cost Americans trillions in job losses, energy prices, taxes and resultant pork barrel projects.
Utah senator Orrin Hatch released a statement, saying, "At a time when we are already seeing dramatic increases in gas and food prices, it would border on immoral to pass legislation that would effectively levy a $6.7 trillion regressive tax on all Americans."
Since the bill would limit sources of energy, the price of energy would rise. Analysts say the bill would add $1 to the price of a gallon of gas and boost electric bills 44 percent by 2030.
The Wall Street Journal called the bill "easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax."
Even the most alarmist environmental groups concede the bill will drain up to $3 trillion from U.S. gross domestic product by 2050.
Meanwhile, places like China and India emit all the carbon they want even as they manufacture goods headed for the U.S. So the bill, essentially, would "cap" U.S. energy use and "trade" it to countries that pollute more than we do.
This would likely increase carbon emissions worldwide while forcing American factories - unable to compete - to shut down.
Good plan, eh?
And what do liberals like Hillary Clinton and Obama think about this legislation?
Associated Press reports "the legislation is not as strong as some Democrats, including presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like."
That's right. They want it to be even more draconian.
The Washington Post reported John McCain does not support the bill and would not come to the floor to vote on it.
There is some good news. The U.S. House of Representatives is cool toward the bill and W has vowed to veto it, so it basically has no chance of becoming law.
Coincidentally, W last week formally applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for permission to finish the nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain.
This was a project that started in 1978. That's not a typo. 1978. It was supposed to have been completed in 1998. It's still not finished, largely because of the efforts of liberals in Congress.
Having no place to store waste has been the main obstacle standing in the way of building nuclear power plants, even though nuclear power is the most practical method of generating electricity with no greenhouse gasses.
Seems to me any attempt to reduce greenhouse gases has to take nuclear energy into account. Right now, nuke power makes up about 20 percent of U.S. power generation. No reactors have been built in the U.S. since 1996 because regulations have made it too expensive for power companies to build them.
Liberals won't let U.S. companies build nuke plants, drill for oil or build refineries, but they'll trade carbon credits to China and wreck the U.S. economy.
Now there's change you can believe in.
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092