from The Washington Post
The ‘Cap And Tax’ Dead End
By Sarah Palin
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America’s unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won’t bring jobs. Our nation’s debt is unsustainable, and the federal government’s reach into the private sector is unprecedented.
Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:
I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.
American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.
There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.
Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.
In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.
The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.
The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket.” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.
Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, “poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity.”
We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.
In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.
Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.
We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama’s plan will result in the latter.
For so many reasons, we can’t afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.
Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?
Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama’s energy cap-and-tax plan.
The writer, a Republican, is governor of Alaska.
Colorado Citizen (09:34:13) :
“I bet you believe she wasn’t using a teleprompter in her quit speech, either.”
Wasn’t at her quit speech. I was 8 feet in front of her in ’07. No lectern, no props. Just Sarah. She’s not a professional politician.
E.M.Smith: dirt under mama’s feet did matter. She was too young (18) to convey citizenship to Barak. If he arrived in HI, he’s OK. Prior to that, life could get interesting. But probably won’t.
I worry more about what he does now than what happened back then.
“And can you show us the parts of the Palin interview that didn’t wind up on the cutting room floor?” Not sure if that’s relevant. The performance we saw was devestating enough already.
Personally I don’t believe Mrs.Palin’s contribution is doing the skeptics a lot of good. She’s a politician in every sense of the word, “like when do you know when a politician is lying? When he moves his lips”.
As was just as much less impressed when Lubos Motl (http://motls.blogspot.com/) showed his admiration for that clown Berlusconi.
A Lovell (12:30:31) :
It seems to me that Sarah Palin is exciting exactly the same sort of polarity that Margaret Thatcher achieved in the UK a generation ago, and still does today.
Whatever you think of her, Margaret Thatcher is still considered by very many people to have been the best UK leader since Churchill.
The woman who tried to ruin a country with corner shop economics.
The woman who started the AGW scare as a tactic to wreck the coal industry because it’s workers were unionised. (And had the best safety record in UK industry)
The woman who made three million unemployed, and then slapped a uniform universal tax on suffrage.
Doesn’t say much for the quality of our leaders does it?
pyromancer76 (21:55:11) :
E.M.Smith (18:54:58) : “Guess you never lived though the Arab Oil Embargo of the ’70s. Economy brought to it’s knees, gas lines, you could buy 10 gallons of gas on the odd or even day depending on your plate. Cold buildings. Unable to fuel a full on military action.”
Can’t be said much more clearly than this, Mr. Smith. How close are we now? And the Chinese are looking for a different currency — one that is solvent. Won’t that be a can of worms.
Thanks!
I did live through it (that is why I’ve had a 30+ year long fixation with “alternative” energy and fuels technologies and keep on top of it). That was when I ran my VW on “funny fuels” mixes and put alcohol in a lawn mower engine for the first time. Oh, and discovered the history of Diesels running on darned near anything if you do it right 😉
How close are we now? I’m not sure “to what” you mean…
1) Converting to a non-oil energy source: I’d put it at about 10 years. I’d give it 5 to get bad enough under Cap’nTax that there’s an economic revolt, then about 5 more after that to build some coal to liquid plants on an emergency crash basis. I don’t expect this to happen, though. A slower more painful path is more likely.
or
2) OPEC energy embargo: Entirely dependent on when / if Arabs get cranky at us for some policy they don’t like. They learned last time that the embargo caused their investments in the US and Europe to tank and hurt their income for the next decade or so due to economic depression. They are already winning the economic war with gigantic transfer of wealth to them, so why rock the boat when you can just wait? Especially with our present insanity of “CO2 is Evil” putting coal and tar sands off limits, the only thing left to run the world’s economy for the next decade is their oil. Nothing else of significance can be built in less than a decade without a “Manhattan Project” style approach. I’d expect them to be happy as can be with how things are going and only cut off oil if another Arab / Israeli war broke out with the US on the Israeli side. Not likely with B.H.Obama in charge.
There is a potential:
3) General Energy Crisis (not embargo driven, legal and economy driven): I’d give that about 3 to 4 years. Once Cap’nTax has hit the economy it will cause a modest collapse of several energy dependent industries (imagine what it will do to trucking to have fuel double in cost…). Similarly, anything that needs coal will tank (as in, “why would I ever invest in that with any potential profit sucked off in a punitive tax?”) The dollar will tank too, and that makes oil incredibly expensive in real terms. All energy dependent production will flee to China and India. At that point, we have a productivity and cost crisis that causes the present downturn to look like “good times”. Similar to the 1929 / 1932 “double dip” that lead to the Great Depression.
The “4” of “we all live happily ever after in an e-world with clean e-cars running on solar and wind with no coal” is a fantasy. The timing doesn’t work. It takes 15 years or more to convert enough of the vehicle fleet to make a difference and by then “it’s over” economically. It takes about 20 to 50 years to turn over the electric generation plant. It’s “coal or nothing” during that time, and “nothing” is not going to be pretty…
That is why I like the Sarah Plan so much. “Do them all” is what we need to do to get out of this energy trap. Gas to Liquids and Coal to Liquids are the fastest and “bestest” solutions (no fleet change, fast to build, enough scale to make a difference) but doing everything else helps too (drill drill drill, biofuels, hybrid cars, high efficiency Diesels (80 mpg in a full size sedan!)
Per the currency and China: It’s already a “can of worms”. China and Brazil have reached an agreement to “settle their trade without dollars”. That is only the first of more to come. China is more happy to hold Brazilian Reals for trade than Dollars. Brazil is more happy to hold Yuan. Repeat for Rupees and pounds and rubles and…
Basically the US Dollar was used as a standard value ruler to dampen the foreign exchange risks in global trade. With us printing dollars like crazy right now, it’s become a “rubber ruler”. Nobody needs a rubber ruler… so they are looking for alternatives. The US government thinks they won’t find one. With all of Gold, Silver, Reals, Euros, Yen, and a host of others having performed better in the last 6 months, I think they can find plenty. (Most likely will be a “basket of currencies” as used by the IMF and as proposed by Russia – basically make your standard the “mean value” of the best dozen currencies. A mathematically sound approach with only the USA losing.)
Now there are $trillions of dollars floating around the world (countries like Liberia and Ecuador use it as their currency…) so it will take a while to drain that swamp, but think what happens to our economy as a few $Trillion more come home to roost. Lots of inflation or else the Fed must sell one heck of a lot of bonds and suck up the dollars that way. That many bonds drive up interest rates and cause interest rate sensitive industries to tank (think home mortgages at 12% … )
Yeah, “can of worms” is about right…
And THAT is why I’d like to see:
1) A crash program for GTL and CTL.
2) A crash program for natural gas powered vehicle conversions.
3) A tariff on non-NAFTA oil (Canada and Mexico inside and exempt) such that oil must cost a $80/bbl minimum (that assures the alternatives makers a successful market with no ability of OPEC to crash the price).
4) A Sarah style “Drill Drill Drill” program.
5) A halt to the $trillions of spending on social “programs” in DC (i.e. the nationalization of finance and autos, the takeover of the 17% of our economy that is health care, “stimulus” pork, mortgage socialization, etc.) and a firm “sound dollar” program.
6) In my wildest dreams: A firm cap on Federal Spending at no more than 15% of GDP and state spending at no more than 10%. But I know that will never happen… There is an interesting factoid: Countries collapse when total government spending exceeds 50% of the economy. It can take a few years, though. We are going to be at 55% in several states under the proposed new taxes and we’re at about 45% in the others… I’d rather have a 25% limit ( a 1/2 margin of error for all the accounting games that will be played…)
Tallbloke 09:15:19
As I said……… still exciting the same polarity!
For my take on the above post by E.M. Smith, see
“THE GRAND GAME:
The grand game that is being played out around the world involves oil, natural gas, and renewable energy, also automotive technologies, and now climate change legislation. The stakes are high, the players are world-wide, and opportunities for making and losing vast fortunes exist.”
see http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2009/07/peak-oil-and-unicorns-both-mythical.html
A most significant (and recent) move was ExxonMobil’s investment of $600 million into oil-from-algae. This is a VERY significant event in the Grand Game.
ralph ellis (03:14:30) : But there is a much simpler answer to Genesis – it is simply a well-thumbed copy of the Hymn to the Aten, written circa 1340BC by Pharaoh Akhenaton, the monotheist heretic pharaoh of Egypt.
Fascinating. But it doesn’t change the basic question of “calibration”, it just moves the issue back one step in history. There was an interval of Egyptian history when they had “foreign pharos”, the Hixos or Hyksos.
See: http://www.touregypt.net/kings.htm
Down about the Second Intermediate Period
Though “The Naked Archeologist” had an interesting episode on the question that showed a slightly different chronology that makes the match to the evidence on the ground even more exact and matches the Hebrew history too. There is a very real probability that the Egyptian pharaohs from the monotheistic period WERE Hebrews, thus making that story the same as the Jewish one…
While there is fair evidence that these might have been Hebrews, unfortunately, the story stops there with that speculation. We just don’t know.
Factoid: The hieroglyph for “teacher” is a set of two glyphs – one for “star” the other a “gate” … (begin spooky music…)
So my favorite fantasy is that a “teacher from the stars” came down and gave us a bunch of knowledge (such as the Maya calendar and the Genesis story of creation that is a mangled version of relativity and the big bang); then the grant ran out and they had their Peace Corp / Ph.D. Thesis field trip end and went home… Hey, it’s a FUN fantasy 😎
Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to have been any interest shown in us since then, so we’re on our own to solve our problems.
And that leads us back to Sarah…
I don’t care if she believes in Genesis or not. It could be a true, though mangled, history or it could be a religious fantasy. Makes little difference. The social guidance in the Torah and Bible are generally sound advice and I don’t care if the person buys the rest of the story or not. It gives them a good and functional set of standards to guide them. Basically, it filters out a lot of the junk that would otherwise clutter up their thinking. (Like “Do I take the bribe?” “Is it wrong to lie to the people?” “Do I compromise my fundamental beliefs to get this law passed?” “Is bankrupting GM and stealing the Shareholders wealth OK as long as the Unions benefit?” …)
So, basically, I’ll take a religious nut over a socialist nut any day. One works well, the other leads to catastrophe.
Or: we all have our fantasies, I’d rather have the ones that function well be in charge.
A Lovell (10:34:02) :
Tallbloke 09:15:19
As I said……… still exciting the same polarity!
Whatever you think of her, Margaret Thatcher is still considered by very many people to have been the best UK leader since Churchill.
I suspect that when I join the queue to relieve myself on her grave, I will witness ‘very many people’ ahead of me, and ‘very many more’ coming up behind. Miners drink a lot of beer. I’ll take my wellies.
tallbloke 13:46:58
And STILL exciting the same polarity! Ha ha! 🙂
Ok tallbloke, we’ll agree to differ. Goodnight now!
E.M.Smith (11:33:43) :
“Do I compromise my fundamental beliefs to get this law passed?”
How about “Do I support cap and trade to get the Vice Presidency”
Maybe a bit below the belt. Perhaps she thought she’d be able to subvert from within.
“Miners drink a lot of beer. I’ll take my wellies.”
What is so funny about this politically correct hatred of Thatcher, is that so much of it comes from the very coal miners that the left are trying to completely devastate with things like Cap and Trade. I saw Billy Elliot in Soho last winter, and the hatred for her expressed in that play approaches the hatred of Bush, and almost the hatred of Sarah Palin here. All the time, the irony of the absolute political incorrectness of the miner’s cause, and the apparent doublethink by the mostly British was quite a source of amusement. That and the dream number the gay kid character did, which was worth the price of the show.
“The woman who tried to ruin a country with corner shop economics”
I would be interested to see your version of UK economic growth and unemployment trends for the decade before and the decades after Thatcher.
“”” Juliana Smith (16:16:56) :
Sarah Palin is just finishing up all her last minute concerns before leaving her office.
Interesting, Sarah decides to write about America’s unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing.
Sarah could of taken an opportunity to create jobs for Alaskans by participating to receive Obama’s Stimulus Relief to create JOBS. “””
Well aren’t you the generous one Juliana. How much money did you personally contribute to “Obama’s Stimulus Relief to create JOBS.” ?
How much did Obama himself contribute? As for the money; it has all gone; but less than 10% of it has been spent; the rest went into peole’s pockets, or is promised to future socialist programs; which will create zero jobs, and very little of the money that has been spent has created ANY jobs; we are still losing jobs at around a half million a month; so no jobs have been created by “Obama’s Stimulus Relief”.
As for Alaskans; they would have plenty of jobs if the federal government just got out of the way, and let Alaskans run their own Sovereign Republic State.
I’m sure Governor Palin would win a lot of friends by robbing people in other States to hand out money to unemployed Alaskans who are unemployed largely because of federal government interference in State affairs
E.M. Smith, I’d like you to run as Sarah Palin’s VP. I can think of numerous others at WUWT who would make fine Cabinet Secretaries and Assistants. We could have a magnificent U.S. of A. that way — in my opinion.
ralph ellis: In your “response” to my post, you clearly demonstrated that it is easier to snip someone’s point and respond to a caricature of what they said than it is to actually engage their argument. Not all that unusual…the blokes over at RealClimate do the same thing all the time.
“But there is a much simpler answer to Genesis – it is simply a well-thumbed copy of the Hymn to the Aten, written circa 1340BC by Pharaoh Akhenaton, the monotheist heretic pharaoh of Egypt…As it happens, Pharaoh Akenaton’s brother was a high priest called called Moses…”
That is quite a claim you make. Of course there is not a shread of evidence for any of it, but it’s something you accept by faith, so you need no evidence to support your claim.
Janice (07:30:27) : Spot on!
ralph ellis: Not to put too fine a point on this, but since I have a few pearls left I may as well cast them out before you. When you say:
“”Yes, some people did actually, once-upon-a-time in a fairy-tale, believe in Creationism! Can you believe it, kids!! (wipes tear from eye) ho, ho, ho, ho….””
You make my point exactly. You are so afraid that an honest investigation of the data will result in some people accepting a creationist framework that you must put your thumb on the scale and subject anything contrary to your beliefs with scorn and ridicule, rather than facts and logic. This is of a piece with the AGW crowd, who will not engage in honest debate for fear that some people will disagree with them and shatter their “consensus science.”
To reiterate my original point, I believe that an honest, open examination of the data without recourse to ridicule, ad hominen, poisoning the well, flooding the stage, appeals to authority, or straw man arguments is never a thing to be feared, whether the topic is the shape of the earth, its origins, the mechanisms driving its climate, the nature of tectonic mechanics, or the cause or causes of ulcers. Your attacks on people’s religious beliefs in a forum devoted to climate science and whatever else interests Anthony (and I have seen no posts in this fine blog addressing religion in any way) are obnoxious and unwelcome.
E.M.Smith (19:56:32) :
The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom
by Gerald Schroeder
E.M., I am familiar with this book, since we do have a copy of it. My husband has corresponded with the author, and sent him one of the chapters of his own book. It is almost frightening when physicists become theologians, and start using mathematical formulas to describe the amount of energy which God used to create the universe, and what percent of God’s total energy that was. It involves starting with Einstein’s equations for energy.
I’m still coming to grips with 2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2, so I don’t pretend to actually understand it.
I fully support Sara Palin in her position about cap and trade. It will destroy the US economy. In fact the earth has been cooling for the past 8 years!. CO2 levels are still rising thus proving that human carbon emissions are not the cause of climate change. It is a natural phenomena that has been with us for hundreds of years with alterate warm cool warm cool periods.
From Bart Nielsen:
“Your attacks on people’s religious beliefs in a forum devoted to climate science and whatever else interests Anthony (and I have seen no posts in this fine blog addressing religion in any way) are obnoxious and unwelcome.”
Very well put Mr. Neilsen, thank you!
That’s quite a flip flop there Sarah from your earlier “reduce carbon emissions and clean up the planet” cap and trade policy while on the campaign trail. Just goes to show that when in Washington, if you want to play, you have to use “their” playing pieces and talking points. But now that you are not in the game you come out against it? Hmmm. You chicken? Your position would have been the stronger now if you had come out against John’s policy back then and gotten fired for it. Trust me, I have learned a lesson about voting for someone who talks the talk of whoever is in power of purse or politics and agrees to play by the rules, be they liberal OR conservative, in order to get elected. You are coming off as someone like that.
An idea by Youtube account anoniab:
An idea by Youtube account anoniab:
youtube.com/watch?v=Vq5y-IURiBc
Agreed, some of Palin’s campaign statements expressing some support for AGW hypothesis and a form of cap/tax are contradicted by her latest positions therefore making it very hard to have much faith in her “actual” positions, if any. It appears, however, that her actions may provide for greater confidence that Palin really is more supportive of climatological reality than the political opposition’s “religious” beliefs supporting AGW hysteria.
I would prefer a pragmatic climate/energy realist, as Palin appears to be (pin her down until she can’t wiggle out of a position), to the climate/energy AGW ideologues who afford us no escape from suicide except after life threatening masochism.
Some people are teachable, some not. Perfect politicians – perhaps in another solar system.
China has just passed us in CO2 emissions, and since they are building coal fired plants as fast as they can using low grade high sulphuric content coal, and expect to grow about 10% / year, why are they exempt from all controls? I thought the object was to save the planet, not just destroy America. As for Sarah being for cap and trade during the campaign – she still supported both ANWAR and offshore drilling, as well as solar, wind, nuclear and even wave-power. It seemed to me a balanced approach then, and it still does.