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.
[snip – ad hom attack]
I’d be haoppy to see her run as any (GOP) candidate.
Palin is the best thing that ever happened to socialists. Even though I might agree with her, she needs to go away.
Some issues are just too basic. Why CO2 as pollutant, fryer of Earth? Why global governance? Why cap CO2 (and make bazillions of dollars if you can corner the trading market)? Because you abhor US power, US support of democracy in addition to the reality that the US made the world safe for democracy in the 20th Century, and the US ‘s amazing natural resources.
Tarnsman (8:20) writes: “the U.S. and its two neighbors sit atop the world’s largest known hydrocarbon deposits/reserves in the world (oil, coal, tar sands, oil shale, natural gas methane hydrates). The USGS estimates that Alaska alone may be sitting on coal reserves in the neighborhood of 3 TRILLION metric tons.”
Why wants to CAP THIS KIND OF WEALTH AND POWER? I could go on a long time, but summarizing, just try marxist, islamic, and the corrupt wealthy powers on every continent — Obama and the marxists (formerly called Liberals by Conservatives) and their corporate lackeys in Congress and elsewhere, Saudia Arabia, (Iran), Russia, China, Venezuela, the globalists in the EU, and every two-bit dictator.
For my money, Sarah Palin is one of the few who understands the odds and who has actually reformed the corruption that infects and infuses her own party. “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.”
Now she can go national. Find her some worthy partners in “little d” democratic politics.
I prefer my politicians to believe in god and not believe they are a god.
I think it’s completely possible to get off of foreign oil and it’s not even that hard. I’ve read that once a barrel of oil goes above $40 dollars, it’s possible to convert coal to gas/diesel economically. And there’s cleaner ways like using compressed natural gas and of course we could build more nuclear power plants.
And it doesn’t matter if we don’t actually get most of our oil from the middle east because fluctuations in the market that are caused by their problems affect everyone’s price.
“”” fullbodytransplant (11:42:37) :
Oh lord.
I have seen this blog on the top of WordPress every day. I thought you guys were scientists. Now you are embracing the most unintelligent politician of our lifetime?
Color me disappointed. “””
Don’t forget a brain with that transplant. I noticed with all YOUR superior intelligence; you cited not one example to support your declarative assertion.
Why not list just 10 examples for us, and in each case; illustrate by giving President Obama’s, and Vice President Biden’s superior action.
How amusing; my leftist socialist Latina wife just returned from a vacation cruise to Alaska. She never reads any news paper or journal, never listens to any radio news; never watches any TV news (we can’t pick up any); but the is CTA propagandized, and she actually went ashore at Ketchikan (proPalin) and Juneau (anti-Palin); and met some local Alaskans.
When she returned home, she was drooling the anti-Palin vitriol, about as much a torrent, as big Mama Alien was as it Stalked Sigourney Weaver.
A perfectly rational individual reduced to near lunacy, by simply having cruised into Alaskan waters for a couple of days; with not a shred of concrete evidence to support a near maniacal hatred of someone she never has met, or even listened to speak.
By the way; it was a cruise for my MIL’s 90th birthday (I didn’t go); and if I was to call my MIL a “Latina”, she would slap my face for using the Mexican version of the N-word, and rightfully so.
The only thing that racist sexist Sotomayor didn’t say in her whining speech was to call the white man a Gringo; but she meant it.
Now my MIL; there’s one very smart lady.
She has run the ball around end. She has proposed a consistent, possible and sensible energy policy completely without delving into the issue of anthropogenic cause or guilt about climate.
==================================
Craig Moore (08:06:47) :
“Recently, I wrote to Congressman Jay Inslee (D) regarding my objections to cap and trade. He responded with this: “The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that the average cost of getting off of foreign oil and protecting ourselves from climate change by enacting this bill will be 44 cents per day per household.”
Someone may have covered this. It’s important to understand that the estimates thrown about that cap-and-trade will cost less than $0.50 a day are misleading. This cost estimated by the CBO ignores the amount taken in by the government. If electricity rates rise by 40% and gas goes up $0.75/gallon, that is not counted because the money is eventually taken in by the government and you will receive a service for the money you pay in. So even though you pay you will be receiving $3.5 billion for battery research in Ohio, or fuel-efficient car research in Michigan. This is like saying that your income taxes or property taxes don’t count against the amount of money you have. It’s a big assumption and should be pointed out whenever the “….for less than the cost of a postage stamp…” argument is used.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/energyandenvironment/wm2503.cfm
From the Heritage website. “CBO mistakenly assumes that the government spending and distribution of allowance revenue is the dollar-for-dollar equivalent to a direct cash rebate to energy consumers–that is, that the carbon tax is not a tax if the government spends the money, which is simply preposterous.”
Any congressman making such a silly argument should be questioned further.
“Whatever you think of her, Margaret Thatcher is still considered by very many people to have been the best UK leader since Churchill.”
This is a laughable claim by any standard A Lovell. Come to the UK, and the mere mention of “Thatcher” or “the Poll Tax” in any social situation, regardless of political leanings, will exact cries of derision. History has been justifiably unkind to Baroness Thatcher, she is considered by many people to have been one of our very worst leaders.
.
Sorry about all the religious posts on this link, but surely this is central to this discussion. Like religion, AGW is a faith-based, rather than a rational science-based proposal. Thus someone who can be so easily persuaded by Creationism is more likely to argue on the basis of faith and emotion, rather than science and rationalism. (ie, did Palin really write this piece?)
AGW has thrived on the fact that most politicians know NO science whatsoever, and are therefore easy prey for corrupt or ideological ’scientists’. We don’t need more politicians of that ilk in the most powerful post in the world – using wigi boards or the advice of ‘gods’ to decide important policy.
.
I don’t agree that religion is central to this discussion. Through undergrad and then grad school I had some devout professors that were excellent teachers of chemistry, biochemistry, and biology. Someone’s faith is their business and they can reconcile it with science any way they choose. I think here we should stick to the science.
from across the pond:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/i/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml
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. Yet, her main concern is how much money her SarahPAC has received for HER intentions, or the amount of money people would contribute to her defense trust fund to cover the $600,000 legal expenses during a recession.
I just want Sarah to leave her office, so that those people who really do care about Alaskans~Americans can get some work done.
Steelbound ,
If memory serves , several years ago the price was about eighty dollars a barrel to make coal conversion economically feasible . OPEC has tried to keep oil under that price .
ralph ellis (15:00:06) :
“AGW has thrived on the fact that most politicians know NO science whatsoever, and are therefore easy prey for corrupt or ideological ’scientists’”
One does not need to be a scientist to ‘know’ about science. Palin has stated she grew up in a home with a science teacher for a father.
Growing up in any home children learn, by ‘osmosis’, whatever it is their parents have as their specialty or interest.
I grew up with an electrician father. I can make/repair electrical extension cords, tv cables, and a variety of other electrical items, as can my siblings.
My parents were gardeners, I know gardening. I don’t like it but I know it.
My children know the law because they have grown up with my knowledge of the law. When it comes to the law they are the go-to people amongst their friends. We talk about it at home and they have learned but not studied the law around the kitchen table.
Now they are the go-to people on the science of climate change because of my interest.
My point is everyone has knowledge gained around the breakfast table. Just because Palin does not have a science degree it does not follow she nor anyone like her has no science knowledge.
I do not imagine everyone that comments on this site has a science degree but some times I wonder, given the level of scientific knowledge that is obvious at WUWT even from those that have stated their lack of science degrees.
My final point is that ‘AGW has not thrived on the fact that most politicians know no science’. It has thrived because the media is behind it 110%, the media is behind the ‘looney left’ Social Democrat agenda 110% and pushes their agenda no matter its consequences. The public are as informed as the leftist media allows them to be.
Senator Fielding admitted to as much in Australia when he said
“Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions…”
People have accepted AGW without question because the media have reported it to be fact and not the fiction is proving to be.
The problem the AGW hoaxists face in the very near future is that people will look out their windows and see that the earth has not warmed, the climate is cooling and there will be nothing alarmists can do to change the facts.
It will not be necessary to know science when this happens.
Imran Husain (14:57:02) :
You obviously circulate only in socialist circles.
She may have believed that AGW was real,but is now a sceptic.A lot of people still do not believe it is false,it has not proven to be false yet,I imagine she has to be careful,the world could start warming again at any time,then how would she look?The woman is Governor,she can’t be that dumb.She has said herself that she has picked a good team,she acknowledges that she is nothing without the right people,true for a president too.I don’t believe that Obama will ever be able to say he picked the right people,but I could be wrong.I often wonder what it is about her that brings out such vitriol,she is not a nasty person,and does not deserve to be treated as she is by the media.The phrase clean coal is the only way a politician dared to advocate the use of it in such a vicious political campaign for AGW.Sometimes I think the politicians are too afraid of the press.They have given them the power by kowtowing to them.You only have to look at what is going on with Italy’s leader to see what happens to a politician who does not pander to them.
Mark_0454, I agree. My point was to highlight how the D’s are playing the foreign source “reduction” card with their moonbeams and butterfly wings solutions, as Gov. Dixie Lee Ray use to say. Although a D herself, she had absolutely no tolerance for BS that conflicted with real science.
From Ian Plimer, author of Heaven and Earth:
‘When I try explaining “global warming” to people in Iran or Turkey they have no idea what I’m talking about. Their life is about getting through to the next day, finding their next meal. Eco-guilt is a first-world luxury. It’s the new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity. The IPCC report is their Bible. Al Gore and Lord Stern are their prophets.’
For ralph ellis:
AGW and extreme environmentalism is a religion without any hope. I prefer a religion like Christianity that offers hope.-and I consider myself a thinker, able to argue quite well using both logic and reason. Just because a person is a Christian, doesn’t mean they are opposed to science- ever hear of Pascal or Newton?
I just want Sarah to leave her office, so that those people who really do care about Alaskans~Americans can get some work done.
Does “get some work done” mean “take federal handouts”?
ralph ellis: “Sound reasonable? Well, as this article points out, would we teach children that the Earth may either be flat or spherical, and let them decide? Not even an idiot would propose that one…”
If you wanted to teach children to think critically, it would probably be a good idea to tell them that at various times in history people have believed in both a flat and spherical world. Then encourage them to study the evidence for themselves, debate their findings with each other, and see what conclusion they would reach. When my children are a little older I will probably do this exercise with them. I would far rather that they understand and internalize the evidence and reach a reasoned conclusion than that they mindlessly regurgitate that which others have concluded, even when those conclusions are true. (FWIW, I have utmost confidence that my children will not by this means become flat earth believers. I do not share your fear for the true conclusion to be reached by careful examination of the evidence; and I believe they would benefit by the performing the scientific demonstration involved.)
In fact, the biggest problem in the AGW debate is that far too many people accept the “consensus science” (an nonsequiter if ever there was one) because someone supposedly better informed than they have concluded it is true. No amount of evidence which undercuts the AGW premise will be admitted by the AGW true believers, ergo they are not engaged in science, or in examining science, but instead are repeating fairy tales told to them by people seeking political power.
That’s pretty funny coming from a guy whose party elected a man who uses a teleprompter in press conferences.
Gotta Love her!
First time I can ever remember a politician clearly stating how energy economics really work and with a clear grasp of economic consequences of energy supply and costs.
If she can just get the “handlers” to leave her alone to be herself… The wooden stereotype that showed up in interviews after being given over to the “handlers” is a pale shell of what she is when telling ’em to go stuff it.
Saw film of her today on Fox, hauling in a fishing net. First time I ever saw a Governor that I’d like to go fishing with and buy ’em a beer…
What I’d give to see Pelosi, Boxer, Waxman, any of them up to their knees in mud and hip waders pulling on a net full of flopping fish 😎 Or trying to gut and fillet one!
I have no idea if I agree with most of her positions, or not, but I’m certain we need more folks who are “grounded” like she is, and less folks with law degrees and no idea where sushi comes from or what makes a car go…
P Walker (16:25:13) :
Steelbound ,
If memory serves , several years ago the price was about eighty dollars a barrel to make coal conversion economically feasible . OPEC has tried to keep oil under that price .
It’s down to about $50 to $60 / bbl now. OPEC is not going to be able to keep prices low enough to stop it. China just bought about a $Billion worth of coal to fuel plants from a couple of suppliers. SYMX Synthesis Energy is one of them, I think SSL Sasol may be involved with the other one.
In my more paranoid moments, I think maybe the “CO2 is evil you can’t use coal” (and by extension, coal conversion) movement might be funded by OPEC members. If fits the “simplest while explaining all the facts” test, but fails the “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity” test. There is so much stupidity that it’s a very high hurdle 😉