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.
I’m Australian….. I wish Sarah Palin was a player in our Political system. The moment I first heard her speak…. She made sense.
You Americans are lucky to have a political entity that still thinks you are worth the effort.
Yowsah! Yowsah! Yowsah!
I suppor her. Totally. I don’t believe in Democrat/Republican. They are the same animal. Sarah is someting else.
I agree completely. That woman is brilliant!
Common sense is so lacking in the Democratic party, that I left it years ago. I want common sense government.
Sarah would get my vote.
theduke (22:14:40) : There is no reason to cease buying foreign energy products if their market value is far cheaper than similar domestic products would be.
Guess you never lived though the Arab Oil Embargo of the ’70s. Economy brought to it’s knees, gas lines, you could by 10 gallons of gas on the odd or even day depending on your plate. Cold buildings. Unable to fuel a full on military action.
There is absolutely every reason to cease buying foreign energy products. Stability of supply is far more important than cheapness of supply. Ability to field an army AT ANY TIME is far more important than being able to do it cheaply when you don’t need to. Keeping a few $Trillion in our own economy rather than sending it to folks the hate us. The list goes on…
If the West stopped buying energy from the Middle East, the place would turn into a huge killing ground very quickly. We have an important national security interest in maintaining some kind of stability in the Middle East.
Not my problem. I don’t see any reason to care if the place is stable, or not, after we have fuel independence. Were I in charge, we’d have a 5 year plan to run the whole country on synthetic GTL and CTL fuels. At the end of that time, I’d tell OPEC that we didn’t care what they did and I’d tell the entire middle east that our “financial aid” bribe payments were shut off now. Then I’d bring home every soldier and every bit of military gear from the entire Eurpean / Asian / African theatre and tell them to have a nice day.
Oil revenues support political stability and promote economic growth in that region. We don’t want those positive outcomes to be extinguished.
Political Stability like in Iraq under Sadam? Iran? The Saudi method? Chavez in Venezuela? And just WHY do I care about economic growth in Iran, Iraq, or wherever? I care a great deal more about jobs in the USA leaving for China.
Furthermore, the US buys much of its oil from Mexico and Canada so the claim that we are financing terrorists by buying huge amounts of oil from nations that tolerate, foster or finance terrorism is clearly exaggerated.
You forgot all the oil we get from Venzuela, Iraq, Iran? And our support for “stability in the region” that lets the European and Asian money flow in to them too…
Our nation’s domestic oil reserves are best left undeveloped to be relied upon in the case of a catastrophic world crisis, the probability of which is much greater now than it was two years ago.
Since it takes 5 to 10 years to develop a field, and “world crisis” will be long over before any oil in the ground makes a darned bit of difference.
Now, what would make a great deal of sense, would be to build all the coal to oil plants needed to run the country, stockpile a years worth of coal at each site, all the time burning someone else’s oil, THEN tell them what the oil price will be this month – Or Else. Then we could “cut over” to domestic fuels whenever desired and for whatever reason and duration.
Further, there is absolutely no reason to “save the oil”. It does not get better with age and there is no shortage of energy:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/
South Africa and Brazil both told OPEC to go stuff it, so we have two existence proofs that it can be done. SSL does a great job of turning coal to “oil products” in South Africa and running a relatively modern economy on it. Brazil, well, it being one of the current Wunderkind Economies kind of speaks for itself… CZZ Cosan makes the ethanol component of the mix. PBR does the oil and delivery / distribution. Three companies in the USA do it on a small demonstration scale: SYMX Synthesis Energy, SYNM Syntroleum, RTK Rentech and several of the oil majors do it too: BP, CVX Chevron / Texeco, and RDS Royal Dutch Shell at a minimum.
All it takes is political will.
tallbloke (00:03:50) : And of course, any major oil spill will mind it’s business and stay on it’s 2000acre reservation.
Well, yes. It’s so darned cold up there that the heavy crude they pump has to be heated up a lot to move. On the surface, it would be like tarmac in the Arctic.
Per quantity: There is a great deal in the Alaska National Petroleum Reserve to the West of ANWR. Nobody knows about to the east… that’s what exploration is about. Out to sea is thought to be a large quantity, but again, exploration is sparse. The surrounding geology and present oil fields do speak to an expectation of a few decades worth, though.
http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/energy/oil_gas/npra.html
UK Sceptic (00:34:52) : What will happen if Obama’s birth certificate proves he’s not born in the US? Will this see him thrown out of office for breaching the rules?
As I understand it, he has to be a “natural born citizen” i.e. not naturalized.
Since his mom is a US citizen, I don’t think it matters what dirt was under the hospital where he was born. He’s a US citizen unless she denounced hers.
Janice (07:09:24) :
nvw, I am always amazed at the misinterpretation of Genesis, chapter 1. As a fundamentalist Jew, I can sympathize with the fundamentalist Christians who are always being told by others what they believe. Certainly, if you wish to believe that Genesis says that the earth was created in seven days, I cannot prevent you. However, the time period that is expressed does not actually translate to a day. In point of fact, we don’t know what it translates to. It is one of those words in Hebrew that we have lost the translation for. It could stand for an indeterminate amount of time, or it could stand for a billion years.
There is a fascinating book, who’s title escapes me at the moment, something like “The Science of God” or creation… The author makes the rather interesting observation that when relativity is taken into account, time passed much differently at the start of the “bang”.
If you calibrate your clock to the beginning, each “day” matches the biblical record. As time dilates, we start to get millions and then billions of years passing in each ‘day’. The startling thing is the near exact match of the biblical list of events vs the scientific.
Perhaps the “7 days” really is just an instrument calibration issue 😎
Ah, a bit of creative googling has found it:
http://books.google.com/books?id=OqRxtkaFjVwC&dq=science+god+creation+relativity+time&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=G0RdSsuyJYfiswPb-IGpCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12
The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom
by Gerald Schroeder
A fascinating read… and I’m from the more or less agnostic camp; as likely to believe that “Space Aliens were on a Peace Corp mission” as that “God did it”…
Gee, Sarah Palin and General Relativity in the same discussion 😉
I’m always entertained by Sarah Palin posts, on any blog or forum.
I wonder how many people realize that they have been programmed to hate this woman? Programmed like automatons. It’s really quite amusing to watch from the outside.
Myself, I have a LOT of respect for her. She’s out there, she knows full well what kind of sh**storm has been aimed in her direction, and she’s having fun with it. It’s especially fun watching people who fundamentally agree with her but hate her.
Hoi Polloi
No, I would not want the SNL crew to be the next POTUS. It is bad enough we have one as a Senator.
“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…”
Amen to that, if that’s not too religious.
Colorado Citizen (07:35:26) : The point of cap and trade is to reduce pollution.
Only if you accept the logical fallacy that CO2 is “pollution”. It isn’t.
The rest of your argument falls apart since it depends on the proposition that CO2 is “pollution”.
Hmmm Mufft…
Maybe I was wrong…
(US Constitution “legal reference” in 1770’s) Vattel – Law Of Nations – Book 1, Section 212 – “natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” “…in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen.”
Since Obama’s Dad was Kenyan and it looks like he was born not on U.S. soil…
At the least, the case is plausible and needs a hearing.
I happen to like Sara Palin and find the negative comments here typical of the shallow talking points from the MSM. I agree with the points in her article and thought the article was focused, well written, and clearly made two major points; mostly that the cap and trade bill will severely hurt the economy and that we have major oil/gas/and other resources that we should utilize instead of depending so much on imports. I find it interesting that some of the criticism herein was that the article did not elaborate on other points such as the purpose of the cap and trade bill, etc. The focus of the article was important given the venue. The fact that CO2 is not a pollutant and the objective of the Pelosi bill is power, control and tax is better covered in a later article.
Some thoughts on the negative comments:
“She doesn’t understand any issue! She just repeats talking point she gets from people in the Republican party. The whole get off foreign oil dependency is made by those who have no remote idea where our energy comes from nor how it is used…”
Typical shallow criticism of Palin. I suspect she knows more about this subject than the person who made these statements. Of course it is very unlikely that we will totally get off foreign oil, but if we developed our vast resources we could easily rid ourselves of the 16% we import from the middle east and possibly also eliminate our dependence on oil from Chavez. Just think of all the positive benefits if we imported a lot less oil by developing our own resources. These would include reduced flow of US dollars overseas, decreased dependence on oil from less friendly countries , high paying jobs in the US, royality payments to our governments, reduced need for a strategic reserve, and probably a more stable crude oil price, not controlled by OPEC.
It boggles my mind that we are the only country that strangles our energy production. On the other hand the President’s claim that renewables will get us off foreign oil is either a carefully crafted fib or based on total ignorance of thermodynamics and economics. Renewables will not provide 16% of our liquid fuels anytime soon and maybe never. Meanwhile he does everything possible to impede US exploration and production of gas and oil which will ultimately increase our dependence on foreign oil when these scams fail.
“We do not have the oil reserves to get off foreign oil, not unless you want to pay $10 a gallon. Energy independence is a myth repeated by those who do not understand economics. ”
reply: I would tend to agree that near term we will not be totally off foreign oil, but wonder what you meant by “reserves” According to wiki:
“Reserves are those quantities of petroleum claimed to be commercially recoverable by application of development projects to known accumulations under defined conditions.[6] Reserves must satisfy four criteria: They must be:
discovered through one or more exploratory wells[6]
recoverable using existing technology[6]
commercially viable[6]
remaining in the ground[6]”
There is a lot of oil and gas potential in the US that is not counted as “reserves” by that definition. Brazil recently discovered huge oil reservoirs off shore that are now added to their reserves. I betcha Sara understands the difference between proven reserves and potential reserves and the vast possibilities if we unleash our companies that have a proven ability to find and deliver energy.
And of course if we really wanted to get off foreign oil, we could always convert our huge coal deposits to liquid fuels since we developed and demonstrated that technology in the 70/80’s. I worked on these projects and they were killed when OPEC decided to end their embargo and lower the price realizing we could get along without them. At that time the cost was about $40/bbl so $10/gallon ($420/bbl) sounds way too high even given inflation.
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 by 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.
.
>>>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.
Precisely, which is why it should be kept out of political speeches.
If a UK prime minister invoked god in a speech, as a medium for policy change, they would be laughed out of office and into the funny-farm.
Remember that this ‘under god’ business was only added to the US oath in 1954. It was not their previously because the founding fathers understood that religion was divisive, and it was religious infighting that led many people to escape to the US in the first place. Thus the state was declared to be secular, so that it would not favour any particular private religion.
The USA is going backwards, not forwards.
>>>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.
Not so, Hussain. Like Palin, Thatcher became the darling of true Brit blue collar worker, most especially those who were self employed. They saw the value of rolling back socialism and did well out of it.
The people who rebelled against the poll tax were invariably left-wing students and civil servants, who hated the thought of actually making a living for themselves independent of the government teat (coal workers included).
On the poll-tax issue the socialist workers party won that particular battle, but that does not mean that Mrs T was not hugely respected by many. My only bitch against her is that she let too much of the UK’s industry go to the wall – a legacy that we are still having to deal with.
Yes, Wilson, an interesting new book ‘Heaven and Earth’ (anti-AGW). Many familiar phrases that appear on this site, I think.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml
I have placed the text on the WUWT notes and tips, as it is a bit long for here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-notes-to-wuwt/#comment-159481
(bottom of page)
“E.M.Smith (21:00:08) :
Hmmm Mufft…
Maybe I was wrong…
(US Constitution ‘legal reference’ in 1770’s) Vattel – Law Of Nations – Book 1, Section 212 – ‘natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ‘…in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen.’
Since Obama’s Dad was Kenyan and it looks like he was born not on U.S. soil…
At the least, the case is plausible and needs a hearing.”
++++++
Spot on in your analysis. Just a couple points to add. I’ve considered Vattel’s work to have been the Constitution framers’ handbook. I’ve also seen protestations by some that this work had not been translated into English when the Constitution was written (The Law of Nations was written in French). Such protests overlook the point that French was also spoken by the colonists – it was a different world then, English was not the dominant language in the world as it is today.
Accepting that Obama was born in Hawaii, he still has the problem that’s always been the key argument in most of the court cases – one parent (his father) was not a US citizen and so natural born status could not be conferred upon him. At best, he’s a US citizen by birth only.
And now it is up to the courts. And with their slow deliberative process it will still be several months before there’s a definitive ruling and that will probably come out of the Supreme Court. When that happens, here’s some additional irony – if confirmed by the Senate as an Associate Justice of the Supreme, Sonia Sotomayor would have to recuse herself from making a ruling, leaving the the decision in the hands of the remaining eight justices. This has all the makings of a major Constitutional crisis. If the court decides against Obama, then everything he’s done is null and void. Think about that for a minute. All laws & executive orders signed, all cabinet appointments, etc. What about his choice for vice president? If that’s the case, would that then make Nancy Pelosi the new President?
Will the election in 2012 be between Palin & Pelosi?
>>>One does not need to be a scientist to ‘know’ about
>>>science. 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.
Precisely – you are NORMAL. Politicians are not NORMAL. In the UK they tend to be lawyers, who are sons of lawyers and know absolutely nothing about hard graft or the real world.
Ditto, the political sons and daughters of union officials; politicians; local government officers; civil servants; company managers etc: etc:
The number of politicians in the UK who are the children of real people with real-world experience is near to zero.
In part, that is why Mrs T became so popular. While she was not truly a real-worlder (she did get a BSc in chemistry, hooray), she made great play on her grocer shopkeeper father and her running a domestic household. Running a country’s finances, she told us, was like holding the household purse-strings – you must live within your means. (Obama and Brown please take note – running to the bank for a loan every month is not a long term option.) This message struck a resonance with many people.
>>>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.
Agreed.
“”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….””
Yes, I think that’s a good idea.
>>>In fact, the biggest problem in the AGW debate is that far too
>>>many people accept the “consensus science” (an non-sequitur
>>>if ever there was one) because someone supposedly better
>>>informed than they have concluded it is true.
Precisely – AGW has become a faith rather than a science. Science should always be self-critical, to cross check itself, and not get bogged down in ‘consensus’.
But science is run by people, and people do strange things. As was pointed out elsewhere, the consensus said that stomach ulcers were caused by stomach acid, and the two people who said otherwise were castigated as raving idiots. They now have Nobel prizes.
>>>if you wish to believe that Genesis says that the earth was
>>>created in seven days, I cannot prevent you.
>>Perhaps the “7 days” really is just an instrument calibration issue.
Don’t you love these literalists! Halleluja!!
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.
The only difference is that the Hymn to the Aten was not a creation epic, it was a celebration of the dawn of a new day – a part of the morning liturgy for his brave, new (monotheistic) religion.
As it happens, Pharaoh Akenaton’s brother was a high priest called called Moses…
Shock horror – that’s far to logical – where is my faith??
George E. Smith : You call her what you want. I will call her Sarah if I want. That’s the beauty of free speech. Geeze you sound like Boxer. I’ve never used her full title either:P
I wonder if any of you watched the house telecast when they were passing the energy bill through the house. They call it the Energy Independence and Security Act. and the three things they (house dems supporting bill) consistently quoted its purpose was 1. Energy Independence, 2. Green Job creation, 3. Co2 reduction to get Global Warming under control. No they didn’t get the climate change vs. global warming memo. Seems to me Sarah got the talking points right here and knows as much or more of the actual science than the writers of said bill.
Secondly, I remember initially she said she did not believe in AGW and would take McCain to Alaska to change his mind. After a while though she had to adopt her party line like a good vice presidential candidate. If we want to talk political flip flop I could mention Obama on coal in SF and Obama on clean coal on the campaign trail in a coal state.. enough said.
and Finally, I am sick and tired of religion and politics. I have yet to see Sarah Palin force her religion on anyone. I would appreciate it if people who lack religion would quit forcing their beliefs on everyone else. Maybe I should protest that there isn’t an s on the end of god??? I doubt you would like that much either. I wont force my religion or lack there of on you, if you will agree to do the same.
As much as I like what I hear in what her statement has, It still rings of the same partyline that she was spewing in with McCain’s “Trust me, I know what to do” rhetoric.
She’s a professional politician and is not very trust-worthy. However, she would still probably be better than Obummer I think. Then again, a used car salesman would be better than Obummer. My dog would be better than Obummer.
Imran Husain 14.57:02
I happen to live in the UK and have done for nearly 60 years. We obviously move in very different ‘social situations’. I stand by my observations and my long experience of British politics.
Thanks to Robert Wood and Ralph Ellis.
Anthony, this is indeed your blog, and I would not presume to tell you how to run it. However, in the mode of a friend, I would like to point out something, and you can do what you like with it. In this particular thread, the subject of religion was brought up several times with a rather derogatory tone before anyone posted any type of rebuttal. You did not make any comments about limiting religious comments until the rebuttals started showing up. In the interests of consistency, you might consider editing any and all posts that relate to religion or religious belief, no matter what the topic or context might be. It would then make it harder for us to hijack a thread in order to start a really good fight about theology (which was, probably, inappropriate to the spirit of your original posting).