Post-2000 conservative epiphany, I have come to realize that many of the leaders of my former Democratic Party must not really care for the poor given their denial of the poor boats lifted by Reaganite supply side economic policies and given their continuing advocacy of proven failed liberal policies since the 1960s.
[See * at end of column for background.]
Even while an activist Democratic Party official, I mostly refused to acquiesce in the liberal line that Republicans didn’t care about the poor or that they would take away the checks form the poor, old and disabled.
But I can’t help but think that many Democrats care much more power gains through victim dependency given their history since JFK was assassinated and especially given their support for a Cap and Trade energy tax that would directly and drastically lower the standing of living of the poor and middle class by making it impossible for them to afford many of the necessities of life.
We saw last summer what $4/gallon gasoline did to lower income families, by forcing choices between driving to one’s job or having enough money to feed the children.
Make no mistake, even if I thought that man’s use of and breathing out of carbon could cause the shoreline to receded, I would not favor a draconian assault on the modern world and return to a green Dickensian world or horse manure-filled streets and buck stove smoke-filled air in London.
But the whole man-made global warming (MMGW), now conveniently known as “climate change” (as if) since the earth has cooled since 1998 (thus calling into question whether there is an non-man made global warming taking place), is a crock. My client, The Sun, in the inter-galactic case styled as The Sun v. Al Gore et al, warms the earth; not cow flatulence and Chevrolets. In fact, half of the Eastern Seaboard was under the Atlantic for 10,000 years, tens of thousands of years before the first Corvette rilled off a Dearborn, Michigan assembly line.
Hence, my initial disgust with South Carolina Republican (btw, the first DC GOP office-seeker I ever voted for) Sen. Lindsey Graham’s agreement with Sen. John “I served in Vietnam” Kerry (D-MA) on the “reality” of “climate change” (Well, we all have to agree there is climate change every day, hell every minute…but they mean global warming and say so in the column).
The Pink Flamingo objected to my harsh judgment of Lindsey, despite his history of sticking McCain-like pointy sticks in fellow Republicans eyes so as to secure co-starring roles on TV network Sunday Shows. We do recall that Graham spoke to La Raza during the illegal immigration amnesty debate and called all the opponents of the bill “racists”? I remember. I also know that when LG gets something right, like the war, he can be the best advocate on your side, but I digress. Here is the very specific (I like that) retort from SJR (link above):
The following paragraph from the NYTimes is being constantly ignored. You might want to pay a little attention to it. To come from John Kerry it is extremely revealing:
“…Failure to act comes with another cost. If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration will use the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations. Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher and they certainly will not include the job protections and investment incentives we are proposing…”
There are at least two trains of thought on the danger of a President Barack Obama extra-constitutional Czar-like overreach in making law via new regulatory interpretations of existing statutes related to the EPA, CWA, ESA with respect to energy and environment restrictions on carbon as a pollutant and FDA with respect to tobacco.
Firstly though, whether or not a Cap and Trade bill would absolutely prevent unitary executive action would depend upon whether any new statute directly repeals existing vague language with respect to environmental protections, clean water and endangered species laws already in effect.
I doubt any new statute would deter Obama’s impatient regulators. After all, these folks have been waiting their whole lives to “fundamentally change” America (to use Obama’s campaign rhetoric – yes, he only used that specific phrase once before Axelrod schooled the Boy Prince…) and were frustrated when Bill Clinton triangulated with Newt and when Gore used to be the next President of the United States.
But, I should mention that many scholars think that the regulatory threat is a Red Herring since any attempts to increase carbon regulations via executive action would get tied up in the courts for many years.
In any event, that argument by the senior senator from the Palmetto State strikes me as more make weight, since Graham religiously asserts his faith in the fundamental premise of MMGW and in his support for a Cap and Trade tax on the energy that created the modern world and which tax is a sinfully regressive tax on the poor in the purchase of food and transportation to their jobs. It would eliminate any “luxury” like a weekly trip to any Grandmother living more than 30 miles away.
But, challenged to re-read the Kerry-Graham news deemed fit to print, I did find that I was pleased with a number of fundamental truths that Graham got a far left liberal to agree to, in writing no less. Yes, the truths are vaguely stated and offered as measures for merely tempering the effect of the NEW TAX on the American standard of living, but welcome, nonetheless, and quite useful for future debates.
The “good news” admissions by Kerry (link above) for the Left are that new on- and offshore oil and natural gas drilling and nuclear power can be part of the answer to our energy needs. They actually mention our need to end dependence on foreign oil; energy efficiency and pollution control.
Sign me up for all that. One wonders if they noticed how we cleaned up America’s air and water from 1970-2009 while greatly increasing the emission of carbon. The fact is that their Cap and Trade bill hinders all of those goals.
I especially liked these paragraphs from the Old Gray Lady aka The Times:
Second, while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power, our single largest contributor of emissions-free power. Nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets. We need to jettison cumbersome regulations that have stalled the construction of nuclear plants in favor of a streamlined permit system that maintains vigorous safeguards while allowing utilities to secure financing for more plants. We must also do more to encourage serious investment in research and development to find solutions to our nuclear waste problem.
Third, climate change legislation is an opportunity to get serious about breaking our dependence on foreign oil. For too long, we have ignored potential energy sources off our coasts and underground. Even as we increase renewable electricity generation, we must recognize that for the foreseeable future we will continue to burn fossil fuels. To meet our environmental goals, we must do this as cleanly as possible. The United States should aim to become the Saudi Arabia of clean coal. For this reason, we need to provide new financial incentives for companies that develop carbon capture and sequestration technology.
In addition, we are committed to seeking compromise on additional onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration — work that was started by a bipartisan group in the Senate last Congress. Any exploration must be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner and protect the rights and interests of our coastal states.
Implicit in the suggested go slow approach so as not to threaten jobs and the burden on the poor, discussed elsewhere in the column, is that this is not a real crisis.
Thanks for that admission most of all! We now have a major liberal Democratic Party leader on record. Let’s use it to kill Cap and Trade; enact supply side tax and regulation cuts; open up expanded oil and natural gas exploration; and build nuclear power plants and oil refineries.
Kerry is all for it. Thanks Lindsey.
* [This column was inspired by regular R412 commenter, SJ Reidhead aka SJR The Pink Flamingo, who objected to my harsh criticism of Lindsey Graham’s co-authorship of a NYT editorial suggesting a left-right compromise on a Cap and Trade Bill before the international community meeting on the issue this month in Copenhagen, Denmark. A portion of this column will appear in an upcoming column I am working on for this week that cites some DeVine conservative agreements with the ObamaDems on particular matters.]
See also Dr. Roy Spencer’s An Expensive Urban Legend.
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson