June 26, 2009

BREAKING: Dark Days Getting Darker

Justin Katz

Well, it isn't law yet, I suppose, but when legislative supporters of a government change as well as the Associated Press admit substantial cost to an initiative, it certainly gives pause:

In a triumph for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed sweeping legislation Friday that calls for the nation's first limits on pollution linked to global warming and aims to usher in a new era of cleaner, yet more costly energy.

Americans are going to feel the effects of their action with the last election, and they aren't going to like it. Bitter pills and broken eggs are key ingredients in the hope and change omelet.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

Since I'm a glass half full person, I'm going to try to give a different perspective. A frown is just an upside down smile. Let's look at the positive.

I don't see this as necessarily negative. In fact, I see plenty of positive political potential. Sure, it's a horrifically bad bill, especially for our nation's economy, and the tax payers that make it go. If also approved by the US Senate (where I think it's very possible it will be stopped) it would possibly represent the largest tax increase in the history of mankind ... and I'm not using hyperbole. The best part (politically, for us) is that the taxe increases would be widespread and would be paid mainly by those least able to afford it. Businesses with increased costs pass those costs to consumers or they go out of business, causing unemployment. Economic Apocalypse. Yes. Political opportunity? Yes.

On the bright side, the GOP -- if it can get its act together -- can use this and other abuses by House Dems like a club between now and 2010, to repeatedly remind average Americans how radical the Dems in Washington really are. I see this as the first step of regaining Republican control of Congress. Not sure it will happen in 2010, but I think we're definitely heading back in that direction.

They've handed us a winning issue.

Posted by: Will at June 27, 2009 2:49 AM


The bill passed b/c of a bunch of RINOs. If they had voted for the American people then we wouldn't have to deal with this mess. Hopefully Inhofe is correct and it's dead in the senate.

pun intended...this issue is too hot to play with...

Posted by: tcc3 at June 27, 2009 7:42 AM

Let's be clear that cap and trade would have zero effect on global warming and a nominal effect, if any, on pollution in general.

It will have a substantially damaging effect on our economy as more and more manufacturers move operations to countries who have less exacting environmental regulations.

Some well-intentioned people in Washington have gotten some bad information. If cap and trade passes, Americans will spend a lot of money and lose even more business base for absolutely no reason.

Posted by: Monique at June 27, 2009 8:06 AM

Monique - the manufacturers already moved. They moved because of labor costs and lack of pollution controls. That argument has passed.

Wal-Mart has the largest private physical plant and recognized the need to reduce carbon emissions years ago. The steps they took actually save energy and enhance the bottom line for their shareholders. Wal-Mart was a beneficiary of brilliant forward thinking planning to reduce long term costs.

The fact is these measures will drive innovation. Necessity is the mother of invention - the cornerstone of economic growth.

Posted by: Robert Balliot at June 27, 2009 10:15 AM

See, I happen to find there to be a difference between "necessity" and "mandate that ultimately filters down to consumers."

Wal-Mart figured out that it could reduce costs and ultimately be more competitive in the marketplace if it invested in a few simple steps (white ceilings, skylights, closed-door refrigeration, according to the video to which you link). The dynamic involved is wholly different than forcing an entire market to operate within dictated limits.

Invention is costly. When there's a true necessity, individuals and companies will risk everything and undertake severe burdens to achieve it, but they'll always attempt to pass that burden on as much as possible.

Posted by: Justin Katz at June 27, 2009 10:32 AM

Justin - market conditions are a mandate to stockholders and government regulation is, by definition, a market condition. So is the cost and ecology of utilizing energy.

Wal-Mart had the intelligence and insight of the global marketplace to lead and the relative value of Wal-Mart stocks to other US companies continued to increase. Most companies do not have the global perspective necessary to envision the real marketplace.

Would you call the board of Wal-Mart RINOs and other such nonsense for following ecologically and economically responsible policies at a global level?

Posted by: Robert Balliot at June 27, 2009 12:06 PM

So start a company that advises smaller companies about the wonders of ecologically responsible technology. If they can't otherwise compete with Wal-Mart, and if you'll be saving them money, I'm sure they'll be very receptive.

Posted by: Justin Katz at June 27, 2009 12:42 PM

So, Robert, there are no manufacturers whatsoever left in the United States?

Huh. Where do I file to get a refund of the subsidy I provided GM?

Posted by: Monique at June 27, 2009 5:06 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.