Friday, December 11, 2009
Something you need to know
The Campaign for Working Families PAC tells us why Obama's EPA should officially stand for Everyboy Pays out the Ass ...
Earlier this week, the Obama Administration announced that it would unilaterally regulate carbon emissions unless Congress adopted a cap and trade scheme. I’ve devoted a lot of space in this report to explaining the tremendous implications of cap and trade, but you could summarize it this way: a cap on our prosperity that trades our liberty for a radical ideology. Tuesday, the White House made clear what that ideology is – Soviet-style socialism.
Responding to the EPA’s announcement that it would begin regulating carbon, a top White House official issued a blunt threat to our elected representatives: "If you [Congress] don’t pass this legislation [cap and trade], then ... the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area. And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty."
That statement is a declaration of war against working families and America’s free-market economy. The White House is telling Congress to pick its poison – cap and trade or command-and-control. That’s extortion, but that’s the "Chicago way," isn’t it? And when did White House officials start using phrases like "command-and-control"? I thought command-and-control economies died with the Soviet Union.
This threat gives you some idea of just how devastating cap and trade is for the economy. The White House is unintentionally admitting, "We know cap and trade is bad. But the EPA regulations would be really, really bad." The administration is playing a game of chicken with the economy in the middle of a severe recession.
There is a way out of this – rein in the bureaucracy and reduce the size and scope of government. Congress can amend the Clean Air Act to strip the EPA of authority over carbon emissions. That would be the most logical thing to do. Sadly, the Democrat Party has been taken over by radicals, many of whom are ideologically biased against common sense and fundamental economics. (If you needed any more evidence of the radical ideology behind climate change, a leader of the Chinese delegation in Copenhagen just announced that population control "fits right into the picture.")
So, what’s the alternative? Clint Eastwood’s famous line comes to mind: "Go ahead, make my day." Pollster Scott Rasmussen found that just 24% of American adults felt the EPA should act unilaterally to regulate carbon emissions. Republicans ought to call Obama’s bluff: They should fight cap and trade tooth and nail, and dare Obama to destroy the economy with his command-and-control ideology.
Ulysses S. Grant said, "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." Perhaps it’s time to test that method. If enough Americans get fed up with the Obama/Reid/Pelosi experiment in socialism, we can defeat a lot of obnoxious liberals and get about the business of repealing a lot of bad laws.
Earlier this week, the Obama Administration announced that it would unilaterally regulate carbon emissions unless Congress adopted a cap and trade scheme. I’ve devoted a lot of space in this report to explaining the tremendous implications of cap and trade, but you could summarize it this way: a cap on our prosperity that trades our liberty for a radical ideology. Tuesday, the White House made clear what that ideology is – Soviet-style socialism.
Responding to the EPA’s announcement that it would begin regulating carbon, a top White House official issued a blunt threat to our elected representatives: "If you [Congress] don’t pass this legislation [cap and trade], then ... the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area. And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty."
That statement is a declaration of war against working families and America’s free-market economy. The White House is telling Congress to pick its poison – cap and trade or command-and-control. That’s extortion, but that’s the "Chicago way," isn’t it? And when did White House officials start using phrases like "command-and-control"? I thought command-and-control economies died with the Soviet Union.
This threat gives you some idea of just how devastating cap and trade is for the economy. The White House is unintentionally admitting, "We know cap and trade is bad. But the EPA regulations would be really, really bad." The administration is playing a game of chicken with the economy in the middle of a severe recession.
There is a way out of this – rein in the bureaucracy and reduce the size and scope of government. Congress can amend the Clean Air Act to strip the EPA of authority over carbon emissions. That would be the most logical thing to do. Sadly, the Democrat Party has been taken over by radicals, many of whom are ideologically biased against common sense and fundamental economics. (If you needed any more evidence of the radical ideology behind climate change, a leader of the Chinese delegation in Copenhagen just announced that population control "fits right into the picture.")
So, what’s the alternative? Clint Eastwood’s famous line comes to mind: "Go ahead, make my day." Pollster Scott Rasmussen found that just 24% of American adults felt the EPA should act unilaterally to regulate carbon emissions. Republicans ought to call Obama’s bluff: They should fight cap and trade tooth and nail, and dare Obama to destroy the economy with his command-and-control ideology.
Ulysses S. Grant said, "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." Perhaps it’s time to test that method. If enough Americans get fed up with the Obama/Reid/Pelosi experiment in socialism, we can defeat a lot of obnoxious liberals and get about the business of repealing a lot of bad laws.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, December 11, 2009 
