Your Electric Bill On Steroids

Remember Enron, that corporate symbol of all things evil? It's late chairman, Kenneth Lay, and his cronies were bilking the public and their employees at every turn. The company became the favorite whipping boy of the left when wailing about corporate greed. In the end, all could agree that the execs at Enron were a particularly ignominious collection of scumbags.

So...guess what the scumbags had decided would "do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative..." and were feverishly pursuing when the hammer came down on them? Nuclear power plants? Chinese coal? Guatemalan petting zoos? Nope.

Carbon trading.

That darling scheme of the Eco-Stalins and the central component of the Lieberman-Warner "Climate Security Act" was also a favorite of the greediest corporate creeps in recent American history. Coincidence? It is if you have a Tolkien-esque imagination.

In fact, Ken Lay had private meetings at the White House during Clinton-Gore years to lobby for the signing and ratification of the Kyoto Protocols because he knew it would enable him to become king of the carbon "cap and trade" thieves. Yes, I said "Clinton-Gore years".

Still think everybody is in this for the good of the planet? Only if "planet" is code for "energy execs' wallets".

Last week, I mentioned Arclightzero's well researched post that digs into the money trail behind all of these allegedly altruistic Climate Commies. He then followed it up with this post, which dug even deeper. Another article from the Competitive Enterprise Institute explains how the cap and trade scheme would actually hit poorer families the hardest. Where's the outcry from Fluffy Edwards' well-lit mansion?

The "Climate Security Act" now looks like it's going to make it past the full Senate committee. It secures nothing (how about some border security while you nitwits are working?). It's economically damaging and does little more than make those who voted for it feel good about more federal helping.

John Warner hasn't had to stand for election since 2002 and is retiring so he doesn't seem to be very beholden to anyone other than the voices in his head ("Help your legacy, save the planet..."). In the "More Coincidence?" category, Sempra Energy was the fourth largest contributor to Lieberman's last race. What's one of Sempra's big lobbying points these last few years? Federal carbon cap and...never mind, you get it now.

If bills like the Lieberman-Warner "Climate Folly Money Grab" become law the energy companies will have their hands so far up in your business you'll feel as if you're in the middle of a permanent colonoscopy. It's also the first step in ceding economic sovereignty to the United Nations, which is a great idea if you aren't American.

Happy Holidays, kids. Instead of dealing with real security like troop funding or border control, this is what your elected officials are working on during their abbreviated session. Can I interest anyone in a little political stupidity "cap and trade" scheme? I've got a Henry Waxman, a Barbara Boxer and a Dianne Feinstein I would be willing to trade for just one person with common sense. What's that, you can't do it without heavy government subsidies?

Never mind.

Cross posted at Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

Senate To Debate Lieberman-Warner Climate Commie Bill

Heads up kids, the Eco-Stalins are on the march again. My views on this have been mentioned time and again in this blog, most recently here and here. 

Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Carbon Bogeyman) and John Warner (R-Glad He's Leaving) have sponsored a horrible "cap and trade" scheme that they want to make into law. In keeping with climate hysteria protocol, it's known as the "Climate Security Act".  (Oooh, forget the borders, let's make sure the climate is secure. I'm sleeping better already. Maybe I'm just high on cow fart methane.) The bill has made it to the full committee for whatever kind of debate can really be had on this topic that's based more on emotion than reality (sorry, all you religiously devoted IPCC fans). 

The list of people and groups lining up to point out how much this bill blows is increasing faster than Barry Bonds' hat size. Here's what "cap and trade" schemes that are in place have accomplished thus far: windfall profits for energy companies (if your electric company exceeds the cap and gets fined the only place they know to find money is your pocket-there's no real down side to compliance) and no real effect on carbon emissions. 

The bill does manage to-surprise!- bloat the bureaucracy by creating a federal Carbon Market Efficiency Board. Why don't these guys ever come up with something useful, like a federal NFL Cheerleader Date For Every American Bachelor Board? I might start liking the government then. 

More to follow on this in the coming days. I have to go cook some food for my kid while we can still afford the energy. Then I have to see what I can do to get my carbon footprint big enough to step on some of these people.

Wake Up And Smell The Pantsuit

The official publication of the Democratic National Committee, which many people still refer to as The New York Times, has an interesting little article in it today about congressional Democrats pondering the true import of Madame Hillary winning the nomination.

Some freshman (freshperson?) members of the House won close elections last year based on a platform that consisted of little more than "I don't like George W. Bush!" That paucity of plans and ideals has translated into a year of subterranean approval numbers. Now these same Democrats are getting ready to hit the campaign trail again and realizing that the Mrs. might be, at best, problematic for them if she's the heir to the throne nominee next year.

The Bush-Clinton-Bush-(maybe) Clinton White House volley has had almost twenty years to wear on the American people now. True, it's produced some historical political theater but the biggest byproduct of the dueling dynasties has been animosity. Democrats now fear that having Mrs. Madame head up the ticket might mobilize the GOP base in way that pales in comparison to the labor union browbeating of Democratic voters.

The Democrats got fat and happy last year by linking vulnerable Republican candidates to President Bush. They know intimately how well that tactic works when a polarizing figure is the party's standard bearer. They'll try to do the same next year but the GOP candidates have already been working hard to distance themselves from the president.

So the Democrats will try to link GOP candidates to George W. Bush and the Republicans will piggyback Her Missuship onto their opponents. The difference will be the fact that the president will be home and, no doubt, relishing the fact that he doesn't have to go through this crap again while the Madame will be out there every day, regaling the common folk with her robotic charm.
That's enough to make anyone sweat.

Cross posted at Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

Insanity's Poster Boy

Congress may have returned to work for an abbreviated session but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Lobotomy) made sure he brought his long-term stupidity with him.

The increasingly irrelevant Reid appears to be indefatigable in his pursuit of disaster in Iraq. Reid has decided there is no news coming out of Iraq other than what's written in his obviously unstable head. Reid held a press conference when he got back and flatly stated that "The surge hasn't accomplished its goals..."

One has to wonder, just how close is Reid's Nevada home to Area 51? He has now become the prominent Democrat the party faithful look to when they want to feel that Howard Dean is marginally sane. If he stays in power instead of getting the help he desperately needs he'll probably start flying the Union Jack at his HQ because he thinks we lost the Revolutionary War.

"I don't care what you've heard, the rebellion didn't go very well for the colonists. History and the president are lying to you. I'm off for a spot of tea. Cheers."

I'm very curious about the inner machinations of the Democratic party and its criteria for leadership. Lately it seems that they cast their gazes about to find who among them is exhibiting the strangest behavior.

"Chairman Dean, I found a congressman sticking a letter opener in his temple during roll call, we've got to fast-track him up the ladder! What's that? Too sane? OK, I'll keep looking."

I'm a real American and I firmly believe in every American's right to an opinion on what the country does, especially regarding wars. I've never automatically said that anti-war people are unpatriotic. I do, however, believe that Reid's constant ignoring of any good news out of Iraq makes him unfit to be influential in any political decisions about the war.

Harry needs to put his talents to better use and become a full time clown.

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell and Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

Fighting The Wrong Pork

Watch out folks, the feds are trying to help again. Feeling the courts are adequately protecting everyone from Christmas, your federal legislators have decided to ramp up their ongoing war against parental involvement in their own children's lives. This time, it's a national ban on junk food.  The legislation is sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Nanny State), whose biggest recent accomplishment was defending Hugo Chavez's remarks about President Bush at the UN. 

My blood boils every time a Democrat attempts to throw a blanket of socialism over American society. This particular attempt, however, does help illustrate the fundamental flaw in the Democrats' approach to governing. 

The first thing one gives up when registering as a Democrat is a sense of personal responsibility (irony goes quickly after that). Once you're in, you can blame all ills on the ubiquitous lack of funding, the Republicans or, in the case of the Climate Commies, the fact that weather changes.  Sadly, some current Republicans get guilted into signing on to some of the nanny legislation whenever they're accused of being against the children. The first thing the GOP needs to do is send this group home and get some candidates who understand the differences between the parties' philosophies. 

Which brings us to the fat kids. What the United States lacks in domestic fuel production we make up for in the production of porky pre-teens. When teachers complain of classrooms that are too full they are often merely describing how much room these little Oompa-Loompas take up.  

I'm going to muddy this discussion up by introducing some casual empiricism. Go to a mall this holiday season, sit on a bench for a while and watch the people. See how many fat kids have fat parents in tow. One might come to the conclusion that all of this chubbiness is beginning at home. Naturally, the best place to remedy this is to go after the Ho-Ho's (can we still call them that?) and Ding-Dongs at school. 

It all seems so heart-warming and laden with altruism, doesn't it? Wait, what's this?

This same article mentions that leaders are more optimistic than ever about enacting the legislation because "...leaders in the food and beverage industry have had a hand in creating the new standards." Hmm, might these leaders of industry have some new products that just happen to fit those new standards? I'm no journalist (I'm a Republican so I'm not allowed in that club), but I bet a little digging might find some new, improved and perhaps even more expensive snacks waiting in the wings.

I can already hear my liberal friends saying, "So what's wrong with that? At least the kids will have healthier choices at school!"

What's wrong is that many of these kids will still have the parents at home who are feeding them fried ice cream and pork rinds for breakfast. Afternoons will still be spent munching on the unhealthy snacks that those same industry leaders will still have on the shelves and sitting down in front of the computer or TV. It's like trying to fix a broken leg by just giving the patient crutches without a cast. 

In the end, all this does is give some parents a scapegoat and the feds another chance to weasel their way into kids' lives. 

The kids don't need more carrot sticks at school, they need parents who provide good examples and teach them to make good choices. No government can do that. If the parents can't say "No" to junk food the kids have very little chance of learning, even if Tom Harkin wants to help.