The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 2 of 8)

As automobile gasoline prices continue their inexorable rise, and aviation gasoline, and marine gasoline, and fuel oil, and electricity, the political dead end that our national energy policy, not to mention John McCain's plan, has led us to will become clear to literally everyone, regardless of political persuasion. That is because the problem of energy prices uniquely cannot be solved by the Democrat solution to all other cost problems, i.e., the Robin Hood solution. Democrats can solve the medical cost problem by engaging in Robin Hood redistribution. Ditto for Medicare or Social Security or any other fundamental need of individuals. But a Robin Hood subsidizing of the cost of fuel for Democrat constituents fails to inflict the level of pain necessary to change behavior. Hence, in this one unique case, no Robin Hood. Democrat constituents simply must suffer. And suffer they will.

p>Until they reason that the energy policy sadists were mistaken. br> -- Frank Natoli br> Newton, New Jersey /p>

Congratulations to author Yeatman for a deliciously sarcastic piece on Senator McCain's environmental excesses.

Senator McCain's proposals are in woefully pedestrian conformity with the dogma of the Global Warmists. The sale and trading of Carbon Indulgences completes the religious metaphor. McCain-Lieberman is another hare-brained edifice of central economic planning worthy of his idol Teddy Roosevelt and his mistakenly esteemed relative.

Yeatman ably documents the measures that an actual maverick would be fighting to institute against the conventional wisdom: more exploration for energy unburdened by NIMBYs and enviros, lightening the yoke of regulation that plagues the nuclear power industry, eliminating destructive government intervention in electrical power generation, ending stupid tax policies, etc.

p>We require no further demonstrations of Senator McCain's grasp of economics. As Mr. Limbaugh has pointedly said, ignorance is the most expensive thing we pay for. Where is Phil Gramm when we really, really NEED him to be running one-on-one remedial instruction in economics? br> -- Bud Hammons /p>

I think it is a mistake to characterize global warming mitigation as being too expensive. Such arguments are associated with justifications of immoral policies like slavery or the exploitation of resources to exhaustion just because it is economically convenient. It is not wise to expect that people who have had normal liberal schooling would grasp even the basics of economics like: There is no free lunch.

Even though it is a variation of the Broken Window Fallacy, Global Warming actions represent the forced replacement of a broken window. Both the Left and the Right seem to be mesmerized by the "green jobs" that global warming will create. In the original scenario of the Broken Window Fallacy, a shopkeepers son breaks a window in his father's shop. The glazier's job that is created by this act is thought of as at least being good for the glazier. This, of course, is predicated on the idea that there is no conspiracy among glaziers to hire little boys to break windows.

topics:
Taxes, Trade, John McCain, Bill Clinton, Economics, Social Security, Religion, Islam, Abortion, Environment, Global Warming, Law, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, NATO, Energy, Alaska, Oil, Medicare