He can’t imagine how anyone else could think differently.
(Page 2 of 3)
The phrase “carbon pollution” is itself a dramatic disconnect from reality. Carbon dioxide is a natural gas in the environment essential to all life on earth. Animals, including humans, breathe out carbon dioxide, and it serves as oxygen for plants essential for them to survive. Without carbon dioxide, there would be no plants, and without plants there would be no oxygen or food for animals. Indeed, note, humans are referred to as a carbon-based life forms, as is all other life on earth. So much for “carbon pollution.” Moreover, through most of the history of the earth, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been many times higher than today. The phrase “carbon pollution” is carefully crafted to take advantage of the ignorant and gullible.
But the economics of President Obama’s prosperity through “clean” energy plan is even more transparently nuts than the science. Here is how it is supposed to work. First, the government provides enormous subsidies, just more bailouts actually, for businesses to pursue inherently unreliable and unworkable “alternative” energy sources such as wind and solar, the energy that powered the Roman Empire. It was the replacement of that old-fashioned energy by far more concentrated, powerful and reliable oil and natural gas, and later nuclear power, that enabled the industrial revolution, which is now out of favor with dreamy, unfocused, and illogical Western “elites.”
The U.S. Department of Energy reports that government energy subsidies amount to $0.25 per megawatt for oil and gas, $0.44 per megawatt for coal, $1.59 for nuclear, $23.37 for wind and $24.34 for solar. (Oil is actually not subsidized at all, but disfavored by punitive taxes.) And that was before President Obama’s “investments” adding up to an additional $80 billion per year in federal “alternative energy” subsidies.
These “investments” are not free. They already involve a costly burden dragging down the economy. But that is only the start. In addition, President Obama wants to impose trillions of dollars in effective new cap and trade taxes, an arbitrary chicken bone in the throat of our economic windpipe, an enormous, completely unnecessary cost. Those taxes will so sharply raise the cost of the traditional energy sources that actually power our economy, that when combined with the enormous subsidies for the “alternatives” of wind and solar, these alternatives will finally be competitive in terms of price, drawing private investment into their development.
This is how President Obama thinks he is laying the foundation for new jobs and prosperity. “Under my cap and trade plan, the cost of electricity will necessarily skyrocket,” he has explained. But imposing trillions of dollars in unnecessary additional burdens on the economy through skyrocketing energy costs, so that “alternative” energy completely dependent on corporate welfare can survive financially, is a good strategy for destroying, not creating, jobs. That is why in the economies where this has already been tried, which President Obama touts as models for America, the result has been a net loss of 2 to 5 jobs for every “green” job created, with the so-called green jobs actually mostly temporary. This is not a stronger foundation for growth and prosperity, but a lurch into national decline and falling standards of living.
The same radical disconnect is found in President Obama’s government takeover of health care. President Obama said in Pittsburgh:
This new foundation [for growth and prosperity] is also based on reforms…that will make health care cheaper…. We also know we can’t compete in a global economy if our citizens are forced to spend more and more of their income on medical bills; if our businesses are forced to choose between health care and hiring; if state and federal budgets are weighed down with skyrocketing health care costs. That’s why we finally passed health insurance reform.
But regulatory requirements mandating costly new benefits, expanding or adopting three new entitlement programs, imposing policies that will sharply increase the demand for health care while sharply reducing the supply, are good strategies for causing the cost of health care to skyrocket, not “make health care cheaper.” President Obama’s health care legislation, which the usually restrained Wall Street Journal rightly called “the worst bill ever,” will cause health insurance costs for younger families to skyrocket by 2 to 3 times, federal health costs to rise by more than the minimum officially estimated $1 trillion, and national health expenditures to rise rather than fall, again as officially estimated by the federal government itself.
It is true, however, that under President Obama’s health takeover plan, businesses will no longer be “forced to choose between health care and hiring.” Under the employer mandate, they will be forced to choose health care.
President Obama was also quite correct when he said in Pittsburgh:
Now, some of you may have noticed that we have been building this foundation without help from our friends in the other party. From our efforts to rescue the economy, to health insurance reform, to financial reform, most have sat on the sidelines and shouted from the bleachers. They said…no to investments in clean energy.
That is because if any Republicans had joined in helping President Obama pass any of these reform mutations, people like me would have joined with many others to subject the quislings to career-ending primary challenges.
Finally, President Obama derided in his Pittsburgh speech the theme of “the Ownership Society.” That theme has been used to denote policies to empower working people to build their own foundation for financial independence through directly owned, personal, savings, investment, insurance, and human capital developed through school choice freedom. We should not be surprised that a red diaper baby disparages ownership and property rights, a view central to socialist philosophy all the way back to Marx.
Instead, President Obama celebrated maximum government dependency based on maximum government spending, taxes, and entitlements, buying maximum votes for the New Left political machine. But just as the unmodernized, old-fashioned, tax and redistribution Social Security system he worships is today a bad deal for working people, his overall vision of the maximum welfare state would mean the end of the American Dream of world leading prosperity.