A report in
today’s Washington Times about Senate
negotiations — which included the White House — over
legislation that would promote “clean” energy (splattered birds,
okay; leaked oil, not so much) notes that agreement is still
difficult over whether to put a price on “carbon pollution”
(that’s exhalation to you and me).
A
report in today’s Washington Times about Senate
negotiations — which included the White House — over
legislation that would promote “clean” energy (splattered birds,
okay; leaked oil, not so much) notes that agreement is still
difficult over whether to put a price on “carbon pollution”
(that’s exhalation to you and me). Reporter Kara Rowland includes
this gem:
In the aftermath of the BP oil spill, Mr. Obama in recent weeks
has repeatedly called for a comprehensive energy bill that
would help wean the nation off fossil fuels. But in his public
comments he has not delved into the specifics of what he’d like
to see in such a measure.
In a readout of the meeting Tuesday, the White House said Mr.
Obama “told the senators he still believes the best way for us
to transition to a clean-energy economy is with a bill that
makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s
businesses by putting a price on pollution.”
Hmm…so government “makes” its preferred source of energy
profitable by taxing other sources of energy? Any other
explanation needed about why, as a result of Obama’s economic
prescriptions, that we have 9.7 percent unemployment and
skyrocketing national debt?
