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?
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.