Sarah Palin crushes cap-and-trade in the Washington Post

Sarah Palin’s op-ed in the Washington Post is called “The ‘Cap And Tax’ Dead End”. (H/T Watts Up With That, Gateway Pundit, Stop the ACLU)


American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

…The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket.” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, “poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity.”

Meh. It’s merely excellent. Somewhat superlative.

Not nearly as good as Michele Bachmann could do, and Michele is conservative on vouchers and illegal immigration, unlike Sarah. See, Sarah writes about supply-side economics once in a while, but Michele gives passionate speeches about supply-side economics every day:

And Michele likes Christian apologetics more than Sarah! Sarah probably doesn’t even know who William Lane Craig is! Michele should be President, Sarah can be Secretary of Energy.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air comments on Sarah’s article:

We need to make all of this clear.  Cap-and-trade rations energy production, which means there will be less of it for a long time.  Alternatives are not ready for the kind of mass production that would allow a complete replacement of energy, and probably won’t be for decades, if ever in some cases (notably wind power, as GreenChoice showed and as T. Boone Pickens finally realized).  That means a lower standard of living that will impact America regressively, with the lowest income earners getting hit the hardest.  The drain on the economy from high energy prices means less jobs and higher retail prices for goods and services, again a regressive consequence of energy rationing.

Obama and his Utopian allies promise that government will help close the gap by offering more services to the unemployed and the poor at the expense of the “rich”.  What will that do?  It will further handicap the economy by keeping capital out of the markets.  Even worse, it will vastly expand the dependent class in America who have to go on the dole to survive.  And many of those ardent liberals will be pretty happy with that outcome, too.

We need to stop this thing. It’s good that Sarah came out against it.

2 thoughts on “Sarah Palin crushes cap-and-trade in the Washington Post”

  1. Secretary of Energy? According to your post she would have no idea about free market principles:

    “But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! ”

    If we keep foreign oil cheap, easy, and accessible, what motivation is there to move away from our dependence on it? They blow huge buildings in our cities and we still want to play nice with them.

    The only way we will move off of our foreign oil dependence is by doing just what she claims we should not do – we have to make foreign oil more expensive and harder to get else there will be no will to move away. Our past presidents are the ones who propped up leaders like saddam to ensure the oil flowed freely and look where that got us.

    We either have to embrace our muslim overlords, get down on our knees, and kiss their butts, or we have to make some painful choices and soon. The only way we will move away from being almost totally dependent on the middle east is to make their gas/oil more expesive or have the government force the related industries in different directions. No free market business is going to give up such an easy, profitable business model – profit wise, it makes no sense.


    1. Jerry, if energy is manufactured more cheaply at home, then it would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, since we would not be buying as much of it from abroad. Also, there is nuclear power as well, which Obama opposes. The Republican all-of-the-above plan is the best one for consumers, who would pay less. This is the liberty-loving plan – the plan that gives individuals more money for left over their own needs. (For example, charity, or private school, or investing) The goal of Republicans is to make the people prosperous. By encouraging more competitors in the market, and competition, which lowers prices for the consumer.

      What you need to understand is that Obama doesn’t want the American people to be prosperous. He especially doesn’t want people in the private sector producing energy and selling it to consumers. His goal is to nationalize energy companies. To do that he needs to raise energy prices. To do that he needs to cut off domestic supply and raise carbon tariffs on incoming energy. Then when peole complain about not having jobs (which he caused), not having money (which he caused) and prices going up for energy (which he caused), then he will be able to nationalize energy and make everyone dance to his tune. It’s the same as Stalin, Mao, Chavez and Castro. The goal Democrats is taking power from business owners and achieving “equality” by seizing control and handing out goodies as they see fit.

      All the Democrats discourage domestic energy production – so that prices will be high and the people there will be some crisis for the Democrats to solve.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s