Green Room

Barbara Boxer – Thank Goodness for National Poverty!

posted at 2:53 pm on October 28, 2009 by

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA, 100%) is of course shepherding the economy-killing energy bill, Cripple and Tax (sorry, I meant Cap and Trade) through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which she chairs. Her fellow committee member Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT, 80%) — who just recently wrote his own Obamacare bill in the Senate Finance Committee, which he chairs — has decided to write his own energy bill as well; he came out swinging against the Boxer bill… but his objections are all to the specifics; Baucus has no problem with the basic concept of the Obama-Boxer bill:

  1. Regulate carbon emissions as if they were pollutants (so stop exhaling, you climate traitor!)
  2. Force industries, farms, utilities, and other businesses to buy “carbon credits” that allow them to pollute the planet — i.e., feed the plants.
  3. Set a national carbon reduction goal of about 80% by 2050 (!). This is so draconian, it can only be achieved one of two ways: By absolutely crippling American industry to the point where we’d have trouble competing with Albania; or by embarking upon a massive program to build a hundred or more nuclear power plants.

    The Democrats have no interest in building a hundred nuclear power plants. Or even one.

  4. “Fine” businesses and utilities increasingly staggering amounts of money when they’re unable to meet that absurdist goal… thus creating the most massive tax the United States has ever levied — on the evil, unAmerican sin of producing energy.

Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX, 76%) and Kit Bond (R-MO, 75%) conducted a study that found the gasoline tax increase alone would carry a price tag of $3.6 trillion, a cost that would be borne by “families, small businesses, farmers, truckers, & air travelers.” I don’t believe that even includes energy taxes on other forms of fossil fuel besides gasoline, deisel and jet fuel, such as natural gas, ordinary coal, or clean-coal technology.

But all this is prolog; what really caught my eye was this astonishing suggestion from Boxer:

Mrs. Boxer said that Mr. Baucus told her Friday that he could not back the bill in its current form. Still, she expressed hope that recent declines in U.S. emission levels caused by the economic recession of as much as 8 percent since 2005 would make the 2020 target more palatable for Mr. Baucus and other bill critics.

And there you have it, the essential absurdity of Cripple and Tax: A United States senator hopes that the current recession continues plaguing America, because that would reduce emissions (by reducing industrial production, jobs, and GDP) — and “make the 2020 [emissions reduction] target more palatable!”

In other words, we’ll already be so impoverished by the recession, which Barack H. Obama now “owns” via his counter-economic policies that perpetuate it, that we’ll hardly even notice when we become even poorer due to his equally risible energy policy.

At last I understand: It’s not true that the One’s economic plan is failing; it’s succeeding beyond his wildest dreams. We just misunderstand its real goal.

Cross-posted on Big Lizards

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

We’ve always known that the dems need to keep people on the down and out in order to maintain their polling headcount, now they’ve found a way to take the whole country along with them.

WitchDoctor on October 28, 2009 at 4:27 PM

I submit that Sen. Boxer got this idea from lefties in England. On September 30 this year the Telegraph Online opened with the following assertion:

At the moment the UK is committed to cutting greenhouse gases by a third by 2020.

The road to this dubious goal is to be paved by intentional recession.
.
I’m positive Barbara Boxer isn’t smart enough to figure this out so someone on her staff must have read and explained the Telegraph piece to her. With all due respect, Ma’am.

ExpressoBold on October 28, 2009 at 5:41 PM

It’s a beautifully direct message.

“Thank goodness they’re already getting poorer. That way it won’t hurt as much when we make ‘em go all the way and revert to living in caves, with their kids functioning as wild animal bait.”

J.E. Dyer on October 28, 2009 at 5:57 PM

These people are insane. The most dangerous sociopaths are not the ones animated with anger..they stand out in a crowd..the ones who are true believers and conduct their lives with a focused calmness and sense of destiny are the ones who need to be stopped because they won’t stop themselves nor listen to reason. Like cult members, they just know they are right.

Itchee Dryback on October 28, 2009 at 7:04 PM

The Democrats have no interest in building a hundred nuclear power plants. Or even one.

Not one nuclear power plant has been ordered in the US since 1979. The design lifespan of typical reactors is 30-40 years. The US produces 22% of it’s electrical power through nuclear power plants.

Connect some dots if you like.

GnuBreed on October 28, 2009 at 11:02 PM

Makes me wonder what “a day in the life” might look like to these people. Couldn’t wake up before dawn since any kind of artificial light might create carbon emissions; Bathe in cold water collected in rain barrels, washing with homemade lye soap; Eat a breakfast of cold vegetables grown in the collective community garden (no bacon allowed since meat contributes to global warming; not sure what they’ll do with all of the cows, pigs, and chickens in the world since PETA won’t allow them to be euthanized); Slip on my khaki coveralls made from hemp (oh wait, hemp is illegal ever since Hearst decided he wanted to continue to cut down trees to make paper) and go out to work all day in the collective garden; Come home and fix a supper of cold vegetables (can’t eat bread because there’s no way to bake it without carbon emissions); Go to bed by dark since artificial light…; Next day, same thing.

Hmm… sounds much like what our 19th century ancestors did. Oh, wait, they ate meat and at least burned wood to keep warm (those evil carbon emitters). So, how, exactly, are we supposed to live and will Congress critters and their cronies live that way, too? Color me doubtful. In the meantime, I’m having steak for supper. How about you?

College Prof on October 29, 2009 at 3:59 PM