Republicans can win on the environment, too

I argue that Republicans could actually win the environmental argument, improve energy efficiency and foreign policy issues and kneecap Democratic attempts to impose cap-and-trade by supporting the elimination of the payroll tax in exchange for a carbon tax. Not only would be good policy (the payroll tax reduces positive externalities; the carbon tax reduces negative externalities), it would take a central issue off the table for Democrats.

So I'm heartened to see a promising Republican candidate who sees the opportunity...

Instead of turning to a complex system of cap-and-trade credits to combat global warming, the country should consider a carbon tax that is “more simple and straightforward” for businesses and consumers, a Republican U.S. Senate candidate said Monday. “I’m not fooled by cap and trade,” said Rob Simmons, who is angling to unseat U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd in next year’s election. [...]

He said the government ought to “call it what it is” — a carbon tax — and take on the issue directly. Generally, most of those pushing for a carbon tax instead argue that its simplicity would prevent the need for more bureaucratic oversight, drive out speculators and offer the chance to return any taxes collected through payroll or income tax reductions.

Improve the environment, reduce congestion, reduce dependence on oil, pay less money to tyrannies, elimate the payroll tax, beat Democrats at their own game and do it all without raising total taxes at all or giving government (or industry) more control over the market? I can get onboard with that. 

UPDATE: (sigh) Never mind.  See the comment section at the news article, where the Simmons campaign manager says "Rob Simmons does not support a carbon tax. He does believe that supporters of "cap and trade" should be more straightforward about their intentions and propose a carbon tax if that is what they desire so the American people can make a clear judgment about the consequences of such a policy - a policy Rob opposes."

We could eliminate the payroll tax and take this environmental issue off the table for Democrats. But no, Republicans are content to keep the payroll tax and settle for complaining about Democrats.

2
Your rating: None Average: 2 (3 votes)

Comments

Bleeech

I'm all behind you, except in thinking it'll ever happen. Except here, I just don't see anywhere (ok if you look hard enough) that Reps want to do any of this. They, mostly, don't give a shit about the environment and they certainly don't believe in climate change.

I miss the days of cooption. At least something got done.

re:

House Republicans (including Rep. Flake and one or two others) introduced a bill like this earlier this year.   Sen. Corker has offered support for it, too.

let's hope

That they Democrats find a way to get on board. I don't think anyone is sold on cap and trade. However, the told in lib blogosphere is increasingly a go-it-alone stance.

That's what makes me sad about the Rep party (well, politics in general). It's not just having a good (or better bill). There must be a stategy (especially in the minority) of achiving passage.  Without a strategy, it's a failed effort, a failed effort leads to pissed-off people, pissed off people leads to partisenship, partisenship leads to stagnation.

Of course you know that.

 

I just don't see anywhere (ok

I just don't see anywhere (ok if you look hard enough) that Reps want to do any of this. very usefull for us...thank you Stop Dreaming Start Action | Rusli Zainal Sang Visioner | kenali dan kunjungi objek wisata di pandeglang | mengembalikan jati diri bangsa | Sukabumi | lowongan kerja | webdesign murah

You've mentioned this before, Jon... what part of Read My Lips

didn't you grasp?

For the GOP to embrace any kind of trade which requires a new carbon tax is a sure shot to political marginalization and goes directly against the long standing GOP standard on taxes --reduce, eliminate taxes.  It's like applying your concept to foreign policy would require the GOP to propose wholesale support of the pan-Arab movement, push Israel into the sea, endorse Sharia law for the world, pull all troops out of any alliance, sign Kyoto plus 1, and announce pre-arranged marriages for the Obama girls with either Iran's Ahmadinejad sons, Kim Jong Il's nephews or XrazyQaddafiDuck's special tent boy-servants... in exchange, the conservative movement gets RonnieReagan's face and "God We Trust" on the next overhaul of the dime.

I'd rather see the GOP support new entitlements before endorsing a carbon tax.  I'd rather see the GOP turn our military into peace-keepers and nation-builders than have the GOP embrace any new tax scheme.  I'd rather see the GOP triple the deficit before it even proposed trading any tax reform for a new set of taxes... even if, as you have previously tried to condition it upon, a revenue neutral basis.

No govt tax reform has ever been revenue neutral.  It's a promise made that should have as much credibility as "the check's in the mail", "I'll pull out in time", and "this hospital is non-profit".

Thanks, but I think there's a lesson you were trying to preach to all the readers here earlier... something about campaign hacks shouldn't be advancing policy... they should stick to selling it to the voters?  Yeah, that's the ticket.

 

I would guess he understood your point perfectly.

He just doen't think your opinion is the last word on anything.

Less snark, Mead50... you're back to sounding

petty.

Trading on taxes is a terrible gamble.

As a long-standing Michigan GOPer, I can tell you that whenever our state GOP leadership tries to trade policy on tax matters, the leadership usually gets it wrong, the deal goes sour for voters and to trade environmental policy for marginal gain (because a carbon tax will simply NOT EVER BE revenue neutral, no matter how noble or naive the advocates may be) is the ultimate betrayal of every Republican core principle.

GOPers have an excellent environmental record and core policy.  It may not be as progressive and activist as the far left Democrats but is centered on conservation, stewardship of the environment, access to our natural resources, & the preservation and prudent management of those natural resources.

It has been a winning policy when articulated and advanced by GOP candidates with credibility.  The problem is that the environment isn't an issue of priority right now --which begs the fundamental question: Then why TRADE ON IT and try to WIN on it?

We'll win on the environment when the GOP makes a reliable, insistent message that the far Left "enviromentalists" are wrong --but that will take lots of explaining.

We first need to explain, like we do with fiscal and tax policy, that the far left Democrats get it all  wrong.  For instance, on global warming, the policies of the far Left ie not allowing selective harvesting of timber in national forests and not protecting hunter access to those forests has resulted in a dramatically higher global warming threat.  If the US policy was to allow selective harvesting of timber in national forests, forest floor dead wood timber wouldn't accumulate prior to seasonal forest fires -aiding in the control and management of forest fires.  For each acre of seasonal forest fire, the adverse global warming impact is 160 times what an average American contributes in THEIR LIFETIME to global warming.  One acre, on fire, one season equals what 2 wasteful, gluttonizingly irresponsible people contribute in THEIR LIFETIME.  We have seasonal forest fires that literally consume millions of acres of timber each year.

The far left environmentalists are, through anti-timber and forest management groups like The Green Brigade and Natural Resources Defense Fund, contributing to global warming more than any single American ever could do.

The GOP can win on the environment when it returns as an important issue to voters.  We don't need to debase ourselves and our core principles by proposing a whacked-out trade like payroll taxes for a carbon tax.

Jake has it right.  Trading on taxes like this is a terrible gamble and naive, at best, and at worst, just political suicide with voters who would have to trust the govt would make it all revenue neutral for them?  Phew, that's a stretch.

Good strategy Bad Policy

The idea to replace payroll taxes with carbon taxes makes sense strategically, in terms of taking away an issue from the left, but it's bad policy for several reasons.

First the environment is no longer a winning political issue it's not even in the top 10. Right now there are plenty of other more important issues  like jobs, the economy, national debt, healthcare, terrorism, socialism, globalism, the war in Afghanistan, immigration, individual liberty, state sovereignty, 1st, 2nd & 10th Amendments, etc... 

Taxing Carbon emissions is 1.) bad for business and 2.) will not help the environment .  It's a dumb idea for business. 

The whole idea of taxing Carbon emissions as an environmental policy is based on junk science. First it has not been conclusively established that carbon emissions are harming the environment. The whole idea is that man made emissions are causing global warming is false, there's been no global warming for over 10 years. There will be little or no positive effect on the environment if America lowers it's carbon emissions because other countries will continue to out-do our carbon output, and nature itself will do the same. A carbon tax actually gives Al Gore a victory for being the most hypocritical, dishonest, scam artist in politics.

I'm all for eliminating the payroll tax though, I'm for eliminating all income taxes. There already is a winning plan called the FairTax. Candidates who support the FairTax tend to fair better than those that do not. There's your winning strategy without conceding the environmentalist whackos a thing. No income tax, no payroll tax, no death tax, no corporate tax, no IRS at all, just a simple flat consumption tax, and a prebate to cover expenses up to the poverty level. 

http://www.fairtax.org

If you really want to get serious, about energy then let's drill for oil and natural gas, and build some nuclear power plants. Clean coal is fine too. When it comes to the environment, common sense conservation and responsible stewardship of our resources is the way to go. There's no need to squeeze businesses into non-profitable behaviors with carbon taxes based on anti-capitalism environmental theories.

 

 

 

Why it's good policy, too.

First the environment is no longer a winning political issue it's not even in the top 10. Right now there are plenty of other more important issues  like

It's true, most people place other issues higher, especially right now. But that's no reason not to win on the issue.  The GOP could use the help, so if the policy isn't destructive (which I'll argue below), then why not shave some votes off the Democrats here and there?

Taxing Carbon emissions is 1.) bad for business and 2.) will not help the environment .  It's a dumb idea for business.

Taxing payrolls is bad for business too.  It increases the cost of employing people.  With the unemployment rate near 10%, slashing the payroll tax can easily be sold as a job-creating policy.  Hence libertarian economists who favor switching from payroll to carbon taxes.

A carbon tax actually gives Al Gore a victory for being the most hypocritical, dishonest, scam artist in politics.

Well, making Al Gore feel fuzzy inside is a small price to pay for electoral victory.

I'm all for eliminating the payroll tax though, I'm for eliminating all income taxes. There already is a winning plan called the FairTax.

As attractive as that sounds, the FairTax will not work.  When you jack up sales taxes that high, tax evasion skyrockets in the form of stealing, under-the-table transactions and so forth.  It punishes daylight businesses in favor of smugglers and black market hawkers, and creates profit opportunities for criminal organizations.

Then, to make up the lost revenue, you have to jack up the sales taxes even higher, leading to even higher rates of theft and black market activity.

You can't replace all our other taxes with a FairTax.  Maybe some of them, but not all.

If you really want to get serious, about energy then let's drill for oil and natural gas, and build some nuclear power plants. Clean coal is fine too. When it comes to the environment, common sense conservation and responsible stewardship of our resources is the way to go.

There's no reason we can't have nuclear power plants and a carbon tax at the same time.  In fact, there's no reason we can't drill for oil and gas domestically and have a carbon tax.  Clean coal technology, it seems to me, would be much more likely to be implemented with a carbon tax.

There's no need to squeeze businesses into non-profitable behaviors with carbon taxes based on anti-capitalism environmental theories.

There's no need to squeeze businesses and workers with payroll taxes either.  But we're doing it.

Let me guess: you are also a creationist?

First it has not been conclusively established that carbon emissions are harming the environment.

Are you also a creationist? Who thinks smoking is good for you?

That's it, Mead50, snark-away some more...

while real Americans are actually trying to change America's slip into partisan divisiveness and petty mudslinging ala the Democrat Party.

We all had Hope that BarryObama could bring some civility to the debate because the farLeft would finally have one of their own voices chairing the meeting... but even that Hope now must be abandoned as farLeft Democrats tell the FearlessLeader that without the public option, there's no way health care reform can pass the House.  Period.  QueenNancyBoTox has spoken; it is the law of the land.

OK then, lets see the credible evidence that carbon emissions

are not a threat.

forget it

This subject has been here many times. It's just become a solidified talking point. This why I had an initial ho-hum attitude toward the post. I like the idea of the post, and don't like cap n' trade, but even if Reps have a bill . . . it seems that the base is so against anything on this subject as to oppose on the grounds that its an appeasement to the left.

Dems sensing that Reps are opposed to anything Dem, simply won't pay attention to it. They're in a positon to not listen. They can oppose the measure without consequence to their base because you're average Rep won't cry out for it, so Dems have a free pass as not doing anything . . . and for any politician, doing nothing is far more economical than doing something. Passing any bill leaves you open to unintended consequences. They can plausibly lie and say Reps are the problem because the liberal base is already convinced they are.

And for Jake . . . hopefully you're getting some personal amusement out of it all.

If Jake can't do it, I can easily nail Mead 50's eco-silliness

We could begin by addressing Mead 50's actual statement.

OK, then, lets (sic) see the credible evidence that carbon emissions are not a threat.

It isn't a threat if the American people and others --who have been fed a steady diet of fear-mongering nonsense and non-science by govt-fat cats like AlGore-- decide it isn't a threat.

Without much far left elite media attention, the Pew Research Center released a report earlier this year that found Americans thought dealing with global warming and the "threat" of carbon emissions was NOT an issue.  In fact, in the poll, the issue finished dead-last, bottom of the rung, not important.

http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2009/01/pew_global_warming_dead_last_a.php

Similarly, just before this report was released debunking the conventional wisdom that Americans believe global warming or global cooling or climate change are real threats and not just excuses by far left types to seize control and enforce their world view of regulation, taxes and sanctions against all, others polled over 12,000 citizens of 11 countries and concluded:

-47 per cent, less than half, said they were prepared to make personal lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions, down from 58 per cent last year 

-only one in five respondents - or 20 per cent - said they'd spend extra money to reduce climate change

-only 27 per cent wanted their governments to participate in Kyoto-style international agreements to reduce emissions 

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=313113306868172

By the way, Mead 50, to counter your usual tactic of trying to kill the messenger on polling... the above poll was done by HSBC and Earthwatch --a decidedly pro-eco-activist group and one who is solidly in favor of drastic, rash govt action before the crisis winnows it way out of the collective public concern.  Ahhh, to lose a crisis and not seize it for more power!!  Wasn't it Hillary Clinton who said "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste?" or was it TeamObama's newest foul mouthed goon, Rahm Emanuel?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow

If you truly think that carbon emissions are a threat to Americans, well, there you go again, they don't agree.  If you think that it is to the world, well, there you go again, they don't agree.  If you think it is to politicians eager to enforce new taxes, burdensome regulations and fines and punititive fees on all of us, you should voluntarily give up your wages, your home, your future and send the check to Uncle Sam or the UN... because those bureaucrats are eager for any revenue --even if it's fraudulently coerced on bogus claims of "science fact".

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&sq=global%20warming%20skeptic&st=cse&scp=1

You can be a leftist social reformer hell-bent on getting the corrupt Obama government more money, Mead 50.  But I don't think there is a carbon threat.  Nor do most Americans see it as a priority.  Nor are most people in the world seeing it as threat that requires sacrafice or any sort.

Credible evidence?  Yes and except for you, not many think it is a threat.  While scientific proof is not progessed by consensus, determining what is a threat and what is not, is the business of the public.  Nearly 20 yrs of AlGore and his pals drumming on the eco-crisis of global warming hasn't changed the simple fact that it is not a threat.  And your side, as more information and dissent comes to light, is losing the debate.  I guess those 25,000 sq ft homes of AlGore didn't help the PR battle, eh?

Of course, since you're a secularist and social reformer activist, you'll likely discount popular opinion as "uninformed", a "mob", "neanderthals", "light weights"... and there you have it.  You and NancyBoTox will be right, everyone else is wrong.  I think it might be time for you to famously move the goal post again?

What do you think Jake, is my attempted answer close enough for government work standards?

 

Environmental proof by polling

Risk analysis by survey. Did you ever see the movie Idiocracy?

No, actually, we should go to a true democracy, let's get rid of the fed and do polling. The American people can't be wrong, can they?

cr, did you ever see the movie "Wag the Dog"?

I think it's more instructive of your side.  It's a Barry Levinson film partly based on Bill Clinton's presidency.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120885/

In it, a spin-doctor extraordinaire and slick, superficially vacuous Hollywood film producer team up to fake a war to cover up a President's sex scandals.  In the film, the spin doctor uses polling and focus groups to determine whether or not a fabricated war will be enough to divert attention away from the embattled President... and uses polls and focus groups to determine who the enemy should be, where should it take place, conditions of warfare, pathos-tinged, sympathy building, individual story-lines.. etc.

It's brilliant!  Much better than your reference to Idiocracy. 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

But I can appreciate why Idiocracy might have held your interest... first, it's a story of Hope.  A totally average army guy gets selected by the evil military for a super secret hibernation project that only could be dreamed up and put into the script by anti-American, anti-military pinheads.

And then there's the Change to go with the Hope.  Change comes when the average guy (this is where you get to identify with the main character) awakes one day to find Darwin's laws have weeded out intelligence from humanity.

Sounds like a DNC rally at a union hall, managed by ACORN frauders for our Celebrity-in-Chief, no?

By the way, IMDB has interest in your film down by 9% this week.  Interest in my film, "Wag the Dog" is up by 15% --largely because Obama is starting to look like he needs to pal-up with his Hollywood posse and have them make him up some fabricated war... when the Democrat presidents polling goes down, they always start looking for some major distractions away from their apparent abysmal standing.

 

You're such a dumb-ass it's funny.

In the book, the president is specifically George H. W. Bush (in the movie he is unnamed), the fake war operation is explicitly Desert Storm, and the war actually occurs, instead of being entirely falsified.[1]

And be honest, beside the first paragragh I didn't bother reading your post. But I see from skimming you're still talking about ACORN!!!!

Dude, I love the Repbulicans! I mean, there are some kooky liberals out there that I want to tell, "hey stop smoking that dope", but you guys . . . .

This is my next to last day at work . . . and this might as well be my last post. I'll be too busy to come here anymore.

 

Good luck, angst for the memories.

And you bet I'll do a check in 2012. Dems are going to lose some seats, but Obama will be two terms. McCain is too old to do it again, and Romney's legs aren't long enough to cover the spread between the parody that the Republican party has become and normal people.

 

Yeah, but it got you thinking outside the box, for once, eh?

Have a great fall.  Take some remedial english classes, ok?

Funny that

One of my undergrads in in English lit. I write very well when I care.

When I care.

cr, you could get an associates degree from a community

college in English Literature?  You sure it wasn't one of those mail in schools and the topic was Literature of the Tabloid Press?

Good luck in your new job; be ready for Uncle Sam to take about 48% of your gross salary in taxes when Obama gets done with reversing his promise not to tax you.  Or are AmeriCorps jobs not taxed?

Good Luck In Grad School CR

Good luck in Grad School CR, and when you are done taking from the government and the government starts taking from you and your shiny new job we'll keep the light on here for you.   Obama just loves stripping well earning PHD's of all their money....

It isn't a threat unless we acknowledge it is a threat?

It isn't a threat if the American people and others --who have been fed a steady diet of fear-mongering nonsense and non-science by govt-fat cats like AlGore-- decide it isn't a threat.

Wow...just wow.

By your reasoning smoking was once a healthy thing to do (just like the advertisements said it was). And all the people who said we should not enter WWII because Germany and Japan were not OUR enemies were also right....up until December 7, 1941.

I'm not surprised by your reaction, Mead 50

In your first instance by trying to draw false comparisons to amy "threat" by carbon emissions... it's so you, it's so... well, vintage HowieDean style politics... did you go to the school of Snark and Little Minds like "Gov" ScreaminHowieDean?

Second instance, you said to provide credible evidence that carbon emissions are NOT a threat.  Americans don't think they are a threat.  12,000+ citizens from a wide list of countries, not inconsequentially where the ruling elite LOVED the Kyoto Treaty, say it isn't a threat and, furthermore, don't see any need to sacrafice personally or collectively to follow some eco-airhead's "remedy" for the carbon emissions threat.

So, no one here will be surprised by your response of "Wow... just wow" when I suggest many people from several countries --well informed and well versed after 10+ years of AlGore and the far Left Democrats fear-mongering to an excess on the very issue at hand-- say nope, it's not a threat.  Credible to you means it has to agree to your perceptions?

You can keep your snark, Mead 50.  Save it for your debate with Jake.  For me and others here, it just comes off as trollish elitism that we've seen often from your side in the health care reform debate... namely, "the voters don't know what's good for them, so we'll make their decisions for them".  And we first saw it in the debate on climate change.  It's the nanny state mindset guys like you love to employ: Americans shouldn't smoke.  People eat too much fast food.  Don't eat genetically engineered food, either.  Coffee will kill you.  Sugar will kill you.  Grocery stores are bad, except the ones that liberals shop at like Whole Earth Foods... oh, wait, you guys don't do it that anymore because it's more important to stamp out free speech or independent thinking by fellow liberals.  Democrats know what's best for you, it can't be a shrill Hillary in 08.

How elitist and arrogant of you.  Wow... just wow.

BTW, just like you've lost the argument here about the US being a Christian Nation -even thought your ACLU-loving, secularist heart doesn't want to admit it-- you've lost that argument again and again.  And now the majority don't think your side has it right on carbon emission threats --real or imaginary.  What an utter reversal of "All Things Considered" group think.  I hear people aren't listening to Prairie Home Companion, either.  Or watching MSNBC.

Didn't you guys just make Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert "honorary" Uncle Walter journalists, too?  You know you're on the side heading downhill when comedians replace liberal newsreaders.

Was it elitist and arrogant of scientists to correctly

identify the negative health impacts of smoking at a time when over 40% of the adult population "enjoyed" the habit?

nice try at spin and distraction Mead 50

but the point remains, no matter how hard you squirm, that Americans and over 12,000 polled citizens in 11 different countries where THEIR elite thought Kyoto was eco-manna from Heaven (oh, wait, you guys don't believe in Heaven, right?), say that carbon emissions is not a threat... and they won't sacrafice personally or collectively to make some fuzzy-headed eco-radical happy for a day.

But you try your hand at distracting.  It suits you.  Heck, even Obama has been trying that with his pitches about why we need health care reform now... first it was because of the economy and we couldn't end the recession without it... then it was about "imaginary" health care reform savings... then it was about thwarting the evil insurance companies... then it was about doing the moral thing... then it devolved into just trying to save the Democrat Party's collective ass caught in the fanblade of public resentment and opposition.  Which, frankly, is what it was about in the first place.

Do ahead and distract, Mead 50.  The answer remains: carbon emissions aren't a threat in America's eyes.  Nor, in the rest of the world.

October, 1938

A poll of Americans by Harper's Magazine.

  • Do you think America will have to fight Germany again in your lifetime? No - 54%

Here is a nice trio of Gallup polls:

  • July, 1941 - should the US enter the war against Germany and Italy? No - 79%
  • November, 1941 (after the sinking of the Reuben James) - should Congress recognize that a state of war exists between the United States and Germany? No - 63%
  • December 23, 1941 (after Pearl Harbor) - which country is the biggest threat the the future of America - Germany 64%.

Using opinion polls to determine whether something is or isn't a danger is ridiculous.

Prior to 1960 most states did not have DUI laws. So, was drunk driving not a threat to public safety back then? Hardly - since people have clued in the number of alcohol-related fatalities per year has dropped 40%.

Gallup has been asking Americans its "most important problem" question ("What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?") for over 60 years. The question, unlike most that Gallup asks, has no predefined answers. It is "open-ended," meaning respondents say whatever comes to their minds. Gallup coders then group all similar answers into broad categories.

When they ran the poll in January, 2001, there was no focus to the responses.13% said ethics/morality/family decline. Nothing else even made it into double digits, and terrorism did not make the list.

When they asked again in October, 2001, "terrorism" led at 46%. Quelle surprise! 

So, either: (a) terrorism was not a threat from January to August, 2001, or (b) you are talking absolute rubbish.

More false choices and distractions, is it Mead 50? Yep. Sigh.

First off, the polling that Geo Gallup did prior to 1966 has been discredited by political scientists and polling experts like Everett Ladd and Bob Teeter -in fact, U-Conn scientists are currently writing a peer-reviewed poli sci paper on how unreliable the polling prior to standardizations adopted in June 66.  It's in honor of my former boss, Dr Everett Ladd.

So you might want to take your "best" point for distraction away from the already answered question YOU posed... to wit: "provide credible evidence that carbon emissions are not a threat".

It's been done.  You lost.

You claimed that the views and values of Americans and over 12,000+ citizens from 11 different pro-Kyoto Treaty countries don't matter.  For you, they aren't competent to determine whether it's a threat or not; not competent to assess the arguments.  Only you can do that.  Even after endless pounding and media exploitation by AlGore's wonkish green nerdy sociopaths, Americans have said: No, it ain't a threat.

In losing, though, you've spun yourself like a dervish and now you have to resort to distractions like whether or not WWII isolationism was prudentially prescient.  It was for the time.  Unfortunately for America, the Democrats didn't care to spend properly in the face a growing belligerent world and, consequently, guys like Caspar Weinberger had to drill with fake wooden rifles when the need to enter the War was thrust upon us.  Sort of sounds like today's anti-military, anti-god Democrats.

You can try to make all the distractions you want, Mead 50.  You lost and no distraction can diminish that point.

The simple truth here is that your fellow-Americans feel that carbon emissions and global warming or climate change isn't a high priority for them or their govt.  That flies in the face of what you and the Obama true-believers may want to try to do... but, just like with health care reform, the Cash4Clunkers program, wasteful spending on the Stimulus package and Obama's tax-cheating appointments to the highest offices, Americans aren't buying into your bull.

You asked for credible evidence that carbon emissions isn't a threat.  Americans and a multi-national set of citizens have spoken.

But it isn't good enough for you.  You probably want the poll retaken and limited to far Left liberals who have contributed to the Green Party.  That'd get you the results you want so desperately to believe in.

BTW, please do read the NYTimes artcile I referenced above.  It could help you see some light instead of just generating heat.

If they are "currently writing" it

then it can't be "peer-reviewed", can it?

It is interesting that you would pretend that this manuscript publicly demolishes everything I've written while at the same time choosing to ignore the mountains of papers that HAVE made it through the peer-review process that say that climate change is a threat.

Why is this one paper, not yet written, not yet reviewed, and not yet published the gospel truth whereas all the peer-reviewed published papers presenting data that supports the theory of man-made global warming are to be ignored?

If we took a poll asking if pre-1966 Gallup polls we indicative of public sentiment at the time they were taken, and if the majority of Americans said yes, would that invalidate this manuscript?

But, OK, have it your way - the Gallup polls from before 1966 or any other arbitrary date you want to be pick have to be thrown out. That still doesn't reconcile your world view that public opinion defines what is and isn't a threat with the fact that public opinion didn't consider terrorism a threat in January, 2001. Are you saying terrorism was not a threat in January 2001? Or are you talking rubbish?

 

Mi-GOPer, Mead50 will try any distraction(s)...

like he tries with a long litany of non-germane observations to discredit your point about Mr Gallup's polling techniques prior to '66.  My doctoral paper on the new trading rules for the Seoul stock exchange was also peer-reviewed BEFORE a final draft was accepted for publication inside the university --although it added to the time line, my advisor had me do it that way because it becames a mechanism for further exposure of an important topic (at least to us) within and outside the econ/polisci depts at colleges -as well as professional organizations and associations outside academics.  It was peer-reviewed before even being printed by the university or three subsequent professional journals.  And, I think, it benefited from it.  Mead50 doesn't know what he's talking about... again.

Hey, Mead 50 is just angry that you presumed to answer a question he posed to me.  Frankly, you answered it far better than I would have answered; thanks.

He asked for credible evidence the "carbon emissions threat" he was concerned about isn't a threat... you pointed out with unimpeachable sources that the American public says it isn't.  You also pointed out that other people in other countries who have elites supporting Kyoto say it isn't important or a threat as well.

To Mead50, taught to be arrogant and elitist, if he declared it a threat, then it is a threat.  Public opinion be damned.

He sort of sounds like Dick Cheney, no?

Even if we accept this fantasy as true

you still had to WRITE it first before it could be peer-reviewed, no? Or did these kindly experts stand over your shoulder as you were working.

And you still haven't addressed the question of why an unpublished manuscript is authoritative while all of the published work on climate change is not.

He asked for credible evidence the "carbon emissions threat" he was concerned about isn't a threat... you pointed out with unimpeachable sources that the American public says it isn't.  You also pointed out that other people in other countries who have elites supporting Kyoto say it isn't important or a threat as well.

Polls showed people didn't think terrorism was a threat in January 2001....how did that turn out? People used to think that smoking wasn't a threat....that it was better to be thrown clear of an accident rather than be restrained by a seat belt....that drunk driving was just one of those things....that sun exposure was good for you. And then those pesky elitist "experts" with there GENUINE peer-reviewed papers came along and blew all that to hell.

I  repeat: where is the credible evidence that carbon emissions aren't a threat? Opinion polls are not credible evidence.

Spin away, Mead50; you're as desperate as cr now...

Let's do a recap, ok?

When BryanPick demonstrated clearly that a trade of payroll taxes for a new carbon tax might be good policy and good politics for the GOP, butressing Jon Henke's view...

what did you do?  You snarked

"Are you also a creationist...?"

in a largely unsuccessful move to discredit his views.  Pure snark.  And petty.  Spin, Distraction.

When I called you on it, you tried spinning the discussion to another topic:

 "OK, then, lets (sic) see the credible evidence that carbon emissions are not a threat."

MI-GOPer gave you clear, unconvertible and unbiased facts that polling proves the American public, plus a widely representational sampling of people in other countries too, do NOT consider sarbon emissions a threat.  In fact, the pro-green polling proved that people around the world aren't willing to sacrafice ANYTHING for the so-called carbon emissions threat and they are not exactly supportive of their govt doing so, either.

But that doesn't matter to you because, arrogant and presumptive ass you've proved to be here repeatedly, you know what is best for public policy.  Damn public opinion.

That's why you're now stuck trying to spin away from the truth into meaningless side issues with others.  That's why you've lost both the debate and any residual credibility you might have had here... and are sounding a lot like a very weak and impotent impression of Dick Cheney... "We don't care what the American people think.  We don't listen to polls."

Sorry Mead50, like in other venues and other debates here, you've lost again.  Others have pointed it out.  I concur.

Just like with an incorrigible 4 yr old, it takes explaining it a hundred times before you get the point.

Polls show that after years of multi-media saturation from a single, pro-global warming perspective, a plurality of Americans no longer think carbon emissions are a threat.  Credible, unbiased, incontrovertible and clear fact.  Even in the face of your side doing its level best to argue the positive.

What you should have asked was whether or not scientists and arrogant eco-liberals think carbon emissions are a threat.  And asked for credible evidence.

But you didn't.

You snarked away and spun the discussion toward an angle you thought certain you could win. You lost.  Now it's all about distractions and more spin from you.  Slam dunk, gramps.

And some people still smoke cigarettes.

MI-GOPer gave you clear, unconvertible and unbiased facts that polling proves the American public, plus a widely representational sampling of people in other countries too, do NOT consider sarbon emissions a threat.

A poll that says the people do not consider "sarbon" emissions a threat is not the same as proof that carbon emissions are not a threat.

Opion polls do not define reality. I earlier gave you the example that in January 2001 terrorism did not even make Gallup's list of major problems facing the nation. You have conveniently ignored it.

And yet you say I am an "arrogant and presumptive ass" becasue I hold to the idea that truth is truth, regardless of what opinion polls say.

JFK won with 51% of the vote. Two years later,  56 percent of voters said they had voted for him; after his death, 64 percent said they had voted him while only 36 percent admitted voting for Nixon.

By your reasoning, JFK did, in fact, receive 64% of the vote. The truth, however, is that it was 51%.

Mead50, Mi-GOPer nailed you... you can spin to distract,

but, as you say "truth is truth".  You asked me --and Mi-GOPer provided it instead-- to provide credible evidence that carbon emissions are not a threat.

A recent plurality of Americans hold that they are not a threat and that's the province of the public to determine what is and what isn't a threat, what needs to be addressed and what isn't important.  Guys like you used to make fun of the Bush Administration's "Terror Alert System" of coded colors because the public wasn't buying it.  You argued the War in Iraq should end immediately because Americans didn't support it.

Now, you've spun yourself into sounding like some cheap-whorish impersonation of former Veep Dick Cheney --the very guy who, when HE discounts the polls, liberals like YOU scream bloody murder at the arrogance, the presumptiveness of his stand!  And you're doing it in this case without even an apology for the hypocrisy in your voice and thoughts.

In a dozen countries, pollsters were told by informed, intelligent citizens that carbon emissions are NOT a threat to their society.  Further, they were unwilling to even make small, token sacrafices to the"threat" --this after years and years of relentless fear mongering by the far Left eco-terrorists like AlGore, The Green Brigade, NRDC, the Wildlife Fund, et al.

No, sarbon carbon emissions are not a threat to America, to Canada, etc.  The public says so.  In fact, in a poll to determine what the most important issues for the new Obama Administration, people said global warming/climate change/carbon emissions were absolutely, positively the LEAST important issue facing America.

You lost the debate.  You just can't admit it.  Further spinning on your part to distract from that fact is... well, inconsequential to the outcome of this debate.

Please explain this

that's the province of the public to determine what is and what isn't a threat, what needs to be addressed and what isn't important.

January, 2001 Gallup poll regarding public opinion about the biggest threats facing America. "Terrorism" did not even make the list. So, was terrorism not a threat, not something that needed to be addressed in January,2001? Or are you talking rubbish?

Mead50, more distractions, more deflection from the truth

I thought Mi-GOP did an excellent job of answering what you thought was the "killer question" of the debate: give credible evidence that carbon emissions is not a threat.  He did, I concur completely.

You chose to spin it off into some cheap Dick Cheney'ish impersonation of the ultimate far Left liberal snob with an arrogance and presumptiveness that was, well, stunning Mead50 --even for your long track record here of being incredibly arrogant, telling average Americans what's right and wrong, determining for them what they should and should not think, determining for them what they should and should not do, determining for them what they can and can not do in your lofty, arrogant, self-appointed "I know better than you" presumptiveness.

Just like you argued your pals in the health care "reform" effort know better than anyone else what's right, what services patients ought to have, which patients should live or die and what it will cost when you get done screwing up the system nearly 90% of Americans deem to be good.  Even if, as in the Stimulus and Cash4Clunkers programs, you get it 1000% wrong.

It's the same here.  The American public, at the beginning of TeamObama's rule, were asked what should be the top priorities of the new, failingly naive administration.  They gave a lot of answers for the top priorities; your priority of the alledged "carbon emissions threat" was the dead last of a long, long, long line of important issues.  Dead last.  After years of AlGore screaming from every rooftop like a mullah calling his tribe to prayer.

"Damn those polls.  Damn the public!"  Not a threat to Americans, eh?  But to you, it is!  "They don't know what's right or wrong; what is a threat and isn't".  Then you go off on your little side-quest to TRY to draw meaningful comparisions of when Americans may have been proven wrong about credible threats --because of a lack of information and information on their part.  And then 12,000+ citizens in countries that were pro-Kyoto tell a pro eco-polling group that they don't think it's a threat either... aren't willing to make any sacrafices to offset this terrible, horrible threat you are hawking.

Silly really.  Like your arguments here.

You were wrong.  You can't admit it.  It fits the arrogant, presumptive liberal you parade yourself as... nothing new in all your diversions, deflections, blather.

Then, when you lose, you're off to create a new identity and weigh in with the same snark and style as before.  Dishonest and wrong on your part is dangerous combination, Mead50.

You keep on declaring victory

in this discussion without ever actually addressing the massive flaw in your your "reasoning" - if polls are sovereign regarding threat identification, why were the polls in 2001 wrong? To cover up this problem, you attack me personally and make false allegations.

Jake, a "flaw" to Mead 50 means everyone is wrong...

but to Mead 50 and his liberal, arrogant, presumptive pals.

For instance, after repeatedly answering his call to offer credible evidence that carbon emissions isn't a threat... I did, you concurred, but to Mead 50, the opinion of Americans to define what is and isn't a threat --with (and this is the important point Mead 50 wants desperately to ignore at all costs) proper information and exposure of the issue.  As we've pointed out repeatedly, Al Gore and his folks at Green Peace, World Wildlife Fund and NRDC have been hammering Americans in every media outlet about the "threat", the danger, the emminent concern over global warming.  Americans didn't think all that information was sufficient to even rank the "threat" of global warming as significant.  They mark it dead last in importance of priorities for BO's Administration. 

Dead last.  Bottom of the barrel.  Get to it later.

After fixing the economy.

After defending the US against a real terror threat, terrorism.

After fixing Social Security.

After improving education.

After reducing crime, giving middle clas tax relief, serving the poor, strengthening the military, ending moral decay, and providing health insurance to the uninsured poor.

After reducing the influence of lobbyists, protecting our enviroment, dealing with illegal immigration.  And MediCare. And the federal deficit.  And the trade imbalance.

Then -and only then- does global warming get ranked as an important priority.  Not a priority?  Not a threat.  Simple as that.

Not only that, but as you know, 12,000+ other citizens from pro-Kyoto countries agree with America and us.  It isn't a threat to them either.  And who paid for the polling in that case?  An eco-friendly group of tree huggers.  The poll isn't suspect.  The American poll isn't suspect.

Except to Mead 50 who wants to continue to spin and distract and deflect and divert attention away from the simple answer that, based on public opinion polling, global warming/carbon emissions are NOT a threat nor a priority to America or to the majority of pro-Kyoto countries.

As you and I have both pointed out, (sigh) repeatedly, to Mead 50, the difference between pre 9-11 threat assessment by Americans (who didn't have much info because Clinton's Administration treated the threat as a "police action") and the assessment made by Americans recently that carbon emissions/global warming was not a threat to Americans or even worhty of being a distant 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th or even 6th choice for the Obama Administration to address is the level of information made in determining the reality of the threat.

I've been rethinking the charge that Mead 50 is just another arrogant, presumptive liberal trying to tell everyone else what to do, when and how... he may be.  I think he's just dense.  And, he can't admit he was wrong and he's lost the debate.

Just like Dick Cheney in some respects.  Certainly like Bill Clinton when he was President.  And curiously like Obama today when he has trouble admitting a mistake honestly and, instead, uses waffle words and slippery sentences of vague meaning to escape admitting an error on his part.  Maybe that is arrogance hiding behind density in Mead 50's case?

All I know is that he'll never get "it".  And the "it" is he's wrong. It is very credible evidence to accept American opinion when butressed with those of other countries, that global warming or carbon emissions are not a threat.

I wonder if Mead 50 thinks Obama's continuing slide in the approval ratings is a "threat" to his Administration's capacity to lead?  Of course, if it gets any lower, the Mead 50s of the world will start telling us it's all because of those evil GOPers who wanted to drag down the Messiah and "Celebrity in Chief" --I love that term!

Sock Puppet Theater

of The Absurd. I'm sorry that we've run out of space for the "two" of you to keep on repeating your patently ridiculous reasoning.

We'll call that your admission of losing the argument...

the debate and credibility.

Sock puppet?  Nope, but others have uncovered you acting as one in a variety of identities here and at other sites, Mead 50.  Go figure?  And you pretend to have credibility?  You are rich beyond Bernie Madoff.

ummmm

There is no such thing as clean coal. That's like saying dry water.

 

The very nature of fossil fuels means that at some point they will become less, and less available. A carbon tax would use market forces to move to the energy future as a more gradual phase, as opposed to the massive price shocks that happen when energy demand is higher than what can be supplied. See last summer for the kind of economic shocks that come along with rising energy prices. There is a direct correlation to GDP and energy production.

 

A carbon tax would do very little to address climate change, and the best arguments in favor of it are economic. Enough with the manbearpig already.

 

Obama's cap and trade program is a giveaway to the investment banksters that were the largest doners to his presidential campaign. If Republicans can come up with an alternative that makes sense, they will have allies in the progressive community.

 

But then again, if only water was dry.......

We are no longer interested in tactical cleverness

I recognize that your idea is to offer a "revenue neutral" swap of the payroll tax revenue stream for the carbon tax revenue stream. But modern conservatives have lost patience with clever tactics that have so often failed to deliver the results we have worked for.

Those of us who came to political activism seeking to reduce the size of government only to see its seemingly inexorable growth have lost patience with any new programs, policies or initiatives that are not explicitly about rolling back taxes and or programs. The next generation of conservative ideas must be focused efforts unambiguously designed to deliver on the long standing promises of Goldwater and Reagan to reduce to the role, scope and size of government. Anything short of that will fail to gain traction with us.

With good reason conservatives no longer have patience for cleverness and incrementalism.

Size

When do you lose patience with trying to shrink the government? I'm not saying it's not a worthy goal, but that it has never happened. Goldwater wasn't elected. Reagan, if one wanted to say he shrank the government which I don't personally believe he did, only started us down the path of a system of private contractors. That's shrinking but not.  As someone who lives and works in DC, contractors are just as wasteful as the government.

As for the size of government, it grows because of because of systematic abuse by the caretakers. Medicare and Medicade grow because it's a vote buying scheme by both parties.

Cleverness and incrementalism might be the only actual levers anyone really has.

 

Size --> ignore

-- accidental double post --

 

 

That is going to require new leadership.

The next generation of conservative ideas must be focused efforts unambiguously designed to deliver on the long standing promises of Goldwater and Reagan to reduce to the role, scope and size of government.

This is going to require a whole new leadership. Becasue making the case to the American people will require going all the way back to first principles - laying out the case for why small government is better. The current crop of Republicans aren't up to the task. They can throw red meat to an audience that already holds this belief, but they can't persuade anyone outside the tent to come in and join them becasue they don't have a convinvincing argument for why small government is better, and how it can be brought about.

But also systematic changes on top of leadership

Unless the election cycle is (arbitrarily) shortened and money capped, elections depend to much on local constituencies recieving federal largess, and politicians relying on outside group support.

We now have a system that promotes the worst from government; however, the people who can change that are the same people who benefit from it. It's a vicious cycle . . . that only the country in ruins will change? I believe that was in the original post about decision under crises.

The farLeft apologist Mead50 is again advising GOPers?

Come on Mead50, the current leadership of the GOP in Congress and throughtout state capitols are perfectly able to convince voters and show the errors in your side's way.

Last week guys like you and NancyBoTox and LyinJoeBiden were trying to tell anyone who would listen that the GOP was behind organizing the "mobs" at Democrat officials' townhall usual one-way blowfests.  Before that, they were telling everyone to discount the TeaParty crowd as an astroturfed, angry GOP cadre that would dissipate with the summer wind.

The simple, inescapable truth is that whether it's defending global warming or protecting gay penguins or trying to convince voters that the Democrats' Death Squads aren't real... you guys have lost the edge, the debate and control of the agenda to a populist uprising that all the SEIU and ACORN thugs can't stifle.  Health care reform is fading faster than a wrinkle on NancyBoTox's face or hairplugs on LyinJoeBiden's ample ample ample forehead.

If you can't win on health care reform & the public option --an item that, prior to TeamObama's minions bringing it forward, was a non-starter with most Americans-- and that's been clearly defined by your farLeft radical friends in the WestCoast Democrat Party as Issue #1-- what can you win on?  More czars?  More fear mongering about the economy in order to get your agenda passed?  More spin from the White House about making our enemies our newest best friends with benefits and turning our backs on our long-standing allies? Or maybe you guys can find a way to drudge up Cheney and Bush for another round of distracting glances in the rearview mirrors?

Anything but lose another battle. 

1) Cash4Clunkers was a dismal failure to the point that auto dealers were abandoning it such with rapid fire quickness that the TeamObama folks had to end it before it blew up in their face. 

2) The Stimulus hasn't lowered unemployment --it's contributed to more unemployment, a slower economic rebound and now TeamObama is even admitting under the glaring lights of truth that unemployment may reach 10% this year and last through most of 2010. 

3) TARP is failing to stop all the bank closures as more banks close in Obama's first 6 months than closed in the entire previous Bush Administration. 

4) Foreclosures continue to rise even though TeamObama promised his plan to rescue his corrupt buddies at FannieMae and FreddieMac would end the rise of foreclosures.

5) The deficit continues to grow to a point that TeamObama will have added more to the national deficit in 6 months than it took 44+ administrations to add in over 233 of American History.

But you go one advising GOPers, Mead50.  It's about as sincere as cr's opinions on how popular SlickWilly and JimmineyCricketCarter truly are and why they're such Great, Successful Presidents.  Oh yeah, and Geo Washington slept around as the first Player-in-Chief. LOL.

 

Oh yeah, and by the way, you guys STILL haven't caught Osama bin Laden, you are losing the War in Iraq that Bush was winning.  Your on-the-cheap policies in Afghanistan are losing the war there, too.  And you still haven't been able to convince a single US ally to commit more troops to either theatre of action that weren't already commited.  In fact, the last time TeamObama was in England, he pissed off the Queen and the Govt so much they decided to allow the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 mass murder run home to a hero's welcome in The Great Socialist People's Libya.

Nice going there.  You keep advising those GOPers about what to do, ok?  LOL

You are reinforcing my point

Going on and on about how Democrats suck does not make the case that small government is best. It just makes the case that Democrats suck.

Reintroducing Americans to the idea that small government is best requires that the case be made on its own merits, from the ground up.

 

Nope, you again (sigh) missed the point by a mile...

Mead50.  The pint was that to have you supposedly "advise" the GOP about the proper course to follow is like asking the ACLU to provide advice on Camp Delta detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Or maybe it's like asking TeamObama, the most partisan and contentious administration to date, how to reform the culture of corruption in the Democrat controlled Congress.

You missed the point.  No one could ever make any argument of your's sensical.  It's just not doable, Mead50.

It appears that your real "pint" is that personal attacks

are all that matter, given that you can't follow substantive discussions.

OK, then - what is your strategy for successfully advocating smaller government?