Skip to comments.Cato Scholar Comments on New Energy Bill
Posted on 12/19/2007 10:12:53 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The energy bill to be signed by the president today is arguably the worst piece of energy legislation ever enacted into law. It will substantially increase the price of automobiles, increase highway fatalities, increase fuel prices, worsen air pollution, and force consumers to buy products (like super-efficient light bulbs) that they manifestly -- and for very good reason -- do not want to buy. It will transfer huge amounts of wealth from the consumer to the farm lobby in the course of promoting a dubious product -- ethanol -- that will make energy supplies less reliable and greenhouse gas emission higher than necessary.
I said “Cato, you’re making my point.”
Who will take the ‘credit’ for this fiasco?
The sad thing about these think tanks is that they divide policy and discuss policy in fine detail and this is not how policy is made. Our process is not reasonable and our politicians are not public spirited enough for the truth to matter one way or another. It’s raw power and political calculation. A corrupt process.
Manufactured only by our close friend and ally: CHINA!
This president has been such a disappointment to me that I haven't the time nor the energy to compile the list. His bipartisan, compassionate conservatism may very well cost the nation the White House and it's already cost us the Congress.
Whose signature brings the abortion of a mess into law?
Congratulations Bush, this seals the deal on your status as a rotten president. He has sold us down the river, boys.
Random thought: if they can ban light bulbs, they will find a way to ban firearms.
No government in the 6,000 years of modern mankind history has led its people into anything but the history books with a simple lesson, don’t let this happen to you.
Our founding fathers understood this and why they demanded limited government.
Typical Washington pols attempting to control the sometimes free market of goods and services.
Our government now tells us:
1) How fast we can run water down the drain.
2) What kind of toilet we can sit on.
3) What kind of cars we can drive.
4) What kind of firearms we can own.
5) What type of light bulbs we can use in our houses.
6) Where our children will go to school.
7) What kind of medicines we are allowed to take.
8) What kind of fuel we can put in our car.
9) If/when we are allowed to burn in our fireplaces (Sacramento County).
But, other than that, we have an unobtrusive, limited government that stays out of the details of our lives. Anyone care to add to my list?
There is many of dime that can be saved. The proof will be in the people who implement this program and not in the mandates in the law. If the automakers do it the cheap way then there is some truth to the article. Automakers have the technology to meet the mileage requirements. Incandescent lamps are a thing of the past. Where it has been important to save money, flourescent, HPS, MV and quarts have replaced these lamps long ago. We did this at our facilities more than 20 years ago. It is time that down home rural USA got off the pot and started following the example.
The proof will be in the pudding not in the law itself. Don’t bash a President for doing the right thing that should have been done long ago.
Shame on all of you.
None of this stuff is within the legitimate constitutional authority of the federal government.
May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.Samuel Adams
The other thing about these think tanks is that their “experts” are nothing of the kind.
Take Mr. Taylor, for example. Does he have any science or engineering background in the energy industry?
No. His background is in political science.
I’m rather weary of listening to the prattle and twaddle from lawyers, poli-sci and journalist types on technical issues. I’d like to see an energy bill that has at least *some* technical input from people who might know what the three laws of thermodynamics are.
This is not a “technical” issue. It’s about freedom - which happens to be a “political” issue.
Our government now tells us: 1) How fast we can run water down the drain. 2) What kind of toilet we can sit on. 3) What kind of cars we can drive. 4) What kind of firearms we can own. 5) What type of light bulbs we can use in our houses. 6) Where our children will go to school. 7) What kind of medicines we are allowed to take. 8) What kind of fuel we can put in our car. 9) If/when we are allowed to burn in our fireplaces (Sacramento County). But, other than that, we have an unobtrusive, limited government that stays out of the details of our lives. Anyone care to add to my list?
It's ok, tho. Badeye doesn't believe we've lost any 'freedoms', thank goodness! =P
You have to learn to let go, SP.
Sheesh. I don’t agree with you today, didn’t agree with you yesterday, and won’t agree tomorrow. We’ve established this.
Now let it go.
Thanks in advance.
Shame on you for supporting the destruction of economic freedom. Economic freedom has done more to alleviate human suffering that banning light-bulbs, cars, or whatever en vogue form of central government planning you support.
Yes, there are issues of freedom therein.
Trouble is, yahoos like the CATO guys are completely oblivious to larger, longer-term freedom issues: eg, can we develop an energy policy that would cut us loose of middle eastern oil? If we could do that, we could simply walk away from a great deal of turmoil, both financially and militarily.
CATO wants “the free market” to prevail. What these Utopians fail to realize is that there are no free markets in anything other than contraband.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.