Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
POST-PALIN.
The Washington Post decided to publish an op-ed by soon-to-be-former Governor Sarah Palin today. It's about cap-and-trade. It doesn't mention the words "climate change" or "global warming" once. It does, however, contain a lot false and unsourced arguments and literally promises that cap-and-trade will "destroy" our economy. Apparently, Palin hasn't taken Cap and Trade 101.
Palin's basic argument is that to acheive energy independence (the only goal, in her mind, of cap and trade), we should open up ANWR, drill more off-shore (if only those Washington bureaucrats would let us!), use more coal and invest in nuclear power -- amazingly, she doesn't even bother paying lip-service to renewable energy sources. I've brought back this campaign season graph to address the question of expanded drilling. Nuclear power is hugely expensive for the government, coal is enivronmentally unfriendly, none of her ideas are sustainable in the long-term and they simply don't address the question of climate change.
Best line in the whole piece, you ask? Probably this:
The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.
First reading this, I thought, "Wow, I don't understand supply-side economics, because cap-and-trade has nothing to do with that." But after a quick refresher, it became clear: Palin does not understand supply-side economics. Neither the success or failure of this plan will convince anyone that tax cuts pay for themselves.
But in any case, not everyone is from a "huge, energy-rich state" where the government runs a socialist energy monopoly that provides subsidies to citizens and receives $1.84 back from the federal government from every dollar of taxes sent to Washington. Sometimes we have to use market mechanisms like cap and trade to put a cost on negative externalities in the public interest. There are economic costs involved, but as Palin recognizes and dismisses, revenues from the plan are targeted to alleviate those costs.
Sigh. But a more interesting question: Does this mean that Palin intends to lead a campaign against cap and trade? Will there be more rallies and "drill, baby, drill"? It would be pretty amazing for Palin to go from Alaska governor to freelance oil industry lobbyist.
-- Tim Fernholz
COMMENTS (13)
"It would be pretty amazing for Palin to go from Alaska governor to freelance oil industry lobbyist."
The real transformation is from Alaska governor to policy wonk, a brief stop on the way to the GOP presidential nomination in 2012. Go, Sarah! For Democrats, there's nothing better that could possibly happen.
Posted by: Gerald Scorse | July 14, 2009 9:23 AM
I suspect Gov. Palin simply confused "supply-side economics" with "slavish devotion to corporate interests". An understandable mistake, given how the right has been using the former as a euphemism for the latter for the last forty years.
Posted by: Greg | July 14, 2009 9:51 AM
Ms. Palin is wrong to call cap-and-trade a tax. It is worse than a tax because only 15% of the proceeds from auctioned permits go into our national treasury.
– Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com
Posted by: Rmoen | July 14, 2009 10:04 AM
Why, oh why, is ANYONE listening to her anymore? Why is she still in the headlines??
Oh yeah. People just can't turn away from a train wreck. That is the only explanation.
Posted by: Angela G | July 14, 2009 11:36 AM
one could argue that cap and trade is an example of supply-side economics in action in that it seeks to alter the private benefits in order to align them (hopefully) with the social benefits.
Posted by: gradstudent | July 14, 2009 11:45 AM
Sadly, tim, your basic premise is broken. The truth is that every drop of oil and lump of coal in the ground will be burned by someone in the world, so cap and trade is just a big tax on our energy industry that puts American at a disadvantage. These are ideas championed by resource-starved countries that have a lot to gain by developing hideously expensive alternatives. The US doesnt. We have all the energy we need. All we need is for the polar bear huggers to take a flying leap and get out of the way.
Posted by: david | July 14, 2009 1:07 PM
Palin the energy wizard tries to lecture Obama, what a joke. there is a very interesting related post at http://iamsoannoyed.com/?page_id=588
Posted by: carly | July 14, 2009 2:23 PM
People just can't stand it when she is right. Women who don't like her are jealous because she looks better than them, and men who don't like her are gay.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 15, 2009 12:41 AM
"We have all the energy we need." Sure; that's why our dependence on foreign oil has increased to record levels over the last 25 years, and now stands at about 60%.
Posted by: Gerald Scorse | July 15, 2009 9:24 AM
I too am shocked by the shallow and misleading attempts by the WP to justify greed and selfishness. Are they so hard pressed for operating funds that they shill for anybody, or has the WP become a Warren Buffet bullhorn, to advocate for the richest of the rich
Posted by: Sexy Lingerie | September 1, 2009 2:32 PM
Your article is write very well, I like it very much ~
I wish you have a wonderful day!Thank you.
Posted by: ghd straighteners | October 27, 2009 10:34 PM
I suspect Gov. Palin simply confused "supply-side economics" with "slavish devotion to corporate interests". An understandable mistake, given how the right has been using the former as a euphemism for the latter for the last forty years.
Posted by: auto insurance | November 6, 2009 3:56 PM
It was a very nice idea! Just wanna say thank you for the information you have shared. Just continue writing this kind of post. I will be your loyal reader. Thanks again.
Posted by: links of london | November 13, 2009 8:06 PM