Tailpipe Johnny's New Carbon Tax

Never in my wildest imagination did I ever think I'd be writing a blog post in praise of John "Tailpipe Johnny" Dingell, the aging mossback Democratic Representative of Detroit, Michigan.

But, in keeping with the ancient proverb of "confusion to our enemies," I am taking fiendish delight in seeing Tailpipe twist Frisco Nan's knickers into a knot over his inclusion of a carbon tax in the new House energy bill.

As a recent Wall Street Journal article (10 July) so well described, Tailpipe is forcing Nan to put her money where her mouth is. He knows that a carbon tax will raise gasoline prices and send voters screaming to the polls to oust the party responsible for it. But he also knows that Nan's approach, which is to just set high CAFE levels so she and her San Francisco hybrid liberal friends, can feel exonerated.

As the Journal piece notes,

"This week's prize for honest liberalism goes to Michigan's John Dingell, who is having fun with his fellow Democrats while also making a useful point about the politics of global warming. The venerable Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee -- first elected in 1955 -- has announced that he plans to introduce as early as this week a new tax on carbon emissions.

Now, that's the way to clear a Capitol Hill hearing room. Americans are already miffed at paying $3 a gallon for gasoline, a fact that has the Members assailing oil companies on a daily basis. So the last thing Democrats seeking re-election want to do is pile on another dollar or two a gallon in taxes -- especially in the name of "saving the planet" from the speculative danger of global warming 50 or 100 years from now. Their voters have to deal with the more immediate danger of missing the mortgage payment.

Mr. Dingell knows all this. His point is to force his colleagues -- and the voters -- to be more honest about the cost of their global-warming posturing. It's one thing to pay 100 bucks to hear Madonna at the "Live Earth" concert, or impress your girlfriend by wearing an "I reduced my carbon footprint" T-shirt. It's quite another to accept that energy prices would have to rise by many multiples to make even a degree's worth of difference to the world's climate. "I sincerely doubt that the American people will be willing to pay what this is really going to cost them," Mr. Dingell said on C-SPAN last week."

In fact, the article notes that Europe has violated its Kyoto-accord carbon limits, and that 1970s-era CAFE regulations didn't stop US gasoline demand from rising, either. Later in the piece, the Journal notes,

"Regarding such a tax, Democrats already have some hard political experience. In 1993, Vice President Al Gore convinced Bill Clinton to propose an energy tax on BTU (British thermal units) usage. That would have added about 12 cents a gallon to the price of gas. House Democrats walked the plank and passed it, only to have Senate Democrats kill it. As much as anything else, that vote cost Democrats control of the House in 1994. Now Mr. Gore has embraced the carbon tax once again -- though we still haven't heard him endorse a direct tax on gas or consumers."

You really have to love our Founding Fathers for constructing a political system so complex that even someone like Tailpipe Johnny eventually finds it worthwhile to take on his own party's House Speaker, in defense of his voters. Despite my dislike for Tailpipe, I truly respect him for forcing the Left Coast liberal hypocrites to now step up and vote their conscience on this faux-issue, while possibly losing their seats...nevermind their asses....in the bargain.

Yet another reason why I believe the 'human-sourced global warming' position is unproven, and dangerous to believe otherwise, for economic reasons. Tailpipe obviously agrees. He also clearly feels the current Speaker has not 'led' sufficiently well on this, or other issues, and is using his committee chairmanship to register his disappointment in Frisco Nan's "leadership."

American Healthcare, Liberty, and the Liberal Democrats

A few weeks ago, in its weekend edition, The Wall Street Journal printed an article discussing an oft-overlooked aspect of many, if not all, of the current crop of "universal healthcare" schemes being floated by various Presidential candidates.

The key question is, as the article is entitled,

"Should Insurance Be Mandatory?"

At issue is a fundamental question of personal liberty which struck me because I spent the past week with my father. He contended, from when I was quite young, that Americans would most likely lose their liberties slowly, in small increments.

Universal healthcare is such an increment. Essentially, the proposition is that all Americans should be forced to buy into one grand health insurance scheme. No exceptions. Then we all pay, it is argued, for caring for the poor, sick, etc.

Sounds fine in principle, eh? A large risk pool over which to spread expensive societal healthcare expenses?

But, wait. What about the large component of individual health that is volitional, and individually determined? Why should I pay for your smoking, drinking, poor diet, and lack of exercise?

It's all well and good to focus on diseases or conditions which may be present from birth, and may be nobody's "fault." However, that does not mean we must subsidize those who, when relieved of the burden of paying, literally, the price for insuring their very unhealthy lifestyle, logically consume more of the free good that is low-priced healthcare coverage for their very healthcare-intensive lifestyle.

Why not simply let the market solve most of this problem? Let those who choose to live medically-expensive lives pay for that privilege, while those who do not, pay less. The truly indigent or those with medical conditions from birth can be included in Medicare or Medicaid.

What troubles me most about the recent frenzy over universal healthcare is that all candidates seem bent on taking one liberty away- the freedom to say "no" to mandatory, or any, healthcare coverage.

Little by little, if this mandatory coverage is extended, our lives will become drab and managed by the state.

First smoking will be simply prohibited, because it costs us too much in healthcare dollars. Next will be alcohol. Then expect certain foods with high fat content to be prohibited, or rationed.

I'm not kidding. When mediocre, small-minded politicians and bureaucrats get it into their pointy little heads that life now exists to be lived at the least expensive total US healthcare system costs, watch your lifestyle freedoms begin to be taken, tiny step by tiny step.

One day, you'll wake up and find that what you eat and do for recreation are regulated in the name of lower universal healthcare premiums.

Socialistic schemes such as mandatory universal healthcare will only remove more of our liberties, without truly improving our health, or healthcare.

Ann Coulter on John Edwards et. al.

I have followed Ann Coulter's recent flap with Elizabeth Edwards with interest and, frankly, glee.

Ann is right..this alone should sink Edwards' candidacy. What is he thinking, sending his wife to do his work for him?

Is this how he will handle Al Qaeda, as Coulter wondered aloud? Send his wife to bargain with them, or complain about how mean they are, killing all those people?

I guess after the Clintons, Edwards figures he needn't wait til he's in office to have his wife work for him as his Secretary of State.


I recall, in my youth, that Ed Muskie sank his campaign in tears, while railing at the Manchester Union. Nowadays, crying like that would probably seal his election.


On a related note, I think Coulter was totally on target to parallel Bill Mahre's outrageous suggestion that assassinating Vice President Cheney would 'save lives in Iraq.' She waggishly told her interviewer, after the sandbagged call from Elizabeth Edwards, that next time she comments about Edwards, she, too, will suggest a terrorist assassination of the candidate.

Honestly, the entire Edwards-Coulter episode is now stranger than fiction. To see John Edwards on Chris Matthews' show, alleging that Coulter appeals only to extremists, is also surreal. This living Ken-doll spouting media sound bites and incredible disconnected views on what he and his wife did, left me wondering who could possibly believe him?

I think Coulter's response was spot-on, portraying Edwards' weakness and cowardice. It is difficult for me to believe Edwards now has any chance at all in the race for the Presidency. Which is how it should be.

Hillary's Dilemma

Peggy Noonan wrote a wonderful piece in her Weekend Wall Street Journal column about how Hillary Clinton's challenge is to prove she's a woman. Without belaboring the point, I wholeheartedly agree.

I even know women, liberal women, who will not vote for Hillary because she doesn't cry, show emotion, or behave as many women feel a woman should. Politician or not.

In fact, a friend and I opined that Hillary really should consider simply taking the feminine high road, and behave like a woman. This way, she probably would sew up all the woman voters, who comprise a plurality of the registered base.

On the other flank, the Journal ran a piece citing the Nation's article concerning attacks by feminists on Hillary. In her move to the relative center of various political positions, Hillary had to abandon some of the more blatant 'just for women' stands, including her vote to invade Iraq.

So, Hillary has some difficulties ahead. She is too centrist and compromising for the hard-core feminine left. And she's not woman enough for many women who want a woman candidate for President to actually be different than a man. Which Hillary is trying mightily not to be.

It is by no means a slam dunk that the Democratic nominee for President will be elected, nor that that nominee will be Hillary.

America, The Plutocracy

As I discussed handicapping the very early Presidential race with my conservative friend, Merritt, the other day, he identified an astonishing pattern.

I have to admit, for someone who believes I am pretty observant, this shocked me.

Merritt noted that, if Hillary is elected in 2008, the US will have been governed by Presidents from just two immediate families for a total of 24 years.

How could I have missed this?

Between three Bush terms, and what would be at least three, and possibly four, Clinton terms, you have plutocracy which outstrips even FDR.

Which is why I think this bodes very poorly for Hillary. I can't see many red state Americans, including many who voted Democratic in those states, and many in red states, prolonging the rule of the Clintons.

Never mind the two party system. We're talking "two family" system now.

Because if Hillary wins, you know Jeb Bush will become an immediate candidate for 2012.

Honestly, I just don't think a lot of Americans are ready to commit America to nearly three decades of rule by just two small families.

America, in my opinion, is ready for a black or female President. Just not 'this' female, Hillary, or 'that' black, Obama.

She's too shrill and calculating, he's too immature and inexperienced.

And now, add to that, she's going to perpetuate incestuous leadership of the country in a manner heretofore never seen.

You can take all the polls you want, and argue about how much money each candidate has. But, sometimes, it's the emotional issues, not the quantifiable ones, that make the difference.

On this one, I think most Americans will recoil in horror as they learn, and they surely will sometime in the next 17 months, that Hillary's election would result in such a long, unbroken string of Presidents emanating from just two immediate, non-extended families.

More On Global Warming: Dissent !!!!!!

I learned, via CNBC this week, that the Drudge report featured this piece on global warming. Some excerpts include,


The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.

Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.

The Financial Post is a respected Canadian newspaper. Funny how they can manage to have an open mind about global warming, but a country to their south, with an order of magnitude more people and media outlets, can't.

How'd it get so easy for the liberal Democrats to brainwash America so quickly into taking global warming seriously, as if:

a) we know humans are the major cause, and
b) we know our planet does not, itself, experience cycles of warming and cooling that will dwarf in magnitude any effect mankind can manage to exert on the process?

I can hardly wait for various 'global warming' programs, mostly involving restricting carbon-based energy sources, to stoke more inflation, become a wallet issue at the polls in 2008, and rout a surprised Democratic Party from both Congressional House majorities, as well as keeping them from the Oval Office.

Frisco Nan's About Face on Earmarks

The Democrats in the House of Representatives have truly disgraced themselves these past few weeks.

David Obey, Chair of the Appropriations Committee, attempted to explain why he and his colleagues were reneging on Frisco Nan's promise to reform earmarking.

In and editorial in The Wall Street Journal on June 13th, Obey is quoted as saying, regarding examining earmarks,

"The only real opportunity you have to prevent something stupid from happening is to have the protection of the staff who know the most about these programs and can fight something if they think it smells."

Great. Government by staffers. Like any staffers will dare to take on some other Democratic Representative for whom they do not work?

Obey went on to 'reform' the earmark process so that no earmarks would be publicly discussed before voting.

In the same Journal article, the LA Times-Bloomberg survey reported that Congress' approval rating is now down to 27%, with 63% of voters saying it's "business as usual."

By the way, that 27% rating is lower than the President's.

Apparently, after pressure brought about by Republicans in the House, Obey and Nan finally relented on keeping earmarks secret prior to the House-Senate conference report.

So much for a new era of responsive government under a woman Speaker. Or Democratic Speaker. Guess the gender doesn't really matter, after all.