By Isaac MacMillen
More and more, the takeaway lesson for the American people from this session of Congress is that, “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”
After a resounding defeat dealt to the liberal envirolobby on April 2nd when a controversial cap-and-trade measure was rejected by the Senate, proponents of the measure are reevaluating their strategy for passage. As ALG News reported earlier, 26 Democratic Senators joined 40 Republicans in killing the chance of fast-tracking the legislation—and thus avoiding a GOP filibuster—causing the envirolobby to realize that they had options other than blatantly ramming it through Congress.
It turns out the alternative is to not-so-blatantly ram it through Congress.
The danger now is that the measure, which would strait-jacket private enterprise by severely limiting carbon emissions for the entire nation, will be mandated—not directly, via a vote—but indirectly, via a conference committee. And that will make it much easier for proponents to pass it without endangering politicians from rust-belt or conservative-leaning states. They’ll be able who can claim that they were against it, by nature of the fact that they did not participate in the conference committee that finally passed it.
In other words, they can—and will—have their cake and eat it, too, as reported by the Washington Post:
“The Senate, meanwhile, has roundly rejected reconciliation for Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal, adopting an amendment to ban the maneuver by a vote of 67 to 31. The House budget does not include cap-and-trade in its reconciliation provisions. But neither fact has deterred cap-and-trade advocates, and administration officials support leaving the door open in the budget blueprint when it emerges from conference committee for a final vote this month.”
Another danger is that liberal Republicans—read: Collins, Snowe, and Specter—will team up with Democrats to pass a falsely-labeled “reasonable compromise” cap-and-trade scheme, a la 2009 “stimulus.” Already, one of the three turncoat Senators has voiced her support for a future bill—provided Republicans are included in the debate. Says Senator Susan Collins (R-ME):
“It’s a bad mistake to try to cut out the Republicans and cut off debate and limit amendments on such an important bill, and I say that as a supporter of cap and trade.”
The danger of liberal Republicans joining forces with the Democratic majority to pass such legislation is serious. As demonstrated during the “stimulus” battle, it only takes a small number of Republicans turning to give the Democrats their victory. And they will no doubt be tempted with offers of political rewards.
Barack Obama and his administration officials will want to do whatever is necessary to ensure some form of cap-and-trade passes, and soon. President Obama’s budget relies on raising nearly $650 billion by 2019 through selling “carbon credits” to carbon-emitting businesses. But for right now, those businesses are breathing a sigh of relief—if temporary.
As the debate began in Congress, oil and gas producers began to worry about the extra cost they would have to shoulder. There were warnings that costs inflicted on to the companies would end up in consumer’s bills. And some warned that it would boost the volume of imported oil, since most foreign companies would not have to comply with the cap-and-trade scheme.
All of that, of course is dependent on what happens in the Senate-House conference committee hearings. History informs that politicians are not exactly known for holding to the same principles both at the public press conference and behind the closed doors. And conference committees are notorious for being smarmy dens of subterfuge.
If the cap-and-trade hi-jinx is to be blocked, conservatives must make certain that Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are not allowed to secretly slip in cap-and-trade language in the conference hearings, while America’s attention is diverted. And pressure must be kept up on wavering Republicans, to ensure that they do not cave to threats or promised rewards from the envirolobby.
The restriction of carbon emissions will bury America’s coal, oil, natural gas, and any other carbon-emitting industries while engaging in a misguided effort to subsidize “green” energy alternatives like solar and wind technologies. Those alternatives may never produce as much energy as fossil fuels, and there is no question that they come nowhere near that at present. And their promotion at the expense of viable and proven modes of energy is the equivalent of economic suicide.
Consequently, now is not the time for the American people to let their guard down against the envirolobby that is increasingly intent upon decapitating America’s energy industry and further scuttling the American economy.
In short, it’s either eternal vigilance now—or liberty priced beyond the reach of an increasingly moribund free market.
Isaac MacMillen is a Contributing Editor to ALG News Bureau.
