Friday, June 06, 2008

Regulation Excess

Why does the government continue to believe that it has the right to control the ins and outs of our economy or our lives? During the previous Downsizer Dispatch we learned that the Senate was marching towards our destruction by trying to pass a Cap and Trade bill that would allow IRS like control over every business and every individual in the entire nation. How can we possibly allow this type of an invasion to occur?

Here's the text from the June 4th Downsizer Dispatch -

Subject: Regulating your gas stove

Notice the last words in our quote of the day: "gas stove." This gives you a good idea of how far-reaching and intrusive the so-called "Climate Security Act" could be. In the short run it may only regulate fossil fuels at their source. In the long-run the regulations are likely to extend to every aspect of life, from the large to the small.

Notice also the name of the bill, and its use of the word "security." This name reflects the politician's standard operating procedure. First they incite fear, and then they promise security. It would have been more honest to call it something straightforward, like the "Anti-Global Warming Act."

More honest still would be something like the "Total Control Act." If the government must sell, and you must buy, an emission permit for your gas stove, or your lawn mower, and perhaps your fireplace too, then we are very close to a state of total government control over the economy.

Is this hyperbole? Possibly, but probably not. The bill is 344 pages long, and you can bet that almost no one in the Senate has actually read it. Later, unelected bureaucrats will craft many hundreds or thousands of additional pages to establish specific regulations.

Still more trees will be killed to add even more pages in the years to come, as exceptions and new restrictions are added to completely unrelated bills, and passed without deliberation. The pages of regulations will grow to keep pace with this.

At every step of the way lobbyists will be meeting with Congressional staffs, seeking special provisions that will benefit them, and/or hurt their competitors. Many politicians will work to provide these favors with an eye toward future positions on boards of directors, or million dollar lobbying contracts with this or that carbon emitting industry. This could explain part of why so many politicians favor the complexity of "cap and trade" over the relative simplicity of a carbon tax (combined with tax cuts in other areas).

Are we saying that a carbon tax wouldn't be subject to the buying and selling of exceptions? No, it would be. But the complexity of "cap and trade" makes it far, far more suitable to the purpose of selling favors -- in large part because it would be much harder to detect favoritism in a complex, bureaucratic "cap and trade" scheme, then it would be in a simpler carbon tax plan.

Sadly, this issue isn't going to go away any time soon. All of the major party presidential candidates favor "cap and trade," so we're going to have to fight this for a long time. We took a big step in that direction yesterday, sending nearly 4,000 messages to Congress.

If you haven't yet sent a message against "cap and trade," you can do so here.

If you did send a message yesterday, we still need to keep reminding Congress that we do NOT want a bill permitting warrantless spying, and granting immunity to the telecoms that participated in previous warrantless spying. It would be very helpful if you would send a message on that subject today. You can do so here.


Since I had already sent a message about the Cap and Trade horror, I took action on the warrantless spying initiative -

I'm suspicious about the need for a restored or revised Protect America Act, and completely opposed to Telecom Immunity.

My personal comment to you:

The citizens of Missouri do not want warrant-less spying on anyone, especially not if citizens are coincidentally spied upon. FISA is already strong enough. Keep the Executive Branch going to the secret courts and getting the rubber stamp.

Furthermore, it is completely unacceptable that the companies that allowed the Executive Branch to bully them in to breaking the law should be given immunity. The Executive Branch is NOT ABOVE THE LAW. Consider that in the light of some other administration, not the current one. Would you have proposed laws in the Clinton administration that offered this kind of protection?

If you put party above the Constitutional Separation of Powers, we the Citizens will put the Constitution above you.


Well, I hope that doesn't sound like a threat to the persons that serve us in the U.S. Congress. I would never dream of being associated with anything that really threatened anyone with physical or emotional harm. However, I am strongly against supporting the continuation in office of our representatives that do not take their oath to the Constitution seriously. We have plenty of people ready to step up and take a faithful approach to the Constitutional service that our Congress is called to perform. If the ones in office won't live up to it, we will find and vote for someone that will.

Labels: , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home