The new Socialism

maxiep · Dec 11, 2009

From Red to Green. You may disagree with his political philosophy, but his logic is almost always spot on.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/11/copenhagen_shakedown.html

The Environmental Shakedown

By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- In the 1970s and early '80s, having seized control of the U.N. apparatus (by power of numbers), Third World countries decided to cash in. OPEC was pulling off the greatest wealth transfer from rich to poor in history. Why not them? So in grand U.N. declarations and conferences, they began calling for a "New International Economic Order." The NIEO's essential demand was simple: to transfer fantastic chunks of wealth from the industrialized West to the Third World.

On what grounds? In the name of equality -- wealth redistribution via global socialism -- with a dose of post-colonial reparations thrown in.

The idea of essentially taxing hard-working citizens of the democracies in order to fill the treasuries of Third World kleptocracies went nowhere, thanks mainly to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (and the debt crisis of the early '80s). They put a stake through the enterprise.

But such dreams never die. The raid on the Western treasuries is on again, but today with a new rationale to fit current ideological fashion. With socialism dead, the gigantic heist is now proposed as a sacred service of the newest religion: environmentalism.

One of the major goals of the Copenhagen climate summit is another NIEO shakedown: the transfer of hundreds of billions from the industrial West to the Third World to save the planet by, for example, planting green industries in the tristes tropiques.

Politically it's an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man's guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt. But the idea of shaking down the industrial democracies in the name of the environment thrives not just in the refined internationalist precincts of Copenhagen. It thrives on the national scale too.

On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an "endangerment" to human health.

Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year will fall outside EPA control. This means over a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises. (The EPA proposes regulating emissions only above 25,000 tons, but it has no such authority.) Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given more intrusive power over every aspect of economic life.

This naked assertion of vast executive power in the name of the environment is the perfect fulfillment of the prediction of Czech President (and economist) Vaclav Klaus that environmentalism is becoming the new socialism, i.e., the totemic ideal in the name of which government seizes the commanding heights of the economy and society.

Socialism having failed so spectacularly, the left was adrift until it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green. The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for socialism to the altar of the environment. The objective is the same: highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, the new class of experts, managers and technocrats. This time, however, the alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality but saving the planet.

Not everyone is pleased with the coming New Carbon-Free International Order. When the Obama administration signaled (in a gesture to Copenhagen) a U.S. commitment to major cuts in carbon emissions, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb wrote the president protesting that he lacks the authority to do so unilaterally. That requires congressional concurrence by legislation or treaty.

With the Senate blocking President Obama's cap-and-trade carbon legislation, the EPA coup d'etat served as the administration's loud response to Webb: The hell we can't. With this EPA "endangerment" finding, we can do as we wish with carbon. Either the Senate passes cap-and-trade, or the EPA will impose even more draconian measures: all cap, no trade.

Forget for a moment the economic effects of severe carbon chastity. There's the matter of constitutional decency. If you want to revolutionize society -- as will drastic carbon regulation and taxation in an energy economy that is 85 percent carbon-based -- you do it through Congress reflecting popular will. Not by administrative fiat of EPA bureaucrats.

Congress should not just resist this executive overreaching, but trump it: Amend existing clean air laws and restore their original intent by excluding CO2 from EPA control and reserving that power for Congress and future legislation.

Do it now. Do it soon. Because Big Brother isn't lurking in CIA cloak. He's knocking on your door, smiling under an EPA cap.
Click to expand...

MrJayremmie · Dec 11, 2009

I scanned for Obama's name. Found it quickly, smiled, and left the thread.

Edit -

As for taxes, I agree with that one article I posted a week or so ago by Reagan's (domestic policy) adviser while he was president who said in this financial crisis, and with more expenditures than revenue (and a ridiculous deficit), it certainly isn't time to lower taxes. Time to cut down on government spending which obviously includes the wars and reforming health care. At that point, we can cut more taxes, definitely for the middle class (tax the higher class what they were taxed under Reagan, IMO, which would increase their taxes by a bit).

As for Obama bypassing congress...

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=71041&sectionid=3510203
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...bush_asserts_authority_to_bypass_defense_act/
http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/7173
http://ww4report.com/node/5262
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2007/11/16/bushs-newest-tack-bypass-congress.html
http://www.infowars.com/articles/police_state/torture/bush_could_bypass_new_torture.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/safe-f25.shtml

and so on... (not even going to go into Dick Cheney)

RR7 · Dec 11, 2009

Thanks for sharing the article. My biggest issue with "going green" globally is, not everyone is participating. Now, I understand in smaller terms, just because you aren't recycling doesn't mean I shouldn't be. Every little bit helps. And that's why I try to live as green as I can, within reason. But if we're going to hurt our industries, while essentially allowing those in China, India, and other developing nations to flourish, well, I don't like it. Sure, what we do environmentally might help a tiny bit in changing temperatures, or improving air quality. But at the same time, it could hurt us financially. Is there a trade off line somewhere? We can risk this much financially to help the air this much? I dunno. Probably not. I just can't see how we can put ourselves at a global financial disadvantage.

However, I would love to see us continue a push towards green technology, and being at the forefront of new technology. May be we can make up jobs in this sector enough to offset others? I want encouragement towards that end without strict rules punishing us.

MrJayremmie · Dec 11, 2009

Thanks for sharing the article. My biggest issue with "going green" globally is, not everyone is participating. Now, I understand in smaller terms, just because you aren't recycling doesn't mean I shouldn't be. Every little bit helps. And that's why I try to live as green as I can, within reason. But if we're going to hurt our industries, while essentially allowing those in China, India, and other developing nations to flourish, well, I don't like it. Sure, what we do environmentally might help a tiny bit in changing temperatures, or improving air quality. But at the same time, it could hurt us financially. Is there a trade off line somewhere? We can risk this much financially to help the air this much? I dunno. Probably not. I just can't see how we can put ourselves at a global financial disadvantage.

However, I would love to see us continue a push towards green technology, and being at the forefront of new technology. May be we can make up jobs in this sector enough to offset others? I want encouragement towards that end without strict rules punishing us.
Click to expand...

I agree with your main concern as well. I'd like to see us and China pass an environmental bill that is similar for both countries.

Log in or Sign up

The new Socialism

maxiep RIP Dr. Jack

MrJayremmie Well-Known Member

RR7 Well-Known Member

MrJayremmie Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

The new Socialism

Moderators

maxiep RIP Dr. Jack

MrJayremmie Well-Known Member

RR7 Well-Known Member

MrJayremmie Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches