Letter to My Senators on the Energy Bill

I just submitted the following letter to Senators Sessions and Shelby (R-AL). My reasons are my own, but I encourage you to find your own words to stop the energy bill from going any further.

Senator Shelby:

I am appalled, but alas, not surprised that the House has passed the cap-and-trade bill. I sincerely encourage you to fight this bill and not allow it to be passed into law. The reasons for doing so are many, and all worthy of repeating:

--It is an unprecedented and unnecessary intrusion of government into the private sector.
--It raises the cost of energy, which will increase the cost of EVERYTHING ELSE in our economy, from transportation to manufacturing to farming. This is the worst possible thing government could do in an already-ailing economy.
--There are NO “green” technologies currently available that provide the amount of energy this nation needs to maintain a high level of technology or standard of living. Therefore, the only result will be a direct curtailing of future prosperity for all Americans.
--Global warming is still a subject very much in dispute, given a leveling off or cooling of temperatures in the last eight years.
--A “consensus” by activist scientists does not constitute scientific proof. Theories are proven by data and verifiable experiment, not incomplete computer models.

I strongly encourage you, Senator Sessions, and the other Republicans in the Senate to stop this legislation. There are things that can and should be done to meet the nation’s growing energy needs, including drilling for more oil on American lands, like off the coasts and in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge; investing in basic energy research, including space solar power and helium-3 derived fusion; and reducing regulations on new nuclear power plants.

Senator, stopping this bill does not represent “fear of the future,” as President Obama asserts. It is a principled stand against making the future more fearful. I look forward to supporting you in this vital battle for our nation’s future.

Sincerely,

Bart Leahy

"Promise You'll Visit Me in the Re-Education Camp?"

Hearings are likely to begin on reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine," a law that keeps controversial (i.e. conservative) topics off the radio by requiring radio stations to give equal time for opposing views. This is flatly absurd. Left-leaning attitudes overwhelm the magazine racks, the major television networks, the movies, books, newspapers, and a good chunk of the Internet. Conservatism dominates in one segment of the communications world--radio--and THAT'S the place where liberal politicians want to ensure "fairness." The quotation above was said to me by a fellow conservative. Heck, I might be next to him inside the fence.

What's really amazing is how I have been told that I'm closed-minded for not wanting to watch or read all this liberal stuff, but it's okay to impose a fairness doctrine on Limbaugh. Apparently 95% control of the media is not enough.

*

Another thing's got me in a twist lately: specifically, the notion that business is inherently less moral than government, and that therefore it is government's job to "rein in" the private sector. Those who dislike what the private sector does often cite the "excessive" salaries of this or that individual, or the amount of power businesses have to control lives.

The fundamental difference between "power" in the business sense and power in the governmental sense is that government writes and enforces the laws, with weapons if necessary. Yes, financial concerns can prevent particular ideas from spreading, but only through pressure ("If you run this ad, we'll pull our advertising"), not life-endangering threats ("Run this ad, and we'll close down your business, arrest you, seize your assets, and put you in jail"). I'm not saying either side is more moral. What I am saying is that human beings operate both types of agencies--public and private--and thus are equally susceptible to corruption or power-seeking. The difference is in methodology: businesses cannot force you to buy their products, and if they did, government would often come in and break up their monopoly.

And if I were to seek assistance in fixing the current economic crisis, I'd ask business leaders, not government leaders because business leaders understand the give and take of the marketplace. Government is used to being obeyed. In the Western system of law, only governments have a legal monopoly on the use of force. If you would rather work with people on a voluntary basis, you work with business. If you want people ordered about, you go through the government.

One reason conservatives favor limited government is that they prefer voluntary exchanges. You cannot engage in a purely voluntary partnership with the government when they control the laws. The advantages are all on the government's side. Businesses can offer incentives to elected officials (voting, lobbying, campaign contributions), but they cannot FORCE the government to do anything. Power relationships matter, and the less power government has, the better. My $.02 this fine Sunday morning.

Boy, I'm Sure Glad We Got That $700B Bailout!

"Angels and ministers of grace defend us!"
--Wm. Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I, Scene 4

So here we are, the Obama election plus 16 days. The stock market has continued to tank, despite an election supposedly geared toward "change" and getting rid of the "failed policies of the Bush Administration" (never mind that the economy only turned seriously sour in the last two years). Now the Dow and the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ and every other major market indicator is heading for record-low territory, at least by current standards. The Dow Jones Industrial Average settled at around 7,500 today, and volatility continues to run amok.

Where the heck is Obama's big plan for fixing all of this? Shouldn't he be out there calming the markets by promising--oh, something? Anything? Tax cuts? Tax increases?

If a bailout is such a great thing for America, why is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid so concerned about a Republican filibuster? The Republican Senators are not the rebellious ones--those are the House Republicans. So to blame the GOP for his party's failure to pass a bailout bill when they have a ruling majority is a bit of chutzpah and prevarication, in my opinion.

*

And while that foolishness is going on, we've got Somail pirates seizing oil tankers in the Indian Ocean. Does anyone know where they're taking these ships? What they're doing with them? And why are these acts not tied to al-Qaeda, when they have a base in Somalia? If al-Qaeda can seize control of four commercial airliners, they can certainly find a use for a supertanker filled with two million barrels of crude oil.

Weird world out there. I don't have any brilliant thoughts or solutions to any of this except, perhaps, to send the U.S. Marine Corps to deal with the pirates--that was one of their first jobs 203 years ago, on "the shores of Tripoli."

And, as I posted on my Twitter account, I wish Obama well because I wish the country well. Gosh knows we'll both need every prayer and good grace we can get in the coming year.

*

Oh yeah, and the IAEA now reports that Iran has enough nuclear material to make a small nuclear weapon. Let's be careful out there.