Policy Wonking 101

Just a general hint to Sister Sarah, when one is writing an op-ed piece, stick to the subject at hand instead of rambling on like an idiot. (Madam, rambling on like an idiot is for bloggers, the dirty bastards they are.)

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

No, the ironic beauty is that the author of this piece understands precisely nothing about economics, supply-side or otherwise. First of all, $4.2 billion over 8 years is pocket change, half a billion a year is what, a fraction of a percent of the stimulus package? That's for the jobs lost nationally in the entire industry? Doesn't seem like a major problem to me, considering the green jobs this will create to replace them.

Second, how does this make energy "scarcer"? Isn't the whole point to use less energy as well as to gain the addition of cleaner, less polluting sources of energy? How does lowering demand and increasing supply make energy more scarce or less available at all?

Third, what the hell does any of this have to do with supply side economics? How does this put more income at the corporate end to trickle down to the consumer?

Fourth, doesn't Alaska get the most tax money per capita in federal assistance, where $4.2 billion over 8 years is actually only a small part of what you guys take in up there? Wouldn't that money be better spent elsewhere helping other states develop green sources of energy?

Honestly, if you're going to pretend like you know what you're talking about, do a better job of lying.