Being
the die-hard liberals that they are, the paper cannot help itself in describing
Gore’s wealth as “Romneyesque” and Mitt Romney himself as a “private-equity
baron.” In the liberal view, it is acceptable to gain wealth, whether honestly
or dishonestly if you are a Democrat, however, if you are a Republican, you
become a baron, a comparison with negative connotations, harking back to the
robber-barons era.
Criticizing
modern liberalism and the Democrat Party, the author condemns their green
agenda and their dependence on cash from high-tech venture capitalists and
lobbyists, questioning their claims that they are supporting “the little guy,”
the ordinary Americans who struggle to survive in an almost 16 percent
unemployment environment.
The
real unemployment figures, if reported correctly and honestly, are much higher
than the stated 7.8 percent by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the
happy media supporting President Obama’s re-election campaign. The main stream
media has not bothered to report that the seventh largest economy on the planet,
California, had failed to report its unemployment figures on time last week and
was thus not included in the BLS unemployment calculations.
Charles
Lane says that it is much harder to describe “liberalism as a philosophy of
distributive justice.” Quoting Andrew Jackson’s words of 1832, the author is
indirectly complaining about the injustice of our Government.
I
do not recall our founding fathers advocating socialist re-distribution of
wealth. Liberalism is a political philosophy founded on the ideas of liberty:
free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of
religion, and the right to life, liberty, and property. Nobody is entitled to
anybody else’s property. It was John Locke who argued that each human being has
a natural right to life, liberty, and property and governments must not violate
these rights. Yet liberals trumpet that an omnipotent government should be the
arbiter and re-distributor of private property and wealth.
Charles
Lane makes a valid point that our government does not have a mandate to choose
economic winners and losers through green subsidies, grants, or tax breaks for
oil and gas. However, in his progressive views, governments must pursue “the
legitimate goal of environmentalism.”
I
am not sure if there is a legitimate goal of environmentalism or who has mandate
to pursue that goal. The majority of Americans believe environmentalism to be
counterproductive to our capitalist economy and a threat to private property
and our way of life.
Maurice
Strong, the founder of the United Nations Environment Programme, exemplifies environmentalism
gone berserk: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilization
collapses? Isn’t our responsibility to bring that about? Current lifestyles and
consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake,
use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are
not sustainable.” (Rio Earth Summit)
Questioning
Gore’s “climate crusade” as being based on money and not about saving the
planet, the author talks about Fisker, the manufacturer of the hybrid cars,
mostly priced above $100,000, the Kharma sport model selling for $117,000. Lane
believes the huge financial gain does not hurt Gore’s credibility about climate
change, just the solutions he advocates.
It
is not in the interest of liberals to let climate change/global warming crusade
die. There is too much money, wealth, power, and global control to be gained from
pushing this hoax.
The
Met Office in the U.K. reported last week that 3,000 temperature readings on
land and sea have shown that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there
was no discernible rise in global temperatures. According to the Daily Mail, “the
‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time
as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that,
temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.”
The
media reported with great fanfare six months ago figures through the end of
2010 – a very warm year because the data seemed to agree with their agenda. The
reporting was disingenuous because it supposedly showed a slight warming trend
since 1997. However, 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler,
erasing the warming trend. I would also argue that environmentalists constantly
mix weather and climate, depending on their talking points. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html)
Everybody
understands green energy is expensive and not feasible and cheap on a mass
scale for years to come. Our huge economy and transportation need more than
just wind mills and solar panels. Our economy needs natural gas, oil, clean
coal, nuclear energy, and hydroelectric energy.
The
New York Times reported on California’s “net metering” subsidy for solar-panel
users. Consumers who can afford to install photovoltaic panels are paid by
their utilities for the excess capacity of electricity and to keep them on the
grid. The utilities’ costs are passed on to lower income customers. (Washington
Post, Charles Lane, October 16, 2012)
Liberals
are finally discovering that expensive electricity rates are bad for industry
and private customers alike. The $3.4 billion from the 2009 stimulus bill spent
on the Smart Grid may be efficient and profitable in energy distribution for
utilities but it is very expensive for consumers, invades their privacy, and
creates cyber security issues and privacy issues. Germany’s rapid replacement of
nuclear power with wind and solar has increased utility rates so much that
200,000 long-term unemployed Germans lost power in 2011 because they could not
afford to pay their electric bills. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/energy-turnaround-in-germany-plagued-by-worrying-lack-of-progress-a-860481.html)
Liberals
are finally discovering that much higher electricity rates through smart
metering are hitting their pockets and it hurts. Progressives are realizing
that the Democrat talk about “green jobs” is nothing but a con redefinition of
already existing jobs. Furthermore, smart grid and smart meters, with all their
negative effects on human health and privacy, are destroying the jobs of the
traditional meter readers. Lane calls this unintended consequence “creative
destruction” - “what makes capitalism go.” But Economics 101 teaches students
that self-interest, greed, the price system, Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” and
the pursuit of profit are the motivators behind capitalism.
Lane
disapproves of Gore and his partners’ rent-seeking activities. “It is to be
regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to
their selfish purposes.” He laments the fact that the United Mine Workers of
America, a former Democrat core constituency, has refused to endorse Obama in
2008 and 2012. Mitt Romney has promised in Ohio that we will use our vast
reserves of coal, keep the miners’ jobs, and re-open those coal mines shut down
by Obama’s green energy policies.
In
the end, the scam of green is affecting Democrat and Republican consumers
alike. It just took Democrats four years to realize this obvious fact.
