Gov. Palin: We can’t trust 'moderate' Dems to vote for fiscal sanity

*
Via Facebook Tuesday, Sarah Palin warned her 2.3 million online fans that 'moderate" Democrats can't be trusted to vote down a Cap and Trade bill. The only way to stop such job-killing legislation, she insisted, is for "rust belt" and energy-producing states to elect fiscally conservative candidates:

Energy Producing and Manufacturing States Must Send Job Creators to D.C.

I’ve made no secret of the fact that I think cap-and-tax could potentially be more disastrous to our economy than Obamacare because it would devastate our businesses and cripple our energy and industrial sectors. Cap-and-tax would put the nail in the coffin for our manufacturing jobs and our resource development. That’s why it’s crucial we fight any and all efforts by the Obama administration to push for it. The only sure way to thwart this legislation in Congress is to send commonsense conservatives to D.C. After all, there were many so-called “moderate” Democrats who claimed to be against a European-style socialized health care takeover, and yet when push came to shove they voted in favor of Obamacare. We can’t trust them to consistently vote for fiscal sanity when their party leadership (who they voted for, though they now conveniently pretend they’ve never heard of Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid!) pulls them in the opposite direction.

Senate races in particular have national significance when it comes to legislation like cap-and-tax. Our Senate is the most prestigious deliberative body in the world. One vote there has consequences extending far beyond that chamber. That’s why “rust belt” and energy producing states must get behind good candidates like John Raese in West Virginia, Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, Joe Miller in Alaska, Rand Paul in Kentucky, Sharron Angle in Nevada, John Boozman in Arkansas, and Carly Fiorina in California. Your jobs depend on their ability to hold the line against job-killing legislation.

People in these states have a clear choice on November 2nd. They can vote for jobs or vote for unemployment.

- Sarah Palin

- JP

Sarah Palin and why WE are pulling THEIR political power plug

- by VotingFemale
*
This is a vivid and necessarily strong-worded reminder of what we and Sarah Palin are dealing with and why it is vital to both donate to candidates and vote in the upcoming mid-term 2010 elections.

Socialist Engineered US Economic Destruction
The $1 trillion dollar Stimulus failure was intentional.
If you accurately understand Socialism
you already know why it was intentional.

Obama sold his now failed Stimulus package by misrepresenting what it would be, what it would do and how it would do it. Its failure was an unspoken design feature.

Another economy destroying plan of his, Cap & Trade, was masked in lipstick by shrouding it in a "feel good" environmental cloak.

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." -Barack Obama, January 2008

Skyrocketing energy prices means inflation. Even if there were such a thing as Global Warming, forcing energy prices to skyrocket would absolutely kill the US economy... throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Like many of you, I lived through the hell of inflation during the Carter administration. Home loans were at a 22% interest rate, and the prices of canned goods at the food stores increased every day with price labels on top of price labels as the value of money spiraled downward.

It was an economic sickness that robbed people of the value of their productivity by making their hard earned money ever valueless.

Socialist polices are intended to stimulate inflation... because a powerful American free-market is the Socialist target of choice. Some Americans do not understand, but many do and a Majority now rise up to stop the Socialists' destructive agenda. These Democrat Socialists are like rats feeding on and infecting our economy with the aim of killing it off forever. Nothing would make them happier than $10 a gallon gasoline shifting the

Sarah Palin: Obama’s energy proposal is all talk and no real action

*
In an op-ed on NRO's The Corner blog, Sarah Palin warns that the Obama Administration’s "sudden interest in offshore drilling is little more than political posturing designed to gain support for job-killing energy legislation":

Stall, Baby, Stall

Many Americans fear that President Obama’s new energy proposal is once again “all talk and no real action,” this time in an effort to shore up fading support for the Democrats’ job-killing cap-and-trade (a.k.a. cap-and-tax) proposals. Behind the rhetoric lie new drilling bans and leasing delays; soon to follow are burdensome new environmental regulations. Instead of “drill, baby, drill,” the more you look into this the more you realize it’s “stall, baby, stall.”

Today the president said he’ll “consider potential areas for development in the mid and south Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, while studying and protecting sensitive areas in the Arctic.” As the former governor of one of America’s largest energy-producing states, a state oil and gas commissioner, and chair of the nation’s Interstate Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, I’ve seen plenty of such studies. What we need is action — action that results in the job growth and revenue that a robust drilling policy could provide. And let’s not forget that while Interior Department bureaucrats continue to hold up actual offshore drilling from taking place, Russia is moving full steam ahead on Arctic drilling, and China, Russia, and Venezuela are buying leases off the coast of Cuba.

As an Alaskan, I’m especially disheartened by the new ban on drilling in parts of the 49th state and the cancellation of lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. These areas contain rich oil and gas reserves whose development is key to our country’s energy security. As I told Secretary Salazar last April, “Arctic exploration and development is a slow, demanding process. Delays or major restrictions in accessing these resources for environmentally responsible development are not in the national interest or the interests of the State of Alaska.”

I’ve got to call it like I see it: The administration’s sudden interest in offshore drilling is little more than political posturing designed to gain support for job-killing energy legislation soon to come down the pike. I’m confident that GOP senators will not take the bait.

Next week I’m headed to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, where I look forward to discussing what “Drill, baby, drill” really means.

— Governor Sarah Palin is a former Republican vice-presidential nominee and author of the bestselling Going Rogue.

- JP

Sarah Palin: Don't be fooled by Obama's new "pro-drilling" msg

*
Sarah Palin responded through Twitter to President Obama's plan announced Wednesday to allow some offshore oil drilling in U.S. coastal waters. The plan contradicts Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who just two weeks ago told reporters that the administration's six-month delay in approving new offshore drilling leases in federal waters will become a new three-year ban.

Gov. Palin tweeted:

Rep.Boehner spot-on Obama goal=cram thru job-killing, energy-depleting, burdensome Cap & Tax scheme on heels of Obama's new"pro-drilling"msg

Her twitter message referred to House GOP Leader John Boehner's statement released today which was highly critical of the Obama Administration:

“The Obama Administration continues to defy the will of the American people who strongly supported the bipartisan decision of Congress in 2008 to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling not just off the East Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, but off the Pacific Coast and Alaskan shores as well. Opening up areas off the Virginia coast to offshore production is a positive step, but keeping the Pacific Coast and Alaska, as well as the most promising resources off the Gulf of Mexico, under lock and key makes no sense at a time when gasoline prices are rising and Americans are asking ‘Where are the jobs?’

“It’s long past time for this Administration to stop delaying American energy production off all our shores and start listening to the American people who want an “all of the above” strategy to produce more American energy and create more jobs. Republicans are listening to the American people and have proposed a better solution – the American Energy Act – which will lower gas prices, increase American energy production, promote new clean and renewable sources of energy, and encourage greater efficiency and conservation.

“At the same time the White House makes today’s announcement, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is plotting a new massive job-killer that the American people can’t afford: a cascade of new EPA regulations that will punish every American who dares to flip on a light switch, drive a car, or buy an American product. Americans simply don’t want this backdoor national energy tax that will drive up energy and manufacturing costs and destroy jobs in our states and local communities.”

- JP

Fox News Video: Sarah Palin comments on the leftist Democrat agenda

*
Appearing on a special edition of The O'Reilly Factor Sunday, Sarah Palin said that the leftists, afer their ObamaCare cram down, will try to push cap & trade, amnesty and card check on the American people:



- JP

Sarah Palin: Copenhagen = arrogance of man

* 


Sarah Palin has chalked up the just-concluded Copenhagen climate change summit to the "arrogance of man." In the early morning hours (Texas time) Saturday, the former governor tweeted:

"Copenhgen=arrogance of man2think we can change nature's ways.MUST b good stewards of God's earth,but arrogant&naive2say man overpwers nature" 

"Earth saw clmate chnge4 [eons];will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng"

In a Facebook Notes op-ed posted December 3, the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate had urged President Barack Obama to boycott the conference in Denmark. Her opinion piece published in the Washington Post December 9 warned Americans to "be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference":

"Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats’ cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science."

h/t: The Hill Blogs 

- JP

Sarah Palin Was Right #3: Obama Admin. Admits Cap and Trade Will Raise Taxes

TWS' Michael Goldfarb at The Blog quotes a CBS News story:

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

Remember how the Obamunists beat up on Sarah Palin for her July op-ed on Cap and Trade in the Washington Post? She had written:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

[...]

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!

[...]

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will "necessarily skyrocket." So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

[...]

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama's energy cap-and-tax plan.

So once again, Sarah Palin was right. Once again, she has been vindicated. That seems to be occuring with increased frequency since June, as we have noted here, here, here, here and here.

- JP

Palin cites Heritage cap and trade analysis on Facebook page

On her Facebook Notes page, Sarah Palin has linked to a Heritage Foundation analysis of the cap and trade bill titled "The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey: An Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" and has excerpted the report's conclusion in her post.

The analysis was prepared by David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst for Energy Economics and Climate Change in the Center for Data Analysis; Karen A. Campbell, Ph.D., Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis; William W. Beach, Director of the Center for Data Analysis; Ben Lieberman, Senior Policy Analyst in Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies; and Nicolas D. Loris, a Research Assistant in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.

The report's conclusion, as posted by former Gov. Palin:

The Heritage Foundation: The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey

Conclusion

The Waxman-Markey bill proposes a new national tax of historic proportions. Though levied directly on carbon-based energy, the tax's impact spreads through the economy, increasing prices, reducing income, destroying jobs, and significantly expanding the national debt.

As with many policies coming from Washington these days, the Waxman-Markey bill seeks to "level the playing field" by making a more competitive player weaker, in this case hamstringing carbon-based energy sources, rather than ensuring an environment where less competitive players can become stronger. This policy hurts everyone, including alternative-energy investors, because it uses resources less efficiently, which creates deadweight losses. This means there will be underused resources leading to fewer opportunities in the future as slower growth reduces the resources available to help power the research and development investments that will create the technologies of the future.

As President Obama said about his cap-and-trade program during the presidential election campaign, "electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket."[12] The same applies to many other prices as the Waxman-Markey energy tax spreads through the economy. Businesses and consumers will adapt as well as possible to these higher prices. They will spend more for less energy. They will build smaller houses and buildings. They will drive smaller, less safe vehicles. They will turn thermostats up in the summer and down in the winter. They will divert income to more expensive energy-saving appliances. But these activities and more will not be enough to offset the higher energy costs. The net effect is lower income, higher prices, and fewer jobs.

In particular, the Heritage analysis projects that by 2035:

* Gasoline prices will rise 58 percent (or $1.38) above the baseline forecast, which already contains price increases;
* Natural gas prices will rise 55 percent;
* Heating oil prices will rise 56 percent;
* Electricity prices will rise 90 percent;
* A family of four can expect to pay $1,241 more for energy costs per year;
* Including taxes, a family of four will pay $4,609 more per year;
* A family of four will reduce its consumption of goods and services by up to $3,000 per year, as its income and savings fall;
* Aggregate GDP losses will be $9.4 trillion;
* Job losses will be nearly 2.5 million; and
* The national debt will rise an additional $12,803 per person.

(All figures are in constant 2009 dollars.)

All of these costs will be paid for no more than a 0.2 degree (Celsius) moderation in world temperature increases by 2100, and no more than a 0.05 degree reduction by 2050. Saddling the next generation with higher prices, higher debt, less income, fewer jobs, and more taxes does not seem like a worthy legacy--especially when the purported environmental benefits are so small they can barely be measured.

Full Report:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda0904.cfm

My op-ed on "cap and trade":
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=103080543434

- JP

Rep. Don Young: Palin was right on Cap and Trade

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and that state's lone U.S. Congressman haven't always seen eye to eye on things. When Palin endorsed Sean Parnell in the 2006 GOP primary against the long-serving Don Young, relations between the two became strained at best.

But a Don Young op-ed published in today's Washington Times supports Palin's arguments made in a July 14 opinion piece she wrote for the Washington Post, for which she took some harsh criticism from the Democrats, especially Senators Barbara Boxer and John Kerry.

Here are some excerpts from Rep. Young's article:

Mrs. Palin correctly criticized the scheme presented in the legislation sponsored by Democratic Reps. Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts. By only citing a report from the left-of-liberal Center for American Progress, Mr. Kerry and Mrs. Boxer naively underestimate the effects the legislation will have on the American economy. Other, more mainstream organizations, such as the Brookings Institution and the Black Chamber of Commerce, disagree.

[...]

Mrs. Boxer and Mr. Kerry seem ignorant of the fact that wind and solar fail to power America's trucks, planes, trains and ships. In reality, wind and solar will not displace the energy necessary for moving people and products around the country.

Nevertheless, while mocking Mrs. Palin's good sense, they choose to advocate legislation and policies that will drive U.S. dependence on foreign oil through the roof. The senators seem oblivious to the fact that nearly one-fourth of every barrel of oil goes to producing the asphalt on which their electric cars drive, the lubricants that enable the blades on their windmills to spin and the plastics that are used in the medical supplies, fabrics and raw materials Americans cannot live without.

[...]

American energy marvels such as the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) are the real drivers of the American economy. TAPS didn't require a government mandate; it required the federal government to get out of the way. This pipeline would never be built today. TAPS was successful only because of the oil embargo and, more significantly, because the legislation curtailed the ability of environmentalists to file lawsuits to block the project -- an effort in which, unfortunately, they have become well versed. This summer, as TAPS prepares to send its 16 billionth barrel to the consumer, I am reminded that Sarah Palin is correct and Mr. Kerry and Mrs. Boxer are again on the wrong side of energy issues.

[...]

The United States was the dynamic economic power in the 20th century without cap-and-trade. I know Mrs. Palin and I are both committed to ensuring that America's economic dominance continues into the 21st century rather than embarking blindly down the road to serfdom offered in Waxman-Markey and by the aforementioned senators from Massachusetts and California.

Read Rep. Young's op-ed in its entirety here.

- JP

Boxer and Kerry on Palin's op-ed and the truth about CNA

Per the Washington Times article, Barbara (don’t call me ma’am) Boxer and John (Halp me Kary) F. Kerry are at it again. So I thought I would do a little debunking of sorts.

In the article:

Palin asserts that job losses are "certain." Wrong. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and American Clean Energy and Security (or Aces) legislation will create significant employment opportunities across the country in a broad array of sectors linked to the clean energy economy. Studies at the federal level and by states have demonstrated clean energy job creation. A report by the Center for American Progress calculated that $150 billion in clean energy investments would create more than 1.7 million domestic and community-based jobs that can't be shipped overseas. Palin seems nostalgic for the campaign rally chant of "drill, baby, drill." But she ignores the fact that the United States has only 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves, while we are responsible for 25 percent of the world's oil consumption.

The duo state that the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” and the “American Clean Energy and Security Legislation” are supposed to create jobs? Didn’t T. Boone Pickens just scrap his wind farms in Texas because they were not making any money? The Wind Farms are also behind on critical maintenance that even the environmentalists know about. And the fact is that you can not just jump into Wind-Farming jobs. There is no on the job training. So, do Barbara Boxer and John Kerry plan to send them to Wind Farm School? This is what it is paying for? I don't think Americans who have to pay for their own schooling would appreciate new energy like this.

Also, there is a EIA report, from the Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government that has a note with source on estimated Oil and Natural Gas Reserves posted on March 3rd, 2009 ... but only links the "sources" used, not actual information of where they base the formula, only how they base it. But if you click right here, there is no graph, formula, base, nothing on this link to show the public. So where is the duo getting their information? If you look at the "sources" though, you will see that most are published in 2008. FYI, British Petroleum uses data that is on a 3 year grid for these analysis that are usually two years behind the actual report. Which means they are going on data from 2006 and possibly early 2007. And the fact is, that if you look at the new 2009 BP analysis, they are basing it on 2008, when it is probably 2007 data they had retrieved.

Also there was this that caught my eye:

It will also help make America more secure. A May report (PDF) by retired U.S. generals and admirals found, "Our dependence on foreign oil reduces our international leverage, places our troops in dangerous global regions, funds nations and individuals who wish us harm, and weakens our economy; our dependency and inefficient use of oil also puts our troops at risk."

When looking at the report, I saw the names and looked into their backgrounds. In addition to  what is states on the PDF the duo provides, I added some links of interest.

VICE ADMIRAL RICHARD H. TRULY, USN: Current Independent Director, Xcel Energy (oil company)

GENERAL GORDON R. SULLIVAN, USA (RET.), IDA (Institute for Defense Analysis) Board of Trustees

REAR ADMIRAL DAVID R. OLIVER, JR., USN (RET.), Board of Directors, American Superconductor Corp (Wind power)

ADMIRAL JOHN B. NATHMAN, USN (RET.), Board of Directors, Burdeshaw (Defense contracting firm)

GENERAL ROBERT MAGNUS, USMC (RET.), Board of directors, EnerSys, (Leader in Battery technology)

VICE ADMIRAL DENNIS V. MCGINN, USN (RET.), Board of Directors, ACORE (American Council on Renewable Energy - Non-Profit), Supports PewTrust, (A Global Not-For-Profit Analysis Project for Global Warming)

DMIRAL T. JOSEPH LOPEZ, USN (RET.), Deputy Director, Spectrum (Defense, Merger and Acquisition Consulting), Board of Directors, NISC (Defense Interest Security Company), Board of Directors, EADS (Holding Company for Aerospace and Defense)

GENERAL RONALD E. KEYS, USAF (RET.), Advisor Bipartisan Project for National Security Initiative.

GENERAL PAUL J. KERN, USA (RET.), Director of ITT Corp and others besides Cohan Group.

LIEUTENANT GENERAL LAWRENCE P. FARRELL JR., USAF (RET.), Director of NCDMM

GENERAL CHARLES G. BOYD, USAF (RET.), President and CEO of BENS (Business Executives for National Security)

GENERAL CHARLES F. “CHUCK” WALD, USAF (RET.), Board of Directors, Bipartisan Policy Center

If you click on every one of those links, they either deal with Defense, Environmentalism and/or Money in a non-profit way, besides all serving on the CNA. All of these men also seem to have been in multiple groups while working in D.C., and all intermingle. What does Defense have to do with Renewable Resources though? I thought it was this interesting PDF, until I saw this PDF from ACORE... and what is ACORE? The American Council on Renewable Energy, whose BOD is Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn.

All of these men on the CNA board are going to profit well from the Federal Government for a initiative on "Clean Energy" and breaking down the Dept of Defense. Nice, huh? Quite a bit of conflict of interest in my opinion.

But back to Barbara "don't call me ma'am" Boxer and John "Kary halp me" Kerry:

Per the article:

"We are already working every day in the Senate to pass legislation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, create millions of clean energy jobs and
protect our children from pollution. We respectfully invite Gov. Palin to join
that reality-based debate -- one that relies on facts, science, tested economics
and steely-eyed national security interests. Our country needs nothing less, and
our planet depends on it."

What is interesting is that I have looked up this whole article and find that the only people who are going to profit are those who are either on the CNA board and the Federal Government, as the "normal American citizens" that Sarah Palin represented in Alaska as well as the Nation, will be paying for it as usual. It won't reduce the cost of oil as it will skyrocket and will keep rising due to increased industrial use by China and India.

The Heritage Foundation has this excellent analysis  showing job losses that would be caused by Cap and Trade.

Sarah Palin was right, and unfortunately we are going to see a very corrupt end product.

-u

Barbour praises Palin as "a bonafide energy expert"

Mississippi governor Haley Barbour says the GOP should use its time time that it is out of power to rebuild and reposition itself to win back the White House in 2012. Barbour was interviewed by FOX News at the summer National Governor's Association meeting, and said that after eight years of hearing from the Bush administration, it was time for people to hear some new Republican voices:

"There are a lot of people in the Republican Party who have a chance to be heard now, and we want to hear from them. When you're the out party you don't have one spokesman."

Barbour, himself a possible 2012 presidential contender, is Chairman of the Republican Governors' Association. He described two of his fellow GOP governors, Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, as stars of the party. Barbour also had words of praise for Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, whom he said was still "very popular" with Republicans:

"I just think she's a great person, and she's also a bona fide energy expert," Barbour said, citing her recent op-ed against the Cap and Trade issue. Palin, surprising many, decided to end her term early as governor.

The Mississippi governor declined to say whether he was interested in campaigning for the presidency. He said that the first thing Republicans must do to recapture the White House is to win back gubernatorial seats in the 2010 midterm elections.

- JP

The 'Cap And Tax' Dead End, op-ed by Sarah Palin

Gov. Sarah Palin has written an op-ed which appears both on Facebook and in Tuesday's Washington Post. Her words speak for themselves:

There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America's unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won't bring jobs. Our nation's debt is unsustainable, and the federal government's reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

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.

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will "necessarily skyrocket." So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, "poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity."

We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama's plan will result in the latter.

For so many reasons, we can't afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama's energy cap-and-tax plan.

Update: Noel Sheppard asks how this op-ed will be treated by the Palin-hatin' media. I'm pretty sure it's safe to advise against betting the kids' college money on many favorable reviews. Moe Lane opines at RedState.com. Axis of Right also weighs in. Mike Huckabee comments on the op-ed, says Sarah Palin "is an important voice for our party" and hopes she doesn't go third party or independent.  


- JP

Gov. Palin states her opposition to cap & trade bill

Governor Sarah Palin announced today that she is opposed to the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which is also known as the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade bill. In a release by her office, the governor said:

"This bill does not offer enough flexibility to states to meet national standards and goals. Flexibility is particularly important for Alaska. Our cold climate and rural populations make it difficult for Alaskans to implement technologies that work elsewhere. Again, this is a case of one size doesn’t fit all."

Gov. Palin added that some of the language will likely result in stricter federal regulations that don't necessarily address any problems.

The measure, authored by U.S. Representatives Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, is referred to by some of its opponents as the "Cap and Tax" bill:

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

The bill was passed by the House of Representatives in a close vote Friday. A similar measure is under consideration in the U.S. Senate. Governor Palin's statement indicates that she will make the state's concerns about the legislation known to Alaska's congressional delegation.

- JP