But, forget all that for a minute. By now, you've probably at least heard of the Waxman-Markey bill, or the "American Clean Energy and Security Act," also known as H.R. 2454. But did you know that, if enacted, H.R. 2454 would be the biggest government takeover of the economy since WWII, which is the last time energy, food and other basic commodities were rationed? It would also be the biggest tax increase in history and would cause a huge transfer of wealth from individual consumers to Big Business and Big Government.

It also is, at best, all based on possibly false, or at least highly questionable, "science" about man-made global warming -- but, oh, sorry, I didn't mean global warming -- I meant global climate change, as it has more recently and euphemistically been renamed -- which is supposedly "settled science." I guess "settled science" is supposed to be something like indisputable facts. But if that's the case, then why do over 33,000 other "scientists" worldwide, many of them internationally renowned, contest that man-made global climate change even exists, or that, if it does, that it's merely an insignificant contributor to what Planet Earth does normally, naturally and cyclically over time? Call me one of those crazy "deniers" about global warming alarmism, but if you couple that with the fact that studies have been done confirming that WRONG and INFLATED temperature readings were used in the computer models which advanced the man-made global warming/climate change argument in the first place, then I guess the old axiom about computers, and therefore computer models, is all-of-a-sudden wrong and that GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) no longer applies. Besides, some other "scientists" even argue that increased amounts of CO2 are good for plant life, you know, trees and shrubs and stuff like that. So, if "scientists" are confused among themselves, no wonder little ole me doesn't understand all there probably is to know. I'm just askin' - just sayin' here.

But, did you know that the Democrat Congress is working feverishly to pass Waxman-Markey, so they can hurry up and please their fearless leader, President Obama, by having it ready for him to sign into law before Congress recesses in August, as he requested?

[Hmmm, why does all legislation nowadays seem to have to be done in such an all-fired hurry? Have you noticed that with the Obama administration and this Democrat controlled Congress, or is it just me? Whatever happened to deliberation and debate, much less, as was the case with the so-called "stimulus plan," even reading what you're voting for? And why the rush to judgment about climate change itself when it obviously is NOT "settled science" but also the rush about what we must hurry up to do about it? Why, one might think -- especially a cynical person like me -- they were all trying to sneak something past the American voters, might one not?]

Waxman-Markey's stated purpose is to contain global warming by reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. This would be accomplished by a cap-and-trade scheme which would severely limit the amount of energy from the three carbon-dioxide producing fuels -- coal, oil and natural gas -- which Americans would be allowed to use.

That may sound okay, especially to those who still believe in global warming. And "believe" is the correct word, because for those who tout it, it is a near religion. "Don't confuse me with facts (or challenge mine). I know what I believe."

However, another one of those little inconvenient truths is that, currently, over 80 percent of U.S. energy comes from these three "bad" fuels, simply because they are the least expensive fuels available, as well as, practically, the most readily abundant here at home. Waxman-Markey would require cutting emissions by 17 percent below a 2005 baseline by 2020, 42 percent by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050.

That may all sound reasonable because it's "spaced out" over years, sort of like your mortgage or car payments, but it is, in fact, draconian. Why? Because, to meet those standards (which are significant enough in and of themselves), coal, oil and natural gas producers would have to substantially retool their facilities and at great costs. And if this bill becomes law and since retooling often takes a long time, they will begin doing that sooner rather than later.

And, typical of businesses everywhere, those producers may initially pay those costs but they will then pass them on to consumers in the form of higher rates and prices. So, the costs of meeting the standards becomes a tax on everyone, and pretty quickly, too.

It's hard to tell exactly how far energy prices might rise under Waxman-Markey, but even some energy committee Democrats think it may require more than doubling electric rates and sending gasoline to somewhere above five dollars a gallon. And a Heritage Foundation study says it could increase your family's energy costs about $1,500 to $3,000 a year.

Evidently, even President Obama agrees. When he was Candidate Obama, he told the San Francisco Chronicle on January 17, 2008, "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket." Skyrocket? That means go up really high, really fast, right? Well, there you have it, folks, in the man's own words, the same man who made a mantra out of "words matter." And I think, in this case at least, those are words we actually can believe in -- yes, we can. 

That same week, former president Bill Clinton was in Spain talking about green jobs. And what did he say? As reported in the Spanish press:

"Former U.S. President turned ecologist Bill Clinton is aware of the impact on employment by the development on renewable energy. Even though he is, as a former dweller of the White House, one of the most visible supporters in that industry, the U.S. Democrat recognized yesterday that clean energies 'have cost many jobs' in Spain. Though without citing it directly, Clinton was acknowledging yesterday during his conference in Madrid that the study about the impact of public support on renewable energies, released by Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has very valid conclusions. That report, which has received enormous coverage in U.S. media and been used against Barack Obama's energy policy, argues that every job in renewable energies created in Spain in the year 2000 has cost 571,138 Euros and has been the cause of the loss of 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy. Bill Clinton recognized yesterday that 'this commitment to clean energy has cost many jobs' while at the same time calling for Spain to intensify investment in this industry to be able to turn high costs into new jobs."

So, wait a minute now. Let me see if I've got all this straight:
a. The "science" underlying claims of man-made global climate change is still questionable at best and at least arguably false.
b. The cap-and-trade scheme in Waxman-Markey, although dramatically and rather quickly impacting our production means and overall economy, will actually only reduce global warming from greenhouse gases by a minuscule amount overall.
c. Countries like China and India are building fossil fuel plants as fast as they can bring them on line, with little to no concern for "clean technology," and even if man-made greenhouse gases are "bad," any reductions we make will be obviated by their increased and steadily increasing emissions.
d. Obama himself has said his cap-and-trade policy would cause electricity prices to skyrocket.
e.. Committee Democrats have estimated Waxman-Markey would more than double electric rates and send gasoline to above five dollars a gallon.
f. A Heritage Foundation study says it could increase your family's energy costs from about $1,500 to $3,000 a year.
g. And Clinton admits that Spain's experiment with "going green" has cost not only a lot of money (one U.S. dollar equals 0.7617 Euros, so 571,138 Euros equals $435,035.81 per green job created) but it's also cost a lot of regular jobs, yet he still advocates doing more of the same and to even intensify investment in the green jobs industry "to turn high costs into new jobs."

SO, TELL ME AGAIN WHY WE'RE IN SUCH A HAIR-ON-FIRE-HURRY TO ENACT THIS LEGISLATION?!

[My goodness, but it does sound a lot like Team Obama's "plan" to spend us out of the recession, doesn't it? But, of course, in typical liberal fashion, if you just "know you're right" and "trying to do the right thing" but it just hasn't worked so far (after all, it's "good intentions" that count, not "actual results," right?), then just "throw more money at it," and eventually it will all get better. And that seems a lot like a quote most often attributed to Albert Einstein but which I think harks back even further to a Roman philosopher in early AD, or maybe late BC, that doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting a different result, is a definition of insanity.]

Oh, and don't forget Spain's own Universidad Rey Juan Carlos' study which statistically documents that for every expensive green job created, 2.2 other jobs (read: regular, existing) were lost to the economy. Well, that's like taking one step forward and two steps backward, so far as the overall economy goes, isn't it?

And even that is exacerbated when you consider that many so-called "green jobs" are not sustainable but are green business/facility "start up" jobs which go away once that business/facility is up and running. In other words, it takes more "green jobbers" to build a green facility than it does to run it.

So, the Green Agenda, or, as I call it, the Going Green Gosh-awful Gamble, really seems to consist of the probability of a dramatic rise in overall unemployment, coupled with the biggest tax increase in world history, all because of, at most, the possibility of man-made, rather than natural, earthly cyclic, global climate change. And, even if Waxman-Markey is fully implemented, greenhouse gas "reductions" will be of a minuscule percentage of overall global greenhouse gases, while China, India and others continue building fossil fuel plants apace with little regard to "clean technology."

Gee, that's just swell, as they used to say back in the '40s or '50s: (a) Retard and restrict our normal production means before we have alternative energy sources on line, (b) cripple the American economy while still in a recession and (c) further burden the American taxpayer/consumer. Sound good to you? Yeah, let me hurry up and vote for that, too. "No, I don't need to think about it, much less read it. Obama says, so just gimme it and tell me where to sign."

Or do you think, just maybe, that YOU might want to contact YOUR Representative or Senator about all this BEFORE it becomes just ANOTHER DONE DEAL? Just a thought. But if they don't HEAR from you, how do they know what YOU want them to do, or NOT DO, as the case may be? Think about it.