There is some controversy over Timmy Geithner's remarks yesterday. Not the remark that I though was ineffably stupid; rather, about some obscure and virtually meaningless tax credits.
He said, get this, “We don’t believe it makes sense to significantly subsidize the use and production of energy sources” that contribute to global warming.
What’s a significant subsidy? Apparently that means being allowed to produce oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico. So what’s the response? Add a 13% tax on the revenue of a narrow class of producers that should raise $5 billion or so over the next 10 years
Huh? A mere $5Bn?
Cianfrocca alludes to an even worse possibility than that Timmy is wasting his time:
The other thing it could be is a shot across the bow. This could be David Axelrod’s way of putting down a marker that they really mean it about ending the use of low-cost energy in America on climate-change grounds
That falls into line with the ExtremeGreen weltanschauung that the O-and-Savior, bless his name and his children, has been pushing, along with such toadies as Jimbo Doylie, Destroyer of Wisconsin.
When even the utterly clueless Stabenow is concerned, there's reason to wonder.
No comments:
Post a Comment