While Brookings is described by the WaPo's columnist as "centrist," you don't have to read too far into the item to figure out that the WaPo is wrong.
...To the extent that it’s coherent at all, the federal energy “portfolio” represents a return to industrial policy — governmental selection of economic winners — which was fashionable in the 1970s and 1980s, before it collapsed under the weight of its intellectual and practical contradictions.
As such, current clean-energy programs are no likelier to pay off than President Jimmy Carter’s Synthetic Fuels Corp., which blew $9 billion, or President George W. Bush’s $1.2 billion program for hydrogen vehicles.
This isn’t just my opinion or the finding of some right-wing think tank. Rather, all of the above comes from a new paper by three certifiably centrist Brookings Institution scholars, Adele Morris, Pietro S. Nivola and Charles L. Schultze; Schultze was a senior economic adviser to Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Carter.
The researchers pick apart clean-energy subsidies rationale by rationale.
The correct phrase is "rationalization by rationalization"--because there is no actual "ratio" involved in Obozo-think.
HT: The Warrior
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Germans dont care for him either.......
(Matter of fact, neither do I!)
.......Wolfgang Schaeuble told public broadcaster ZDF in an interview late Sunday that "people are always very quick at giving others advice."
He says: "Mr. Obama should first of all take care of reducing the American deficit, which is higher than in the eurozone."........
Post a Comment