Delaying Bad Health Care Proposals Helps in Other Ways

According to the Wall Street Journal, the contentious, time-consuming debate on health care is having one major positive effect. It is keeping economy-wrecking climate legislation on the "back burner."

if the health care debate drags on, the energy bill could get stalled by the 2010 congressional midterm elections

Right now the best-case scenario is exactly that. Health care reform and climate legislation both get stalled, Republicans pick up seats in 2010,  a more reasonable health care package gets passed with some useful reforms, and the climate bill is scrapped entirely.

Naturally climate bill supporters, just as with health care, are claiming the president needs to be more involved personally. They haven't noticed that his popularity has dropped like a rock, and that many people just aren't buying what he's selling any more.

observers say that Mr. Obama has so far failed to engage on the issue in basic ways, giving opponents an opportunity to define a climate bill as a large tax on consumers

Maybe because it will be a large tax on consumers. Obama's lying ability isn't good enough to cover up all the negative aspects of his proposals.  

Republican strategy right now should be block if possible, otherwise delay. Get to 2010, pick up seats, and then reassess what can be done.

Paul Krugman: Environmentalist Nutcase

Paul Krugman has some credibility on economic issues, even if you disagree with him. But his attempts at analysis on other issues, especially anything political, are either generic leftist ravings, or outright lunacy. Case in point is his latest at the New York Times, "Betraying the Planet." The ridiculous title alone indicates that Krugman can't be taken seriously. He's horrified that a large number of congressmen actually had the intelligence to vote against the monstrosity that is the Waxman-Markey climate change bill.  According to Krugman, they are guilty of "treason against the planet." Yes, he's actually serious. 

Krugman, who clearly knows very little about climate change science, and cites only information that supports his preconceived notions, leaps to an amazing conclusion and runs with it. He thinks those who voted against the bill are "denialists," another made up term referring to those who don't accept consensus climate change science. But obviously, most of the people voting against it are not doing so because they reject science. Instead, they voted no because the provisions will do nothing about climate change, but will instead impose crippling new taxes, damage the economy, and vastly increase the reach of the federal government. Many also objected to the administration trying to ram through another massive big government bill without even having the provisions read and debated.

It should be clear that it isn't necessary to reject climate change science in order to disagree with possible remedies. But recognizing that fact would require intellectual honesty -- something that has never been associated with Paul Krugman. Krugman would be best served to stick to economics, rather than coming off like a fanatical member of a doomsday cult, screeching about people "betraying the planet."