Skip to content

A Surprising Rejection of Cap-and-Trade

August 14, 2009

smokestack

 

For some time now, Al Gore and other global warming alarmists such as Henry Waxman, President Barack Obama, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have been clamoring for cap-and-trade legislation. Such a measure, they declare, will reduce global warming by cutting the amount of carbon dioxide released into the environment. The plan is founded on a government-imposed, economy-wide “cap” on the amount of carbon dioxide that companies will be allowed to emit; those companies will then be permitted to buy or sell “emission credits” among themselves.

Cap-and-Trade has already passed the House, and there is a very good chance that the Senate could take it up in September when it returns from its summer recess. If the measure ultimately becomes law, it is destined to do one thing with absolute certainty: it will raise immense revenues for the government and for those special-interest groups and individuals actively supporting its passage. As for its effect on the environment, there will be none. Zero.

That’s right. If implemented, cap-and-trade will have no effect on the environment. Who says so? None other than Thomas Crocker, the man who devised it!

As reported by Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman, who cited an interview published in the Wall Street Journal, Crocker offered this assessment of his brainchild:

“I’m skeptical that cap-and-trade is the most effective way to go about regulating carbon.”

Crocker initially thought up cap-and-trade way back in the 1960s, as a university student trying to finish his thesis.  It was a theoretical model designed to address the specific problem of pollution produced by fertilizer plants in Florida. The idea went nowhere until decades later, when Al Gore and others latched onto it and made it the rallying cry of the environmental left.

Not only is Crocker skeptical, he seems to fear the prospect of his plan being put into action. “Once a cap is in place,” he warns, “it is very difficult to adjust.” Quantifying the damage to the environment caused by emissions is fraught with uncertainty, he adds. Without knowing the true costs and effects of those emissions, it is next to impossible to determine the levels at which they should be capped.

Of course, now that the genie is out of the bottle, the Obama administration has switched to damage-control mode in an effort to keep the legislation viable. True to form, they first tried to discredit Crocker, calling his skepticism “a straw man” argument.

Next, White House advisor on the environment Joseph Aldy said that whatever weaknesses there were in Crocker’s original thesis, the legislation waiting for the Senate’s return will be an improvement, because, as Aldy put it, a “market-based cap is being designed with built-in flexibility.”

Aldy is trying to dupe us with the notion that even though Crocker’s version of cap-and-trade would not have worked, the government’s version will!

Now, there’s a notion that stretches credulity.

About these ads
19 Comments
  1. fiftyfifty permalink
    August 14, 2009 7:33 am

    If this Cap an trade bill gets passed I feel this is the payoff for our fine Politician’s and there bank accounts.

    I’am from illinois a state full crooks
    Mr. Durbin’s great sell-off started the day after this privileged briefing.

    Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat and assistant majority leader, looked like such a great investor. On Sept. 19, he sold off $42,696 in mutual-fund shares, and quickly sold off another $73,000 during the rest of September. The stock market collapsed after that. Within two weeks, by Oct. 3, the Dow Jones Industrial Average had fallen by 9 percent. A month later, by Oct. 17, it had plummeted over 22 percent. On Tuesday this week, the average is still down about 25 percent from Sept. 19.

    If Mr. Durbin ever leaves his day job as a Democratic politician, he should have a plum position waiting for him as a market timer. On second thought, maybe not. It turns out that on Sept. 18, Mr. Durbin participated in a closed-door meeting with then-Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke. The Fed chairman and Treasury secretary briefed Mr. Durbin and other congressional leaders on the financial crisis and efforts to help financially troubled banks.

  2. Richard Landis permalink
    August 14, 2009 11:24 am

    I can only hope that more people like Thomas Crocker will see the light. I wonder if we can CAP our politicians AND TRADE them for something better.

  3. Fritz Becker permalink
    August 14, 2009 9:19 pm

    Cap and Trade, The Emperor’s new clothes. Market based approach they called it, since when is there a market for buying and selling hot air? Without government legislation there would be no market, so I guess we should stop calling cap and trade a market based approach and call it a “Marxist” based approach.

  4. Steve permalink
    August 15, 2009 10:37 am

    I wonder, quite often now, just how stupid we really are. Think about the argument…Company A that does not produce any pollutants will sell carbon credits to Company B that does produce pollutants. The net output of pollutant production is the same. Essentially, it would be the same as a thin guy, selling calories to a fat guy. The fat guy will continue to get fatter and the thin guy and his brokers will get richer based on the stupidity of the fat guy thinking that he can buy his way to reduced weight. Beginning with the ridiculous argument about climate change (changed from Global Warming as the globe continues to cool) and looking at the boneheads who have placed them in the middle of this fiasco i.e. Gore, Waxman, Kerry, Pelosi, etc it doesn’t take long to scratch our heads and wonder if there is a limit to our stupidity.

    • Bubba4 permalink
      August 16, 2009 10:24 am

      Really…you don’t get it? Is that the problem? Allow me to explain.

      First off, you don’t just recieve carbon credits as a company for NOT polluting. Companies aren’t just issued an alotment of carbon credits.

      We are going to pollute ourselves to death. Since the erection of the first smoke stack, every change in policy leaning towards LESS POLLUTION has been fought by industry. Trying to make it illegal for kids to work in factories was fought by industry….THATS WHAT THEY DO…protect their profit. Only an entity like a government can impose regulations and boundaries as a representative of the people. Industry has never done it and always actively fought against it.

      If the government just tries to cap pollution…even modestly (like in Kyoto) industry screams its head off that it will crush them and they try to extend the timeline or raise the caps. So “Cap and Trade” is quite literally a half measure, designed to cap but give industry the time THEY SAY THEY NEED to clean things up. During this time, industries that can’t meet the cap must pay money to offset their pollution.

      While it’s true that this money doesn’t magically take their pollution out of the air. it does go to environmental projects, the greatest of which is developing clean technologies. Clean technologies will never be affordable unless we do the research and invest in the infrastructure. Companies that pollute save money but actually just pass that cost along as problems related to toxins in the environment.

      Turning it around so environmentalist are the greedy ones….that’s rich. That some politican, who makes a tiny fraction of big CEO, is doing it for money is cynical and ass-backwards.

      • August 16, 2009 7:25 pm

        Hey Bubba,I have a few questions for you.You say we are polluting ourselves to death.What do you actually mean by that?Please articulate.The United States has some of the most strict EPA regulations in place regarding industry pollution.I support common sense pollution control legislation.What I don’t support is the extreme radical agenda known as cap and trade.I firmly reject the premise that carbon dioxide produced by man contributes to any kind of climate change.The debate certainly isn’t over.It has just begun.More and more intelligent,critical thinking Americans are realizing the phony science behind manmade climate change(formerly known as global warming).How convenient….I don’t think the average American family is willing to pay up to an addidtional 3,000.00 dollars annually in taxes to support this bogus legislation.I certainly am not.I ask you Bubba,how will the already cash strapped poor,and for that matter,much of the middle class afford these massive tax increases?The latest data suggests that the best case scenario would be a temperature reduction of 0.05 degree celsius by the year 2050.In other words,it would have zero effect on climate change.Radical environmentalists are not really intersted in “saving the planet”.If they were ,they would support more transitonal avenues to achieve energy independence such as clean,safe nuclear energy.(80 % of France’s total energy production).Not one nuclear power plant built in the US in the last 30 years.What a sham!!They oppose offshore driling,drilling anywhere for that matter.They even oppose windfarms in the California desert.What a joke.It”s quite apparent that their true agenda is to redistribute American wealth internationally and to truly make America a third world nation.Cap and Trade would be an unmitigated economic disaster which would bring America to its knees.That’s exactly what the flat earth,no growth,Marxist,environmental loons want..

  5. Earthling permalink
    August 16, 2009 5:11 am

    It really is bizarre to posit that a trace gas in the atmosphere (CO2) that currently stands at 385 parts-per-million (.000385%), of which the human contribution is so minuscule as to be barely traceable among the natural sources, can wreak such total havoc on the global climate as to warrant this massive government regulation and tax system known as “Cap-and-Trade”. Are we really foolish enough to give the politicians and bureaucrats absolute power over power? I’m afraid we may not have any choice unless we’re ready and willing to descend on Washington with pitchforks.

  6. August 16, 2009 8:35 am

    Global warming doesn’t exist yet. Lack of sunspots has cooled the surface of the sun and so NOW they are trying to hide and suppress this information. Global warming is just another “tool” used by liberal democrats to push us all into a corner and deny us guaranteed Constitutional freedoms. They want us ALL to feel guilty about our luxurious lifestyle (luxurious in comparison to 3rd world countries).

    Our country emits about 6% (six percent) of carbon emissions while the majority of developing countries around the world have little or no program(s) to cur back on their polluting economies.

    All of our carbon emissions pale in comparison to large volcanic eruptions. But even their huge emissions haven’t caused global warming in recent history, i.e., the past 6,000 years.

    The push of Global Warming is only another tool sending us back to the dark ages.

    • Bubba4 permalink
      August 16, 2009 10:31 am

      Here is a breakdown of emissions:
      http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

      Also…the cutting back of pollution is not just about carbon dioxide. But i hear ya…sun cooling and volcanoes and something like that, but anyway we shouldn’t do anything.

      We shouldn’t be an example to the world….we should wait until Ethiopia can meet the highest standards before we lift a finger.

  7. Steve permalink
    August 16, 2009 1:54 pm

    While it is nice to discuss the issue of “cap and trade” that isn’t really isn’t the problem at this time. On the assumption that everything stated (though widely disputed) is correct it does not present a life altering issue at this moment. The real life altering concern is Mr. Obama and his attempt to take over the government of The United States of America. To support my argument I need only to remind you of what has, in fact, happen to our great country in the past six months. The federal government now controls the banking and the mortgage industries. The federal government is the largest shareholder in two of the three automakers: GM and Chrysler. The government kicked out the CEO and General Manager and appointed a hand-picked executive with zero experience in the auto industry. The executive compensation is determined by the government. 32 Czars, working without congressional approval, accountable only to Mr. Obama, not to the voters, control a wide range of US policy decisions. Stimulus Accountability Czar, Urban Czar, Compensation Czar, etc. The federal deficit is $915 billion–with a projected annual deficit of $1.75 trillion–triple the $454.8 billion in 2008. Congress passed Obama’s $3.53 trillion federal budget for fiscal 2010. The projected deficit over the next ten years will be greater than $10 trillion. The Obama Justice Department has ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high-value detainees captured on the battlefield and held in US military detention facilities in Afghanistan. Guantanamo detention facility was ordered closed with no plan for the disposition of the 200-plus individuals held there. Several of the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo were sent to live in freedom in Bermuda at the expense of the US government. Our returning US veterans were labeled terrorists and put on a watch list.
    I could continue with lesser things such as a new regulatory agency being proposed by Mr. Obama to control loans, credit cards, mortgage-backed securities, and other financial products offered to the public.
    We are not dealing with Democratic or Republican issues, as I see it. In my opinion this is the turning point in the future of the United States of America. I say that we should put a stop to any further government intrusion into our lives. Our county has its hands full with the immediate problems at hand such as Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East, N. Korea, South America and the loss of face that has come from Mr. Obama’s recent trips to the Middle East where he bowed before the Saudi king and repeatedly apologized for America’s past actions.
    I am proud to be an American and I want my country back

    • Richard Landis permalink
      August 16, 2009 7:17 pm

      Steve, This might interest you. I could not fit the entire article in this space. I suggest a further reading of it. Mr. Skousen authored “A Naked Communist” and “A Naked Capitalist”. Along with these books, I also recommend “An Enemy Hath Done This” by Ezra Taft Benson, former Sec. Of Agriculture to Pres. Eisenhower.

      W. Cleon Skousen. What the Newly Proposed “Model” Constitution Would Do To the U.S.A. From Law & Order, April 1971.
      “Crisis In America – Do We Need a New Constitution?”

      Under this rather startling headline, the Fund for the Republic and the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions launched a nationwide campaign on January 4, 1971, for a new U.S. Constitution. These two organizations even had an answer for their own question. They not only demanded that we adopt a new Constitution but they had already written one and had it ready to submit. After 37 drafts, they had produced what they called a “model” constitution which is guaranteed to be a big improvement over the U.S. Constitution of 1787. If a person has been looking for it, this campaign for a new constitution is receiving considerable publicity in the opinion-molding circles of the country. It is backed by the radical rich whom we have discussed in our last two articles and by the left-wing pockets of power in the government and the mass communications media.
      This Is Why We Take It Seriously: Many of the most difficult problems facing America today were precipitated by these same people in this same way. Their objective has been to restructure the entire American culture with a hard twist to the collectivist left. They are directly responsible for many of the domestic and international crises in which the American people find themselves today.
      Public indifference in the past has permitted these people to achieve many of their purposes with a minimum of resistance, but the attack on the Constitution may be a rallying point around which the indignation of an aroused American public can be mobilized.
      If not, the whole crescendo of propaganda and agitation which these organization are planning is supposed to attain some resounding dimensions before the presidential election of 1972. These “new constitution” people have even met to probe the possibilities of creating a new political party in case they are not able to compel at least one of the national parties to do their bidding by 1972. Whether we like it or not, this movement is pregnant with ominous meaning for the future of the United States.
      What Would the New Constitution Do To Us?: An analysis of this proposed “model” federal charter reveals a whole new concept of government – in fact, the very concept of the founding fathers repudiated in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787. No longer would we be a federation of sovereign states. In fact, the new constitution would do away with all of the states. In their place we would have “republics” like the Soviet Union. Each republic would have no less than 5% of the population or ten million people as present. This would mean around 20 republics to begin with. California would probably become two republics while Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada and Arizona would find themselves all lumped together for one republic. There would only be three republics down south in addition to Texas. The New England republic would include Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island. A single midwestern republic would have to include North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico and Oklahoma. Illinois and Ohio could each be a republic but Michigan and Indiana would have to combine to qualify. Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa would also have to give up their individual identities in order to meet the requirements of the new constitution.
      In a sense, it is deceptive to call these various regions “republics” because it turns out that they are merely administrative departments which are totally subordinate to the sufferance of Washington. These “republics” would have no independent states rights as the founding fathers envisioned them. The name of the United States would be changed to the United Republics of America. That, of course, would not be too different from the United Republics of Soviet Russia.
      Tightly Controlled Elections: Article II provides a new department of government to be called the “Electoral Branch.” The head of the department is to be given the title of “overseer of electoral procedures.” There is provision for a massive bureaucracy to help him carry out his assignment. The “Overseer” turns out to be quite a man. He would have charge of all elections, be responsible for the formal recognition of any political party, control the expenditure of all campaign funds from the public treasury (no private contributions would be allowed), provide the necessary facilities for discussions and conventions by each of the parties, supervise the selection of candidates in each of the parties, and draw up the boundaries for each of the voting districts. Most importantly, he would have authority (in fact, duty) to have a representative at all political meetings to present the Government’s point of view on any issue. Anyone acquainted with political procedures will immediately recognize the powers of this Overseer as being completely authoritarian and his assigned duties are set up to the exclusive advantage of those already in power. The possibility of an opposition party being allowed to rise up and promote strong alternatives to established governmental policies would be not only remote but virtually impossible.
      Residence requirements for voters would be no more than 30 days which means that the Government could arrange to have sympathetic voters move into a particular district for a month’s vacation and then these people could vote out any roster of candidates considered unfriendly to the Government’s policies before returning home. This is precisely the problem which has arisen in Berkeley, California, as a result of minimizing the residency requirement for voters. By this exact strategy the radical left hope to make Berkeley their first American conquest.
      A Procedure For Sovietizing the United States: Article III of the new constitution provides for a “Planning Branch” and Article VI provides for a “regulatory Branch.” It follows the Soviet concept of total economic control with the modification of allowing any surviving industry or enterprise to be controlled by the Government rather than being expropriated or taken over. Both Hitler and Mussolini made this same modification.
      To facilitate the Government’s vast planning operations, all privately owned industry connected with the public interest (and what isn’t?) must report all “intentions to expand or contract, give estimates of production and demand, probable uses or resources, numbers to be employed, and such other information as may be essential to comprehensive public planning” (section 9). This program of massive planning generates in the author’s mind a recollection of the disastrous consequences of similar programs in the so-called socialist nations of Europe. It cost the United States several billion dollars to bail out the British after their initial experiment with this type of central planning and prompted one of the planners, Ivor Thomas, to write a book called, The Socialist Tragedy.
      U.S. resources have been required by the tens of billions since World War II to keep European socialism from collapsing. Imagine having to loan millions to a country such as Sweden. Sweden hasn’t had to fight a war in 150 years and when others have gone to war she has usually sold to both sides. As a Swedish official told me on my visit two years ago, “We ought to be the richest per capita nation in the world but socialism is holding us back. Our national housing program is so bogged down with red tape and government planning that young couples must wait for more than eight years before they can have an apartment of their own.
      Actually, none of the European countries were able to go totally socialist. They had to leave approximately 70% of their productive enterprises in private hands (and more or less competitive) in order to have profits to tax and thereby subsidize the socialized, government-owned enterprises. Even then, however, many of them would have stumbled into bankruptcy without American aid.
      One of the shrewdest gimmicks in the newly proposed constitution for the U.S. is that any money needed to carry out the master-planning is automatically considered appropriate unless the tax-payers can get two-thirds of the Congress to vote against a particular item. The fact that one third of Congress is elected “at large” makes the possibility of mounting an effective protest virtually impossible. Imagine living in Los Angeles and trying to get a man in Baltimore to vote against a budget item adversely affecting California.
      The National Regulator: The enforcement powers of the central government are set forth in Article VI and provide for an economic czar who is called the “National Regulator.” He has a board in charge of each type of industrial enterprise. He enforces the master planning of the Government. He has complete charge of issuing charters to any corporations involved in “public interest” enterprises and may revoke the charter of any corporation which he feels is not complying with the requirements of the Regulatory Board.
      To most Americans, the most startling aspect of the powers delegated to the National Regulator is his legal choke-hold on the financial operations of all chartered corporations. He has the power to “prescribe the distribution of profits to stockholders, allowable amounts or working capital, reserves and costs, and all other practices affecting the public interest.” (section 3).
      The National Regulator would have policing powers designed to control prices, production and production processes (section 6). He would also maintain the “surveillance of enterprises wholly or partly owned by the government (section 11). This whole context of regulatory powers is precisely what was imposed on Germany and Italy under Hitler and Mussolini. Both of these advocates of fascist-socialism claimed that this centralization of regulatory power was all that was needed to “solve” their problems. Those unfortunate nations soon found they had completely lost control of their government and were saddled with the most profound conglomerate of problems they had ever known in their entire history.
      The President and the Congress: Under the new constitution the President would not be allowed to run for two terms as at present but would be elected for one term of nine years. However, after three years in office he could be booted out if 60% of the people voted against him in a national plebiscite. The President is given tremendous powers under the new constitution. He is described as “the head of the government, shaper of its commitments, expositor of its policies, and commander of its protective forces.” He would be the “caretaker” of “the nation’s resources,” be responsible for the manner in which they are “apportioned,” and be expected to “pay attention to recommendations of the Planning Board, the Watch-keeper of the Senate (we will cover him later) and the Regulator.” Within prescribed limits the President would’ even be authorized to raise and lower taxes!
      As for the Congress, one gets the impression that it would represent the government rather than the people. In the first place, a hundred Congressmen are to be elected “at large,” which means that very few of these would be known to any particular voter. Significantly, it is from that congressman “at large” (who are least responsible to the people) that all chairmen of the Congressional committees must be chosen. The Congress is given the duty of implementing all the broad ramifications of the collectivized society envisioned by this “model” constitution.
      Congress must provide federal insurance agencies or strictly control the private ones. It must provide federal transportation as needed, federal schools, federal universities, federal libraries, federal communications, federal research, federal cultural activities, federal recreation, and federal banking facilities. The congress is authorized to vote foreign aid (which the present Constitution does not) and “assist in the maintenance of world order.” The Congress can even grant jurisdiction and thereby subjugate the American people to any “international legislative, judicial or administrative organizations as shall be consistent with the national interest.” And the Congress will decide what is in the “national interest.”
      The Congress is also obligated to help control population by correlating the number of citizens with “future resources.” To prevent the Congress from meddling too much with the administration of governmental affairs it is provided that no government employee or military officer can be ordered to testify before a Congressional committee without the consent of his superiors.
      Labor leaders might he alarmed to know that the new constitution would allow Congress to outlaw strikes as part of the bargaining process in any industry related to the public interest. It is difficult to imagine any type of enterprise which could not bc somehow identified with “public interest!”
      The Senate: The new constitution would change the U.S. Senate into an American House of Lords. All members would be appointed rather than elected and all would be appointed for life. Members would include high officials who had retired, Presidential candidates who had lost, former Overseers, Governors of the republics, judges, top military personnel, distinguished diplomats, etc.
      One of the most significant things about the Senate would be its “watchkeeper.” He and his large staff would represent the Senate in the investigation of the “adequacy, competence, and integrity of governmental agencies and their personnel, as well as their continued usefulness…. For these purposes, investigations may be made, witnesses examined, post-audits made, and information required.” With “Overseers,” “Watchkeepers,” “National Regulators” and a host of other investigative agencies running around checking on everything (including each other!) it would make the life of a government administrator in Washington embarrassingly similar to a comparable assignment in Moscow.
      Rise of the Police State: By this time the reader should have little difficulty in determining what the new “model” constitution is designed to do to us. It is a giant stride toward the bleak existence described in George Orwell’s book, Nineteen Eighty-Four. That was Orwell’s warning of what can happen to any free society if it does not stop the collectivization process. It is extremely significant that one will find hidden away in the “model” constitution the same kind of incipient perversion of police power as that which existed in the Russian OGPU and the Nazi Gestapo. It is in section 14 of Article IV. This section authorizes the appointment of a chief of “Intelligence and Investigations” who is called the “Intendant.” This was the name of the officers or administrators under the French, Spanish and Portuguese monarchies who were the “enforcers.” They carried out the policies of the crown.
      The new constitution provides that the “Intendant” will be directly under the President. As the enforcement arm of the chief executive, the Intendant will not only maintain comprehensive intelligence reports and investigations on everything, but he will also “coordinate scientific and cultural studies within the government and elsewhere.” Obviously, there are no limits to the jurisdiction of this Presidential “enforcer.” This enforcement arm would no doubt be the “big brother” which is always watching everybody in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. It would not only be looking into criminal or espionage matters but would be equally zealous in matters relating to scientific and cultural developments. It becomes all the more ominous when one realizes that under Article I, section 10,relating to scientific and cultural developments. It becomes all the more ominous when one realizes that under Article I, section 10, there is a provision which permits total nationalization of all police power in the federal government. As far back as 35 years ago, J. Edgar Hoover warned the Congress that any nationalization of police power would toll the bell for democracy in America. But that is what the “new constitution” people have planned for us. Under this new “Model” federal charter the law enforcement profession would soon degenerate into a cadre of political enforcers and become the most hated symbol of power in the nation.
      Conclusion: It is obvious that American law enforcement has a tremendous stake in the outcome of this current feverish drive to scrap the old Constitution and adopt a new one. As we said in the beginning, this latest campaign is no fly-by-night effort of a few kooky cultists but is sponsored by some of the most powerful elements of the radical right as well as the revolutionary left. Already full-page ads have appeared in the press to galvanize grass-roots sentiment behind a movement called “Common Cause.” The idea is to create massive pressure on Washington to launch a series of crash programs to solve all our problems. Of course, crash programs have seldom provided satisfactory answers for anything. They nevertheless arouse in the public a mammoth euphoria of false hopes which can be readily exploited by political sycophants. When these fail there is a public reaction of frustration and boiling indignation. It is easy to blame the failures on “the system,” and that creates an ideal climate to demand a “new system” under a “new constitution.” Whether we like it or not, this is what is happening in our country and every wide-awake American should be aware of it.

      In the following pages we present the text of the new constitution as it appeared in the Center Magazine, September-October, 1970.
      Constitution for a United Republics of America: A model for discussion, Version xxxvii (1970)
      [I included the following section because Obama recently appointed a Regulatory Czar. I do not know all of his powers, but I believe they are similar to this Regulatory Branch]

      Article VI: The Regulatory Branch:
      Section 1. There shall be a Regulatory Branch and there shall be a National Regulator. With a National Regulatory Board, he shall make and administer rules for such enterprises as are determined by law to be affected with the public interest. The Regulatory Branch shall have such agencies as the Regulator may find necessary and are not disapproved by law. He shall appoint boards, not larger than seven members each, appropriate for supervising particular kinds of enterprise; and he shall appoint one member as chairman. They may be objected to by the Senate. The chairmen of these boards shall constitute the National Regulatory Board, to serve with the National Regulator in making general rules for the conduct of regulated enterprises. These shall conform to the principles of fair practice, equality of service, honesty in representation, and maintenance of efficiency; they shall provide for progress through research and for protection of public interests. Such enterprises may be investigated by the Watchkeeper; and appeal from rulings may be made to the Court of Administrative Settlements.
      Section 2. The Regulator shall charter all corporations or other enterprises except those supervised by the Chancellor of Financial Affairs or the Intendant. The Republics may charter those for intra-Republic activities; but all charters shall describe proposed activities, and departures from these shall require amendment by the Regulator on penalty of revocation.
      Section 3. Chartered enterprises may organize joint Authorities, and these may formulate among themselves codes to ensure fair competition, meet external costs, set standards for service, expand trade, increase production, eliminate waste, assist in standardization, and maintain services of research, communication, and common use; but membership shall be open to all, and nonmembers shall be required by license to maintain the standards fixed in the codes on penalty of revocation by the Regulatory Board. All Authorities shall have governing committees of five, three being appointed by the Regulator to represent the public. They shall serve as he may determine; they shall be compensated; and he shall take care that there be no conflicts of interest. The National Regulatory Board shall approve or prescribe the distribution of profits to stockholders, allowable amounts of working capital, reserves and costs, and all other practices affecting the public interest. All codes shall be subject to review by the Regulator with his Board; and governing bodies may be dissolved and reconstituted with approved members.
      Section 4. Member enterprises of an Authority shall be exempt from other regulation.
      Section 5. The Regulator, with his Board, shall fix standards and procedures for the merger of enterprises or the acquisition of some by others; and these shall be in effect unless rejected by the Court of Administrative Settlements. The purpose shall be to encourage adaptation to change and to further approved intentions for the nation.
      Section 6. Enterprises may be restrained by the Regulator when they restrict access to, or increase prices of goods and services; or when their ecological effects are deleterious; and he shall see to it that external costs are assessed to their originators.
      Section 7. Operations extending abroad shall conform to policies notified to the Regulator by the President.
      Section 8. The Regulator shall charter non-profit corporations (or foundations) determined by him with the Board to be for useful public purposes; but this judgment may be reviewed by the Court of Rights and Duties. Contributions shall not be taxed.
      Section 9. He shall make rules for and shall supervise storehouses for products and marketplaces for goods and services; but this shall not include security exchanges regulated by the Chancellor of Financial Affairs.
      Section 10. Designation of enterprises affected with a public interest, rules for the conduct of enterprises and of their Authorities, and other actions of the Regulator or of the Boards, may be appealed to the Court of Administrative Settlements.
      Section 11. Responsible also to the Regulator, there shall be a commission appointed by the Regulator, unless the Senate object, for the supervision of public enterprises. The commission shall maintain the necessary surveillance of enterprises wholly or partly owned by the government. The commission shall choose its chairman and he shall be the executive head of a supervisory staff. He may require reports, conduct investigations, and make rules and recommendations concerning surpluses or deficits, the absorption of external costs, standards of service, and rates or prices charged for services or goods. The intention shall be that such enterprises shall be self-supporting, but exceptions may be made if the legislature agree. Each enterprise shall have a director, chosen by and removable by the commission; and he shall conduct its affairs in accordance with the standards of public service fixed by the commission. The conduct of the commission and the activities of such corporations may be reviewed by the Court of Administrative Settlements.

  8. jcscuba permalink
    August 16, 2009 6:21 pm

    There is no current data that links Co2 to Climate change. It’s all a hoax based on Algores out dated and factually incorrect docugenda. It is my hope, and I’m told by legal slugs that should this ever pass it will be a lawyers Christmas.

    I would personally like to see a class action suit against Al Gore for perpetrating this fraud and hoax while make millions. How does he differ from Bernie Madoff?

    He has scammed the liberals, the socialists to believe in this nonsense when their is no current verification, in fact the opposite is true. We have been in a cooling cycle world wide for the last ten years. The problem is that the left will not allow themselves to be educated. I’ve seen in Congress when scientists are their to refute the hoax the Democrats in mass leave congress. We want these losers voting on our future economically? Vote them all out! J.C.

  9. Steve permalink
    August 17, 2009 7:36 am

    Response to Mr. Landis. Thanks for the information. I will order the books you suggested today on Amazon. I have great hope that these things will not happen because it will require a major realignment of the professional sports teams i.e. NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. Many of my fellow Americans don’t have a clue what is happening to them as the government is slowly, but surely, taking over their lives, distributing the wealth they work so hard to accumulate. The situation is not unlike putting a live frog into a pot of cold water and turning up the flame underneath. The water turns from cold to boiling. The frog doesn’t know what hit him or have a chance when he finally realizes what has happened. The frogs final thoughts might well be “how did I let this happen? “Why did I not see the trap”?
    Fortunately, Americans will respond to having their professional teams renamed. Imagine changing the Philadelphia Eagles to the North East Socialists.

    • Richard Landis permalink
      August 17, 2009 10:07 am

      To Steve, Just know there is so much information available that it would be difficult to absorb it all in a relatively short period of time. I don’t know if you read the Bible, but Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Mathew, John and many others speak directly about or allude to the events of the Last Days as the Lord’s children turn from Him. This includes the “Mark of the Beast” that is Lucifer’s economic system.

      In recent years, references have been made by various world leaders regarding a world governance and a world monetary system. Russian President Medvedev was shown recently holding a coin he said was minted for this purpose. Most, if not all, major countries in the world have stockpiled this money.

      I believe that, in time, people from around the globe who do not want to be a part of this tyranny will need to ban together to establish their own free-market system. Yes, it’s possible, and I strongly support such an effort.

  10. Steve permalink
    August 17, 2009 10:54 am

    It might be time for us to read, once again, Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” and “We the living” this time comparing the fiction to the reality of the day.

    • Richard Landis permalink
      August 17, 2009 11:15 am

      Steve, Do you frequent this site? If you’re interested, I would like to talk with you about a major project I’m developing, but I do not recommend publicizing private email addresses and private phone numbers. If you are interested, I believe we can go third party on this, but it might take a few days to establish. Let me know if you’re interested and if you have any suggestions. I will have a website and/or a blog site, but not yet.

  11. August 18, 2009 9:05 am

    “If the measure ultimately becomes law, it is destined to do one thing with absolute certainty: it will raise immense revenues for the government and for those special-interest groups and individuals actively supporting its passage. As for its effect on the environment, there will be none. Zero.”

    AND

    “If implemented, cap-and-trade will have no effect on the environment. Who says so? None other than Thomas Crocker, the man who devised it!”

    Nothing more needs to be said.

  12. Jonathan permalink
    September 2, 2009 11:26 am

    Cap & Trade won’t effect our environment, but it will kill our economy. I signed up at this website to let officials know my opinion!
    http://dontcapandtradeourjobs.net/?soc=tmtwt

Trackbacks

  1. A Surprising Rejection of Cap-and-Trade « Stop Socialism Now

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.