Washington enviro-lunacy and budget-lunacy collide
Posted by Liberty on December 5, 2008
“With Washington facing an expected deficit of more than $5 billion in the upcoming two-year budget cycle, environmental groups say they’re heading into the 2009 legislative session with a wish list that adds jobs and revenue.
‘This is not the year to be walking with your hands out,’said Clifford Traisman, lobbyist for the Washington Environmental Council and Washington Conservation Voters. ‘We believe our priorities go hand in hand with generating a stronger economy.’
As in earlier sessions, the groups have several key priorities, mainly focusing on cutting the effects of global warming. They want more energy-efficient buildings, to auction rather than give away pollution credits that allow industries to emit greenhouse gases and to have polluters pay fees to help clean up Puget Sound and other waters.”
Translation: “We want businesses to pay more for their buildings, pay for “pollution credits” so they may continue to do business and possibly even pay pollution fees.”
Mr. Traisman, how will making Washington even more inhospitable to business generate a stronger economy? Certainly the environmental agenda will require more bureaucrats to administrate the green-ness of buildings, the distribution of pollution credits and collect all the fines from the evil polluters. The last thing Washington State needs is more unelected government drones whose jobs are dependent upon money confiscated from citizens and businesses. And, there is growing dissent among the scientific community about the validity of global warming. Sure it’s been accepted as gospel by environmental groups, the main stream media and Hollywood celebutards but it would be a serious mistake to further hinder Washington’s economy based on an un-proven theory.
Also, I read recently that 20% of Washington’s working population is employed in some capacity by government. [Searching madly for the source on this, no luck so far but 1 in 5 or 20% is the figure that I recall.] Having 20% of the workforce directly dependent upon tax dollars for their own salary is not a good thing. That doesn’t even factor in all of the tax money that those people can potentially spend in the course of their jobs.