Dear Lord... There's a Long Way Down...

Lest anyone think the current economic downturn is going to end anytime soon, here's some good news: It's going to get a little better before it gets a helluva lot worse.

See, everyone, the dirty little secret is that, like him or not, a President can only effect the margins of economic cycles. That is, there's little they can do about when economies turn downward or upward, but their policies can make those upward climbs plateau a little early, and also make the downward valleys into cliff-walled chasms.

Right now, our economy is on a downward slope, and it will probably remain so for the foreseeable future. It has the potential to turn around in roughly two to three years, but Obama's going to prevent that from happening.

How? Read this, specifically, these excerpts:

"California had sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon within eight years. Seventeen other states had promised to adopt California's rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation's automobile market (snip)...
Before the election, Obama told others that he favors declaring that carbon dioxide emissions are endangering human welfare, following an EPA task force recommendation last December that Bush and his aides shunned in order to protect the utility and auto industries."

And:

"Some related reforms embraced by Obama's transition advisers would alter procedures for decision-making on climate issues. A book titled "Change for America," being published next week by the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal think tank, will recommend, for example, that Obama rapidly create a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change (snip)...
The center's new book will also urge Obama to sign an executive order requiring that greenhouse gas emissions be considered whenever the federal government examines the environmental impact of its actions under the existing National Environmental Policy Act. Several key members of Obama's transition team have already embraced the idea."

Despite the appeal of writing off Bush's protection of the auto industry to pure cronyism, the sad truth is that the auto industry in the United States has been hemorrhaging jobs and profits for more than a decade now. The reason President Bush balked at implementing this hideous proposal was because it represented a virtual death warrant for American auto manufacturers. And that was then: Auto companies just approached the federal government asking for a 24 billion dollar loan just to keep operating. Now they'll also have an unfunded mandate to improve fuel efficiencies to unrealistic levels, and the fact that Obama doesn't understand that this will put them out of business altogether doesn't bode well. In the next four years, look for the auto industry to be nationalized, just like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the nations major banks.

So, lots of new layoffs for the auto industry, then. Where else can we look? Ah, to America's energy creators! To combat global warming, they're going to have to severely slash their emissions. And I'm not even talking about toxic chemicals, just innocuous carbon dioxide, whose only sin is that it traps heat. Do I need to tell you that the overhaul these facilities are going to need to meet the Obama guidelines are going to be really expensive. Like... billions of dollars?

Ah, don't worry, they have an advantage over automakers, and might not even lay anyone off. See, unlike auto manufacturers, who depend on people buying their vehicles, energy companies have a captive audience: All they'll have to do is raise your utility bills through the roof. There, that wasn't so bad, was it?

See, all this shows is that, while Americans might say they prefer the Democratic agenda in many respects, it's because they don't really understand what it entails. You saw this in the past election season; people for years have said they don't want oil platforms off the coast because of 'pollution', yet when gas hit $4 a gallon, they realized that feel-good policy sometimes has a downside. And for years, people have felt terrible about polar bears having to swim a little further than they used to, because the temperature in the Arctic rose 0.25 degrees in a couple of surveys, so they've told pollsters that they're in favor of 'fighting climate change'. But they've never had to think through the ramifications, or live with the consequences of actually 'fighting' it.

Good news, Republicans: There's a whole host of issues like that where, when people are forced to actually consider them on their merits, they're going to realize you're on the correct side of!

Bad news, everyone: For at least two years, we're going to have to learn that the hard way on every one of them!