Negative Railroad

In a Washington Post editorial, Sarah Palin distances herself from politics as usual:

Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda.

What? Government policy has costs? All I’ve been hearing about are benefits. Who is this dimwit telling us that there ain’t no such thing as a free unicorn!

And, in the paragraph prior that outrage, Caribou Barbie seems to suggest that executives should act within the letter and spirit of the law:

I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act.

Who is this dangerous radical? Isn’t being elected a blanket endorsement to fulfill everyone’s desires? I thought the law was just sort of a formalism, the etiquette of giving the people what they sometimes don’t realize they want.

Being unelected, I see a world where unicorns are not free. (Heck, in my world, they’re not even real!) But Ms. Palin alludes that there must be some top-secret knowledge that is revealed only to those elected to high office:

President Obama's proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign).

Clearly, the wise and well-meaning Barry Obama must have had an executive briefing that illuminated the ignorance of his campaign statement. As a candidate, there were costs attached to policy proposals. As President, the benefits have been cut loose from the costs.

We don’t just elect people, we liberate them—from logic, humility, and restraint.

Commenting on this Story is closed.