Gay Patriot Header Image

So, Ma’am, how’s this going to create jobs in California?

With nearly one in eight adults in the Golden State out of work, our junior Senator, instead of trying to reduce the burdens on California companies which create jobs seeks to increase them.  Yup, that’s right, ever loyal to her liberal basis and its “climate-change” doomsaying, Mrs. Boxer together with her Massachusetts colleague, John Kerry, “unveiled their cap-and-trade bill energy tax bill today“:

In spite of their claim that this bill will create jobs, portions of the bill suggest the Senators understand that their legislation will be costly for Americans. This is why the bill contains subsidies for people who lose their jobs as a result of the bill’s provisions. . . .

Unlike the Waxman-Markey bill, the Boxer-Kerry permits EPA to move forward with regulations.

Increased regulation will hardly lead to a more favorable business climate.  Yet, with the state she represents shedding jobs, Mrs. Boxer puts forward a bill which anticipates further job losses.

With a state in a crisis, Mrs. Boxer would rather accede to the cries of left-wing environmentalists than put forward policies to create jobs in her jurisdiction.

(H/t Michelle Malkin who has more.)

Share

9 Comments

  1. You get the representation you vote for. If the majority of California voters keep returning politicians like Boxer back into office, they really have no legit reason to bitch. With over a 90% re-election rate for incumbents, I’m not confident we won’t see most of the current crop returned to office in 2010. Sure, enough might be picked off for significant gains for the GOP, perhaps even a majority in at least the House, but still most incumbents will be voted back in. Kind of depressing actually…

    Comment by John — September 30, 2009 @ 6:42 pm - September 30, 2009

  2. “accede to the cries of left-wing environmentalists” – she IS one of the left-wing environmentalists.

    Comment by Robert — September 30, 2009 @ 6:48 pm - September 30, 2009

  3. “Portions of the bill ‘suggest’”
    ie, say something we want it to say.
    And so the point of the post is that we should continue to pollute, regardless of the consequences for the planet, for future generations, for humanity.
    It’s funny how “conservatives” seem to care so much about future tax bills, yet don’t express any interest whatsoever in the environmental future.
    And don’t most technological and even trade bills result in job dislocation? Does this mean that all those bills are bad ideas because they result in any lost jobs, ever, even if they result in new jobs elsewhere (whether in other locales or other kinds of jobs in the same locale) or other benefits to society – like, you know, not destroying the planet?

    Comment by torrentprime — September 30, 2009 @ 7:30 pm - September 30, 2009

  4. Pollution has nothing to do with cap and tax. Nobody wants pollution. But, CO2 is not a pollutant. The plants love it. Many greenhouses pump CO2 in to stimulate growth.
    Check out the latest on the AGW science front at http://wattsupwiththat.com/
    A great deal of the “hockey stick” data was based on twelve [that's 12] cherry-picked trees.
    “After 10 years of data being withheld that would allow true scientific replication, and after dozens of requests for that data, Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit finally was given access to the data from Yamal Peninsula, Russia. He discovered that only 12 trees had been used out of a much larger dataset of tree ring data. When the larger data set was plotted, there is no “hockey stick” of temperature, in fact it goes in the opposite direction.”
    Cap and tax is just another way to redistribute the wealth and kill our economy.

    Comment by Walter Cronanty — September 30, 2009 @ 7:52 pm - September 30, 2009

  5. “Destroying the planet”, torrent? Even in the most fevered imaginations of global warming theorists this isn’t a possiblity. Earth will get along just fine whether the temperature is up a few degrees or not. Hyperbole much?

    Comment by John — September 30, 2009 @ 8:07 pm - September 30, 2009

  6. torrent – the purpose of the Boxer-Kerry bill to exert yet more control over the private sector regardless of the costs or benefits (if any). Boxer and Kerry are certainly on the short list of stupidest senators. (Although I have to give John Kerry credit for marrying into money so that he can live the lifestyle of the very rich ‘n’ famous.)

    The biggest costs will be imposed on lower income people who will suffer most with job losses and increased prices for necessities (Wonder Bread doesn’t get to the store by itself). What jobs will be left for them to do? Anyone???

    Benefactors will be a few government contractors who manage to get contracts to do work no rational person would spend their own money on and a huge number of new government employees. Oh, and China and India.

    I see millions spent to replace light switches and toilets and zilch spent on, say, fixing traffic signals or streamlining the permit process for nuclear plants.

    I’m really starting to wonder just whose side these people (Congress) are on.

    Lower income workers (and, increasingly, skilled middle-income workers) are being crushed by the unholy open-borders alliance (Dems who see more voters clients and businesses that want cheap and exploitable labor (with the costs shifted to the shrinking pool of workers who actually pay taxes).

    Despite trillions in spending (current and future), the economy continues to weaken while defaults and foreclosures continue to rise.

    Our Congress and President are trying desperately to railroad us into a “health care” system that most people don’t want. Only in a liberal world would efforts to simply post pending legislation on the web 72 hours ahead of a vote would be controversial.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — September 30, 2009 @ 10:42 pm - September 30, 2009

  7. It would probably create quite a few jobs with weddings and receptions if people like yourself were allowed to get married in California but….AWWWW…not gonna happen.

    You’re so obedient.

    Comment by Syntax — October 1, 2009 @ 2:53 am - October 1, 2009

  8. keep on trolling Syntax…

    And talkingpoints, if the bill will ‘create jobs’ why have subsidies?

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 1, 2009 @ 7:04 am - October 1, 2009

  9. [...] So, Ma’am, how’s this going to create jobs in California? [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » After 17 years in the Senate, What’s Ma’am Got to Show For it? — October 2, 2009 @ 4:01 am - October 2, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.