John Edwards on Energy, Give Me A Break

For the last couple of days, I have sympothized with John Edwards for not getting the media coverage that Obama and Clinton were getting, but then I read his statements on energy today and finally understood why; he’s not realistic. 

When asked about a permit in South Caroline to build a coal-burning power plant along the Pee Dee River, he said “it needs to stop…they are taking a bad situation and making it worse.”  Now to give him some credibility, utility officials want to build this 600 mega-watt facility to keep up with energy demands, and coal is not the cleanest burning fuel available.   But Edwards took it further than the coal, and opposed any nuclear power facilities to then say “we are the worst polluter on the planet.”

So Mr. Edwards disagrees with coal facilities and nuclear facilities to provide power, but what kind of alternative energy does he support?  His website doesn’t say, but it does give an energy plan.

He supports a Cap & Trade plan to allow corporations to trade emissions credits.  This is an admirable idea, and might work by allowing smaller manufacturers to give their excess emissions to larger manufacturers.  It might work.

Edwards also supports a Global Climate Treaty.  In theory, this is nice, but I don’t think China will ever agree to reduce their emissions and how do you enforce a global climate treaty?  The U.N.?, give me a break; remember oil for food.

Another solution he has is to auction off $10 billion worth of greenhouse gas permits.  How much greenhouse gas is worth $10 billion dollars, and who decides that?  I doubt the free market.

But the last thing is what I find comical, and I am going to quote:

“Meeting the demand for electricity through efficiency for the next decade, instead of producing more electricity.”

Are you kidding me!?  Let just point out that after a decade, he will no longer be President.

P.S. Did I mention his support for windmills?  Just ask Ted Kennedy how he feels about them; he voted no on the idea because he didn’t want to ruin the view in his back yard, and the bill didn’t pass.

Economy, Economy, Economy

Over the weekend, we have seen the Michigan economy highlighted as the hot button issue, but have we heard an actual plan to deal with the state’s 7.6% unemployment rate? 

Romney has been traveling Michigan telling voters that it will take a business man to fix Michigan’s issues; highlighting government regulations as the source of the problem, and his experience as a CEO and invester in multiple ventures to back up his knowledge.  But what are the regulations that the Romney camp is referring too? 

Congress just passed new mileage standards for the auto industry, is that a problem?

McCain is another issue.  His message appears to be nothing more than doom and gloom for Michigan voters.  Recently he has dropped this line, but he was quoted as saying that some of the jobs are permanently lost to the overseas market.  The Romney campaign has criticized McCain for his comments, and stating that Romney will not give up on the workers in Michigan. 

McCain just does not seem very strong or policy oriented on this issue.

Now lets talk about Huckabee.  Today, Mike Huckabee told auto workers that the biggest hurdle effecting jobs is government taxation and regulation, and bolstered his support for the “Fair Tax”; moves the federal tax system from business, employee, and income taxes to a national sales tax with rebates for the poor.  He alleges that his plan will free up money for employers to provide workers and to reinvest in the economy. 

The Democrats have barely touched this state, and it is mainly due to the Democrat Party penalizing Michigan for moving their primary date; all delegate votes have been removed.  This is leaving Michigan voters unheard just because party idealogues are disatisfied with a state party.  Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are all doing a disservice to these Americans.

Bottom line, Michigan deserves some answers from all candidates from both parties.  Americans needs to know how Democrats and Republicans are going to treat businesses and deal with high unemployment rates.  We want to know what regulations they will impose and remove.  We want to know how we are going to be taxed.  We want to know why we should vote for them as president when it comes to the economy; health-care and immigration are important, but we all have the need to make money and have money in our pockets.

Change is what is needed in Washington, and a new face would do the White House good.  So who has the message and the impetus to do it?