It seems to me that the county and state do what they can to maintain a good bond rating, so why not the federal government? It’s part of this missive from the folks at Americans for Limited Government:
Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today in a letter urged members of the House of Representatives to reject “the unprecedented global transfer of wealth” currently being planned at the global summit in Copenhagen, Denmark.
“Not one cent of foreign welfare via Copenhagen, the International Monetary Fund, or any other international institution should be committed,” wrote Wilson, “until the national debt is brought down to a manageable level: about 10 percent of the Gross Domestic Product.”
Wilson demanded that members set the record straight: “ALG calls on you to publicly state your position on this foreign welfare scheme.”
According to the Wall Street Journal, “Clause after complicated clause of the draft [Copenhagen] treaty requires developed countries to pay an ‘adaptation debt’ to developing countries to supposedly support climate change mitigation. Clause 33 on page 39 says that ‘by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year].'”
Wilson warned that the U.S. was at risk of having its debt downgraded. He wrote, “At $12 trillion today, the national debt will surpass 100 percent of the GDP in 2011. The nation faces the increasing likelihood of a debt downgrade by Moody’s Investor Services. Future generations of taxpayers are being bound in the shackles of an insurmountable debt that cannot be paid.”
Last week, Moody’s Investor Services stated that U.S. “public finances are deteriorating considerably and may therefore test the Aaa boundaries…”
Wilson wrote that the cost of implementing the Copenhagen “wealth transfer” would be enough to push the U.S. over the edge: “Much of the national debt is already owed overseas to China, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and elsewhere. Doubling down with a wealth redistribution plan to the Third World via Copenhagen will ensure that the rest of the nation’s wealth not committed to paying down the debt will simply be handed over. There will be nothing left for the American people.”
Although the U.S. Senate has the power to ratify treaties, many of the measures under discussion at Copenhagen require approval of both houses of Congress to appropriate funds. “As members of Congress, you have the power of the purse—and you can stop this blatant theft from American taxpayers,” Wilson wrote.
Wilson concluded, “I strongly urge you to pledge to oppose any foreign aid transfer until the U.S. debt has been brought under control, and to oppose any foreign aid transfer, regardless, until a broad consensus is reached on the so-called ‘science’ of man-made climate change.”
I don’t know if Bill Wilson was joking and writing the last paragraph tongue-in-cheek or not, but the idea of “consensus” in science isn’t what science is about. The idea is to work to disprove theories, not set policy because a theory is floated out there.
If we wake up in 2050 and the global temperature is down a degree or two from the point we’re at presently, would all the money and freedom we’ve lost be worth it? Actually, a slight warming wouldn’t be such a bad thing if if brings the line where agriculture is possible closer to the Arctic and Antarctic Circles – particularly in North America and Asia this brings a lot more acreage into play.
And don’t forget that the Medieval Warming Period brought agriculture northward to what we now know as Greenland (hence its name) – all without a SUV in sight or the industrialization evident in filth-belching smokestacks.
Those who have sounded the alarm about encroachment of a unilateral world government (most closely embodied by the United Nations) have often pointed out that a tax like the ‘adaptation debt’ is a first step in that direction. Those who represent the prevailing thought in Copenhagen tend to forget that the United States (and other developed nations) already provide billions of dollars in foreign aid, while we incur a large share of the cost in hosting the United Nations itself. (If Switzerland is a traditionally neutral nation, why don’t they host the UN? Just a thought.)
But in returning to the discussion of debt, what do state and local governments who are short of revenue do to maintain their debt rating? They cut spending. So why is the federal government considering going in the opposite direction unless they plan on printing their way out of the deficit?
So – where does Frank Kratovil stand on this? We probably won’t know until after the vote is taken and by then it may be too late.
You write, “Actually, a slight warming wouldn’t be such a bad thing if if brings the line where agriculture is possible closer to the Arctic and Antarctic Circles – particularly in North America and Asia this brings a lot more acreage into play.”
But what about all that acreage that will be lost when, inter alia, large parts of Southeast and South Asia, and most of Florida, and large parts of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas are underwater?
And as far as the “Medieval Warming Period” is concerned, indications are that globally during that time period, temperatures were actually cooler than now (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period).
Given the whole escapade over global climate change e-mails, I believe Michael Mann about as far as I can throw him.
Even if you assume the temperatures are the same, the problem with that theory is that sea levels then were about the same as they are now, and a minor rise won’t bring the dire consequences you predict. Ain’t gonna happen.