Any good right-wing PR flack knows that the general public is cautiously but ever-increasingly in favor of strong action against global warming, especially if it has the happy side effect of creating new skilled blue-collar jobs — and if Obama and the Democrats manage to get their way, they'll score a sociopolitical coup on the scale of the New Deal.

But of course the general public is still very apprehensive about healthcare, and doesn't trust the idea that the (truly criminally inept) system under which we currently suffer will be replaced by anything better (as if that would be hard to do).

So clearly, then, one angle of attack is to glom the two together and see if you can't knock down the green economy by hitting healthcare reform.

It's worth a shot, right? And if it doesn't work.. try something else. Obama is a baby-killer. Stopping global warming is letting the terrorists win.

Whatever it takes.

If you had listened to Geithners testimony before Congress on CSPAN, that is exactly what he said. The Obama administration plans to use the cap & trade $ to fund Health care. When then asked by a Congressman what about the increase in the energy taxes caused by this, Geithner said if any money was left over from the health care reform, they would think about sending a check to lower income people. Your totally erronous article is why the media has lost its credibility. Or are you just in the bag for the administration and a willing partcipant in Obama's continual program of lying to the public. ( i.e. earmarks,

lobbists, ethics, tax cheats, budgets,etc,)

..then I might have cheered? You assert:

1) That the treasury secretary knows more about what the leader intends than the person leading? Interesting.

2) Healthcare is something evil and doesn't represent a "return" of capital to a US family? Or spending on clean energy doesn't return anything to the people/economy?

I reject your assertions.

- 38 million people in the US have no health care.

- 18,000+ die each year in the US because of no health care.

- 40% of all personal bankruptcies in the US are medical bill initiated.

(source: Democracy Now, 3-12-09)

- While insurance statisticians are determining who lives and who dies for those that *are* covered. I'm sure they were well trained (not).

And if the funds are used for clean energy, I'm equally happy. I won't even include anything about the hidden costs of our way of life associated with global climate change which is the absolute height of dishonest accounting.

No, the only thing HTWW article got wrong was that it didn't include a more stinging rebuke of the meme associated with a GOP policy that is fundamentally thing (money) focused versus people focused. This meme only has a future in the back parking lot at the end of a 9mm.

I think the much maligned "effects on our economy" is a *good* thing, not a bad thing. This might be a leftover of my engineering days, where the cost of hanging onto a old way of doing things guaranteed eventual death and the pain of changing had to paid to make it otherwise, so you just did it. It's ballsy, but necessary, and not without its own pain.

So far, we haven't seen any economic analysis demonstrating the harm to the US economy from climate change. Unless this new burden is going to have a net benefit to the US, it needs to be scrapped. If alternative energy benefits the US, then move forward. But if alternative energy is a costly boondoggle that benefits other countries around the world at the expense of the US it is harmful and wrong.

One can't have an honest discussion about any issue with Republicans these days because the bases of their arguments are so radical right and so rigid that they are unable to find the meaningful premise for any discussion.

The Republicans have marginalized themselves and continue to do so with their fundamentalist rigidity on social, religious and economic issues. Truly, they have morphed into "The Ideologists" of the 21st century -- right alongside the Muslim fundamentalists. And they spew forth their own brand of terrorism: It's our way or no way. If you disagree with us, you're un-American. We're right and you're wrong. We're good and you're bad. God is for us and against you.

Not a lot of room for discussion, is there?

It's our way or no way. If you disagree with us, you're un-American. We're right and you're wrong. We're good and you're bad. God is for us and against you.

... and they'll do everything in their power to make sure nobody gets a chance to try anything that they don't approve of.

Mehan is just generating noise and clearly doesn't understand the purpose of a Cap & Trade system, which is to encourage greater efficiency through taxing waste (CO2).

The idea that somehow this will provide a cornucopia of cash for social programes and welfare is a non-starter, because businesses will invest in efficiencies that lower their CO2 emmissions and lower the amount they pay into C&T funds. The entire concept of C&T is that it will make itself redundant as increasing efficiency brings business under the bar.

The net. effect is INVESTMENT by businesses that will spur ECONOMIC GROWTH much more effectively than throwing money at consumers to waste of bigger cars/houses/TVs. It will CREATE JOBS IN THE USA, rather than in countries where jobs have been outsourced to.

The SAVINGS to industry and business over the long term will more than off-set any immediate costs involved, and aren't all successful businesses focused on their LONG TERM PERFORMANCE? If the governemtn needs to make funds/ loans available to enable businesses to achieve the necessary investment, then C&T funds should be used for that, just as they should be used to weatherize and improve efficiency for those who cannot afford to do it for themselves.

Since the MONEY WILL BE SPENT IS THE USA, almost the entire cost will GROW THE DOMESTIC.

The increased efficiencies in business and the natural follow up development of consumer applications will leave MORE MONEY AMERICAN POCKETS, which will help support the economy.

The only questions, in my humble opinion, is do Republicans want to stand for inefficiency, waste and prolifligacy? The last eight years certainly suggest so, and the electoral results speak for themselves.