WHICH DEMOCRATS MAKE THE MOST MONEY FROM CAP AND TRADE?

The Democrats have now put climate change ahead of immigration legislation. I wonder why? An excellent article that was published in Human Events (10/03/2007) spells out the convoluted connections between Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Carol Browner and others. Browner is the Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy in the Obama Administration. Browner previously served as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Clinton Administration). The article, “The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade” by Deborah Corey Barnes, can be found at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663. Please read the article. I leave it to the reader to draw his own conclusions of why cap and trade is being pushed by these people. Glen Beck, Fox News, also gave a detailed discussion of following the money, but it is hard to remember all of the people involved. If you missed the Glen Beck show, Investor’s Business Daily (April 29, 2010) followed Beck’s lead and gave a good accounting of the “The $10 Trillion Climate Fraud”. Aside from the scam artists already involved, our Democratic congressmen and senators are probably also involved in one way or another.

An interesting subject is what happens to the Democrats that vote for cap and trade if the Tea Party is successful in removing them from office? How will the Democrats pay them off for casting an aye vote? We already know how Senator Harry Reid made a wise investment in land that appreciated dramatically. The land increased in value after good old Harry put in a road, with federal funds of course, that conveniently had a positive effect on his land value but was done for the good of the state. Believe that and you’ll believe anything. But what happens to those politicians that vote for cap and trade and then get voted out of office? How will they make money? There are a number of ways.

• Al Gore, who is on his way to becoming the first billionaire from Global Warming, could give each of all 257 Democratic members of the House a million dollars for an aye vote. This would reduce his net worth by a quarter of a billion dollars. Such a scenario is highly unlikely as few Democrat give away any of their own money. They only give away other people’s money.
• Most politicians have considerable money squirreled away in PACs. By law the money cannot be used for personal use. The Feds are currently investigating if Democrat John Edwards used PAC money to support his mistress. I feel reasonably sure he will be cleared of all charges. Other Democrats will be a little more discreet. I’m sure that if they don’t give the money back to the Party (highly unlikely), they will find a way to have wives, sons and daughters somehow involved with the PAC at a fancy salary. After all the politician doesn’t have to make the money he only needs to keep it in the family and have access to it.
• The most probable way that the out of office Democrat will still make money is either by being employed by one of Al Gore’s non-profit or for profit organizations. Either way they will be rewarded; if not with actual cash then I'm sure stock or options will come into play.
• Finally if Gore is too tight fisted to hire them directly, they will become consultants or lobbyists for the climate change religion. Obama promised that “"No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration." (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/) He’s already broken that pledge with the Goldman Sax debacle. I agree that a member of the House is not a political appointee but Obama conveniently left the door open for politicians to do as they please. Payola comes in many ways.

While I’m on the subject of politicians getting rich, why don’t we push for a law that requires a potential candidate for office give a precise estimate of his or her net worth before entering office and after he or she leaves it. No more of this one half million to five million or five to ten million estimate. That leaves too much room for chicanery. Aren’t you tired of the smart investments made by politicians such as Reid (land) or Hillary Clinton’s cattle futures investment? It seems to me that most politicians, if they’re not already rich, leave office rich. It would be interesting to know how they do it. Perhaps they should write a book on smart investing.