The abandonment of first principles by New Hampshire Republicans in congress is a point of contention and it should be. Speaking for myself, and I’d bet most of the writers here at GraniteGrok, we’re about principles before people or party.
With that in mind, I recently wrote that Senator Ayotte’s embrace of Obama’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) was a last-straw event for many in the base who tried to ignore all her previous leftward moves (immigration, spending, etc.) but just can’t take it any longer.
Due to editorial limitations, I was unable to fully explore the depth of Senator Ayotte’s ideological treason on CPP. Not so, here.CPP creates a carbon Cap and Trade scheme. Senator Ayotte is now on the record in favor of an ever-increasing national shadow tax on all electricity (forever), tax increases for which no member of congress will (likely) ever have to vote or be held to account.
Senator Ayotte’s embrace of CPP legitimizes EPA’s abuse of the law.
Her support of CPP confirms her as an Al Gore warmist (though she was on record as one already).
CPP ensures the right of the centrally planned bureaucracy to not just ignore the law but to make up rules with the force of law. I know, it is the way things work, but it is a violation of our core principles and Republicans need to oppose it not embrace it.
By supporting CPP Senator Ayotte has legitimized the power of the executive branch to impose rules without legislative debate or electoral recourse. The Democrats would never allow it from a Republican. They certainly wouldn’t embrace it. But here, Ayotte is doing both, all on the tumbling embers of a RINO star on its unprincipled descent, willfully exchanging your liberty and property for political power in a party that would rather jockey for a seat at someone else’s table than make a case for them sitting at yours.
The Hill.com reports that Ayotte will get support with a half-million-dollar donation to an Environmental Super PAC in exchange for Ayotte-esque solutions to man-made global warming. The donor says he’s looking for conservative solutions to man-made global warming but I think what he really meant was something like CPP.
Free will exercised in an open market where consumers decide with their own dollars would be a conservative solution. Encouraging private investment in new technologies or green energy innovations would be a conservative solution. Letting investors and businesses fail or succeed in the market would be a conservative solution.
National cap and trade taxes to modify behavior (not to mention the constant weight cost increases will have on growth, hiring, wages, and the lower and middle classes) are not conservative solutions. Ayotte has endorsed increasing centrally planned control of electricity and a national carbon tax, which has the crony capitalist side effect of reducing the players in the industry (less competition) while enriching the survivors and their advocates in the political class.
Sure, a national RGGI could make New Hampshire look more appealing by making everyone else’s electricity rates suck, but this is more like tripping your “buddy” when you’re running from the zombies. Getting ahead by endorsing less opportunity for others? Nice.
Did you know that Tom Steyer’s PAC, funded by the ultra-left wing billionaire Environmentalist (who tried to buy the US Senate for Democrats in 2014, including for Jeanne Shaheen) is not convinced Ayotte’s Watermelon Environmentalism is complete, but (BUT!) they like what they see. If she’d just take another step to the left…
CPP is a Statist answer to a question (global warming) based on the dogma of the false prophets of the extreme left, most of whom are paid to arrive at conclusions that expand Federal regulation of power generation and electricity consumption, not to save the planet, but to control everyone and everything. Ayotte is not against this and she should be.
And finally, for those still clinging to the “well she’d be with us on more votes than Hassan” argument, understand that Kelly Ayotte doesn’t have to be with us on everything. But if she is not down in DC trying to increase your liberties, defend rule of law, shift power back to the states and the people, or in defense of your property rights, what difference does it make if she is with us on anything else?
Without those things, nothing else matters.