President Obama’s health care bill has been getting the majority of coverage for the last couple of months. It may not only be in trouble politically, but it is increasingly obvious that it is not going to reduce expenditures, and will probably increase the deficit. But the health care bill is small change compared to the other big bill pushed through by the Democratic party faithful. Last summer, all eyes were on the Waxman-Markey bill, which promised to end climate change.

Very little was said at the time about how the Waxman-Markey bill might negatively effect the economy. the media followed the Obama administration’s lead, claiming that the cost would be offset by growth in so-called green technology. The environmental movement politely applauded, and complained that Waxman-Markey did not go far enough. the comments from the left generally argued that the economy would just re-focus itself, and the changes were simple matter of re-focusing funding. Economists from centrist or right of center viewpoints interviewed by what few media thought their perspective might matter didn’t have much to say except that the environmental movement’s figures didn’t seem to be good economics. No one in the media seemed interested in taking a closer look.

Someone HAS taken a closer look. In Britain, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers has done what you might expect engineers to do. Run the figures. Do the calculations. The results are stark.  Tim Fox, the man overseeing the study of environmental and climate change matters at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers is the lead author of the report.  His group determined that it was simply not possible to meet the existing reductions of carbon reductions currently planned by the UK.  Britain is calling for carbon emission reductions of 34% from 1990 by 2030, and 80% of 1990 emissions by 2050. While Fox does not think it is possible to meet the carbon reduction goals, he argues for doing everything possible to do it – including putting Britain on a sort of war-time footing to push for construction of nuclear power stations and wind turbines.  He hints at severe measures, some of which should make anyone concerned about democratic government think very seriously about the wisdom of allowing the environmental lobby to govern nations.  the money quote from Mr. Fox:  “The ability to undertake the size of task needed to meet the 80% target is not possible within a modern industrialized democracy.”

It hasn’t gotten much attention here. The report was on the BBC world service last week, and the good folks in the US media are too busy talking about health care and the abortion debate to ask the obvious question: If reduction of carbon output to meet the goals of the environmental community is impossible from a technological perspective, what in the world are we doing passing something as ludicrous as Waxman-Markey?To cut to the chase, just what were the US voters thinking when they elected Mr. Obama President?  Clearly they weren’t looking for competent, responsible government when they called for change.  Waxman- Markey, like Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill, is simply more of the economically and intellectually bankrupt behavior the American citizens have received from the members of both parties for the past fifteen years.

It is time to recognize that deficit spending cannot continue.  Both the Republicans and the Democrats have contributed to the current disaster, it is now essential to get competent adults into office who will deal honestly with the public.  That means a reduction in governmental services, and an increase in taxes to bring the government back into economic equilibrium.  Neither the curent health care bill, the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, or the Republican tax cuts will help at this point.  Irresponsible proposals for tenologically impossible solutions to all kinds of problems should be off the table as well.