Rick Perry

Rick Perry Wanted to Eliminate the U.S. Department of Energy: Trump Nominates Him to Head It

Reform or just substituting fossil fuel crony capitalism for Obama's renewable energy crony capitalism?

|

RickPerryWikimedia
Wikimedia

Rick Perry, the former Republican Governor of Texas, has been nominated by Donald Trump to head the U.S. Department of Energy. During the 2011 CNBC Republican presidential candidate debate Perry was listing three Federal agencies that he would eliminate were he to become president. Perry said that he would get rid of the Department of Education, and Department of Commerce, but then he faltered, forgetting the third agency he would put on the chopping block. Fellow Republican presidential hopeful Rep. Ron Paul tried to help him out by suggesting that he should eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency. Perry responded that the EPA needed reform, but that it wasn't the one on his list. Some fifteen minutes later, Perry recalled the agency he'd close down: the Department of Energy.

The Washington Post notes that environmental activists take a dim view of Perry:

"There is no doubt that Rick Perry is completely unfit to run an agency he sought to eliminate – and couldn't even name. Perry is a climate change denier, opposes renewable energy even as it has boomed in Texas, and doesn't even believe CO2 is a pollutant," said League of Conservation Voters Gene Karpinski in a statement. "Not only that, he is deep in the pocket of Big Polluters, who have contributed over $2.5 million to his presidential campaigns, a disturbing sign that they expected him to protect their profits in office, not do what's best for the American people."

The Department of Energy dispenses about $30 billion in various energy subsidies annually. Perry could seek to rollback the new energy efficiency standards for appliances that the DOE is trying to rush through before the end of President Obama's term. In addition, the DOE has promoted the climate change agenda of the Obama administration. A recent questionnaire asking, among other things, which DOE staffers participated in climate change programs and how the costs of solar and wind power are calculated by the Energy Information Administration sent a chill through the agency.

About 60 percent of the DOE's budget is allocated to overseeing our country's nuclear weapons stockpile. One really useful thing that Perry and the Trump administration could do is lift President Obama's moratorium on completing the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility. Will Secretary of Energy Perry try to put himself out of job? Doubtful, but it will be interesting to see if he will reform the agency to create a level energy playing field, or end up substituting fossil fuel crony capitalism for Obama's renewable energy crony capitalism.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

152 responses to “Rick Perry Wanted to Eliminate the U.S. Department of Energy: Trump Nominates Him to Head It

  1. Ron Swanson moment?

    1. It is almost like every cabinet level position will be filled by that agency’s version of Ron Swanson. Except for, unfortunately, Justice.

  2. About 60 percent of the DOE’s budget is allocated to overseeing our country’s nuclear weapons stockpile.

    So he could make a 40% cut on day one? Interesting.

    1. He couldn’t. But Congress could. Remember, we didn’t even have a Department of Energy before the late 1970s. Before that we had the Atomic Energy Commission that ran the nuclear stockpile and nothing else. If you are not old enough to remember the 70s, it was like Somalia. The country was run by rival warlords and in complete chaos. That is until Jimmy Carter gave us the Department of Energy to fix things.

      1. If it wasn’t for homebrew and airline deregulation, there would be nothing to appreciate about Jimmy.

        1. Those are two pretty great things though.

          1. I thought that one was mostly because Ted Kennedy was having a lovers’ spat with the Teamsters.

            1. I don’t know. Carter probably could have quashed it, though.

        2. …but your basic point is valid. It’s kind of like Obama and his drug felon pardons.

          1. Obama and his drug felon pardons.

            Eight fucking years with this bastard, and this is the best we can point to. Even thought it is a good thing, it is mostly too little too late.

            1. Not starting a war with Iran? (Something McCain likely would have done.)

              1. I think you mean delaying a war. The treaty they ran around Congress almost ensures some type of future conflict of the course remains the same.

          2. Both of ’em.

          3. Is Obama pardoning drug offenders in any great number? He’s granting clemencey which, while better than nothing, is not remotely a pardon.

        3. I know that happened during President Nookyuh Engineer’s term, but does he deserve credit for it? Did he actually lift a finger to bring it about?

          -jcr

      2. Hillary Flammond: My uncle was born in America.

        Nick Rivers: Oh, really?

        Hillary Flammond: But he was one of the lucky ones. He managed to escape in a balloon during the Jimmy Carter presidency.

  3. Rick Perry Wanted to Eliminate the U.S. Department of Energy: Trump Nominates Him to Head It

    #Winning

  4. “But he couldn’t even name the agency!!!!!!” is so stupid.

    1. Do you know where Aleppo is? Didn’t think so = No libertarians do. Shameful. #WorldlyAndInformed

      1. What now?

        1. The meme is that libertarians are ignorant of basic facts

          Being able to name things is the source of all power. Liberals may not understand what the Treasury does, but darnit, they know its there.

          1. Being able to spell them correctly is even more important to the progs.

          2. To be fair, the use of True Naming IS generally how Magic works…

    2. Not quite that stupid given that it was a completely unforced error. The moderator wasn’t asking Perry anything about the subject; it was Perry who voluntarily brought it up. It would be like if Gary Johnson had his “Aleppo Moment” in the context of him specifically starting a discussion about Syria.

  5. Doubtful, but it will be interesting to see if he will reform the agency to create a level energy playing field, or end up substituting fossil fuel crony capitalism for Obama’s renewable energy crony capitalism.

    He won’t have to do that Ron. You know why? Because fossil fuels are competitive in the market. You only have to subsidize shit that can’t sell on its own.

    Every single thing you list in this article would be a good thing. All you have is some vague bullshit about Perry giving subsidies to products that do not need them.

    And even if he did, it would still be an improvement. Giving subsidies to a useful product that everyone needs and making energy even cheaper than it should be may not be a perfect market solution but it is a hell of a lot better than subsidizing inefficient forms of energy to replace efficient ones.

    Sorry Ron, your green energy dreams are likely going to die and it will be a great and good thing.

    1. J: If the production tax credit for wind power is a subsidy, then the tax preferences for fossil fuels is too, right? From >2015 CBO report: Almost three-quarters of the projected cost of tax preferences for energy in 2015 was for renewable energy and energy efficiency (see Figure 2). An estimated $8.8 billion, or 56 percent of the energy-related tax preferences, was directed toward renewable energy, and $2.7 billion, or 17 percent, went to energy efficiency. Fossil fuels accounted for most of the remaining cost of energy-related tax preferences?an estimated $3.7 billion, or 24 percent.

      No subsidies or preferences period.

      1. Hmmm…..

        The two most costly preferences
        were the credit for electricity production from
        renewable sources ($2.9 billion) and the credit for
        percentage depletion, which provides the option to
        recover the cost of investments in fossil-fuel mining
        over time on the basis of gross income rather than on
        the basis of production ($1.7 billion).

        So renewables get a straight subsidy (credit can be higher than tax assessed), fossil fuels get to recover the cost of investment even if it turns out the well/mine does not produce as much as expected.

        $2.0 billion for grants under the Section 1603
        program. Section 1603 grants allow producers of
        renewable energy to take a cash grant in lieu of a tax
        credit; the grant is provided once the qualifying
        facility is put into service. Although those provisions
        expired on December 31, 2011?the last date on
        which projects could become eligible for the benefit?
        facilities that were under construction as of that date
        qualified for the option. Thus, some grants were
        disbursed in 2015.

        Oh look, straight-up cash grants. For renewables only.

      2. The hope (although I seriously doubt Ryan’s desire or ability to deliver) is that ALL “tax preferences for energy” are removed by Congress. Having read annual reports of oil companies, they sure seem to be paying their far share of taxes.

        1. If “fair share” means more in taxes than they retain as profits, then: yes, yes they do.

      3. “No subsidies or preferences period.”

        Ever been in business, Ron? Would you like to eliminate depreciation of capital goods? ‘Cause that’s ‘depletion allowance’.

        1. First thing I thought of, too. Bailey’s bitching about standard accounting practices.

          1. uhh…balance sheet…what is that? /RB derp

          2. When it comes to the evil fossil fuel industry, normal business deductions become subsidies and loopholes.
            Get with the program, will you!

      4. Table on page 6 shows the breakdown of “preferences”. For renewables, out of five categories, three are “Credit” totalling $3.8 billion. For fossil fuels, out of six one is “Credit”, listed at $0.2 billion (clean coal facilities). Rest are different mechanism to recover the costs of investments.
        And by far the largest is listed under “Electricity” as “Subtotal, Tax Preferences Affecting Income Taxes”, $12.1 billion.

        How about direct investment? $1.9 billion for renewables research, $0.7 for nuclear, $0.6 for fossil fuels. And it’s not for any reasonable R&D to make fossil fuels efficient or cheaper:

        DOE’s funding for those programs goes
        primarily to research for technologies aimed at
        reducing emissions?particularly of CO2?from
        coal-fired electricity generation.

      5. And finally, there’s Loan Guarantees section on page 11.

        $6.2 billion for “Nuclear and Other Clean-Energy Facilities”
        $14.0 for “Renewable Energy and Electricity Transmission”

        Nothing about oil or coal.

        And then there’s this lovely bit

        Taxing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Versus Subsidizing
        Alternatives. The most efficient way to reduce the external
        costs associated with energy?including the damage
        caused by greenhouse gas emissions?would be to enact
        policies, such as taxes, that increased the prices of various
        types of energy to reflect the external costs that their production
        and use entail

        Hey, want to count lack of carbon tax as a subsidy to fossil fuel while you’re at it?

        Shorter version: not taking is not the same as giving.

        1. Exactly. If the Mafia takes only 20% of your cash instead of 30%, they are really giving you that 10%.

      6. Ron, are you really going to claim that you don’t know the difference between a tax cut and a tax credit? Could you be more disingenuous?

        1. I think he said he doesn’t like either

          and speaking od disingenuous – we were talking about the distinction between ‘tax cuts’ and ‘tax breaks’ the other day.

          Proper tax ‘cuts’ apply to *every industry*, regardless of what they’re engaged in. they’re done across the board and hopefully as part of their own law.

          Tax ‘breaks’ are targeted at specific businesses/industries/activities are are considered special favors which congress grants industries with aggressive lobbies. and they’re usually slipped into omnibus bills as riders to sweeten the deal for certain connected-congressmen.

          There’s plenty of reason to object to the latter, and far less reason to object to the former.

      7. Fossil fuels accounted for most of the remaining cost of energy-related tax preferences?an estimated $3.7 billion, or 24 percent.

        What are these “tax preferences”. I’m no energy tax lawyer, but the only thing I know about that is cited as a bennie for oil and coal companies are the depreciation credits for their mines and oilfields, which are pretty much the same for every “extraction” industry (timber, etc.).

        Depreciation isn’t a “preference”. Its accounting for the reduction in value over time. Break out what they get as a preference, and there might be something there, but depreciation isn’t really what concerns me.

        1. Should be “depreciation deductions”, not “depreciation credits”. At least, as far as I know.

        2. the only thing I know about that is cited as a bennie for oil and coal companies are the depreciation credits for their mines and oilfields, which are pretty much the same for every “extraction” industry (timber, etc.).

          is that so? so the left has been exaggerating basic-accounting stuff as “subsidies” for decades?

          1. As I quoted above

            option to
            recover the cost of investments in fossil-fuel mining
            over time on the basis of gross income rather than on
            the basis of production ($1.7 billion).

            You know US tax better – do other industries depreciate equipment from gross income or from production done by that equipment specifically? I.e. if I buy new set of computers for Buffalo branch, do I only get to deduct it from Buffalo branch income, or throw it into “expenses” bucket for the whole company?

            1. do other industries depreciate equipment from gross income or from production done by that equipment specifically?

              My experience is mainly with “Straight-line depreciation“, which i believe is the norm for most companies.

              If you’re in an industry where the actual impact is highly variable depending on how busy you are (e.g. ‘extraction’ industries), there is also ‘unit of production’ depreciation =

              Unit-of-production Depreciation
              This method provides for depreciation by means of a fixed rate per unit of production. Under this method, one must first determine the cost per one production unit and then multiply that cost per unit with the total number of units the company produced within an accounting period to determine its depreciation expense

              There are other methods as well. I was just curious if these standard measures aren’t what’s being discussed re: the Fossil Fuels industry. My impression was that they had their own special rules which weren’t common with anyone else.

            2. To add to GILMORE?’s post – typically, gross income, unless each branch is a separate legal entity.

          2. Yes. So have Republicans. There is no good reason why a business gets to use standard accounting for interest expense and a household doesn’t – but you know the Democrats wet dream would be to fuck over businesses just like Reagan fucked over households. Both parties keep wanting to yank the mortgage interest deduction.

            1. You mean the deduction you get to take for the cost of living at your place, the one that renters can’t take for the cost of living in our places?

              1. No, the one where borrowers, on mortgages, get to not pay taxes on money that directly goes to the lender, who has to pay its taxes on that same money.
                IOW not having double taxation on the same amount.
                Just like all interest on loans, even credit cards, used to be.

        3. “What are these “tax preferences”. I’m no energy tax lawyer, but the only thing I know about that is cited as a bennie for oil and coal companies are the depreciation credits for their mines and oilfields, which are pretty much the same for every “extraction” industry (timber, etc.).”

          Every business depreciates its capital goods; for extraction industries, the tax man calls it a ‘depletion allowance’.

          1. But that’s not capital, that’s inventory.

            1. “But that’s not capital, that’s inventory.”

              Wrong.
              I pick up the phone and order inventory.
              I invest in prospecting for capital.

      8. I started to write a more educated response, Bailey, but I can tell you will respond more dishonestly than you even just did.

        So just fuck off.

    2. Whatever you subsidize encourages overprod’n & overpurchase. But right on to everything else.

  6. I hereby rescind the Ten Commandments. You are now free to behave according to your conscience and morals. Don’t worry, you can trust them – they’ve been finely honed by millions of years of evolution and if you do or think wrong – we have treatments and medications for that. If you have any woeful moral dilemmas, please contact me on twitter and I will respond with a YES or NO. If you want to commit genocide, you had better have a VERY good reason.

    1. A: You know the same sky god who supposedly handed down the 10 really strong suggestions did command his followers to commit genocide many times.

      “When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations…then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy.” Deuteronomy 7:1-2, NIV. 1

      bullet “…do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them…as the Lord your God has commanded you…” Deuteronomy 20:16, NIV.

      Just noting.

      1. None of that Old Testament stuff counts because Jesus. Also, you delve into the comments section enough that you should know who the regular trolls are.

        1. It counts. The anti sky God people always bring this up. It is time and place specific, the Israelites didn’t follow through with it. God was telling them the only way for their land takeover to work was to kill everyone. They didn’t have the stomach for it and didn’t commit a complete genocide, which of course lead to problems later with the remainders of the Defeated people. They put it out here as a gotcha without knowing the background.

          1. Or they just don’t think context justifies even partial genocide, or a divine being advocating for it.

        2. I’ll never understand why the most Metal part of the Bible doesn’t count. Old Testament is awesome, it’s got great characters, epic battles, ladder matches, David collecting enemy foreskins and God doesn’t take any bullshit from humans. Then suddenly it’s all peace and love and the meek shall inherit the earth.

          1. Read Revelation…

            1. Already did, it’s good but it tonally clashes with the New Testament. Old Testament remains consistently epic and weird throughout.

              1. It does not, in any way. Read what Christ said to the Pharisees, “You brood of vipers”. Read what he had to say about the unwise virgins. Read what he said about the bad wedding guests. Read 2 Timothy for what Paul had to say about evil people. Read what the late epistles had to say about “anti-Christs” and false teachers.

                He is the same, though many would love to ignore that.

                1. Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

                  For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

                  The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

                  Disclaimer: I know of this bit because of Patlabor movies. It’s still pretty metal.

                2. He is the same, though many would love to ignore that.

                  He’s also quite snarky at times, but many of my fellow Christianfolk can’t recognize it because they don’t study the context.

                3. I mean in the sense that the ‘Jesusy’ parts of the New Testament read somewhat like a Greek philosophical discussion a la Plato’s Republic: Jesus interacts with people and his surroundings, provides commentary and teachings. There’s far less of a ‘mythological’ element to it, while Revelations embraces that.

                  Also, 1599 Geneva is the best version.

              2. To be fair, part of the tonal clash is how the different books of the bible are very different sorts of literature. In the Old Testament, there’s the large array of mythic history, poetry, wisdom literature, prophecy and mystery texts, and classical history (on a Hellenistic model of writing) ? plus some other specifically Hellenistic books added centuries later in a different language depending on the set of scriptures. By comparison, most of the New Testament is a series of letters with a few classical Greek style (and language) histories (Luke and Acts in particular are fascinating since the author is writing deliberately in the particular fashion of Herodotus to clue the reader into the import of the material) except for that single book of mystery literature that draws heavily from the Book of Daniel. So the tonal clash of Revelation is totally understandable, and the context and character of the two sets of books are entirely distinct in provenance.

                (Mind you, I say all that as a devout Catholic, but also as a student of history and therefore someone interested in the human face of scripture).

          2. Slate a while back did a “secular Jew re-reads Torah” series. My favorite part was the amount of times Israelites backtalk to God, to the point that the author was getting sympathy for Yahweh

            “Oh for crying out loud, I say a simplest, clearest thing and it’s always ‘no, no, OK, yes but can we make a deal, OK, but are you sure, really’?”

            1. “Me-dammit you people whine a lot, and I have to deal with this for forty years? Here, have some bloody food, I’ll make it bloody rain food for you.”

      2. And people claim that the Leftarded are condescending, smug pricks?

        1. Everyone is.

          But the OT is pretty fucked up in a lot of places.

          1. But the OT is pretty fucking awesome up in a lot of places.

            Fixed it for you.

      3. Darned squatters, wouldn’t get off his property.

        Even to his own people, he says:

        “The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers.” Leviticus 25:23

        So, apparently, when the squatters start sacrificing their own children on your land, you are against removing them. Good to know.

        1. ^This, but it will be ignored by the ignorant.

      4. Something, something, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

        1. Which of course is why we were evil for doing those things and should have just waited for the ever powerful and beneficent Russkies to handle those situations, as my college history professor posited (and then failed me for arguing against.)

      5. By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion.
        There on the poplars we hung our harps, for there our captors asked us for songs, our tormentors demanded songs of joy; they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”
        How can we sing the songs of the Lord while in a foreign land?
        If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill.
        May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you, if I do not consider Jerusalem my highest joy.
        Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell.
        “Tear it down,” they cried, “tear it down to its foundations!”
        Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us.

        Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

        -Freaking awesome.

      6. How easy is it to blame doing shit, like this, on God?
        Is there a letter, or an e-mail, you can point to?

        1. I’m sure Wikileaks has something.

  7. he is deep in the pocket of Big Polluters

    The left seems to be in a contest with themselves to see who can come up with the silliest instance of attaching “Big” to a capitalized noun to form an insult.

    1. They’re just agents of Big Namecaller.

      1. Al Gore’s 2000 election Texas campaign director is going to run the Department of Energy from Camp Niggerhead.

    2. Hmm… that *is* a tough one… Let me get back to you…..

    3. Feminists are “Big Pussy”?

      1. So, so cisnormative that I can’t even.

      2. Not everyone with a big pussy is a feminist, shitlord.

        1. Yeah, some are just old worn out whores…

          1. or born that way… *sniff*

        2. Right, some non-feminists own Maine Coon cats…

    4. Can I buy their stock?

  8. I’ll believe that Rick Perry wants to abolish the DoE when it actually happens, but I can’t see how this appointment would be a bad thing.

    1. It’s not even necessarily that he is likely to abolish the DoE ? or that he/Trump should or could. The missing part of the argument over the rightness of such agencies’ existence is that each does manage some proper service among their portfolios. Even if the federal government has little rightful role in energy, for example, the department is currently tasked with control of domestic nuclear weapon stockpiles and atomic weapon research labs; it makes total sense to task those to Defense instead, but it takes more than a memo’s work to do so. There’s likely an administration’s worth of work in downsizing and retasking projects from departments like Energy, Education, and the like before they could be closed down as separate agencies (by a sort of comparison, note how it took most of W’s first term of shifting programs and agencies to the new Homeland Security Agency before the actual Homeland Security Department could official get underway).

      Having someone actually interested in beginning the work of closing down a department at the top of one is vital, if only to fight the bureaucratic gravity that would otherwise lead an extant department to grow in one dimension even as it cut programs in another (as we see happening whenever government spending gets cut, because the idea never extends to actual reorganization ? it’s cutting calories without restructuring lifestyle and hiring the right personal trainer in the person of someone like a Rick Perry).

      1. Is the DoE budget discretionary or non? I’m wondering if any President or agency will be able to try “rescission” with the discretionary budget. I don’t remember if it’s ever been answered if the Executive is required to spend the entire budget that Congress passes, suppose DoE is budgeted for $100 billion but for some reason they only spend $80 billion, will they be violating the law? I live in DC Metro and worked for various contractors, so I know about the “September Christmas” that all the office supply and other stores look forward to every year, as agencies spend to keep their budget numbers up. I remember pundits talking about it during Reagan’s years, but I never heard if budget rescission ever happened.

  9. How dare Trump name Republicans to head these agencies. He lost the popular vote for chrissakes.

    1. Isn’t the winner of the election supposed to compromise and appoint some Democrats? Just like when the Democrats win, they compromise and appoint Democrats to things. THIS IS WHY TRUMP IS LITERALLY HITLER.

      1. THIS IS WHY TRUMP IS LITERALLY HITLER.

        Speaking of which… i think these are ‘alt-right’, but i think they’re awesome anyway. Im getting one for my niece for christmas

        1. Get the Cuck Hunt! one!! It even shows the Nintendo Zapper.

          1. You just want to deface the shirt and change the U to an O.

        2. HAHAHA

          I second the Cuck Hunt one. Damn I may just have to get myself an Xmas present this year

  10. So Perry’s going to immediately fire all of his employees and then resign, right? Right?

    1. I think Congress requires the department to technically exist, so he’ll have to stay in just so he can spend all of his time writing letters to various Congress Critters about why he’s not spending any money or doing anything the law requires or permits him to do. Also, I’m sure he’ll have to sit through endless committee and sub-committee grillings on the subject. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

      1. The department would still exist, there just wouldn’t be anybody in it.

    2. If so, he should end his resignation statement with “oops”.

  11. To all Trump appointees:
    Repeal any and all regulations enacted after 11/8/16. ALL of them; they are the result of panic by the left.

    1. Agree to start there as the last ones in should be the easiest to undo, but then keep unwinding the stack until you undo them all of Obama’s regulatory work

  12. My best friend from college just posted “lol” as his status on Facebook the night of the election, after Trump had officially won. “lol” is all I’ve been able to think every single day since. This particular one is very lol.

    1. That is probably the most appropriate response.

      1. That is obviously hate speech and needs to be prosecuted.

  13. Ron Paul to head the Federal Reserve!

    1. +1/1 fractional reserve

    2. That would be in keeping with Trump’s picks, but curse you for teasing me with that to get my hopes up

  14. Alright, I’m calling it: Trump is trolling the shit out of the progs. I doubt if he even cares if any of his cabinet picks get confirmed as long as he can make as many heads explode between now and then as possible.

    1. Inauguration Day is going to kick off a week-long laugh riot.

      1. I, personally, intend to stay inebriated for at least seven or eight days.

      2. But the inaugural ball is gonna be the yugest most classy inaugural ball ever. It’s gonna blow away all the ones before it, believe me.

        1. something, something, beautiful people…

    2. You’re probably right. He says something about that in The Art of the Deal. Something to the effect of going into negotiations with an extreme position and then compromising. Perry, however, doesn’t seem extreme.

      1. Unless you are to the left of hem you are extreme.

    3. All one has to be is pro-business to troll the progs.

  15. C’mon, guys, you have to admit, this is the awesomest transition ever. Allegations of Russian manipulation, cabinet nominees that are sworn enemies of their departments, the President-Reject working the Electoral College. . . .

    1. I’ll agree with this. Most of them are a little grumbling about SCOTUS appointments and watching D.C. scum (but I repeat myself) scrambling for Inauguration invites.

      1. Trump’s win has, so far, mostly exceeded my expectations as far as entertainment value. And there’s still five weeks until the inauguration!

        1. PPPPPPoProgPro

          1. (that post was a battle with the squirrels. squirrels won)

        2. Prog tears remain delicious, but the knee-jerk media response of agastness to all news Trump is getting old.
          Could they at least feign neutrality once in a while?

    2. I knew Trump would be entertaining (one of the reasons I supported him over Hillary), but I didn’t expect it so soon.

  16. Is Perry still wearing the “I’m smart” glasses, or has he finally given up on that charade?

    1. And did Trump give him the Energy post because he won their pull up contest, or because he lost it?

  17. Dammit Trump, I know your a corrupt, narcissistic, ignorant, war-mongering asshole, buy you keep this up and I’ll be buying a goddamn yard sign for you in 2020.

    1. People pay for those?

      1. He was planning to get the neon kind

  18. “Will Secretary of Energy Perry try to put himself out of job?”

    Actually I wouldn’t be surprised if Perry shut down the DOE himself. Texas used to have a Treasurer, but the last person elected to that office eliminated that office and shifted its duties to the Comptroller of Public Accounts. I could see Perry doing something similar.

  19. Being a Texas resident during Perry’s tenure, I think Ron’s question about cronyism is very much on point. Rick Perry is very familiar with the good ol’ boy network, and is fond of taking care of his friends. I hope that doesn’t happen here, and that he heads the DOE with solid principles, but I wouldn’t put serious money on it.

    1. I hope that doesn’t happen here, and that he heads the DOE with solid principles

      First he would have some solid principles, but it doesn’t sound like he does.

  20. This oughta be good. Perry is a retard who plays a conservative on tv but doesn’t really have any conservative principles. Not any he could explain. He’s a former dem who put his finger in the wind and decided to become the conservative caricature in his head.

    1. Is that a typo in your handle? Shouldn’t that be “LoneWacko”?

  21. The butt hurt this Holiday season has been bloody magnificent.

  22. Good, I hope he succeeds in shutting it down. Previous heads wanted to see it grow larger and more intrusive.

  23. Reform or just substituting fossil fuel crony capitalism for Obama’s renewable energy crony capitalism?

    Given how little fossil fuels get subsidized and how much they are used, while not ideal, that would still be an improvement.

  24. lift President Obama’s moratorium on completing the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility

    Count me as one of those who thinks we are nowhere near ready to actually complete a long-term nuclear waste facility. Not as long as we are a)leaving $20 trillion in debt to future generations (ie we are not responsible to begin with) and b)we are arguing over the cost of completion (ie you can bet that necessary ‘maintenance’ spending will disappear first thing) and c)no one has yet figured out any REAL escrow system for the 24,000 year half-life that can deal with unexpected problems that will emerge with that waste storage.

    But I guess the non-aggression principle never does apply across generations.

    1. Isn’t throwing it all in a deep, dry hole and putting the biggest steel and concrete lid on the door, the best idea for nuclear waste?
      Ready or not, what’s the alternative? Giving each Swiss citizen a warm, glowing thermos to defend with their machine gun and the finest required JROTC training out of the whole European Federation of Planets?

  25. Liam. I agree that Carl`s bl0g is cool… I just got a great new Honda since getting a cheque for $9458 thiss month and just a little over 10/k this past-munth. without a doubt its the most financially rewarding I’ve ever had. I started this six months/ago and almost immediately started earning at least $75, per hour. go now

    =====================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  26. I like the idea of a person running an agency they momentarily forget to name. I see it as a positive omen for less government. More incompetent is really just not possible, we’ve reached peak incompetence. Omen’s aside, I find this risable, “….opposes renewable energy even as it has boomed in Texas, and doesn’t even believe CO2 is a pollutant,” said League of Conservation Voters Gene Karpinski..”

    First, its not a boom if it has to be accomplished by government largesse. Secondly, CO2 is not a pollutant, its a naturally occuring chemical compound essential for life. Nobody ever complains about farms with too many plants producing the pollutant oxygen. When CO2 is headed to man-made levels greater than historical levels, then we can call it a problem, but still not pollution.

  27. when i looked at the figure of 14786 dollars .Than I have no other choice but to accept , what i saw .They have been doing this for a year and get rid of their debts.. Yesterday they purchased new Aston Martin ?
    visit This Site.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  28. Elizabeth. true that Janice`s comment is unimaginable… last saturday I got a top of the range Mazda MX-5 since I been bringin in $9155 this last 5 weeks and-just over, 10k this past month. it’s certainly the most-financialy rewarding I’ve ever had. I began this 10-months ago and almost straight away got at least $69, per-hr. browse this site

    =======================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  29. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.