Today’s AYFKM? Award Goes To Cass Sunstein Again!

First it was the internet, because doncha know that there is just way too much freedom of speech in Amerika…

NOW, can you believe our stupid congress confirmed this dipstick who thinks we should redistribute America’s wealth to other countries, (like we aren’t doing enough of that already?  Anybody seen the embassy city complex built in Iraq?)  Everybody needs to keep digging on these czars and continue to peel the onion.

Cass Sunstein wants to spread America’s wealth
Echoes Van Jones on using ‘environmental justice’ to redistribute money

By Aaron Klein

JERUSALEM – It is “desirable” to redistribute America’s wealth to poorer nations, argued President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.

According to Sunstein, global climate change is primarily the fault of U.S. environmental behavior and can, therefore, be used as a mechanism to redistribute the country’s wealth.

The argument bears striking resemblance to comments made by Obama’s former environmental adviser, Van Jones. WND reported Jones used a major environmental convention to argue for spreading America’s wealth.

Now WND has learned Sunstein made similar, more extensive arguments.

The Obama czar penned a 2007 University of Chicago Law School paper – obtained and reviewed by WND – in which he debated whether America should pay “justice” to the world by entering into a compensation agreement that would be a net financial loss for the U.S.

Sunstein heavily leans on the side of such an agreement, particularly a worldwide carbon tax that would heavily tariff the U.S.

A prominent theme throughout Sunstein’s 39-page paper, entitled “Climate Change Justice,” maintains U.S. wealth should be redistributed to poorer nations. He uses terms such as “distributive justice” several times. The paper was written with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner

“It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid,” wrote Sunstein.

He posited: “We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.

“If the United States agrees to participate in a climate change agreement on terms that are not in the nation’s interest, but that help the world as a whole, there would be no reason for complaint, certainly if such participation is more helpful to poor nations than conventional foreign-aid alternatives,” he wrote.

Sunstein maintains: “If we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses.”

This academic has got to go.  He is living so far in his own head, and “my little pony world” that the term “fringe” could never do him justice.