ACESA: a new Apollo Program?

Check out this ridiculous editorial by Rep. Jay Inslee: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24785.html

The thesis:
Look to 1961.

That year, at the height of the Cold War, President John F. Kennedy vowed before Congress that the United States would send a man to the moon and back before the end of the 1960s. His statement was bold, imaginative and, at the time, a gamble. But Kennedy recognized America’s innovative zeal, and the challenges were met.

Today, America has a different set of challenges. Our economy is in the worst recession since the 1930s. Our nation is addicted to foreign oil, and that risks our national security. Over this all looms the prospect of catastrophic climate change. Like 1961, now is no time to accept the status quo.

Thankfully, we still have the ability to launch a technological revolution, as we did in 1961. We need a New Apollo Energy Project to spur economic growth, reduce carbon emissions and break our addiction to foreign oil — and the House of Representatives approved such a program last month.

On June 26, the House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act by a vote of 219-212. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), my colleagues on that panel, crafted this landmark legislation to fight climate change and move America toward a new clean energy economy. The bill, also known as ACES, will cap greenhouse gas emissions and promote conservation and clean, renewable energy sources. ACES will bolster our tepid economy while helping us avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

The problems with claiming that ACESA is a job-creator have been discussed many other places, and I can't add anything besides a nice metaphor. Almost anything can create jobs. If you were to demolish every factory in the state of Maine, that would create quite a few jobs in the demolition and excavation industries. But the real key is NET JOBS CREATED. Yes, ACESA will create an incentive for many new jobs in "clean" technology, but how many jobs will be destroyed (or in the case of small business, never created) by the higher energy prices and new restrictions.

Inherently then, the comparison to Apollo is inaccurate because that program was simply government spending. Whether that actually stimulated the economy (a discussion best left for another time), it didn't actively harm industry. The trade-off was simply between what government could do with the money vs. the private sector. This is a trade-off between the private sector and a massive government regulatory program. Sorry Jay, not the same.