Just this morning I was wondering what stunts we’ll see in January — like when President William “middle-class tax-cut” Clinton, after assuming the Oval Office, claimed that they’d gotten a look at the books and, well, things are just so much worse than we’d thought (which was absurd on its face, given he and the Goracle ran on a claim that the U.S. was in a recession – though it had already ended), that we’re gonna have to raise your taxes.

These things are to be expected, and Sen. Obama would surely bring in mostly Clinton alumni. So, in the face of the predicted slowdown and all of the nail-biting in the green press about the doom this spells for their expensive schemes, how might President Obama try to impose his global warming cap-and-trade program – you know, one of those things that’ll make us all rich (see below)?

After all, he believes that the ration coupons should be sold by the state as opposed to given away. Though more transparently a tax on covered entities, it is likely still not BTU-dangerous, politically — in that it is still hidden from the consumer to whom it is eventually passed on.

Well, whaddya know, but Sen. Obama is sending signals to not despair, cap-and-trade pays for itself and therefore need not be dropped despite current difficulties! You see, the government can then transfer all of that wealth to those companies that cannot raise capital in the private markets or survive without mandates (and subsidies). Just like Al Gore and Jerry Brown want. You know, to solve our economic problem.

During Friday’s debate, Obama and McCain shied away from making many definitive statements about what proposals they would pull back on if elected, given the tight economic times.McCain said he would consider a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs. Obama insisted that “energy independence” remained a priority, but he conceded “there may be individual components that we can’t do.”Earlier in the week, Obama specifically cited his global warming platform as something that would survive, saying it does not belong in the budget-busting category.“When it comes to energy, for example, I’ve talked about the need to use a cap-and-trade system that would help generate money that would then be reinvested in clean and renewable energy,” he told reporters. “Again, that pays for itself.”

Wait, he’d tax energy producers and users so much that there’d be plenty to go around:

At its core, Obama’s approach follows the cap-and-dividend concept that would require companies to purchase 100 percent of their allowances at auction. He would then use auction revenue to fund new energy technologies and wildlife adaptation strategies and to provide refunds for low-income communities suffering from high energy costs associated with his program’s new environmental rules.

It sure seems a shame that we don’t have candidates who differ sufficiently on these matters that one might call his opponent out: is taxing energy really your plan to rescue then grow the economy, because you’d give a lot of the money away? How is that different than other redistribution schemes that don’t seem to be doing the trick? In fact, where have redistribution schemes ever worked?

I suggest the voters would appreciate the stark contrast. Possibly, if they Free Sarah Palin by Thursday, she might ask Sen. Biden.