TANSTAAFU

In a Washington Post editorial, Sarah Palin distances herself from politics as usual:

Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda.

What? Government policy has costs? All I’ve been hearing about are benefits. Who is this dimwit telling us that there ain’t no such thing as a free unicorn!

And, in the paragraph prior that outrage, Caribou Barbie seems to suggest that executives should act within the letter and spirit of the law:

I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act.

Who is this dangerous radical? Isn’t being elected a blanket endorsement to fulfill everyone’s desires? I thought the law was just sort of a formalism, the etiquette of giving the people what they sometimes don’t realize they want.

Being unelected, I see a world where unicorns are not free. (Heck, in my world, they’re not even real!) But Ms. Palin alludes that there must be some top-secret knowledge that is revealed only to those elected to high office:

President Obama's proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign).

Clearly, the wise and well-meaning Barry Obama must have had an executive briefing that illuminated the ignorance of his campaign statement. As a candidate, there were costs attached to policy proposals. As President, the benefits have been cut loose from the costs.

We don’t just elect people, we liberate them—from logic, humility, and restraint.