BHO's Cap and Trade Tax [Archive] - Big Big Forums - Coupons, Freebies, Deals & Discounts

anothersta

02-27-2009, 08:59 PM

This will affect EVERY American, rich/poor, young/old, EVERY AMERICAN will pay this tax. Which means that when BHO was saying he wouldn't raise taxes on people making over 250K per year?

"Liar, liar, pants on fire!" Ready for those energy bills to SKYROCKET?????

Obama's Energy Tax
Friday, February 27th 2009

The 2010 Obama budget reveals the major tax hike that Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are counting on to fund the outrageous bailout and stimulus spending that is propelling federal spending to record levels-27.7 percent of GDP in 2009, an all-time record other than the four peak years of World War II.

The tax hike is a broad-based energy tax that will wallop every American who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys any product that has to be grown, shipped, or manufactured.

The mechanism is cap-and-trade, which is like a tax on coal, oil, and natural gas but instead of being set at a specific amount, the total level of use is capped and companies are forced to pay the government for emissions permits-which Wall Street wizards at companies like AIG and Goldman Sachs can in turn trade on sophisticated exchanges and derivative markets.

White House Budget Director Peter Orzcag admitted that decreasing carbon emissions imposes costs on the economy, and "much of those costs will be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices for energy and energy-intensive goods."

Page 21 of the Obama budget proposal highlights his cap-and-trade proposal:

After enactment of the Budget, the Administration will work expeditiously with key stakeholders and the Congress to develop an economy-wide emissions reduction program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions approximately 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and approximately 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

The economic impact of such a policy would be devastating. Even using the Obama administration's own numbers, it would amount to a tax hike of $645 billion over the first 8 years, about $80 billion per year. But as the cap becomes more and more strict over time, those costs would skyrocket into the trillions of dollars.

Obama's proposed 83 percent reduction below 2005 levels by 2050 dwarfs the proposal from last year's Lieberman-Warner bill, which included a 63 percent reduction.

While we don't have numbers yet on the new proposal, the cost of last year's bill is instructive. A study conducted by SAIC (the same modeling firm the Energy Department uses for its own projections) for the American Council on Capital Formation, found that electricity prices would be expected to increase under anywhere between 101 percent and 129 percent by the year 2030. Prices at the pump would jump 77 percent to 145 percent-bringing not just $4 gasoline, but very possibly $8 gasoline or higher.

The estimated impact on disposable household income due to rising energy prices would then reach anywhere between $4,022 and $6,752. And because an energy tax is regressive, it will fall heaviest on poor and lower middle class folks who spend more of their income on energy.

The new version of the plan in the Obama budget is much more aggressive, and reducing emissions another 20 percent will be dramatically more costly-possibly as much as double the cost since the additional cuts will come in the most difficult and expensive areas, like transportation and agriculture.

While the lost purchasing power for a typical household will decline by many thousands of dollars, the administration promises the plan will be "offset" by the $400 per worker rebate checks that were passed as part of the stimulus bill. Paying thousands and getting back hundreds is a bad deal for American families.

This is not a side-effect of his plan--it's the intended goal, which was clear when Obama said in his address to Congress that he wants to give so-called renewable energies a market advantage, which can only be done by imposing a tax that dramatically increases the cost of natural gas, oil, and coal.

This policy would destroy the only bright spot in the current economic environment, low energy prices, and cause severe economic pain. It should not even be contemplated if we are serious about addressing the country's economic crisis.

I consider myself lucky. I saw what could be elected as our pres and I started preparing. Started scrimping and saving, almost got the house paid off, paid off credit cards. We are expanding our veggie garden this year and took other measures last year so we will ride out BHO's storm.

Those that are living hand to mouth and barely paying the bills, you're probably screwed. I'm sorry the pres thinks so little of us lowly Americans.

gmyers

02-27-2009, 09:21 PM

I used to have low light bills in the winter but not this year. I'm not looking forward to summer light ills at all.

hblueeyes

02-28-2009, 05:05 AM

15+ years ago I started buying a flouescent bulb a month at $39 each. I am now replacing those with LED bulbs which are great but limited in luminations. They cost roughly 25 cents a year to operate for low light bulbs but the higher lums cost $69 and up. So I will buy one every other month. We will also be installing a wind turbine this summer so this shall help along with a greenhouse and veggie/fruit garden.

Seems the more BHO talks the more he hurts us average folk.

Me

Jolie Rouge

02-28-2009, 09:45 AM

nightrider127

02-28-2009, 12:17 PM

This is more of his share the wealth crap.

Problem is, most Americans don't have a whole lot more wealth to share.

You know what? I am going to say it. I do not like the man.

anothersta

02-28-2009, 12:37 PM

This is more of his share the wealth crap.

Problem is, most Americans don't have a whole lot more wealth to share.

You know what? I am going to say it. I do not like the man.

That dislike is probably going to grow to hate as your electric bills SOAR to 1000.00 a month or more.

justice250

02-28-2009, 12:40 PM

He's trying to destroy America, plain and simple.

SurferGirl

02-28-2009, 12:42 PM

obama and osama have the same agenda, they both are determined to destroy our economy. All you have to do is put together the facts.

nightrider127

02-28-2009, 02:42 PM

That dislike is probably going to grow to hate as your electric bills SOAR to 1000.00 a month or more.

I truly hope that it never grows to hatred. I don't want to even think about hating anyone.

whatever

02-28-2009, 04:22 PM

whats worse is he is not passing all this alone. And NO one is stopping him at this point. That's why I laugh when people "brag" about having money at this point. Because you may have it now but you might not if Obama gets his way with all this crap.

SurferGirl

02-28-2009, 04:27 PM

Remember that you money might not be worth much if obamanation has his way.

anothersta

02-28-2009, 04:36 PM

When that happens, we will all use those 'lunchroom skills' and begin to barter for services.

First what will happen is skyrocketing prices which will eventually lead to money being worth nothing. Once folks figure out money's not worth the paper it's printed on, we will barter/trade for things we need. Most people tend to try and use the money system as long as possible

Anyone remember the pic of the guy with the wheelbarrel full of money to buy a loaf of bread? I can't remember which country it was, but I think it was Zimbabwe? (sp?)

Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but the potential is certainly there.

SurferGirl

02-28-2009, 05:05 PM

I remember that it was due to a redistribution of wealth.
Land was taken from the farmers and given away to others who didn't know how to farm.

anothersta

02-28-2009, 06:45 PM

I remember that it was due to a redistribution of wealth.
Land was taken from the farmers and given away to others who didn't know how to farm.

Yes, land was taken from EVERYBODY, then redistributed to EVERYONE evenly (unless you were pals with the gov, you got more if you were)

Everyone got 3/4 of an acre which wasn't enough to really do anything with. The country is still in shambles from that deal. Seems I heard a few weeks ago they were knocking all the zeros off their money, again (they've done this a couple of times) because of hyperinflation.

With everything going on in our country, I haven't paid as much attention to Zimbabwe as I use to.

Jolie Rouge

03-03-2009, 08:19 AM

Obama introduced a cap and trade program today
The plan may cost American companies billions of dollars and could result in the loss of 4 million jobs.

Obama released his 2009 budget today.
The pdf is here. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets...nsibility2.pdf

This is the same program that just collapsed in Europe.

Europe On the Ropes
by Niels Jensen
March 2, 2009

This week we look at the European bank markets through the eyes of my London partner Niels Jensen, head of Absolute Return Partners. I continue to believe that this is a brewing crisis which could have far more significant implications for the global economy than the Asian Crisis of 1998. In this week's Outside the Box, Niels has compiled a sobering set of data that suggests that only massive government involvement in Europe on a scale that is unprecedented will keep the wheels from coming off in Europe and the global economy.

I have worked closely with Niels for years and have found him to be one of the more savvy observers of the markets I know. You can see more of his work at http://www.arpllp.com

Europe On the Ropes
The Absolute Return Letter March 2009

"Many of today's policy proposals start from the view that "greed" and "incompetence" and "poor risk assessment" are the ultimate source of what went wrong. In fact, they were not the true cause at all. Moreover, even if they had been, it is fatuous to think that we will now create a post-crash generation of bankers and traders who are not greedy, much less a new generation of quants who will be able to assess and manage risks much better than "the idiots" who have brought us to the current abyss. Greed cannot be exorcised. Nor can the inherent inability of any quants to determine the "true" probability distributions of all-important events whose true probabilities of occurrence can never be assessed in the first place."

Woody Brock, SED Profile, December 2008

Policy mistakes 'en masse'

The last few weeks have had a profound effect on my view of politicians (as if it wasn't already dented). All this talk about capping salaries for senior bank executives is quite frankly ridiculous. It is Neanderthal politics performed by populist leaders. That Gordon Brown has fallen for it is hardly surprising but I am disappointed to see that Barack Obama couldn't resist the temptation. The mob wants blood and our leaders are delivering in spades. The stark reality is that we are all guilty of the mess we are now in. For a while we were allowed to live out our dreams and who was there to stop us? Policy mistakes – very grave mistakes – permitted the situation to spin out of control. From the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank under the stewardship of Alan Greenspan being far too generous on interest rates to the British Chancellor of the Exchequer -who now happens to be our Prime Minister - advocating 'Regulation Light'.

Policing must improve

If you really want to prevent a banking crisis of this magnitude from ever happening again, the focus should be on the way banks operate and not on how much they pay their staff. And, within that context, any discussion must start and end with how much leverage should be permitted. The French have actually caught onto that, but their narrow-mindedness has driven them to focus on hedge funds' use of leverage which is only a tiny part of the problem. It is the gung ho strategy of banks which brought us down and which must be better policed. And guess what; if banks were better policed - and leverage restricted - then profits, even at the best of times, would be much smaller and there would be no need to regulate bankers' compensation packages.

It is pathetic to watch our prime minister attacking the bonus arrangements of our banks when the UK Treasury, on his watch, spent £27 million pounds on bonuses last year as reward for delivering a public spending deficit of 4.5% of GDP at the peak of the economic cycle. Even my old mother understands that governments must deliver budget surpluses in good times, allowing them more flexibility to stimulate when the economy hits the wall. What Gordon Brown has done to UK public finances in recent years is nothing short of criminal.

So, with that in mind, let's take a closer look at the European banking industry. The following is not pretty reading. I have rarely, if ever, felt this apprehensive about the outlook.

So, if the crisis has made you depressed already, don't read any further.

What is about to come, will make your heart sink.

More leverage in Europe

Let's begin our journey by pointing out a regulatory 'anomaly' which has allowed European banks to take on much more leverage than their American colleagues and which now makes them far more vulnerable. In Europe, unlike in the US, it is only risk-weighted assets which matter to the regulators, not the total leverage ratio. European banks can therefore apply a lot more leverage than their US counterparties, provided they load their balance sheets with higher rated assets, and that is precisely what they have been doing.

That is fine as long as you buy what it says on the tin. But AAA is not always AAA as we have learned over the past 18 months. Asset securitisations such as CLOs proved very popular amongst European banks, partly because they offered very attractive returns and partly because Standard & Poors and Moodys were kind enough to rate many of them AAA despite the questionable quality of the underlying assets.

Now, as long as the economy chugs along, everything is dandy and the AAA-rated assets turn out to be precisely that. But we are not in dandy territory. Many asset securitisation programmes are in horse manure to their necks, so don't be at all surprised if European banks have to swallow further losses once the full effect of the recession is felt across Europe. The two largest sources of asset securitisation programmes are corporate loans and credit cards. Senior secured loans are still marked at or close to par on many balance sheets despite the fact they trade around 70 in the markets. The credit card cycle is only beginning to turn now with significant losses expected later this year and in 2010-11.

Not much of a cushion left

Citibank has calculated that it would only take a cumulative increase in bad debts of 3.8% in 2009-10 to take the core equity tier 1 ratio of the European banking industry down to the bare minimum of 4.5%1. By comparison, bad debts rose by a cumulative 7% in Japan in 1997-98. One can only conclude that European banks are very poorly equipped to withstand a severe recession. Seeing the writing on the wall, they are left with no option but to shrink their balance sheets. Despite talking the talk, banks will use every trick at their disposal to reduce the loan book. No prize for guessing what that will do to economic activity.

The wheels are coming off

But that is not the whole story. It is not even the most worrying part of the story. For the true horror to emerge, we need to turn to Eastern Europe for a minute or two. Nowhere has the credit boom been more pronounced than in Eastern Europe. And nowhere is the pain felt more now that credit has all but dried up. One measure of the credit fuelled bonanza is the deterioration of the current account across the region. Credit Suisse has calculated that in four short years, from 2004 to 2008, Eastern Europe's current account went from +6% to -6% of GDP2. That is a frightening development and is likely to cause all sorts of problems over the next few years.

Meanwhile Western European banks, eager to milk the opportunities in the East after the iron curtain came down, have acquired many of the region's banks (see chart 1). Now, with many Eastern European countries in free fall, ownership could prove disastrous for an already weakened banking industry in the West.

http://www.investorsinsight.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/john_5F00_mauldins_5F00_outside_5F00_the_5F00_box/jmotb030209image001_5F00_562AA533.jpg

There is more .... http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/john_mauldins_outside_the_box/archive/2009/03/02/europe-on-the-ropes.aspx

Jolie Rouge

06-23-2009, 09:44 PM

In his press conference today, President Obama talked about the cap-and-trade energy tax that the Democrats are trying to ram through Congress. Obama's nose grew a couple of inches as he uttered this howler:

At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air we breathe.

The idea that the energy tax will come to rest with "polluters"--that is to say, power companies, manufacturers, agribusinesses, and so on--is absurd. The cost will be passed on to consumers, as Obama himself admitted during a moment of candor during the campaign, when he said that electricity costs would "skyrocket" under his cap-and-trade proposal.

Obama isn't dumb enough to believe that the many billions of dollars in costs that his proposal will impose on energy companies, etc., will somehow disappear thereafter. But he thinks you are.

Meanwhile, others are putting out information, rather than disinformation, on the disaster that is Waxman-Markey. Like the National Mining Association, which produced this map showing, state by state, how many millions of dollars in costs will be imposed on each state annually under the bill's allowance allocation formula.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2009/06/WaxmanMap771-thumb-410x237.jpg

Here in Minnesota, we can look forward to an additional $100 million+ in costs to be paid for annually by taxpayers and energy consumers. Go here to learn much more. http://www.nma.org/pdf/061909_2454_map.pdf

Waxman-Markey would be a very stupid bill even if it were true that 1) the earth is getting warmer, 2) human activity is mostly responsible for climate changes, and 3) a warmer earth would be a bad thing. Given that all three of these premises are false--we cannot, in fact, control the weather--Waxman-Markey is a suicidal monument to human folly.

SCOTT adds: And enacting Obamacare is mandatory in order to save money.

As I stated here, the Obama administratoin's operative political theory is that the American people are incredibly dumb. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023792.php

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023883.php

------

Conn Carroll does the math: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/22/cbo-grossly-underestimates-costs-of-cap-and-trade/

Most problematic is their complete omission of economic damage from restricting energy use. Footnote three on page four reads, “The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap. The reduction in GDP would also include indirect general equilibrium effects, such as changes in the labor supply resulting from reductions in real wages and potential reductions in the productivity of capital and labor).” That’s a pretty big chunk of change to ignore. In The Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation, the GDP hit in 2020 was $161 billion (2009 dollars).

For a family of four, that is $1,870 that they ignore.

---

I note that Congress has exempted the gas passed by farm animals from any legislation on the “greenhouse gas” issue, as farmers have convinced them that this amounts to a “cow tax,” which it does. http://www.yahoo.com/ap/us_climate_bill_cow_tax

Why is it that Congress understands that imposing a tax on the emissions of cows (and pigs, and sheep) would lead to fewer of them, and thus higher prices on food (and leather, and wool), but, at the same time, fails to understand that taxing the emissions of power plants will lead to fewer of them, and hence less energy, and hence higher prices on everything?

anothersta

06-23-2009, 10:18 PM

Why is it that Congress understands that imposing a tax on the emissions of cows (and pigs, and sheep) would lead to fewer of them, and thus higher prices on food (and leather, and wool), but, at the same time, fails to understand that taxing the emissions of power plants will lead to fewer of them, and hence less energy, and hence higher prices on everything?

They DO know this. The WHOLE reason they are doing this is to SKYROCKET energy prices to make 'green' energy look cheaper. Currently, it is VERY VERY expensive, VERY high maintenance.

Everyone thinks of wind and solar power as 'free'. When really, there are HUGE expenses and upkeep to converting that energy to electricity. With Cap and TAX, energy prices would (to quote BHO) NECCESARILY SKYROCKET

mikej

06-24-2009, 03:56 AM

They DO know this. The WHOLE reason they are doing this is to SKYROCKET energy prices to make 'green' energy look cheaper. Currently, it is VERY VERY expensive, VERY high maintenance.

Everyone thinks of wind and solar power as 'free'. When really, there are HUGE expenses and upkeep to converting that energy to electricity. With Cap and TAX, energy prices would (t
o quote BHO) NECCESARILY SKYROCKET

Actually, the reason that we are switching to clean energy is that climate change is bad for human existence. Maybe Republicans think that wind and solar are free, but Democrats understand science.

Here's the cost as estimated be the CBO. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10327/06-19-CapAndTradeCosts.pdf Trey reading it yourself rather than relying on Faux news' interpretation.

galeane29

06-24-2009, 04:24 AM

Actually, the reason that we are switching to clean energy is that climate change is bad for human existence. Maybe Republicans think that wind and solar are free, but Democrats understand science.

Here's the cost as estimated be the CBO. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10327/06-19-CapAndTradeCosts.pdf Trey reading it yourself rather than relying on Faux news' interpretation.

I watch all news not just FOX and there are instances where even the other stations have things to say about what is going on so you cannot say that it is FOX news relaying wrongful information. They are the only ones with the balls enough to say it.

But we all know that since stations will start being aired inside the White House that it will be regulated because nobody will have the BALLS to tell the truth like they do it now anyways, right?

Our country cannot afford at this point to give a rats azz about going 'GREEN'. People cannot afford what they already have, jobs lost, businesses going under but yet our all mighty president wants to raise the raise taxes to pay off his deficit.

I don't place blame on him alone like some 'Democrats' think us 'Republicans' do, it's that he is going about this all wrong and at the worst time possible to be raising taxes. It looks to a lot of Americans that our Government is wanting this nation to be Government controlled because they are taking things out of our ( the citizens )hands.

meltodd69

06-24-2009, 08:12 AM

If our politicians would stop opening their mouths maybe global warming would slow LMAO.

SurferGirl

06-24-2009, 08:32 AM

That does remind me that Chicago was called the windy city because of all the hot air from the politicians.

anothersta

06-24-2009, 11:15 PM

Actually, the reason that we are switching to clean energy is that climate change is bad for human existence.

That has never been proven. There's LOTS of propaganda out there, but no real facts. Global Warming is a THEORY that has made Al Gore and people like him rich!

The polar ice caps were suppose to melt and they are increasing in size. We caught the ocean temps being FUDGED last October to go with the global warming THEORY. There's never been a debate about whether it's true or not and there are just as many scientist that DISAGREE with the theory as agree. Although the ones who agree seem to find favor with the politicians...

One thing about Cap and Trade that people oughta know is that the Traders will be the ones who make the big money off this deal.

Enron lobbied for Cap and Trade

Jolie Rouge

06-25-2009, 01:28 PM

Al Gore is traveling to Washington today to whip House Democrats on tomorrow’s cap-and-tax bill.

No word on the amount of bogus carbon offsets Al Gore's trip to the Hill will cost: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/24/gore-talk-climate-change-house-democrats-thursday/

Former Vice President Al Gore will meet with House Democrats Thursday to appeal to reluctant lawmakers to approve the controversial climate change bill on Friday, FOX News has learned.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is rolling the dice with her plan to lug the bill to the House floor without the full confidence that the legislation will pass.

Senior Democratic leaders are whipping and cajoling skeptical lawmakers to side with them to approve the measure that could have significant economic impact on the energy bills of many Americans and even drive up the price of food.

Excelsior! http://www.tv.com/South+Park/ManBearPig/episode/690938/recap.html/

:rolling:

***

Back in the real world, the WSJ looks at the cap and trade fiction: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won’t pinch wallets, behind the scenes they’ve acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain’s Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can’t repeal that reality.

:banghead:

***

Update: Via Roll Call … http://www.rollcall.com/news/36283-1.html

Former Vice President Al Gore had been scheduled to deliver a final pitch to the House Democratic Caucus for the global warming bill on Thursday alongside Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), but Pelosi’s spokesman said Thursday morning that Gore will stay in Tennessee.

Drew Hammill said Gore’s presence is no longer needed. “As the list of undecided Members narrowed, the Speaker thought it was unnecessary to impose on the vice president’s schedule to travel to Washington and instead to continue coordinating efforts from Tennessee,” Hammill said.

:slap:

China now uses more coal than the United States, Europe and Japan combined, making it the world’s largest emitter of gases that are warming the planet. :rolleyes: China is building new coal fired plants at the rate of 1 per month.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/25/manbearpig-to-the-rescue-gore-lobbies-for-cap-and-tax/

From Australia, a shift against their own “tax and cap” policy:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/24/could_australia_blow_apart_the_great_global_warmin g_scare_97148.html

One of the most remarkable changes occurred on April 13, when leading global warming hysteric Paul Sheehan—who writes for the main Sydney newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, which has done as much to hype the threat of global warming as any Australian newspaper—reviewed Plimer’s book and admitted he was taken aback. He describes Plimer, correctly, as “one of Australia’s foremost Earth scientists,” and praised the book as “brilliantly argued” and “the product of 40 years’ research and breadth of scholarship.”

What does Plimer’s book say? Here is Sheehan’s summary:

Much of what we have read about climate change, [Plimer] argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modeling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as “primitive.”…

The Earth’s climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth’s climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.

To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable—human-induced CO2—is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly.

In response, this is Sheehan’s conclusion:

“Heaven and Earth is an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence.” This cannot be interpreted as anything but a capitulation. It cedes to the global warming rejectionists the high ground of being “evidence-based,” and it accepts the characterization of the global warming promoters as dogmatic conformists.

nightrider127

06-25-2009, 02:51 PM

Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And this, right here, tells the real story. They KNOW it's going to cost the average American plenty. Even obama said that electric rates would skyrocket.

And, if by a long shot someone from Sherrod Browns office is reading this, please pass this along to the great chicken chit that sitting on the other side of this monitor is someone who is going to spread the word about him to anyone who will listen.

Dam chicken chit sent me an email that you couldn't reply to because his mind is made up. He is totally with the spread the wealth gang that has invaded Washington DC.

littlebuggy

06-25-2009, 02:59 PM

I just can't understand how they think this is the right time to be doing this. People already can barely afford energy bills. It's been over 90 and humid almost all month, but I have two kids so I can't not use the air....but all I can think about is how much is this going to cost me at the end of the month. Most of us regular people can't handle an increse, especially not now.

Jolie Rouge

06-25-2009, 03:04 PM

Jolie Rouge

06-25-2009, 08:46 PM

Cap and Trade to Limp Across Finish Line?
June 25, 2009 Posted by John at 7:58 PM
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023896.php

It looks that way, in the House, anyway. With a vote scheduled to take place tomorrow, Nancy Pelosi thinks she has barely enough votes to pass one of the great follies in legislative history, the carbon tax. It will be close, though: Pelosi actually told Al Gore to stay in Tennessee rather than participate in a last-minutes lobbying blitz. Most likely Pelosi didn't want to remind Congressmen needlessly that the whole point of this exercise is supposed to be fighting global warming, a theory that has fallen into scientific disrepute and on which Americans divide evenly, at best.

What seems to have tipped the balance is a deal Pelosi struck with Minnesota's Collin Peterson, Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, providing for special treatment for ethanol under the act. That was enough, apparently, to get Peterson and a number of other farm-state Democrats on board. The extent to which farm-state politics have been driven by ethanol in recent years is a story--a scandal, really--that has not yet been properly told.

Republicans point out that the Waxman-Markey bill would create a convoluted federal bureaucracy that would control key sectors of the economy and of our lives. Minority Leader John Boehner created this graphic, showing how the bill is intended to work;

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2009/06/bureaucraticnightmare.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2009/06/bureaucraticnightmare.php

The Democrats, not having read the bill, were unable to comment.

I'm sure there must be a historical precedent for the folly that Waxman-Markey represents--ordering the weather to change!--but I can't think of one offhand.

Of course, tomorrow's vote in the House won't actually decide anything.

The Senate is likely to pass a bill (if it passes one at all) that is even more loaded with special interest favors than the House version. If a "climate change" bill eventually does become law, it will probably consist of little but a gift bag for favored Democratic Party constituencies, funded by what may be the biggest tax increase in American history. Still, that's better than the alternative--the all-out attack on American industry that was originally envisioned by environmentalists.

Waxman-Markey is a reminder that what is now happening in Washington isn't politics as usual.

It's worse.

:crickets:

stresseater

06-25-2009, 09:32 PM

Jolie Rouge

06-26-2009, 10:41 AM

Tilting at Green Windmills
by George Will

WASHINGTON - The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating "green jobs" in "alternative energy" even though Spain's unemployment rate is 18.1 percent -- more than double the European Union average -- partly because of spending on such jobs? Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report which, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.

Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" -- gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain's economy.

The president's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, was asked about the report's contention that the political diversion of capital into green jobs has cost Spain jobs. The White House transcript contained this exchange:

Gibbs: "It seems weird that we're importing wind turbine parts from Spain in order to build -- to meet renewable energy demand here if that were even remotely the case."

Questioner: "Is that a suggestion that his study is simply flat wrong?"

Gibbs: "I haven't read the study, but I think, yes."

Questioner: "Well, then. (Laughter.)"

Actually, what is weird is this idea: A sobering report about Spain's experience must be false because otherwise the behavior of some American importers, seeking to cash in on the U.S. government's promotion of wind power, might be participating in an economically unproductive project.

It is true that Calzada has come to conclusions that he, as a libertarian, finds ideologically congenial. And his study was supported by a like-minded U.S. think tank (the Institute for Energy Research, for which this columnist has given a paid speech). Still, it is notable that, rather than try to refute his report, many Spanish critics have impugned his patriotism for faulting something for which Spain has been praised by Obama and others.

Judge for yourself: Calzada's report can be read here. And here you can find similar conclusions in "Yellow Light on Green Jobs," a report by Republican Sen. Kit Bond, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy.

What matters most, however, is not that reports such as Calzada's and the Republicans' are right in every particular. It is, however, hardly counterintuitive that politically driven investments are economically counter-productive. Indeed, environmentalists with the courage of their convictions should argue that the point of such investments is to subordinate market rationality to the higher agenda of planetary salvation.

Still, one can be agnostic about both reports while being dismayed by the frequency with which such findings are ignored simply because they question policies that are so invested with righteousness that methodical economic reasoning about their costs and benefits seems unimportant. When the president speaks of "new green energy economies" creating "countless well-paying jobs," perhaps they really are countless, meaning incapable of being counted.

For fervent believers in governments' abilities to control the climate and in the urgent need for them to do so, believing is seeing: They see, through their ideological lenses, governments' green spending as always paying for itself. This is a free-lunch faith comparable to that of those few conservatives who believe that tax cuts always completely pay for themselves by stimulating compensating revenues from economic growth.

Windmills are iconic in the land of Don Quixote, whose tilting at them became emblematic of comic futility. Spain's new windmills are neither amusing nor emblematic of policies America should emulate. The cheerful and evidently unshakable confidence in such magical solutions to postulated problems is yet another manifestation -- Republicans are not immune: No Child Left Behind decrees that by 2014 all American students will be proficient in math and reading -- of what the late Sen. Pat Moynihan called "the leakage of reality from American life."

Jolie Rouge

06-26-2009, 10:50 AM

House Democrats win key test vote on climate bill
H. Josef Hebert And Dina Cappiello, AP Writers
10 mins ago

WASHINGTON – House Democrats narrowly won a key test vote Friday and pushed for passage of sweeping legislation designed to combat global warming and usher in a new era of cleaner energy. Republicans said the bill included the largest tax increase in American history.

The vote was 217-205 to advance the White House-backed legislation toward a final roll call expected within hours. Thirty Democrats defected, a reflection of the controversy the bill sparked.

The legislation would impose first-ever limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution from power plants, factories and refineries. It also would force a shift from coal and other fossil fuels to renewable and more efficient forms of energy. Supporters and opponents agreed the result would be higher energy costs, but disagreed widely on how much more consumers would pay.

President Barack Obama has made the measure a top priority of his first year in office, and aides lobbied for passage as debate unfolded on the House floor. At a White House meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Obama said some European nations have moved faster than the United States to combat global warming, adding he'd like to see America play a great leadership role.

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said the bill was the "most important environmental and energy legislation to ever have been considered in this nation's history," and said it would create large numbers of new jobs.

Other supporters said if Congress didn't act to curb global warming, the Environmental Protection Agency would. "Something to shudder about," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich.

But Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., said the legislation "promises to destroy our standard of living and quality of life with higher energy costs, higher food prices, and lost jobs. This bill is the single, largest economic threat to our farmers and ranchers in decades," he added.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has pledged to get the legislation passed before lawmakers leave on their July 4 vacation.

The Senate has yet to act on the measure, and a major struggle is expected.

In the House, the bill's fate depended on the decisions of a few dozen fence-sitting Democrats. Some are veterans from coal-producing states, but most are conservatives and moderates from contested districts who feared the political ramifications of siding with the White House and their leadership on the measure.

A last-minute list of provisions accepted by Democratic leaders included several aimed at securing votes. Among them was a promise of additional money for farmers to reduce greenhouse gases on private agricultural land.

Democrats left little or nothing to chance. Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., confirmed by the Senate on Thursday to an administration post, put off her resignation from Congress until after the final vote on the climate change bill.

"The bill contains provisions to protect consumers, keep costs low, help sensitive industries transition to a clean energy economy and promote domestic emission reduction efforts," the White House in a statement of support for the legislation.

Republicans saw it differently.

This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.

While the bill would impose a "cap-and-trade" system that would force higher energy costs, Republicans for weeks have branded it an energy tax on every American.

But Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said there was a "moral imperative to be good stewards of the earth."

The legislation, totaling about 1,200 pages, would require the U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and about 80 percent by the next century.

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are rising at about 1 percent a year and are predicted to continue increasing without mandatory caps.

Under the bill, the government would limit heat-trapping pollution from factories, refineries and power plants. It would distribute pollution allowances that could be bought and sold, depending on whether a facility exceeds the cap or makes greater pollution cuts than are required.

Obama on Thursday called it "a vote of historic proportions ... that will open the door to a clean energy economy" and green jobs.

"It will create millions of new jobs," Pelosi insisted.

Both Obama and Pelosi preferred to focus on the economic issues rather than on what environmentalists view as the urgency of reducing carbon emissions blamed for global warming.

The Rust Belt coal-state Democrats who have been sitting on the fence worry about how to explain their vote for higher energy prices to people back home — and how the vote might play out in elections next year.

There was widespread agreement that under this cap-and-trade system, the cost of energy would almost certainly increase. But Democrats argued that much of the impact on taxpayers would be offset by other provisions in the bill. Low-income consumers would qualify for credits and rebates to cushion the impact on their energy bills.

Two reports issued this week — one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency — seemed to support that argument.

The CBO analysis estimated that the bill would cost an average household $175 a year; the EPA put it at between $80 and $110 a year.

Republicans questioned the validity of the CBO study and noted that even that analysis showed actual energy production costs increasing $770 per household. Industry groups have cited other studies showing much higher cost to the economy and to individuals.

___

On the Net:

American Clean Energy and Security Act: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/ap_on_go_co/storytext/us_climate_bill/32505118/SIG=10r0cue91;_ylt=AkyFhlNVUBjQ29QeS6RN21yMwfIE;_y lu=X3oDMTFoZmM4c3FsBHBvcwM0BHNlYwN5bl9zdG9yeV9wcml udF9jb250ZW50BHNsawNodHRwdGlueXVybGM-/*http://*******.com/ph52vs

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_go_co/us_climate_bill

Jolie Rouge

06-26-2009, 11:09 AM

Twisted priorities

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has pledged to get the legislation passed before lawmakers leave on their July 4 vacation.

The Senate has yet to act on the measure, and a major struggle is expected.

Members of Congress don’t have enough time to read through the 1,200-page cap-and-trade (truth in advertising: cap-and-TAX) monstrosity that will radically alter the economy in the name of the environment…

…but they have time to pause for a moment of silence to mark the death of Hollyweirdo Michael Jackson.

Can we have a moment of silence to mark the death of sanity?

:slap:

MM's syndicated column below slams the EPA for suppressing inconvenient truths about Obama’s politicized global warming agenda. As I blogged early Wednesday afternoon, the Competitive Enterprise Institute released e-mails detailing how eco-bureaucrats stifled a senior researcher who challenged the agency’s reliance on outdated data to support its greenhouse gas “public endangerment” finding.

Breaking late tonight, CEI has released the draft version of the censored study that the EPA doesn’t want you to see.

You can read the entire 98-page document here. http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/25/cei-releases-global-warming-study-censored-epa

Here is the preface, which begins,
“We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups…as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation.”

No wonder they tried to shut up senior researcher Alan Carlin :

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/epareport2.jpg

***

EPA’s game of global warming hide-and-seek
by Michelle Malkin
June 26, 2009

The Obama administration doesn’t want to hear inconvenient truths about global warming. And they don’t want you to hear them, either. As Democrats rush on Friday to pass a $4 trillion-dollar, thousand-page “cap and trade” bill that no one has read, environmental bureaucrats are stifling voices that threaten their political agenda.

The free market-based Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington (where I served as a journalism fellow in 1995) obtained a set of internal e-mails exposing Team Obama’s willful and reckless disregard for data that undermine the illusion of “consensus.” In March, Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency, asked agency officials to distribute his analysis on the health effects of greenhouse gases. EPA has proposed a public health “endangerment finding” covering CO2 and five other gases that would trigger costly, extensive new regulations of motor vehicles. The open comment period on the ruling ended this week. But Carlin’s study didn’t fit the blame-human-activity narrative, so it didn’t make the cut.

On March 12, Carlin’s director, Al McGartland, forbade him from having “any direct communication” with anyone outside his office about his study. “There should be no meetings, emails, written statements, phone calls, etc.” On March 16, Carlin urged his superiors to forward his work to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, which runs the agency’s climate change program. A day later, McGartland dismissed Carlin and showed his true, politicized colors:

“The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision… I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

Contrary comments, in other words, would interfere with the “process” of ramming the EPA’s endangerment finding through. Truth-in-science took a backseat to protecting eco-bureaucrats from “a very negative impact.”

In another follow-up e-mail, McGartland warned Carlin to drop the subject altogether: “With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate.”

But, of course, the e-mails show that EPA had already predetermined what it was going to do – “move forward on endangerment.” Which underscores the fact that the open public comment period was all for show. In her message to the public about the radical greenhouse gas rules, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson requested “comment on the data on which the proposed findings are based, the methodology used in obtaining and analyzing the data, and the major legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposed findings.” Ms. Jackson, meet Mr. Carlin.

The EPA now justifies the suppression of the study because economist Carlin (a 35-year veteran of the agency who also holds a B.S. in physics) “is an individual who is not a scientist.” Neither is Al Gore. Nor is environmental czar Carol Browner. Nor is cap-and-trade shepherd Nancy Pelosi. Carlin’s analysis incorporated peer-reviewed studies and, as he informed his colleagues, “significant new research” related to the proposed endangerment finding. According to those who have seen his study, it spotlights EPA’s reliance on out-of-date research, uncritical recycling of United Nations data, and omission of new developments, including a continued decline in global temperatures and a new consensus that future hurricane behavior won’t be different than in the past.

But the message from his superiors was clear: La-la-la, we can’t hear you.

In April, President Obama declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.” Another day, another broken promise. Will Carlin meet the same fate as inspectors general who have been fired or “retired” by the Obama administration for blowing the whistle and defying political orthodoxy? Or will he, too, be yet another casualty of the Hope and Change steamroller? The bodies are piling up.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/26/epa-plays-hide-and-seek-suppressed-report-revealed/

:crickets:

galeane29

06-26-2009, 01:43 PM

whatever

06-26-2009, 01:56 PM

What the hell is wrong with these people? Nobody in their right minds signs a contract or in this case a bill without reading the entire thing and understanding it. Yet they are in such a hurry to pass this thing. Nobody has learned their lessons with the other crap Obama and Palosi has pushed through already?

Geez Galeane haven't you heard...... When BHO wants something bad enough and they want to keep their jobs they do whatever he wants or so it would seem!
NO one I can imagine is ready to pay more money for their utilities than you are paying now? Ours already went us 15% just the past two months. It went up 7% the year before. How much more can this go.......?
Pretty soon people will have to work two jobs EACH or three to pay just the bills to keep a roof over their head. And some people can't even find one job in todays economy!!!!!!!

galeane29

06-26-2009, 02:06 PM

But, there wont be any jobs because BHO is running all the jobs into the ground.

jasmine

06-26-2009, 03:04 PM

stresseater

06-26-2009, 03:50 PM

stresseater, your kidding me, you don't have ac? I live in OK, and I can't even breathe when I go outside it is so damn hot.
I could take it when I was younger, but not now since I am getting older, and I do not let my kids go out to play untill 7 in the evening it is so bad. I can't wait till monday, they said it will get down to 92.
although I do remember several years ago when it was just me and the kids and I couldn't afford the electric bill, so off went the ac, and we spent summer outside in the pool, which by the way, was in the shade !! :). Unless you truely can't afford ac, I see no need to go without in this kind of heat, that's just dangerous!!

We can't afford the bill and the house isn't sealed up well enough to maintain any kind of temperature. It is a 100 year old 2 bedroom shack. There are many places in the doors, walls baseboards etc that you can see daylight thru. Honestly though the body gets use to the heat. Since we don't have it our bodies acclimate as the weather grows hotter. We do have a swimming pool that we bought this year and we have it set up and are in the process of filling it. Sad part of all this is there are going to be a lot of other people who won't be able to afford the electricity to run air conditioners if this bill passes and they didn't get the benefit of slowly acclimating. Those are the ones I feel sorry for.

littlebuggy

06-26-2009, 05:33 PM

House energy bill passes by slim margin
In a 219-212 vote, sweeping legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions is a major victory for Obama and Pelosi.
By James Oliphant and Jim Tankersley
5:12 PM PDT, June 26, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- In one of the narrowest votes in its recent history, the House this evening passed a sweeping energy and climate-change bill that supporters say could revolutionize the nation's industrial economy.

The 219-212 vote represented a major victory for President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), both of whom invested significant political capital in ensuring the success of the ambitious measure. Obama's administration and Democratic leaders in the House worked feverishly in the final hours before the vote to cement enough support for passage.

"This is a transformative moment," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) shortly before the final vote. "This is a moment to build a clean energy future for our country. This is a moment to create jobs. This is a moment to take on, at long last, a defining challenge of our time: global warming."

There were defections on both sides: 44 Democrats voted against the bill; eight Republicans voted for it.

It goes next to the Senate, where it is expected to be extensively modified.

Supporters of the legislation say it would stimulate the economy by creating new "green" jobs, encourage investment in alternative sources of power and help wean the nation off its dependence on foreign oil.

Opponents say the bill would place a new tax on energy that would stunt economic growth, raise gas and electricity costs and do little to affect climate change globally.

By any marker, today's vote made for a surprising achievement. Weeks ago, it appeared the legislation would fall victim to disagreements between environmentalists and industry, between lawmakers from rural and urban areas, and between moderate and progressive Democrats.

But this week, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, struck a deal to woo farm-state members. And Pelosi, in a gamble, decided to push the bill to the floor while a fragile consensus existed.

Obama too intervened, calling nervous, undecided lawmakers as the vote approached and deploying surrogates to twist arms.

The effort appeared to pay off. Late today, as the vote approached, key Democrats who had appeared to be against the bill lined up in last-minute support, allowing the squeaker of a win.

Before the scheduled vote, Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), the House minority leader, took to the floor and spoke at length in protest of a 300-page amendment that had been added over GOP objections to the 1,200-page bill in the morning.

Boehner leafed through the amendment page by page, speaking for an hour. Waxman accused him of stalling for time in the hope that some House members would either switch their votes or leave the chamber.

The bill would set a declining cap on the greenhouse gas emissions that scientists blame for global warming. It aims to cut those emissions by more than 80% from 2005 levels by 2050.

The legislation would force major emitters, such as power plants and factories, to either obtain permits for their emissions or to "offset" them by investing in carbon-reducing projects such as tree-planting.

Other key features of the legislation include mandates for renewable electricity use and strict energy-efficiency requirements. It calls for billions of dollars to fund research into technology to capture the carbon emissions from coal and store them underground.

The late amendment included new authority for the federal government to speed construction of interstate power lines in the West and a variety of concessions to agriculture groups. Those concessions were key to winning the support of farm-district Democrats.

The amendment also included a provision that would impose a tariff on imports from nations such as China that fail to cut their emissions in concert with the United States. Business groups today were already lining up against the language, urging that it be struck in the Senate.

During an extended debate, Democrats and Republicans traded estimates of how much the bill would affect ordinary Americans. Republicans argued the measure would send electric bills soaring, eliminate millions of jobs and do little to combat climate change as long as countries such as China and India had no such restrictions.

One Republican, Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, even asked for a moment of silence on the floor of the chamber for all the jobs he said would be vanishing. He didn't get it.

Others said the bill would hit low-income residents of rural areas the hardest. "This bill is a disaster," said Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.). "Why do we always have the rich cities of America attacking the rural poor?" And some Republicans maintained that global warming remained a theory, not a proven scientific fact.

The latter prompted one Democrat who had been against the bill, Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas, to switch sides after listening to, as he said, "the Flat Earth Society."

Democrats said that the bill would cost the average household the price of "a postage stamp" per day and that a massive investment in renewable energy would create jobs and reduce the need for oil.

"This climate bill makes some tough choices for our future and for our children's future," said Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.).

Congressional offices reported they were besieged by automated phone calls today, source unknown, urging a no vote.

Major environmental groups deployed a full-court press of their own, and they savored the victory.

"It's the most important environmental and energy legislation in our nation's history," said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. "A huge achievement."

Jolie Rouge

06-26-2009, 07:22 PM

Let’s hear it for John Boehner!
Posted by: Sister Toldjah
June 26, 2009 at 6:33 pm

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2009/06/26/lets-hear-it-for-john-boehner/

... I wanted to quickly log on and see what was going on in DC, and when I did, I read that House Minority Leader John Boehner is filibustering the National Energy Tax on the floor of the House as I type this, by reading the entire 300-page amendment that was put into the bill at the last minute by Rep. Henry Waxman at the last minute.

Malkin’s liveblogging it http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/26/cap-and-trade-liveblog-part-3-filibuster/ and C-SPAN has the live video feed http://c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx

Love to watch the GOP in action when they’ve got spines!

Carlos says:
June 26, 2009 at 8:33 pm

Funny thing. This is the first I’ve heard of a 300 page UNREAD amendment to what was passed out of committee and was voted on by the entire House.

I’m a Christian and not a swearing man, but this has got me close to it. There ought to be a law that says a congressman/woman cannot vote on any legislation unless 60% are willing to sign legal affidavits swearing under penalty of law that they have read and understand whatever piece of legislation they intend to vote on, and the other congresscritters should be made to swear they’ve at least read the legislation in its entirety (without necessarily understanding it).

If that can’t be sworn to, no one has any business voting, and if they can’t vote often enough they have no business being an elected official! Most of those thieves don’t have the moral and/or ethical makeup to be an elected official at any level of guvmint anyway.

... I read that House Minority Leader John Boehner is filibustering ...
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2009/06/rep_john_boehner_launches_ener.html

...the entire 300-page amendment ... http://www.rules.house.gov/111/SpecialRules/hr2998/waxman1_hr2998_111.pdf

... that was put into the bill at the last minute by Rep. Henry Waxman ...
http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/06/26/300-pages-out-of-thin-air/

Jolie Rouge

06-26-2009, 09:21 PM

The 8 cap-and-tax Republican turncoats again are: :slap:

Bono Mack (CA)
Castle (DE)
Kirk (IL) (And he’s seriously considering running for Senate!) :rolleyes:
Lance (NJ)
LoBiondo (NJ)
McHugh (NY)
Reichert (WA)
Smith (NJ)

Congrats, congresspeople, you helped the Democrats pass a junk science-based, massive national energy tax. Headed to Disney World now?

We still want to know: What were your payoffs/earmarks?

***

In case you were wondering, here are the 44 Democrat NAY votes: :top:

Altmire
Arcuri
Barrow
Berry
Boren
Bright
Carney
Childers
Costa
Costello
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Donnelly (IN)
Edwards (TX)
Ellsworth
Foster
Griffith
Herseth Sandlin
Holden
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Kucinich
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
McIntyre
Melancon
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Nye
Ortiz
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rodriguez
Ross
Salazar
Stark
Tanner
Taylor
Visclosky
Wilson (OH)

Reminder: The two Republicans who didn’t vote: Jeff Flake (AZ) and John Sullivan (OK). Here’s why: Flake had a “family conflict” (his daughter is reportedly in a beauty pageant in Alabama tomorrow) and Sullivan is undergoing alcohol treatment. Dem. Rep. Patrick Kennedy was pulled out of rehab to cast his vote.

And another reminder that the full roll call vote is here. http://clerk.house.gov/2009/roll477.xml

SurferGirl

06-26-2009, 11:34 PM

John Boehner did a really great job but he was outnumbered.
Well so much for no new taxes for anyone making under 250,000 per year.
We all have been had.

Really makes you realize that the liberal politicians are only for the little people when they want their votes. I really feel sorry for the elderly that won't be able to stay warm in the winter or cool in the summer. They are the ones that are the most vulnerable.

Al Gore has already made over 100 million off all this and GE plans on making a bundle.

I wonder how many businesses will move their production to places like China and India.

jeanea33

06-27-2009, 07:40 AM

Anyone who has electric or gas, get ready to pay a whole lot more!

SurferGirl

06-27-2009, 08:48 AM

Meanwhile people like Pelosi will make lots of money.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26391330/
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72225

nightrider127

06-27-2009, 11:56 AM

anothersta

06-27-2009, 05:41 PM

Let me just say the whole situation makes me want to puke. WTG, Washington DC *******s.

I heard on one of the news channels a while ago that callers to Washington crashed the phone lines. Maybe if our chicken chit politicians wouldn't send us emails that we can't reply to that would not have happened.

It should. Your representatives are SUPPOSE to represent you. The polls showed 53% of Americans were against Cap and Tax your ass off. But, the reps still went for it.

do a little digging and you'll probably find out WHY your rep voted yes if they did. Ours has a brother who owns 4 wind farms.

We're ready to move from pitchforks onto tar and feathers.

SurferGirl

06-27-2009, 08:15 PM

Or volunteer to help his opponent next time they are up for re-election.
It is nice to volunteer and help out in a campaign. At least it makes you feel that you are doing your best.

Jolie Rouge

06-29-2009, 09:06 PM

Cap-and-tax job loss chart of the day;
Plus: A Senate reading assignment[/b]
June 29, 2009 04:13 PM

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/29/cap-and-tax-job-loss-chart-of-the-day-plus-a-senate-reading-assignment/

A reader with deep expertise in the mining industry took the time to break down the House members who voted yes to cap-and-tax on Friday by coal-producing state. He writes:

I just developed a table of all the Representatives from coal-producing states who voted for Cap & Trade. Included on the table is 2007 statistics for surface-mined and underground-mined coal production (1000s of st) from each of the coal-producing states; number of employees in the coal mining industry for each coal-producing state; number of union employees in the coal industry in each coal-producing state; and the Representative and district represented for each of the cretins who voted for Cap and Trade from, again, each of the coal-producing states.

It is interesting to note…that the coal mines are very capital intensive. That is, they require very large investments in capital equipment to mine the coal. Now, Harnischfeger Corp, a division of Joy Global, makes large mining shovels and draglines. Joy Global is based out of Milwaukee (100 East Wisconsin Ave., Suite 2780, Milwaukee). Its workers are likely union (I’m looking into the numbers and union affiliation), most likely Steel Workers, UAW and/or Teamsters. Joy Mining Machinery manufactures large, expensive underground mining machinery.

Bucyrus International is another manufacturer of large mining machinery–large shovels and draglines, large underground equipment. It, too, is based out of Milwaukee (PO Box 500, 1100 Milwaukee Ave., Milwaukee). It, too, is very much a union operation (Steelworkers , etc).

And then there’s Caterpillar Corp. As we all know, it’s based out of Peorial, Il. Steelworkers, too. Remember this:

“EAST PEORIA, Ill. - President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan may be good for Caterpillar Inc., but the company’s chief executive says the equipment maker will probably have to lay off more staff before it starts thinking about rehiring any of the more than 22,000 employees it already plans to cut.

Even if a stimulus plan passes, it likely will not have an effect on the economy until late this year or early 2010, CEO Jim Owens said after a town hall meeting with the president and Caterpillar workers at a company tractor plant here on Thursday.”

The effect of Cap and Trade on the coal mines and their employees is only the tip of the iceberg. What about all the suppliers? These are just some of the big equipment manufacturers, but there are many, many smaller companies. What about the local suppliers of fuel oil to power those great big haul trucks. Fuel’s going to go up, too.

I put together this table because it’s not only the “Fool 8 republicans who voted for this atrocity that should be given the boot in 2010. Any and all of the Representatives from coal-producing states who voted for Cap and Trade should be given the Bum’s Rush next election.[/quote]

I’ve uploaded the entire spreadsheet from reader MINER51 here.

If you live in one of these states, be sure to send a copy to your Senate reps. Who knows? Maybe they’ll actually read it before they vote.

***

On a related note, it seems like people are waking up to the story I blogged and columnized about last week regarding EPA’s suppressed global warming study (see June 24 and June 26). Alan Carlin’s study, which you read about in full here just past midnight on June 26, should be required reading for every single Senator before the cap-and-tax vote next week.

Anthony Watts has the final version of the report here. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/released-the-censored-epa-document-final-report/

I’d like to see someone read the entire study on the Senate floor.

The Executive Summary of the report is absolutely devastating. It destroys in absolutely sound scientific terms the entire Climate Change/Global Warming premise.

See also
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/06/taxed-enough-already-4th-of-july-tea.html

Global warming “deniers” are committing “treason” against the planet
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2009/06/29/paul-krugman-global-warming-deniers-are-committing/

He promised to bankrupt the coal industry during the campaign. At least he kept one of those promises

Jolie Rouge

07-01-2009, 02:43 PM

Obama to Democrats: Lincoln wants you to pass cap and trade

Need an laugh today ?

Read this. http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11275683.html

Boy, you know, those dead presidents just seem to be able to say whatever The B.O. wants them to say.

Maybe we should have a new Czar of Channeling.

***

Flashback: The Obamasburg Address http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/2009/02/youve-been-warned.html

The Obamasburg Address
Washington DC
February 12, 2009

Three weeks and two days ago our community organizers and voter fraud operatives brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Socialism, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created to be subservient to their government.

Now we are engaged in a great class war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave up their individual liberty that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The gullible voters, living and dead, who were bamboozled here, have consecrated it, far above the diminished power of the people to detract. The media will little note, nor long remember what we are actually doing here, nor will it ever admit what they did here. It is for us the powerful centralized government, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so fraudulently advanced. It is rather for us, the ones we have been waiting for, to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these uneducated, unskilled masses we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these useful idiots shall not have voted, however many times, in vain — that this nation, under Me, shall have a new birth of HopenchangeTM — and that government of the lobbyists, by the politically-connected, for the career politicians, shall not perish from the earth.”

President Obama has urged supporters to help the United States remain “the last, best hope of Earth.” He has ordered staff members to “think anew and act anew.” And he has assailed the “worn-out dogmas” of political ideology.

Each time, his words were reminiscent of those of Abraham Lincoln.

Obama, like so many of his predecessors, wants to link himself to one of history’s greatest presidents.

“He sees Lincoln as a model,” said Fred Kaplan, author of “Lincoln: The Biography Of A Writer.” “Obama echoes Lincoln.”

Also, as the nation’s first black president, Obama can “suggest he’s helping to complete the unfinished work of American democracy that Lincoln spoke about at Gettysburg,” said Harold Holzer, a historian and co-chair of the United States Lincoln Bicentennial Commission.

Wednesday evening, Obama honored Lincoln at a gala at Ford’s Theatre, the recently renovated hall where Lincoln was assassinated in 1865. Thursday the president will discuss Lincoln again as he travels to Springfield, Ill., for the 200th anniversary of Lincoln’s birth…

…Obama borrows Lincoln’s phrases and pacing. In June, when he clinched the Democratic nomination, Obama urged backers to see this as “the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope of Earth.”

The phrase comes not from a Lincoln speech, but from his written 1862 message to Congress, in which he urged members to continue backing the war to save the Union: “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.”

Obama outlined his admiration for Lincoln in a 2005 essay for Time magazine. He cited Lincoln’s “humble beginnings,” as well as his “rise from poverty, his ultimate mastery of language and law, his capacity to overcome personal loss and remain determined in the face of repeated defeat.”

Obama’s Lincoln-mania has drawn critics over the years.

http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20090212/UPDATES01/092120350

60 senate votes. obama gets what obama wants.
No doubt and you have the House Republican Whip going out of his way to defend the Crap and Tax 8 saying that they voted for the bill, because they thought it would help get a better bill latter when it comes back to the House and Reicherts response to why he voted for the bill:

“This bill is not perfect, but it is a vital step toward energy independence. America cannot maintain global leadership without innovation and new ideas, and we cannot lead if we increasingly depend on foreign nations to heat our homes and move people and goods. The price of inaction is too great; America cannot stand on the sidelines while our competitors embrace new energy efficient technologies. It’s also important that we engage in a bipartisan discussion as we move forward – this bill has many other hoops to jump through before it becomes law and I will continue to work with my colleagues across the aisle and in the Senate to gain more tax relief for middle-income families.

He is sounding more and more like Obama everyday.

Obama will tag anything onto past civil rights workers, because he has no American civil rights experience. Reading about it, or studying at the knee of your mother is far different than living it. A personal view of that movement escapes him but is convenient to usurp and use for his own purpose. Shame on him. Shame on those that allow him to get away with it.

I love how people consistently revise history. How many times do they need to hear that Lincoln is on the record saying that he would gladly throw the every slave under the bus (back then it would have been “locomotive”) to preserve the Union.

The Civil War was about power. Lincoln refused to accept the loss of the South, and was willing to shed a LOT of blood to keep that power.

Full Stop.

Stuff like this is why I was posting at other blogs, before I even became aware that Rush Limbaugh had similar suspicions, that his delusions of grandeur and sense of entitlement will demand he find a way around the 22nd Amendment. http://www.grouchyconservativepundits.com/index.php?topic=763.0

Whether that be by Michelle O running in 2016, or Obama seeking the nomination, and a SCOTUS decision that will go Obama’s way if he replaces any one of Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia or Alito holding the 22nd Amendment as unconstitutional (I don’t think he has time to overcome the requirement of a super majority of the states required for an actual amendment over turning the 22nd), I seriously suspect, one way or the other, we’ll have a President Obama in 2017 if we have one in 2013.

BTW, I am fully aware, on its face, SCOTUS ruling on a Constitutional amendment is laughable, but we already have seen the California Supremes rule on whether or not a constitutional amendment was constitutional…

BTW, the ACORN/Rahm-bo 2010 census will be used to reapportion the House of Representatives (and the Electoral College) for the 2012 elections.

Add on 30 million or so grateful former illegals granted amnesty, and same day registration/voting, and the fact that probably something close to 90% of the Black population will again vote for him, Obama can be trailing by a fair amount among actual current US citizens who pay taxes and only vote once, and still easily win in 2012.

Remember the lesson of Franken and Gregoire and the special NY election, if it is close, the Demoncrats will steal it.

o/t but they aren’t coming for YOUR guns. Not really. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6505651.html

Jolie Rouge

07-01-2009, 09:13 PM

Here is the cap-and-tax “placeholder:” Where’s the fine print?
By Michelle Malkin • July 1, 2009 02:24 PM
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/01/here-is-the-cap-and-tax-placeholder-wheres-the-fine-print/

When I live-blogged the House debate on cap-and-tax last Friday, I noted the existence of a “placeholder” in the bill. Rep. Joe Barton mentioned it was unprecedented to have such a mechanism (allowing bill-writers to insert language to be determined after the law was approved) in a bill up for final passage. Later, I noted that Barney Frank explained on the floor on Friday that the placeholder in the cap and trade bill apparently will deal with regulations of financial derivatives market associated with reducing carbon emissions. Frank said he was confident a “good system will be in place.”

Well, I looked up the placeholder in Waxman’s late-night, 300-page manager’s amendment. http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/2009/0518/hr2454__ans.pdf

Here it is. First, in the table of contents:

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/waxman2.jpg

And in the text:

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/waxman.jpg

Now, since everyone in Washington is so concerned with fine print, why don’t they show us the fine print of the missing section of this bill.

Where is it?

Has the Energy Czar seen it?

Will the members of the Senate see it?

:whistle:

Rep. Joe Barton mentioned it was unprecedented to have such a mechanism (allowing bill-writers to insert language to be determined after the law was approved) in a bill up for final passage.

How is that even possible to allow a bill to be changed after the fact? If passed (and then added to later), couldn’t it be challenged in court as invalid, at least requiring a second vote?

Jolie Rouge

07-02-2009, 09:16 PM

I’m hearing from many old friends and readers that GOP Rep. Dave Reichert in Washington state is in hot water over his cap-and-tax vote.

KVI talk show host and GOP activist Kirby Wilbur says the vote was “make or break” for grass-roots conservatives in the 8th district. Party precinct officers, donors, and volunteers have been flooding phone lines in opposition to Reichert’s vote. Washington state conservatives on Facebook bombarded Wilbur’s page with hundreds and hundreds of comments after last Friday’s vote.

GOP party leaders have tried to quell the revolt, but are only digging themselves a deeper hole. Kirby told me he received a solicitation from the NRCC signed by John Boehner asking GOP activists for money to fight Democrats who voted for cap-and-tax.

Insert bitter laughter here.

At the same time the NRCC excoriates Democrats for the cap-and-tax vote, it continues to support, defend, and raise money for Republicans who voted the same way.

KTTH talk show host David Boze has audio of Reichert’s rationalization here.

The word “delusional” comes to mind:
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=194&sid=184941

Heritage Foundation, and Wall Street Journal were predicting. He argued that it would cost around $.48 per day and that we would have better national security, more nuclear, coal and refining capabilities, and a cleaner environment with the bill. He argued that the conservative arguments against were mistaken, and that Washington specifically would be better off even though the bill was imperfect.

"IMPERFECT" ??? :slap:

Not that he bothered to read it all before he determined that, of course…

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/02/cap-and-tax-8-watch-dave-reicherts-rationalization/

HotMES » Proposed costs are always lower than actual costs
http://moniquestuart.com/2009/07/02/proposed-costs-are-always-lower-than-actual-costs/

Jolie Rouge

07-02-2009, 09:50 PM

AIP Column: Obama’s Utopia
posted at 2:15 pm on July 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/02/aip-column-obamas-utopia/

This week’s AIP column riffs off of yesterday’s Obamateurism, which I think deserves wider dissemination as a look into the poor judgment of President Obama. If anyone wanted to pick a worse example of a state managing its economy, California would be hard to beat.

And yet Obama held up the Golden State as an example of what can happen when government imposes heavy-handed energy policies:

Does anyone at the White House ever brief the President on the economic crisis? California’s unemployment has been higher than the national average for years, thanks to a flight of capital from the state’s onerous taxes and workers-comp regulations. This year, though, the problem has been particularly bad. The state has had double-digit unemployment since the beginning of the year, which means less energy needed for economic production, and the economy of the state teeters on depression.

As for its energy usage, the Washington Examiner explains how the state has reduced its need, and it wasn’t through smart planning. California has lost 21% of its manufacturing base since 2000, which produced a sharp drop in energy usage – as well as a big drop in revenues for the state and higher unemployment. Energy costs in California are much higher than in the rest of the nation, as much as 50% higher for residential rates than the average.

That amounts to a big tax on California residents, which is one reason more people are fleeing California than entering it.

This brings us back to the cap-and-trade bill that just passed the House. Eventually, the costs of such a system will place the same kind of tax on everyone in the nation for energy consumption, and not just on electricity. The cost of refining gasoline will increase as refiners have to buy carbon credits. The same will happen to heating oil in parts of the country.

Bottom line: if you liked the inflation and eroded buying power of last year’s gas-price spike, you’ll love cap-and-trade’s taxation on all Americans.

California should serve as a warning to others, not as an example of public-policy success. One would think that obvious when the state in question is issuing IOUs instead of paying its bills, but Obama apparently can’t buy a clue.

Don’t forget to check out the rest of the AIP crew, too. Lorie Byrd looks at the lack of urgency to treat patients that comes with single-payer health care. http://www.americanissuesproject.org/blogs/columns/archive/2009/07/02/time-means-nothing-with-socialized-health-care.aspx Nick DeLeeuw needs a Presidential hug, too. http://www.americanissuesproject.org/blogs/aip/archive/2009/07/02/instead-of-a-hug-can-i-just-make-my-own-decisions.aspx John Hanlon discusses what it will take to make the US Post Office profitable. http://www.americanissuesproject.org/blogs/aip/archive/2009/07/02/quot-please-mr-postman-quot-part-ii.aspx Be sure to read it all! http://www.americanissuesproject.org/blogs/

This week’s AIP column... http://www.americanissuesproject.org/blogs/columns/archive/2009/07/02/at-last-the-obama-model-for-economic-policy.aspx

... yesterday’s Obamateurism ... http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/01/obamateurism-of-the-day-68/

----

Miserable Failure

That's the Obama administration's "stimulus" plan, which mainly stimulated Democratic constituencies with great gobs of pork. The web site Innocent Bystanders has done a service by plotting the actual unemployment rate against the Obama administration's prediction of what would happen with and without the "stimulus." Here is the latest, updated through June; http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/oh-frabjous-day-unemployment-rate-increases-by-only-0-1/

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/asset_c/2009/07/stimulus-vs-umemployment/june-dots-thumb-410x250.gif
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/asset_c/2009/07/stimulus-vs-umemployment/june-dots-thumb-410x250.gif[/

The administration's forecast provides a benchmark against which we can
judge the success or failure of the $700 billion porkapalooza. The result is obvious: it was a failure. The best thing Congress could do is to cancel the rest of the program--the large majority that remains unspent--and let the economy recover without being hampered by government-imposed inefficiencies.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/07/023957.php

whatever

07-03-2009, 10:31 AM

I saw where CAlifornia is now giving out IOU's because they are so IN debt.
ANd this is def. NOT going to help them! Can you imagine if this passes what it will not only do to our utilities,but what about small businesses who can barely stay above water?
So they would either be forced to skyrocket their prices or close? And then a ton of more job loss. I really don't think people understand what this is going to do if it passes........:(

Jolie Rouge

07-06-2009, 09:20 AM

We celebrated our freedoms this Independence Day. Now, it’s time to fight for them. Hope you are feeling energized. There is much work to be done.

On the front-burner: Defeating the cap-and-tax bill. http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/06/back-to-business-stop-the-cap-and-tax-bill/

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee begins hearings on Tuesday.

Spruiell and Williamson have an excellent rundown of Waxman-Markey’s garden of piggish delights. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTc1MmVhMGYxY2UzNzAwMTJlODBjZjg2NDJjNmM2MWE=&w=MA==

The unions get a cap-and-pay-off. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/04/AR2009070402021.html

Heritage must-read research and analysis here. http://www.heritage.org/LeadershipForAmerica/energy-and-environment.cfm

Which senators to target? Here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate6-2009jul06,0,6281299.story

Democrats and the two independents who caucus with them control 60 Senate seats. But more than a dozen have expressed concern over costs. They include Democrats from industry-heavy Ohio and Michigan, coal-dependent Indiana and oil-rich Louisiana.

Only a few Republicans appear open to emissions limits, notably two moderates from Maine — Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe — and Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who championed emissions limits in his presidential campaign (though he has expressed reservations about the House bill).

The Senate bill will emerge from several committees — including the finance, foreign relations, commerce and agriculture committees — with dramatically different memberships and priorities.

The energy committee already has approved its chunk with wide bipartisan support. It includes a requirement to produce more electricity from renewable sources, but also expands drilling — a possible deal-breaker for environmentalists.

Boxer’s committee will center its work on cap and trade. The House bill would cut U.S. emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% by 2050. Environmentalists expect Boxer, who said she was “looking closely” at those limits, to strengthen them.

Yes, the fate of cap-and-tax is in the hands of Republicans like John McCain.
:rolleyes:

As I warned last May, Sen. McCain has been a member of the global warming hysteria cult for years. A reminder: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/12/mccains-climate-change-tour-bypasses-cooler-heads/

Climatologist Patrick Michaels had McCain pegged four years ago, when The Maaaveerrick convened ridiculously, eco-Chicken Little-stacked hearings: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=5CNation5Carchive5C2004115CNAT 20041119a.html

Recent U.S. Senate hearings into alleged global warming, chaired by Arizona Republican John McCain, were among the “most biased” that a noted climatologist has ever seen - “much less balanced than anything I saw in the Clinton administration,” he said.

Patrick J. Michaels is the author of a new book “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.” He is an environmental sciences professor at the University of Virginia who believes that claims of human-caused “global warming” are scientifically unfounded.

Michaels spoke with CNSNews.com Thursday following a panel discussion sponsored by the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., where Michaels also serves as a senior fellow in environmental studies.

“John McCain, a Republican, has probably held the most biased hearing of all,” Michaels said. McCain is a big proponent of limiting greenhouse gas emissions, which he believes are causing “global warming.” The Arizona senator also “is trying to define himself as an environmental Republican, which he is going to use to differentiate himself from his rivals for the (presidential) nomination in 2008,” according to Michaels.

You can bet McCain won’t be visiting with Michaels on his climate change tour anytime soon. The truth would get in the way of his crusade:

Citing a visit he had to the Arctic with several U.S. senators last summer, McCain made it clear that he believed human-caused “global warming” was a certainty. “It was remarkable going up on a small ship next to this glacier and seeing where it had been just 10 short years ago and how quickly it’s receded,” McCain told the New York Times…

…McCain also warned about what he saw as the rapid pace of Arctic warming, evidenced by the arrival of wildlife that had never previously been seen in the region. “The Inuit language for 10,000 years never had a word for robin and now there are robins all over their villages,” he told the Times.

Michaels refuted McCain’s assertions about the North Pole, noting that the Arctic has actually been warmer in the past than it is now. “It was warmer 4 to 7,000 years ago [in the Arctic.] Every climatologist knows that. I saw no mention of that in the Arctic report that was paraded in front of McCain,” Michaels said. He added that the past warming of the Arctic couldn’t possibly be blamed on greenhouse gas emissions since it occurred long before the industrial era.

In 2003, Iain Murray debunked McCain’s anecdote about how he got interested in global warming:

He is on record as saying that the reason he became interested in global warming in the first place is because he recognized how much hotter it was getting at his home in Sedona, Ariz. Unfortunately, the data don’t back him up on this. If we look at the temperature records from the nearby Childs weather station, we can actually see a downward trend in temperature of slightly over 1° F. since 1986, when McCain was elected to the Senate. Another nearby station, Fort Valley, shows a very slight upwards trend. You can see these trends for yourself by looking at the official records available at the CO2science.org website. Certainly there are upward trends elsewhere in Arizona, but these are balanced by downward trends — Tucson has cooled while Tombstone has warmed. Arizona makes a poor poster boy for global-warming theory.

Like Barack Obama, McCain touts a “cap-and-trade” system as the free-market answer to reducing carbon emissions. Analysts who haven’t been bitten by the global warming alarmist bug beg to differ–and evidence from cap-and-trade systems already in operation back them up:

….the world has already witnessed many unpleasant surprises with Europe’s ongoing efforts to impose a cap and trade program under the Kyoto Protocol, the international climate treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In fact, European efforts have racked up significant costs while failing to reduce emissions. Nearly every European country participating has higher emissions today than when the treaty was first signed in 1997. Further, despite ongoing criticism of the United States from Kyoto parties for failing to ratify the treaty, emissions in many of these nations are actually rising faster than in the United States.

The European experience also shows the problem of cap and trade fraud.[6] None other than Enron’s Ken Lay was a strong supporter of carbon cap and trade when the idea was first floated in the 1990s, saying that it could “do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative.” These carbon allowances that will be bought and sold have a value estimated at $50 billion to $300 billion annually, and the trade in them would be a huge new business. Enron may be gone, but others ready to take advantage of cap and trade–often at public expense–are not.

Sen. McCain needs to hear from folks other than Al Gore acolytes. Someone might want to introduce him, for example, to Alan Carlin. http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/29/cap-and-tax-job-loss-chart-of-the-day-plus-a-senate-reading-assignment/

With cap and TRADE, Wall Street becomes relevant again, this time trading fictional carbon credits instead of toxic assets… and Congressional coffers will remain filled.

Jolie Rouge

07-06-2009, 09:03 PM

Monday, July 6, 2009
States in dire straits

Illinois is a mess: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/9717FA1D87901E2E862575E8007E4767?OpenDocument

The governor and lawmakers went home for the Independence Day holiday, vowing to return for a special session set to begin July 14. But they've earned no time off, least of all for good behavior.

The state has a $9 billion deficit to fill — including huge debts carried over from the preceding budget year. Many state functions will continue, at least for the time being. But just before the holiday break, the governor vetoed a bill that would have continued funding state social services, albeit at dramatically lower levels.

California is handing out IOU's instead of checks.

Kevin Hassett has written an excellent article on how the insolvency of this once great state may ensure the defeat of ObamaCare:

It takes years and years to make a mess as terrible as the California debacle, but the recipe is simple. All that you need is two political parties that are always willing to offer easy government solutions for every need of the voters, but never willing to make the tough decisions necessary to finance the government largess that results. Voters will occasionally change their allegiance from one party to the other, but the bacchanal will continue regardless of the names on the office doors.

California has engaged in an orgy of spending, but, compared with our federal government, its legislators should feel chaste. The California deficit this year is now north of $26 billion. The U.S. federal deficit will be, according to the latest numbers, almost 70 times larger.

The federal picture is so bleak because the Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S. I would imagine that he would be the intergalactic champion as well, if we could gather the data on deficits on other worlds. Obama has taken George W. Bush’s inattention to deficits and elevated it to an art form.

Read the rest. http://www.americanissuesproject.org/blogs/columns/archive/2009/07/02/at-last-the-obama-model-for-economic-policy.aspx Obama spends like a drunken sailor on steroids in every area except one -- defense : http://blog.american.com/?p=2774 (Come to think of it, there's a good chance we'd be better off with that drunken sailor than with the Obama administration.)

The New York state legislature is beyond dysfunctional:

For almost a month, ever since Republicans briefly won two Democrats to their side and tried to seize control, the state Senate in New York has been paralyzed, split 31 to 31, as a stack of legislation -- legalizing same-sex marriage, extending the mayor's control of New York City schools, renewing the authority local governments need to conduct business -- sits in limbo.

During that time lawmakers have convened dueling sessions -- each claiming legitimacy -- huffed over which party should lead members in the Pledge of Allegiance and fought about whether a Republican lawmaker crossing the chamber to fetch a drink should have counted toward a quorum, allowing Democrats to pass more than 100 "noncontroversial" bills, which the state Assembly refuses to recognize. . . .

Unlike California, New York passed a budget by the start of its fiscal year, April 1. Still, the stalemate has not been without consequence. As of Wednesday, many cities lost authority to conduct routine operations, including issuing bonds, mailing tax notices and collecting certain operational fees.

As for the Big Apple, Steven Malanga advises Mayor Bloomberg on how to save his city. The mayor's approach, to slow the budget's rate of increase instead of actually cutting it, is not likely to meet with success. (See City Journal for more articles about NYC and New York this week.)

Many other states are in trouble. From the Seattle Times, 7/2/09:

Ten states had not approved budgets for the fiscal year that begins July 1. Here are the states and the gaps they must plug to balance their budgets.

Arizona: $3.2 billion.

California: $24.3 billion

Connecticut: $8.8 billion

Delaware: $800 million

Illinois: $11.6 billion

Mississippi: $400 million

North Carolina: $4 billion

Ohio: $3.2 billion

Pennsylvania: $3.2 billion

Indiana: no budget gap; House and Senate are split on the budget amount

Toss in Colorado:

“There is simply not enough money to pay for the government we have created,” the report says. “Barring a quick and dramatic turnaround of the economy, it appears that the current fiscal system cannot be sustained.”

Even Joe Biden isn't expecting a "quick and dramatic turnaround" at this point. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/05/biden-misread-bad-economy/

Smart people can speculate on what might happen if three or four (or more) big states go under. Pundit said something about a domino effect. That doesn't sound good.

Comments welcome.

http://www.punditandpundette.com/2009/07/states-in-dire-straits.html

galeane29

07-07-2009, 04:53 AM

What is expected to happen to the states that go under? I'm not understanding what will change. I find it hard to believe that the Fed will not bail them out when they continuously bail out the stupid banks and car manufacturers.

whatever

07-07-2009, 02:51 PM

How can Our fed. goverment help them. they can't even help themselves?
I mean Its like there is no end in sight at least with the spending spree still going.....

Willow

07-07-2009, 02:57 PM

Obama :thumpdown:

krisharry

07-08-2009, 12:11 PM

You know I think our govts (fed, state, local) could use a lesson or two in finances. Like my dad always said, If you ain't got the cash, you ain't got the cash. In other words, if you don't have the cash in your pocket to buy it, you can not afford it. Simple really, the govts can start cutting back chit like all the rest of us have had to in order to make ends meet. Just ridiculous.

Jolie Rouge

07-08-2009, 01:44 PM

July 08, 2009
Must Read: Cap and Trade POS and Your House

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/198094.php

Seriously I wasn't going to blog today, but this just has to be read and read now.

Let me introduce you to a little section of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill called the "Building Energy Performance Labeling Program". It's section 304 of the bill and it says, basically, that your house belongs to the state.

See, the Federal Government really wants a country full of energy-efficient homes, so much so that the bill mandates that new homes be 30 percent more energy efficient than the current building code on the very day the law is signed. That efficiency goes up to 50 percent by 2014 and only goes higher from there, all the way to 2030. That, by the way, is not merely a target but a requirement of the law. New homes must reach those efficiency targets no matter what.

Read the rest.... http://www.americanissuesproject.org/blogs/aip/archive/2009/07/08/if-you-don-t-hate-the-cap-and-trade-bill-let-me-show-you-section-304.aspx

Hat Tip:
http://www.sundriesshack.com/2009/07/08/yet-another-reason-to-hate-cap-and-trade/

Yet Another Reason to Hate Cap-and-Trade
By Jimmie on July 8, 2009

My post today at the American Issues Project deals with a rumor I’ve seen making the e-mail and blogging rounds. It says that if you own a home and want to sell it, the Democrats’ cap-and-trade bill would require you to have your house inspected to make sure it meets a certain energy-efficiency target and, if it doesn’t make it, to bring it up to code before you sell it.

As it happens, the rumor isn’t very far from being true. It’s both not quite as bad as it could be and far worse.

What that’s saying is the state will be empowered to inspect your home if you want to 1) renovate your house in any way that requires a building permit, 2) sell your house, or 3) change the name of the person responsible for any utility bill.

By now, if you haven’t swallowed your tongue and are in need of medical attention, you’re probably wondering if there’s a penalty for not being in compliance with the new efficiency ratings. The answer is no, and yes. Here’s where the bill gets really sneaky. So far as I can tell, there is no direct penalty if your house does not meet the bill’s target. However, it does require that the number of buildings inspected by the state meet certain percentage targets and if they do not, the state loses out on a significant portion of the money it could get from Washington. In other words, the bill demands certain things from the states, but ties funding for those demands to compliance with the demands. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454/text?version=rh&nid=t0:rh:2114

Did I say the bill gets sneaky? I was wrong. The bill strong-arms the states like a couple mob heavies leaning on a witness in a Rico trial. In turn, the states are going to put the screws to you, so it gets the billions of dollars Washington is dangling in front of them. So while the Federal government won’t directly punish you, it will provide the states with lots and lots of rectangular, green reasons to do so.

Please read the whole thing and be sure to leave a comment when you do!

Jolie Rouge

07-08-2009, 02:39 PM

July 08, 2009
Cap-N-Trade: Your House Is Not Your Own--UPDATED

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/07/capntrade_your_house_is_not_yo.php

If you live a normal life, or you're a Congressman or Senator, you haven't read the Cap-N-Trade bill, but intrepid Jimmie Bise has and what he found was distressing on so many fronts. First the pain for home builders, an already destroyed industry here in the United States. From his latest AIP column: http://www.americanissuesproject.org/blogs/aip/archive/2009/07/08/if-you-don-t-hate-the-cap-and-trade-bill-let-me-show-you-section-304.aspx

Let me introduce you to a little section of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill called the "Building Energy Performance Labeling Program". It's section 304 of the bill and it says, basically, that your house belongs to the state. See, the Federal Government really wants a country full of energy-efficient homes, so much so that the bill mandates that new homes be 30 percent more energy efficient than the current building code on the very day the law is signed. That efficiency goes up to 50 percent by 2014 and only goes higher from there, all the way to 2030. That, by the way, is not merely a target but a requirement of the law. New homes must reach those efficiency targets no matter what.

Consider this for a moment. Right now, at this writing, there is a glut of new home supply. Will those homes have to be retrofitted to meet the government's 30% more fuel efficient standards? And how does one magically do this? Already, homes are being built with air-tight windows, special insulation, more efficient air conditioners, etc. What would make it more energy efficient?

And then there's you and me, the average American home owner. The government wants to control your life via your home, too:

But what does that have to do with current homeowners like you?

Well, I'm glad you asked.

You're certainly not off the hook, no way, no how. Here's what the Democrats have planned for you. The program requires that states label their buildings so that we can all know how efficient every building (that includes residential and non-residential buildings) is and it requires that the information be made public. To that end, the bill suggests a number of circumstances under which the states could inspect a building, including:

(A) preparation, and public disclosure of the label through filing with tax and title records at the time of--

(i) a building audit conducted with support from Federal or State funds;

(ii) a building energy-efficiency retrofit conducted in response to such an audit;

(iii) a final inspection of major renovations or additions made to a building in accordance with a building permit issued by a local government entity;

(iv) a sale that is recorded for title and tax purposes consistent with paragraph (8);

(v) a new lien recorded on the property for more than a set percentage of the assessed value of the property, if that lien reflects public financial assistance for energy-related improvements to that building; or

(vi) a change in ownership or operation of the building for purposes of utility billing; or

(B) other appropriate means.

Pay close attention to (iii), (iv), and (vi) because those hit you right where you live. What that's saying is the state will be empowered to inspect your home iif you want to 1) renovate your house in any way that requires a building permit, 2) sell your house, or 3) change the name of the person getting a utility bill.

And what will the penalties be for non-compliance? Well, you'll have to go read Jimmie's column to find out. Needless to say, there are always penalties for not complying with the government's rules. Always.

Michelle Malkin predicts the retrofit police. http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/08/meet-the-retrofit-police/

Jolie Rouge

07-09-2009, 01:07 PM

The farce of cap-and-tax revealed
By Michelle Malkin • July 9, 2009 10:27 AM
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/09/the-farce-of-cap-and-tax-revealed/

From Sen. James Inhofe:
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/chart.jpg

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/chart.jpg

What does it mean? The truth about the cap-and-trade farce revealed:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=564ed42f-802a-23ad-4570-3399477b1393

During a hearing today in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, EPA Administrator Jackson confirmed an EPA analysis showing that unilateral U.S. action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have no effect on climate. Moreover, when presented with an EPA chart depicting that outcome, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he disagreed with EPA’s analysis.

“I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels,” Administrator Jackson said.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) presented the chart to both Jackson and Secretary Chu, which shows that meaningful emissions reductions cannot occur without aggressive action by China, India, and other developing countries. “I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U.S. will be all cost for no climate gain,” Sen. Inhofe said. “With China and India recently issuing statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls, acting alone through the job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American consumers, businesses, and families, all without any impact on climate.”

***

More from The Foundry. http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/08/epa-admits-cap-and-trade-won%E2%80%99t-work/

Will Sen. Robert Byrd stand by his opposition to Waxman-Markey — or will he trade his vote for more payoffs? http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2009m7d9-Byrd-opposes-cap-and-trade-bill

***

More farce revealed at the G8 summit: You go first. No, you… http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-g8-climate9-2009jul09,0,4157661.story

Developing nations led by China and India refused Wednesday to back lofty but long-term targets proposed by the Group of 8 industrial nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, balking at reluctance by leaders of the world’s biggest economies to move more quickly on their own.

Inability to bridge the gap between rising carbon-emitting countries such as China and the longtime polluters within the G-8 underscores the steep challenges involved in attempting to strike a comprehensive bargain to contain global warming.

The impasse comes down to the politically sensitive issue of who goes first.

President Obama and his counterparts in the G-8, who are holding two days of meetings in the central Italian mountain town of L’Aquila, offered broad agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The statement pledged to slash global emissions by 50%, led by reductions of 80% by the G-8 countries.

They also prepared to offer new financial incentives for developing nations to join the effort.

But the G-8 stopped well short of pledging to take aggressive action that could curb emissions more quickly — at the cost of higher energy prices and a feared worsening of the global economy.

Also, this is the fourth time this century a climate change fraud
has been attempted.

CO2 has no impact on the earth’s temperature, that is just the big
lie that has been pushed for so long that unfortunately lots of people have come to believe it.

Firstly CO2 is the RESULT of higher temperatures not the cause. The Sunspot Cycle drives variation in climate, see this chart from NASA and see that its about a ten to twelve year cycle. When the earth is warmer more CO2 is released from the oceans. But CO2 does not drive the temperature change, the sun does that. CO2 is a minority gas in the atmosphere that only makes up far less than one percent (.038% to be exact). CO2 is an essential gas which plant life requires in order to grow.

Here is what scientists without economic interest in the global warming fraud have to say about CO2 :

[i] If you take CO2 as a percentage of all the gases in the atmosphere, the oxygen, the nitrogen and argon and so on its .054% [.00054], its an incredibly small portion and then of course you’ve got to take that portion which supposedly humans are adding which is the focus of all the concern and it gets even smaller.

The atmosphere is made up of a multitude of gases, a small percentage of them we call greenhouse gases, and of that very small percentage of greenhouse gases, 95% of it is water vapor, its the most important greenhouse gas.

The ice core record goes to the very heart of the problem we have here, they said, if the CO2 increases in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas then the temperature will go up, but the ice core records shows exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong.

- Professor Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology University of Winnipeg

[There have been periods] in earth’s history when we had three times as much CO2 as we do today, times when we had ten times as much CO2 as we have today, if CO2 has a large effect in climate then we should see it in the temperature reconstruction.

- Professor Nir Shawiv, Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem

We can’t say that CO2 will drive climate, it certainty never did in the past.
CO2 clearly cannot be causing temperature changes, its a product of temperature, its following temperature changes.

- Professor Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

None of the major climate changes in the last thousand years can be
explained by CO2.

- Dr. Piers Corbyn, Climate Forecaster, Weather Action

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, by far the most important greenhouse gas.
Humans produce a small fraction in the single digits, percentage wise of the CO2 that is produced in the atmosphere.

- Professor John Christy, Lead Author, IPCC, Department of Atmospheric
Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Anyone that goes around and says that carbon dioxide is responsible for most of the warming of the 20th century hasn’t looked at the basic numbers.

- Professor Patrick Michaels, Dept of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

CO2 began to increase exponentially in about 1940, but the temperature actually began to decrease 1940, continued until about 1975.

- Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Research
Center

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/firean
dice.asp

Jolie Rouge

07-09-2009, 01:11 PM

Meanwhile, in Uganda, they are blaming the drought on angry gods. The libs are arguing they are partially right.

The Karimojong blame the spell of calamities like drought and disease to the “angry gods”. Little do they know that their area is suffering the consequences of a larger problem, climate change.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200907081085.html

Because there were never droughts before the industrial revolution....

Jolie Rouge

08-04-2009, 03:46 PM

U.S. consumers spared big costs in climate bill
By Timothy Gardner
1 hr 36 mins ago

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A new U.S. government study on Tuesday adds to a growing list of experts concluding that climate legislation moving through Congress would have only a modest impact on consumers, adding a bit more than $100 to household costs in 2020.

Under the climate legislation passed by the House of Representatives in June, electricity, heating oil and other bills for average families will rise $114 in 2020 and $288 in 2030, according to the Energy Information Administration, the country's top energy forecaster.

The bill requires energy companies to help consumers lower costs during the early years of the program which would "mute the impact of higher energy prices for households until at least 2025," said Kay Smith, an EIA economist.

Regulating greenhouse gases with a market mechanism, such as the cap and trade program outlined in the bill, is one of President Barack Obama's top goals.

Democratic leaders hope the bill, which would place a cost on polluting greenhouse gases in the United States like carbon dioxide for the first time, will come to a vote by the full Senate in October. That would come before a U.N. meeting in Copenhagen in December in which nearly 200 countries hope to form a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

The EIA estimate was in line with earlier projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office which said average families would pay about $175 extra annually by 2020, and the Environmental Protection Agency, which said families would pay at most an extra $1 per day.

Republican opponents of the bill have calculated household costs would rise $3,100 or more annually on higher prices for energy and other goods. The Chamber of Commerce estimated in April that a cap and trade system would cost households about $1,400 a year by 2020.

MINIMIZING WINDFALL PROFITS

A big part of keeping costs down involves the use of offsets, which would allow polluters like power plants to invest in projects -- like burning gases given off from rotting farm animal waste -- when they determine it's too expensive to cut their own pollution.

The CBO said in a report on Tuesday that offsets could cut the costs of the climate bill passed by the House by 70 percent from 2012 to 2050, though questions linger about whether some of offsets, particularly ones revolving around forestry, actually cut all of the emissions they claim.

At a hearing on Capitol Hill, the Government Accountability Office, an arm of Congress, concluded that "consumers will bear most of the costs of a cap and trade system" as companies pass along their increased energy costs.

The GAO added, however, "These costs could be largely offset depending on how revenues are used."

Under the bill, many of the permits to pollute would be given away at first to local power companies, which would then be required to help lower consumer costs through investments in conservation and by lowering energy bills.

The finance committee is examining whether pollution permits required under the climate change bill should be sold or given away initially and whether some consumers, especially the poor, should be given rebates or new tax breaks.

"We want to make sure we minimize the chance of windfall profits" to companies, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said. Baucus acknowledged the difficulty writing a bill that achieves Democrats' environmental goals while still having enough votes to pass the Senate.

Fellow Democrat Blanche Lincoln drove that point home during the hearing, calling the House-passed bill "deeply flawed" and one that would hurt rural areas like her home state of Arkansas, which rely more heavily on petroleum fuels to drive long distances and grow crops.

But Senator John Kerry, a leading proponent of cap and trade legislation, accused some companies of engaging in "bogus arguments" that inflate the potential costs to consumers. He warned that if Congress fails to pass a climate bill, the Environmental Protection Agency likely would step in with carbon regulations that would be more onerous on companies.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090804/pl_nm/us_climate_usa;_ylt=AujttUoO7lc4TYKT8EMuTgIZ.3QA;_ ylu=X3oDMTJobjVldXJvBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMDkwODA0L3VzX2 NsaW1hdGVfdXNhBGNwb3MDNwRwb3MDNwRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0 b3JpZXMEc2xrA3VzY29uc3VtZXJzcw--

A new U.S. government study on Tuesday adds to a growing list of experts concluding that climate legislation moving through Congress would have only a modest impact on consumers...

As opposed to prior studies which stated there wouldbe NO impact onconsumers ...

Jolie Rouge

09-16-2009, 08:31 PM

Revealed: Cap-and trade will cost American families $2k each per year
Sister Toldjah on September 16, 2009
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2009/09/16/revealed-cap-and-trade-will-cost-american-families-2k-each-per-year/

More great news from the administration that has promised us HopenChange: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml

AP)The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama’s transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: “Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation.”

The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.

These disclosures will probably not aid the political prospects of the Democrats’ cap and trade bill. The House of Representatives approved it by a remarkably narrow margin in June — the bill would have failed if only six House members had switched their votes to “no” — and it faces significant opposition in the Senate.

Republicans estimate it would actually be closer to over $3k a year per family. http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=117509 And don’t forget that in addition to raising the taxes of the American people, this bill would be a surefire job-killer as well, as Sarah Palin pointed out here. http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2009/07/14/palin-slams-democrats-on-cap-and-trade/

Once again, as with ObamaCare, the Senate may very well be the last line of defense between the American people and higher taxes that the Obama admin wants to use to pay for its agenda. Write your Senator today – no matter whether they are Democrat or Republican – to make sure your voice is heard on the issue of cap and tax, er, trade.

Jolie Rouge

09-29-2009, 10:11 AM

Senate climate bill tougher than House version
H. Josef Hebert And Dina Cappiello, Associated Press Writer
54 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Draft Senate climate change legislation would require a 20 percent cut in greenhouse gases by 2020, far deeper than the reductions mandated in the House version.

The draft obtained by The Associated Press remains subject to change. But the overall carbon reduction requirements are expected to stand. The Democratic bill is to be released Wednesday by the Senate Environmental Committee with a vote by the panel likely in late October.

The draft includes an economy-wide cap and trade system that would require power plants, industrial facilities and refineries to cut carbon dioxide releases. But it does not lay out how emission allowances would be distributed, leaving that for later. The bill is viewed widely as an early focus of Senate negotiations.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090929/ap_on_go_co/us_senate_climate_bill

Jolie Rouge

02-21-2010, 09:46 PM

See also : http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/629274-un-climate-change-treaty.html?highlight=senate+climate+bill#post9621 7972

Senate weighs final push to move climate bill
Richard Cowan – Sun Feb 21, 7:40 am ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A last-ditch attempt at passing a climate change bill begins in the Senate this week with senators mindful that time is running short and that approaches to the legislation still vary widely, according to sources.

"We will present senators with a number of options when they get back from recess," said one Senate aide knowledgeable of the compromise legislation that is being developed. The goal is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists say threaten Earth.

The options will be presented to three senators -- Democrat John Kerry, independent Joseph Lieberman and Republican Lindsey Graham -- who are leading the fight for a bill to battle global warming domestically.

The aide said the Senate's drive for a bill got a boost last week with President Barack Obama's announcement of an $8.3 billion government loan guarantee to help start expanding the nuclear power industry, a top Republican priority. "The administration is really putting their money where their mouth is," the aide said.

The Senate trio's success or failure likely will have a profound impact on international efforts to reduce carbon emissions and prevent Earth's temperature from exceeding a possibly dangerous 2 degree Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) increase from pre-industrial times.

For Wall Street, the Senate has the power to make or break the start-up of what eventually could be a $1 trillion market for power plant, oil refinery and factory pollution permits traded on a regulated exchange.

Congressional elections will be held on November 2 and there is wide agreement that if the Senate cannot pass a climate bill by mid-year, already hard-edged political partisanship will become hyperactive, making it nearly impossible for Congress to move on much of anything.

"We're getting to the point where I think we need to start seeing senators coalesce around an approach," said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, which wants comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions control.

SKEPTICISM ABOUNDS

There is plenty of skepticism about whether Kerry, who is spearheading the effort, can pull off passage of such a difficult bill in an election year since the bill would increase future energy prices. But supporters are not giving up as they draw parallels to the last major environmental fight.

"In 1990, we had a midterm president, a Mideast war, a banking crisis following a real estate bubble and a recession, yet Congress still passed updates to the Clean Air Act by overwhelming margins," said Representative Edward Markey, the co-author of the Waxman-Markey climate bill that narrowly passed the House of Representatives last June.

Tested over 20 years, those Clean Air Act updates are credited with effectively cutting "acid rain" air pollution through a cap-and-trade system that some now want to employ to reduce the carbon emissions blamed for global warming.

Under cap and trade, companies need government permits to emit an ever-dwindling amount of pollution. Fuel-efficient firms that end up holding more permits than they need can sell them to companies that are bigger polluters.

For carbon dioxide, cap and trade would eventually make the cost of using coal and other dirty-burning fossil fuels so high that cleaner, more expensive energy sources such as wind and solar power would emerge.

In recent months, many conservatives who do not want the federal government to mandate pollution reductions, have seized upon newly discovered errors in scientific reports underpinning the link between human activity and climate problems such as drought, flooding and rising sea levels.

Republican Senator James Inhofe, a leading critic, said the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had fallen victim to "outright fraud" and deceit. It is further evidence Congress should not rush legislation, he has argued.

SIDE ISSUES

Meanwhile, "so much political juice" is now being expended by U.S. environmental groups on a side-issue to the climate bill, said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. He was referring to green groups' attempts to stop Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski from advancing her bill blocking the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon emissions, starting with vehicles.

The Obama administration would prefer to let Congress set climate change policy. But if it is unable to, the White House wants the EPA as a fallback.

Graham has talked about cobbling together a "hybrid system" for reducing carbon emissions.

Claussen said, "If I was going to guess, it's probably cap and trade for electricity," which accounts for about 40 percent of carbon emissions, and maybe a separate oil industry tax or fee, with consumers being protected from price increases.

Tackling carbon emissions from factories making steel, cement, paper, glass and other large manufacturers either could be put off "for much later" or they could be given options for participating, she said.

Such an approach could gain the support of Midwestern senators who fear U.S. factories could be put at a competitive disadvantage against foreign manufacturers under a cap-and-trade program.

But it also has risks, others say, underscoring splits among Washington interest groups, politicians and others who want a climate change bill.

Robert Shapiro, chairman of the Climate Task Force and an advocate of a carbon tax, said a dual system would not make economic sense and could make for more volatile energy prices.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100221/ts_nm/us_climate_usa_congress_1;_ylt=AvbsgXCIabObKlE_hmn debir_aF4;_ylu=X3oDMTE2M3YybTQwBHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bi1 yLWItbGVmdARzbGsDZXYtc2VuYXRld2Vp

Jolie Rouge

02-21-2010, 09:55 PM

... cap and trade would eventually make the cost of using coal and other dirty-burning fossil fuels so high that cleaner, more expensive energy sources such as wind and solar power would emerge.

Cape Wind's fate unclear, even in Obama's hands
By Jay Lindsay, Associated Press Writer
Jan 24 2010

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100124/capt.f2ac9688068f4a86891d1fc03a375b0b.cape_wind_fa rm_gfx848.jpg?x=255&y=345&q=85&sig=he2IOIsBPul7cNjm3HEt3g--

Map shows site of proposed wind farm near Cape Cod

BOSTON – After eight years of review, the future of a controversial wind farm off Cape Cod now rests in what would seem to be friendly hands — an Obama administration that's pledged to make the U.S. "the world's leading exporter of clean energy."

But it's tough to tell if Cape Wind's prospects just got better or worse.

Obama has never mentioned the project while talking publicly about renewable energy, despite his enthusiasm for the topic and the fact Cape Wind would be the nation's first offshore wind farm.

Some Cape Wind advocates have chalked up Obama's silence to respect for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, an early and influential Obama backer. Kennedy battled the project fiercely, writing Obama of his opposition the month before he died in August from brain cancer.

To add to the uncertainty, Obama's Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who pledged this month to decide whether to approve Cape Wind by the end of April, has called it "a good project." But two Obama appointees to agencies connected to the project's review have links to its chief opposition, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.

U.S. National Park Service head Jonathan Jarvis is the brother of alliance consultant Destry Jarvis. And Federal Aviation Administration chief Randy Babbitt has worked for the alliance. Both are recused from any decisions involving Cape Wind.

The Obama administration is awaiting the Interior Department's Cape Wind review before taking a position, said Moira Mack, a White House spokeswoman. Mack said the administration "believes that investing in wind energy — on and offshore — is an important part of the transition to a low-carbon economy and has supported new policies and investments to help realize that goal."

Cape Wind, expected to cost $1 billion, aims to provide 75 percent of the Cape's electricity with 130 turbines, each about 440 feet tall, erected in Nantucket Sound. Its developers stand to benefit as a major electricity provider to a state aiming to create enough wind power capacity to power 800,000 homes by 2020.

Opponents say the project is a hazard to aviation and wildlife and would mar historic vistas, including the view from the Kennedy compound. They want it moved out of the sound to an alternate site Cape Wind says is not feasible.

Since he took office, Obama has spoken several times about wind energy, including on Earth Day in April, saying wind energy could potentially "generate as much as 20 percent of our electricity by 2030." He also spoke about "enormous interest in wind projects off the coasts of New Jersey and Delaware."

Barbara Hill of the pro-Cape Wind group Clean Power said she finds Obama's silence on Cape Wind "a bit confusing" because its success is so crucial to future offshore wind projects.

Sue Reid, an attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation and a project proponent, said she believes Obama is simply being careful not to prejudge the project before the approval process ends.

"I think it's a matter of him being very principled and measured, as opposed to that he's made up his mind somehow in opposition to the project," she said.

Though Obama has never mentioned Cape Wind, Salazar told The Associated Press in March that "from what I know of the Cape Cod wind project, it is a good project."

Kennedy disagreed, believing Cape Wind was a case of special interests being allowed to trump local concerns for private profit. He said his opposition had nothing to do with the view from his home.

On July 8, Kennedy and U.S. Rep. William Delahunt wrote Obama and asked him to postpone any decision until Cape Wind was subjected to new ocean zoning rules still being devised by Obama's national Ocean Policy Task Force.

"These 'rules of the road' should be established first, before any large-scale industrial energy project is approved in any of our coastal waters," the letter read.

The task force has since said its rules are "not meant to delay or halt" existing projects, but such projects are expected to take the "goals and principles" of the marine zoning rules into account.

Audra Parker of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound said she was hopeful Obama would defer to Kennedy's concerns and honor "Sen. Kennedy's legacy and his deep appreciation for Nantucket Sound."

"Moving the project would certainly do that," Parker said.

In his July letter, Kennedy also asked Obama to direct the task force "to give full consideration to providing protected status for Nantucket Sound," including "possible inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places as a Tribal (sic) Cultural Property."

The sound was ruled eligible for that protection on Jan. 4, when the keeper of the national register, who is under Jonathan Jarvis at the National Park Service, backed a claim by two Wampanoag Indian tribes that the sound was their "Traditional Cultural Property."

The Wampanoag argued the project would interfere with sacred rituals which require an unblocked view of the horizon and would be built on a long-submerged ancestral burial ground. A park service spokesman said Jarvis was not involved in the Wampanoag decision.

That ruling brought the prospect of more delay and prompted Salazar to intervene. If he approves Cape Wind, a few smaller issues would remain, including review by the FAA, headed by Babbitt. He has worked as an alliance consultant on its claims that Cape Wind could interfere with airplane radar signals.

A Department of Transportation spokeswoman said Babbitt has been recused from any involvement in Cape Wind decisions.

Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers said the project will ultimately succeed on its merits, which were validated over years of review. He noted it's the only offshore wind project that could come to fruition during Obama's term.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100125/ap_on_re_us/us_cape_wind_obama

Jolie Rouge

02-21-2010, 10:13 PM

The aide said the Senate's drive for a bill got a boost last week with President Barack Obama's announcement of an $8.3 billion government loan guarantee to help start expanding the nuclear power industry, a top Republican priority. "The administration is really putting their money where their mouth is," the aide said.

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama purported to reach across the aisle by endorsing a “new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants” …before pushing cap and trade.

The nearly $4 trillion budget he released today exposes his nuclear lie.

It zeroes out funds for the besieged Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility in Nevada — one of the few, prominent Obama campaign pledges that he looks like he’s actually fulfilling: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/01/obamas-call-for-new-nuclear-power-plants-triggers-outrage/1

President Barack Obama will propose eliminating funding for the Yucca Mountain project in a new budget he will submit to Congress on Monday, according to Nevada lawmakers who were notified over the weekend.

The White House also said it will take steps “in the near future” to withdraw a pending license application to build the long-planned nuclear waste repository, which could be a decisive move in ending the government’s 23-year focus on developing the Nevada site for radioactive waste storage and disposal.

Coupled with the formation Friday of a blue ribbon commission to study nuclear waste management, officials said the budget will underscore Obama’s “commitment to pursuing a responsible, long-term strategy” for handling waste generated by nuclear utilities and government defense agencies.

The plan also would fulfill an Obama campaign promise to end the Yucca Mountain program, which has been unpopular with many Nevadans and the state’s top leaders.

“This is great news,” said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who has consulted with Obama on an exit strategy for Yucca Mountain.

“President Obama is keeping his word to Nevada and I thank him for working with me as we try to find a safer solution for dealing with the nation’s nuclear waste,” Reid said in a statement.

“This budget is a bulldozer that will help Nevada flatten Yucca Mountain into a permanent pile of rubble,” said Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu and eco-czar Carol Browner are also dancing on Yucca’s grave — and will oversee a toothless new panel to come up with something better. Paralysis by analysis. As Brian Sussman points out, we already had an alternative: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/obamas_nuclear_lie.html

Following the State of the Union, in a conference call with reporters on the same day the nuclear financing plan was unveiled, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced the creation of a special panel to find a solution for storing nuclear waste.

Problem is, we had a solution — Yucca Mountain. But it’s on the president’s no-fund list.

The Obama Fail blog draws parallels to the Gitmo debacle: http://www.obamafailblog.net/2010/01/13010-obamas-nuclear-lie.html

In his first week in office, President Obama signed an executive order promising to close Guantanamo Bay within one year. It hasn’t happened and there is no indication it will happen anytime soon. Here’s how it breaks down:

1. Make a bold announcement

2. Do nothing

3. Blame someone else when #1 fails to happen

This is exactly what is happening with nuclear energy. Americans are supposed to feel some sort of pride that “we can do better”…Furthermore, we will figure out exactly where to store spent nuclear material, even though there are no options presently on the table. But we are Americans so you just have to believe that it will be sorted out.

And when it is all finally sorted out, then President Obama can get around to building all those new power plants.

Ain’t.

Gonna.

Happen.

The budget includes loan guarantees of more than $54 billion for nuclear energy firms — but the feds haven’t approved a new application for a reactor in more than two decades.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/78943-nuclear-energy-industry-seeks-more-than-loan-guarantees-for-revival

False hope, chump change. http://michellemalkin.com/2010/02/01/obama-budget-exposes-nuclear-lie/

Jolie Rouge

06-10-2010, 10:15 PM

Obama's greenhouse gas rules survive Senate vote
Jim Abrams, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 9 mins ago

WASHINGTON – In a boost for the president on global warming, the Senate on Thursday rejected a challenge to Obama administration rules aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other big polluters.

The defeated resolution would have denied the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to move ahead with the rules, crafted under the federal Clean Air Act. With President Barack Obama's broader clean energy legislation struggling to gain a foothold in the Senate, the vote took on greater significance as a signal of where lawmakers stand on dealing with climate change.

"If ever there was a vote to find out whose side you are on, this is it," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

The vote was 53-47 to stop the Senate from moving forward on the Republican-led effort to restrain the EPA.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., predicted the vote would "increase momentum to adopt comprehensive energy and climate legislation this year."

But Obama still needs 60 votes to advance his energy agenda, and Democrats don't have them yet. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said the vote made clear that a majority in the Senate back either a delay or an outright ban on "the Obama EPA's job-killing, global warming agenda."

Republicans, and the six Democrats who voted with them to advance the resolution, said Congress, not bureaucrats, should be in charge of writing climate change policy. They said the EPA rules would drive up energy costs and kill jobs.

But Democrats, referring frequently to the Gulf oil spill, said it made no sense to undermine efforts to curtail greenhouse gas emissions and reduce dependence on oil and other fossil fuels.

The effort to block the rules "is an attempt to bury our heads in the sand and ignore reality," said Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M.

Obama said the vote was another reminder of the need to pass legislation to reduce the country's reliance on oil. The White House had issued a veto threat this week, saying the resolution would block efforts to cut pollution that could harm people's health and well-being.

"Today the Senate chose to move America forward, towards that clean energy economy — not backward to the same failed policies that have left our nation increasingly dependent on foreign oil," he said.

The EPA crafted standards on greenhouse gas emissions by big polluters after the Supreme Court ruled that those emissions could be considered a danger to human health and thus could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The rules are to go into effect next January.

The poor chances of the anti-EPA measure overcoming a veto and becoming law did not deter fierce debate.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called the new regulations a "blatant power grab by the administration and the EPA." With a broad energy bill unlikely to pass this year, "the administration has shifted course and is now trying to get done through the back door what they haven't been able to get done through the front door," he said.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called the blocking measure, "a great big gift to big oil" that would "increase pollution, increase our dependence on foreign oil and stall our efforts to create jobs" in clean energy.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that he anticipated the Senate taking up a broader energy bill in the next several weeks "and hopefully we can get something done before Congress adjourns this year."

The sponsor of Thursday's resolution, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of oil-rich Alaska, said her intent was to protect the authority of Congress, not the interests of the oil industry. "It should be up to us to set the policy of this country, not unelected bureaucrats within an agency," she said.

Her Democratic allies used similar arguments. "The regulatory approach is the wrong way to promote renewable energy and clean energy jobs in Arkansas and the rest of the country," said Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, who faces a difficult re-election campaign this summer.

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., who opposed the resolution, agreed that Congress should not cede its authority to the executive branch but expressed concern the measure would reverse progress made in such areas as vehicle emissions. He said he supported a bill that would suspend EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources for two years.

Murkowski, too, said Congress should be working harder to come up with an energy bill. The issue was whether a consensus was possible this year.

"Here's the real rub," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has worked with Democrats on possible energy legislation. "If we stop them (the rules), are we going to do anything?"

"This is going to be the great hypocrisy test," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., cosponsor of a major clean energy proposal. He asked whether those demanding that Congress act first would actually vote for change.

There were other disputes about the consequences of the Murkowski resolution. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and the White House said the resolution would force the EPA to rescind the standards for emissions from future-model cars and light trucks it came up with earlier this year with the Transportation Department. The result, she said, would be a need for the country to consume an extra 455 million barrels of oil.

Murkowski and others countered that Transportation has long been able to set fuel efficiency standards without the help of the EPA.

Jackson also denied the argument of critics that the EPA rules would impose devastating costs on small businesses and farmers, resulting in major job losses. The EPA added a provision that exempts small sources of pollution from the regulations for six years.

___

The bill is S.J. Res. 26.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100611/ap_on_bi_ge/us_greenhouse_gases;_ylt=AiHErrgmUx8D2GOSjsRU4i.s0 NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFoMzFoYnFzBHBvcwMyNwRzZWMDYWNjb3Jka W9uX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNvYmFtYXNncmVlbmg-

Jolie Rouge

06-10-2010, 10:16 PM

comments

Looking through these comments, I'm amazed that so many have bought into the foolishness that humans have this enormous impact on the warming of the planet. @#$% those dinosaurs and their Hummers! They started this! I know! Let's just tax their only living relatives! Birds! Give me a break. This is about separating money from the little guy as usual. Anybody who buys this also believes what Bernanke said about the Magical Jobless Recovery. And folks, it ain't socialism. It's fascism. And this is a prime example. Now watch somebody hee haw about how I watch Fox News or something. I don't even watch TV and don't trust Glen Beck so try again. I do study history, which has a nasty habit of repeating itself or having nasty useless parts of itself resurrect to finish off a dirty job.

--

Can someone help me out with a little math. Trying to find the approximate odds of having a big coal mining accident in West Virginia, the largest ecological disaster of an oil spill in the Gulf, leaky radioactive water from a nuclear plant and a gas line explosion in Texas, all within a few month span, at the precise time Obama is pushing a new green energy agenda, which consequently comes very shortly after the healthcare debacle is done. From KY and usually only see horse racing at 99 to 1 at best. Think these odds must be at least a little higher. Any guesses?

---

Where are all the concerned liberals and PETA fighting to save the animals in the Gulf??? Afraid to come out against the man they put in office?

--

All of these hilarious arguments against global warming remind me of the time I was watching fox news and Laura Ingrahm was questioning why we had so many more forest fires at the turn of the century than we do now. This argument was aimed at debunking the recent spate of forest fires last year attributed to global warming causing drought and very dry forests and brush. The guest reminded her that we didn't have much going for us to fight fires at the turn of the century, no roads, helicoptors, communication etc. And the reason we were so susceptible now is that we became so good at fighting fires that forestation became much more lush because the usual annual fire hadn't cleared out swaths of forest and brush, and thus when we had a drought year the fire risk became rampant.

Laura didn't have an answer for that one either.

---

I am sure that when the choice is between liberty and tyranny, we Americans would do the right thing and choose liberty. What worries me the most are the things that can take place during the choices we make. 2008-2010 are a great example of what can happen in between choices. I am afraid the uninformed are placing all of our freedoms and liberties at risk. They are like sheep headed to the slaughter house only to be aware of the dangers 1 second after the machine reaches them. Well we don't have one second to waste because each second another regulation is created governing our liberties and freedoms. Taking both away in the middle of the night by a government that ignores the Constitution yet are sworn to uphold it. People this country is in trouble and it's going to take the average person like you and I to bring it back from the brink. I have served in Europe during the USSR and USA Cold War era. Those countries that are now freed from Communism would never want to go back but we are headed where they dare not to go again. Yes you still are able to go to your job and enjoy your backdoor bar-b-ques on the weekends. They also enjoyed those features in East Germany under USSR Control as well. Give me the strong family and I'll show what it meant to be free from government intervention and the politicians actually were afraid of them. But a weakened family poses no threat today, that's why we have Obama-Care, Cap and Trade, Dependency on foreign oil, High Taxes, Debt in the trillions not billions, foreign countries holding the note to our future, and yet most of us still don't get it. My suggestion to all who are concerned about our country's future is to grab a cup of coffee, your constitution and hit the door, we have a country to save.

---

We truly are a self-centered people that think we can affect the climate enough to make any kind of difference. Pull your heads out of yourself and take a look around.

---

Anyone who supports carbon taxes and/or EPA limits on CO2 emissions is intentionally trying to destroy the U.S. economy. In my book, that makes them guilty of treason.

Don't be fooled people by the AGW con artists; CO2 is a harmless trace gas, and increasing it by another 100 parts per million will still have no effect on global temperatures. The only thing it might do is cause an increase in plant growth rates, and I think we can all agree that that's a good thing.

We certainly need to find alternative energy sources to replace petro and coal, but scamming the general public with bogus science- and crippling our economy with carbon taxes- is NOT the way to do it!

"Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

---

Barbara Boxer was an energy's trader and made millions before she became senator (excuse me, Madam Senator) and knows exactly what she is doing to continue her fortune building on the backs of others (we the taxpayer). Climate change/global warming is a farce and you all know it (yes, you libtards) and it is going to do absolutely nothing to change the environment and everything to kill jobs and the taxpayer's wallet. I am so sick of liberals destroying what use to be a great country.

---

Ready for the increase in your power bill?

janelle

06-10-2010, 10:33 PM

Be sure to clean house this year and don't forget the senate. OMG

Jolie Rouge

06-18-2010, 09:26 PM

Gulf spill could swing Obama's power play on energy policy
Thu Jun 17, 9:54 pm ET By John Carey, environmental writer
Will the Gulf oil spill finally lead to a more aggressive energy policy to wean America from oil — or to more far-reaching measures to reduce the risks of climate change?

A bill that would do both has been stalled before Congress for months, as Republicans and even some Democrats claim it would raise energy costs and lead to lost jobs. But outrage over the black tendrils of oil spewing from BP’s broken well in the Gulf is creating new opportunities for the once moribund legislation.

A new poll from the Pew Research Center shows widespread public support for more renewable energy, tougher energy efficiency standards, and climate policies that would limit the harmful greenhouse gas emissions that are the source of global warming — even if such action would raise the price of energy. Surprisingly, a majority of Republicans in the poll supported taking steps to reduce climate change and protect the environment.

That’s the kind of support that Congress may find hard to ignore — and that President Obama is hoping to exploit.

In his June 15 Oval Office speech, the president made an impassioned plea to finally end America’s addiction to fossil fuel. “The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now,” he said. The next day Obama followed up, calling key senators such as John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) to begin a push for legislation to reduce America’s dependence on oil. The president also summoned Scott Brown (R-Mass.) to the White House in a bid for bipartisan support.

There’s plenty of reason for skepticism — presidents have been making such promises for decades. So much so, in fact, that Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart did a skit Wednesday mocking the fact that every president since Richard Nixon has proclaimed the need for energy independence — in virtually identical terms.

Watch the Jon Stewart skit : http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Yet the shifting mood could finally create momentum for Washington to act. “The oil spill is a classic example of the way that policy windows open up when there is an event that really captures the attention and concern of the American,” says Steve Corneli, senior vice president for market and climate policy at NRG Energy, a major utility based in Princeton, New Jersey. “Because people care, politicians can respond in ways they couldn’t before.”

After months of frustration, some environmentalists are cautiously hopeful that progress is possible. “The oil spill has really made it absolutely certain that there will be an energy bill brought to the Senate floor,” says Steve Cochran, director of Environmental Defense Fund's National Climate Campaign.

What the legislation would actually entail, however, remains murky. The president is inviting a bipartisan group of senators to the White House next week in hopes of kick-starting negotiations, with the aim of beginning to work on a bill in the Senate following the Fourth of July break. Broad support exists for boosting investment in nuclear energy, renewable power and energy efficiency — measures that exist in bills already introduced by Senators Lugar and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.). But going further will be a fight.

Much will depend on how strong the public call for action really is. Republicans opposed to climate change are counting on Americans not being willing to pay higher prices to drive their cars or heat their homes. Obama himself was clearly testing the political waters in his June 15 speech. He praised the Waxman-Markey climate legislation passed by the House of Representatives last summer, which puts firm limits on the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from power plants, cars, and other sources. By making it more expensive to emit carbon, and thus to burn fossil fuels, the House bill “finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses,” Obama said.

But to the dismay of environmentalists, Obama failed to push for a similar Senate bill, proposed by John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), that would also put a cap on emissions. Instead, he said: “I’m happy to look at other ideas and approaches — as long as they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels.” Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) darkly warned that Obama is trying to exploit the oil spill to push a radical agenda.

The tangled politics means that, even though the window for legislation has cracked open, the odds are still long. Environmentalists say it’s currently hard to imagine finding 60 votes in the Senate for a measure that puts a limit on carbon emissions. “But without a cap, then progressives will not swallow more nuclear and drilling,” says former Energy Dept. official Joseph Romm.

A cap would also enable the government to sell permits to utilities and other manufacturers for the right to emit carbon; without one, Uncle Sam won’t have any revenue to pay for energy provisions like increased wind and solar power. One possibility, Romm believes, would be an energy bill that includes a cap on emissions for just one sector — power plants. That’s relatively easy because the utility industry already supports emissions limits.

There’s still hope, supporters of a bill say. “It is easy to imagine some constructive legislation passing, whether it just supports clean technology investments or is a bigger bill that addresses the elephant in the room — climate change,” says NRG’s Corneli. The latter prospect — which would mean putting a price on carbon emissions — “is the fastest way to jump-start the key technologies and industries we need to reduce dependence on oil,” he says.

Whether Congress agrees or not will show just how much impact the oil spill will ultimately have in Washington.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl2693;_ylt=Aq38QtKumK9nTkZdhlsoDZKs0NUE;_yl u=X3oDMTNmNGZiazE0BGFzc2V0A3luZXdzLzIwMTAwNjE3L3lu ZXdzX3BsMjY5MwRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzEEcG 9zAzIEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xr A2d1bGZzcGlsbGNvdQ--

Jolie Rouge

10-02-2012, 05:15 AM

.
California governor signs cap-and-trade revenue bills
Reuters – 4 hrs ago.

SAN FRANCISCO, Oct 2 (Reuters Point Carbon) - California Governor Jerry Brown has signed two bills related to the use of revenue raised through the sale of carbon allowances, although details of how the money will be spent won't be determined until next year.

The bills are the first to address the estimated $660 million and $3 billion in revenue that will be generated during the first year of California's carbon cap-and-trade scheme, which begins in January.

The first bill creates a new account for the revenue to be deposited into, and directs the Department of Finance and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop an investment plan for the funds.

That plan, expected to be released in the spring of 2013, will be submitted for approval to the legislature as part of the governor's budget and will be reviewed and updated on an annual basis.

Under California state law, the money raised through the sale of carbon allowances must be spent on programs that help reduce the state's greenhouse gas emissions.

"There's a broad array of possible things to spend the funds on," Mary Nichols, chair of the ARB told reporters last week, citing energy efficiency, forest protection and high-speed rail as possible recipients.

The second bill signed by Brown over the weekend requires that 25 percent of all the auction revenue go toward economically disadvantaged communities, which tend to suffer from worse air quality than wealthier neighborhoods.

The bill tasks the California Environmental Protection Agency with determining what communities qualify for the money.

The state will select community recipients next year.

The first carbon allowance auction will be held on November 14, where the state will sell 61.3 million allowances.

http://news.yahoo.com/california-governor-signs-cap-trade-revenue-bills-075224192.html

California Governor Jerry Brown has signed two bills related to the use of revenue raised through the sale of carbon allowances, although details of how the money will be spent won't be determined until next year.

Does that bother anyone else ?? Reminds me of Wimpy "I'll gladly pay you on Tuesday for a hambuger today"

...

Socialism at it's finest. California's fiscal irresponsibility is criminal. They are broke. Now they will sell the smoke and mirrors scheme .........clean air. This is the first state to become a little Europe. Folks when the FED goes broke, which it is, there are no more bailouts. Business will leave California in droves.

..

This legislature and this governor are destroying California. We will be driving a whole lot more businesses out of the state with these two laws -- and of course those vested interests who give generously to Jerry Brown and the democrats are sure to win the lottery to get the funds from this government program. Ironically, our state is drowning in red ink and will be even more so despite the cap and trade revenue -- it will not be enough to make up for all the businesses that will flee California. I have raised my family here and hope to retire here but it may not be possible if this government destroys the economy.

..

Just wonderful! New taxes and they have not even informed the people where it will be spent. This is the leaders that Californians elected and they think they are leading the Nation????

[/i]

Jolie Rouge

10-27-2012, 07:11 PM

EPA Plans to Roll Out Devastating New Environmental Regs… After the Election
Kyle Becker October 27, 2012 9:02 am

Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia and Director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project S. Fred Singer has published an article in American Thinker giving potential voters a glimpse of their energy-scarce future. Far from environmentalism being a do-gooder crusade, the weight of evidence suggests the movement is big business for crony corporations and their Democrat supporters.

As Dr. Singer put it: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/obamas_epa_plans_for_2013.html

Obama has already promised to make climate change the centerpiece of his concern — with all that implies: “Green” energy policy, linked to loss of jobs (Keystone pipeline disapproval), rising gas prices (ethanol mandates), and crony capitalism (Solyndra).

The following is a preview of the economically devastating regulations the EPA would implement in an Obama second term, according to Dr. Singer:

OZONE — “President Obama punted on tightening the ozone standard until after the election, admitting that the ‘regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty’ would harm jobs and the economy — but he still pointed to the fact that it will be reconsidered in 2013. EPA itself estimated that its ozone standard would cost $90 billion a year, while other studies have projected that the rule could cost upwards of a trillion dollars and destroy 7.4 million jobs.” The president would impose these regulations on companies and consumers after the election.

FRACKING – The Bureau of Land Management is finalizing new regulations to curtail hydraulic fracturing on public lands, which would have serious impacts on domestic energy production. Estimated costs per fracking installation run at least $233,000, leading to billions in projected costs for natural gas companies and hydraulic fracking contractors. The fracking regulations would be implemented after the election.

WATER CONTROL — “EPA’s proposed new guidance document for waters covered by the [Clean Water Act], proposed in April 2011, reinterprets recent Supreme Court decisions to allow EPA to expand federal control over virtually every body of water in the United States, no matter how small. EPA’s own analysis of the document estimated that up to 17% of current non-jurisdictional determinations would be considered jurisdictional using the new guidance.” The expansion of EPA domain over water would take place after the election.

GASOLINE REGS – “EPA is preparing to propose a rulemaking called Tier III, which reduces the content of sulfur in gasoline from 30 ppm to 10 ppm. The cost of this rule could be up to $10 billion initially and $2.4 billion annually, and it could add up to 9 cents per gallon in manufacturing costs; these costs would inevitably be passed on to consumers at the pump.” The new regulation would be installed after the election.

BOILER REGS — “EPA’s Boiler MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) standards are so strict that not even the best-performing sources can meet them, so many companies will have no choice but to shut their doors and ship manufacturing jobs overseas. The rule has been projected to reduce US GDP by as much as 1.2 billion dollars and will destroy nearly 800,000 jobs.” The White House has indicated it will reconsider these regulations (you guessed it)… after the election.

CEMENT — “EPA’s Cement MACT rule could cause 18 plants to shut down, throwing up to 80,000 people out of work. As more and more cement has to be imported from China, concrete costs for the construction of roads, bridges, and buildings that use cement could increase 22% to 36%.” Determination on such rules for “roads and bridges” is slated for after the election.

COOLING TOWERS — “EPA is planning to require the use of strict protections for fish in cooling reservoirs for power plants under the Clean Water Act. EPA’s own estimates put the draft rule costs between $384 million and $460 million per year and have benefits of just $17 million – a cost benefit gap of more than 22 to 1.” The fish protection rules would go into effect after the election.

COAL — “EPA’s proposed coal ash rule could cost $79 to $110 billion over 20 years, destroying 183,900 to 316,000 jobs; this will have disastrous impacts in states like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and Missouri.” Of course, the EPA would “finish the job” in its war on coal after the election.

FARM DUST — “EPA has been regulating farm dust for decades and may tighten the standards as part its review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for coarse particulate matter (PM10). [...] If the standard is tightened, the only option for farmers to comply will be to curb every-day farm activities, which could mean cutting down on numbers of livestock or the tilling of fields, or they may have to shrink or even end their businesses altogether.” These farms would therefore go out of business after the election.

SPILL PREVENTION — “EPA’s Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule would require farmers and ranchers to develop and implement costly oil and gasoline spill prevention plans, placing a tremendous burden on the agricultural community. The original deadline was set for November 2011, but the rule was delayed due to pressure from Congress. EPA set a new SPCC deadline” for after the election.

Limiting standard energy supply drives up costs for producers and prices for consumers and makes the production of inefficient “green energy” providers price-competitive. The federal government is subsidizing the inefficient “green energy” producers and is restricting or attempting to restrict the production of standard energy on federal lands.

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/10/20427-epa-plans-to-roll-out-devastating-new-environmental-regulations-if-obama-re-elected/

Jolie Rouge

05-21-2013, 02:55 PM

Barbara Boxer blames global warming for Oklahoma tornado, calls for carbon tax
May 21, 2013 By: Joe Newby

On Tuesday, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., blamed global warming for the tornado that struck Oklahoma, and called for a carbon tax in a speech on the Senate floor, The Daily Caller reported.

This is climate change. We were warned about extreme weather: Not just hot weather, but extreme weather. When I had my hearings, when I had the gavel years ago — it’s been a while — the scientists all agreed that what we’d start to see was extreme weather,” she said, despite reports that global warming stopped in 1998.

“Carbon could cost us the planet,” she added. “The least we could do is put a little charge on it so people move to clean energy.”

“You’re going to have tornadoes and all the rest. We need to protect our people,” Boxer said, without explaining how an additional tax would end severe weather.

“That’s our No. 1 obligation and we have to deal with this threat that is upon us and that is gonna get worse and worse through the years," she added.

Boxer is not the only Democrat to blame the tornado on global warming.

On Monday, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., railed against Republicans in a 15-minute speech blaming so-called "global warming deniers" and "polluters" for the giant twister.

But how would a tax on carbon mitigate weather patterns?

Michael Batacsh said that a bill introduced by Boxer and co-sponsored by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders would "put a gradually rising fee on carbon dioxide emissions to fund green-energy projects such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass."

The bill was introduced after Obama "threatened to use his executive authority to address global warming if Congress failed to act," Batasch added.

But given the government's track record with alternative energy, it is highly doubtful the tax would work, and there is little to no evidence to suggest such a tax would stop tornadoes.

“The dismal record of the U.S. government in implementing efficient climate change policies is hardly evidence in favor of a massive new carbon tax (or cap-and-trade program),” said Robert Murphy, a senior economist for the Institute for Energy Research.

“[S]uch a new program will be abused in the political process, and will not be tailored to the recommendations of climate scientists and environmental economists," he added.

His analysis also found that unilateral action by the government "cannot significantly slow global carbon dioxide emissions."

http://www.examiner.com/article/barbara-boxer-blames-global-warming-for-oklahoma-tornado-calls-for-carbon-tax

Jolie Rouge

06-25-2013, 08:32 PM

Obama takes aim at changing climate
President Barack Obama is proposing sweeping steps to limit heat-trapping pollution from coal-fired power plants and to boost renewable energy production on federal property.
8 hr ago |By Josh Lederman of Associated Press

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama declared the debate over climate change and its causes obsolete Tuesday as he announced a wide-ranging plan to tackle pollution and prepare communities for global warming.

In a major speech at Georgetown University, Obama warned Americans of the deep and disastrous effects of climate change, urging them to take action before it's too late. "As a president, as a father and as an American, I'm here to say we need to act," Obama said.

Obama directs EPA to end dumping of carbon from power plants 7 hr ago Duration: 0:59 Views: 184 Obama announced he was directing his administration to launch the first-ever federal regulations on heat-trapping gases emitted by new and existing power plants — "to put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution."

Other facets of the plan will boost renewable energy production on federal lands, increase efficiency standards and prepare communities to deal with higher temperatures. Even before Obama unveiled his plan Tuesday, Republican critics in Congress were lambasting it as a job killer that would threaten the economic recovery. Obama dismissed those critics, noting the same arguments have been used in the past when the United States has taken other steps to protect the environment. "That's what they said every time," Obama said. "And every time, they've been wrong."

He touted the United States' strengths — research, technology and innovation — as factors that make the United States uniquely poised to take on the challenges of global warming.

Obama also offered a rare insight into his administration's deliberations on Keystone XL, an oil pipeline the potential approval of which has sparked an intense fight between environmental activists and energy producers.

The White House has insisted the State Department is making the decision independently, but Obama said Tuesday that he is instructing the department to approve it only if the project won't increase overall, net emissions of greenhouse gases. "Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation's interests," Obama said. "Our national interest would be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution."

http://news.msn.com/us/obama-takes-aim-at-changing-climate?ocid=ansnews11

President Barack Obama declared the debate over climate change and its causes obsolete ....

Climate change ‘squirrel’? Desperate admin pushes job-killing War on Coal
Posted at 10:15 am on June 25, 2013 by Twitchy Staff
http://twitchy.com/2013/06/25/climate-change-squirrel-desperate-admin-pushes-job-killing-war-on-coal/

...

Audience at president’s climate change speech so motivated,
forgets to pick up litter
Posted at 9:12 pm on June 25, 2013 by Twitchy Staff

Proof that even a crowd of environmentalists can leave behind a bit of trash.
The remains of Obama's speech: pic.twitter.com/P8fEfVlL0O

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BNozBttCEAI0VSx.jpg

President Obama took his message of environmental stewardship to Georgetown University today in order to enlist the younger generation’s help in saving the planet. He began his appeal by recalling the Apollo 8 mission of 1968, when humans for the very first time captured a photograph of the earth as a whole. “It was an image of Earth,” the president told the audience, “beautiful; breathtaking; a glowing marble of blue oceans, and green forests, and brown mountains brushed with white clouds, rising over the surface of the moon.”

“And that image in the photograph, that bright blue ball rising over the moon’s surface, containing everything we hold dear — the laughter of children, a quiet sunset, all the hopes and dreams of posterity — that’s what’s at stake. That’s what we’re fighting for,” he concluded, much, much later. “And if we remember that, I’m absolutely sure we’ll succeed.”

Heady stuff indeed. The National Journal’s Amy Harder covers energy and environmental issues, and she was there today to capture her own image of the planet, or at least the tiny part of it just minutes before packed with college students who would scurry off to make the planet a better place for their children and grandchildren.

http://twitchy.com/2013/06/25/audience-at-presidents-climate-change-speech-so-motivated-forgets-to-pick-up-litter/