Bookworm Room

« This just isn’t rightMore singing siblings »

Stopping Waxman Markey

Bookworm on Jun 26 2009 at 11:40 am | Filed under: Uncategorized

From Richard Baehr:

218 needed to win…Call your Congressman or Congresswoman, or congressmen in other states too. The Waxman Markey bill will do two things-

1. raise the price of energy in the US for all income levels (an energy tax that is regressive- it will hit lower income families more than high income families), and

2. move jobs to China and developing nations that are using more carbon based energy to support their economic growth, while we tie our hands, in the midst of a serious recession, to feel better about ourselves for saving the planet. China is the world’s biggest CO2 emitter, and whatever emissions we reduce will be overwhelmed by their increased use. So even if you believe that CO2 levels are tied to global warming, this bill will be useless in reversing global awrming. For the record, I don’t believe the atmospheric CO2 level- global warming link has been proven- not with a 0.2 degree centigrade rise in global temperatures the last 70 years, or an 8 inch rise in ocean levels in 100 years, at a time when CO2 levels rose by 40%. . Al Gore has run a scare campaign-bloviating about a 10 degree temperature rise, and 20 foot ocean rise by the end of the century. I don’t think so. Australians seem to have caught on that this is the the greatest scientific hoax of the century. The monstrous 1200 page bill now before the House has been read by zero Congressmen. Anyone who tells you they understand the impact is lying.

Link

Yes

Yes = 175
Leaning Yes = 35
TOTAL = 210

Undecided = 20

No

No = 190
Leaning No = 14
TOTAL = 204

Undecided or Won’t Say:
Kirkpatrick Az (202) 225-2315
Boyd Fla (202) 225-5235
Brown Fla (202) 225-0123
Bishop Ga (202) 225-3631
R Kirk Ill 202-225-4835
Foster Ill (866) 777-6670
Donnelly Ind (202) 225-3915
R Jones NC 202-225-3415
McIntyre NC (202) 225-2731
R Frelinghuysen NJ (202) 225-5034
Tonko NY (202) 225-5076
Arcuri NY (202) 225-3665
Space Ohio (he voted for it in committee) (202) 225-6265
Carney Penna. (202) 225-3731
Davis Tenn 202.225.6831
Al Green Tex (202) 225-7508
Jackson Lee Tex (202) 225-3816
Ortiz Tex (202) 225-7742
Eddie Bernice Johnson Tex (202) 225-8885
Kind Wis (202) 225-5506

Leaning Yes:
Mitchell Az (202) 225-2190
Cardoza Calif (202) 225-6131
Costa Calif 202-225-3341
Baca Calif (202)225-6161
R Castle Del 202.225.4165
Grayson Fla (202) 225-2176
Meek Fla 202-225-4506
Kozmas Fla (202) 225-2706
Abercrombie Hi (202) 225-2726
Bean Ill (202) 225-3711
R Cao La (202) 225-6636
Kratovil Md (202) 225-5311
R Ehlers Mich (202) 225-3831
Kildee Mich 202-225-3611
Schauer Mich (202) 225-6276
Peters Mich (202) 225-5802
Clay Mo (202) 225-2406
Skelton Mo 202-225-2876
Thompson Miss (202) 225-5876
Shuler NC (202) 225-6401
Adler NJ (202) 225-4765
Lance NJ (202) 225-5361
Meeks NY 202/225-3461
McMahon NY (202) 225-3371
Murphy NY (202) 225-5614
R McHugh NY (202) 225-4611
Maffei NY (202) 225-3701
Driehaus Ohio (202) 225-2216
Fudge Ohio (202) 225-7032
Kilroy Ohio (202) 225-2015
Cooper Tenn 202-225-4311
Edwards Tex 202-225-6105
Rodriguez Tex (202) 225-4511
Nye Va (202) 225-4215
Kagan Wisc (202) 225-5665

Leaning No:
Salazar Colo 202-225-4761
Marshall Ga 202/225-6531
Boswell Iowa (202) 225-3806
Minnick Idaho (202) 225-6611
Halvorson Ill (202) 225-3635
Etheridge NC (202) 225-4531
Kissell NC (202) 225-3715
Massa NY (202) 225-3161
Kaptur Ohio (202) 225-4146
Boccieri Ohio (202) 225-3876
R Gerlach Penna 202.225.4315
Hinojosa Tex (202) 225-2531
Mollohan WV (202) 225-4172
Rahall WV (202) 225-3452

My Congressperson is, of course, the execrable Lynn Woolsey, who undoubtedly thinks this bill doesn’t go far enough.

Share With Others:

Sphere: Related Content

Email This Post To A Friend

16 Responses to “Stopping Waxman Markey”

on 26 Jun 2009 at 12:43 pm 1» Financial News Update - 06/26/09 NoisyRoom.net: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the face of tyranny is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater

[...] Stopping Waxman Markey [...]
on 26 Jun 2009 at 12:43 pm 2Zhombre

The Once Great U.S. Economy: Kneecapped & Spayed by Cap & Trade.
on 26 Jun 2009 at 1:04 pm 3BrianE

There is a common theme to the proposals coming from the liberals, and unfortunately the American people are buying into it, given the rather cynical media filters feeding them.

Get used to less– less of everything, whether it’s health care, energy, your money, since their policies are long on wishful thinking and one dimension short of reality.

A poster child for this is the liberal reaction to the changing dynamics of the auto market. Flint, Michigan losing automotive jobs– solution bulldoze the declining neighborhoods and hunker down.

30% of fossil fuels in this country are used in the production of electricity, and of the electricity produced in this country 70% comes from coal, oil or natural gas.
Wind accounts for 1.3% and other alternate sources even less.

California, the leader in alternate energy, gets 10% from wind and 58% from coal, oil or gas. I haven’t been to California in a long time, but what does the landscape look like now? What will it look like in 2017 when 20% comes from wind and half of its energy still comes from coal, oil or gas?

And don’t forget we will always need a baseline energy souce, given the variability of wind. (I know solar has promise, but how much luck have Californians had getting solar plants built?)

So America, get used to less, and by the way, expect to pay more for it.

Until Democrats are willing to add nuclear to the mix of green energy sources, we can be assured this is about shutting America down, not about building a new future.
on 26 Jun 2009 at 2:39 pm 4Ymarsakar

My Congressperson is, of course, the execrable Lynn Woolsey, who undoubtedly thinks this bill doesn’t go far enough.

Please do more voice casts. It would have been very entertaining to hear you say that ; )
on 26 Jun 2009 at 2:55 pm 5kali

Tim Johnson’s office confirmed that he would be voting against it, but he was a reasonably safe “no” vote all along (except for the university, we’re a fairly conservative area)
on 26 Jun 2009 at 3:49 pm 6suek

Maybe some is actually going to look into the eligibility thing.

http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2009/090624/FrntPgObama.html

IF (and I know it’s a big if) Obama were to be declared ineligible to be president, anyone care to speculate on what would happen next?

My husband says Biden would be president. I say no – if O is not eligible, then McCain won the election. He says no- you’d be disenfranchising the 53% who voted for him. I say no…the Dems disenfranchised them…. He says the legal system would fight to avoid the uproar and court fights. I say maybe after one month of Obama, but now? Enough water under the bridge to wash out the bridge!

Any other ideas???
on 26 Jun 2009 at 3:51 pm 7suek

Maybe some _one_ is actually going to look into the eligibility thing.
on 26 Jun 2009 at 5:05 pm 8SADIE

(snip from the snipers)
Supporters and opponents agreed the result would be higher energy costs but disagreed vigorously on the impact on consumers. Democrats pointed to two reports — one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency — that suggested average increases would be limited after tax credits and rebates were taken into account. The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $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 costs to the economy and to individuals.

Think I will take my future electric bills and send them to 12 deserving Democrats to be paid.
on 27 Jun 2009 at 12:04 am 9March Hare

My Congressperson is, of course, the execrable Lynn Woolsey, who undoubtedly thinks this bill doesn’t go far enough.

Mine is George Miller, who basically is Mrs. Pelosi’s lap dog. Unfortunately, most of his constituents think he’s doing a terrific job and there seem to be no creditable Republicans to run against him.
on 27 Jun 2009 at 6:05 am 10David Foster

The performance of the business “community” in all of this has been pretty dismal. Just about every oil company, for example, has been frantically trying to wrap a green mantle around themselves: few if any have seriously attempted to educate people about the realities of energy.
on 27 Jun 2009 at 10:01 am 11BrianE

Surprise, surprise the bill won’t go in effect until 2012 with a mandated 6% reduction in CO2. So at the beginning Americans won’t feel much effects of this. The $175 per household figure is based on reductions mandated by 2020.
Of course, the target emissions in 2080 would have us producing less CO2 than we did in the 1800s.
My understanding is that GE, which owns a majority stake in NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC has already set up a trading company to trade carbon credits. I would be curious as to these media outlets treatment of this issue on the whole.
It still has to pass the senate.
on 27 Jun 2009 at 10:29 am 12BrianE

Here is a good analysis of the supposed economic benefits of the bill:

http://theamericanscene.com/2009/05/20/waxman-markey-cost-benefit-analysis

Costs vs. Benefits of Waxman-Markey

Let’s start with the costs. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has done the first cost estimate for Waxman-Markey. It finds (page 17) that by 2020 Waxman-Markey would cause a typical U.S. household to consume about $160 less per year than it otherwise would, and about $1,100 less per year by 2050 (before any potential benefits from avoiding warming). That doesn’t sound like the end of the world, but this cost estimate is based on a number of assumptions that seem pretty unrealistic, to put it mildly.

First, it assumes that every dollar collected by selling the right to emit carbon dioxide will be returned to taxpayers through rebates or lowered taxes. Waxman-Markey establishes this intention but doesn’t (as of the time I’m writing this) describe how it would be achieved, which reflects the political difficulty of achieving it. Second, it assumes no costs for enforcement and other compliance measures, which would be awfully nice. Third, it assumes that large numbers of foreign offsets will be available for purchase; without these, costs would be far higher. Fourth, it assumes that the rest of the world will begin similar carbon-reduction programs. Lack of such foreign action would either increase U.S. costs or risk a trade war if we tried to compensate for lack of international cooperation with targeted tariffs. Fifth, it assumes that there will be no exemptions or other side deals—that is, no economic drag created by the kind of complexity that has attached to every large, long-term revenue-collection program in history. And so on.

Let’s assume that we have a national interest in reducing the use of fossil fuels, which would also have the effect of reducing CO2.
Wouldn’t it be more productive to take the same costs we are going to impose in the cap and trade scenario and just embark on a national build out of nuclear, wind, solar and geothermal, since that is the ultimate goal anyway?
Of course, I can answer my own question. With nuclear off the table, wind, solar and geothermal can’t produce the kinds of production to meaningfully reduce fossil fuel consumption. Since smart people on both sides of the aisle realize that, the alternative is what the cap and trade bill is going to produce– less energy use which will have a negative effect greater than the costs attributed to the bill.
Unless we figure out how to extract hydrogen from water economically.
on 27 Jun 2009 at 10:35 am 13SADIE

It only gets uglier and uglier the more I read.

EPA told to suppress….

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330911757213432

BrianE:

From your mouth to the Financial Ninja’s ears….

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FiNhXIv5StE/SkNuOE55QGI/AAAAAAAAEQI/BDbkVtClXQg/s1600-h/GE.png
on 27 Jun 2009 at 11:03 am 14suek

>>Surprise, surprise the bill won’t go in effect until 2012 >>

Good – maybe there’ll be a chance to stop it and reverse the legislation.
on 28 Jun 2009 at 7:06 am 15Danny Lemieux

Suek – unfortunately, the delay in implementation will have the opposite effect. It will convince the electorate that it really was a “no pain” act and that the Republicans were exagerating fears.

I am convinced that the next election (next year) may be our last truly free election for a long time. After that, it will be too late to repeal the legislation.
on 28 Jun 2009 at 2:38 pm 16BrianE

One Democrat was upset that his leaders would needlessly force vulnerable Dems to vote for a bill that will come back to haunt them. Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor (D) voted against the measure that he says will die in the Senate.

“A lot of people walked the plank on a bill that will never become law,” Taylor told The Hill after the gavel came down.

From an article in “The Hill”

Last two paragraphs.