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.

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.

Good – maybe there’ll be a chance to stop it and reverse the legislation.

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

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.

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.

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.