| Author | Post |
|---|
T R
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 182 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 04:29 pm |
|
How can our Congressmen vote for or against a bill that has not been released to the floor? How can they vote for a bill that they have not read? You don't think that they would vote along party lines no matter the contents, do you? Why did the bill that would make legislation available for 72 hours before it is to be voted on fail?
And they want us to trust them!!!!
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 28th, 2009 09:42 pm |
|
Government working for YOU
Senator John Kerry continues to demonstrate how he managed to flub the 2004 election every time he opens his goofy mouth. Obviously Democrats have realized that the term 'Cap n Trade' has a hugely negative connotation with the public, so Kerry sought to change the language in the latest Climate bill he is proposing, calling it a 'pollution reduction' bill.
From the NY Times: Kerry last week sought to change the vernacular surrounding the climate bill and sell its concepts more broadly, insisting it is not a "cap and trade" proposal but a "pollution reduction" bill. "I don't know what 'cap and trade' means. I don't think the average American does," Kerry said. "This is not a cap-and-trade bill, it's a pollution reduction bill."
If you don't know what Cap and Trade means, how do you know it is 'not a cap-and-trade bill?' STORY
|
tspong
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 28th, 2009 04:19 pm |
|
Copied below is a letter to the editor submitted to the Delaware State News. You can post your opinions by clicking on "Reply."
Cap & Trade?
Colin A. Hanna is president of "Let Freedom Ring." Recently we found him ringing away in the "Washington Times," possibly the best conservative newspaper around.
The subject was Cap & Trade legislation which Obama & Co. has rammed through a spoon-fed House of Representatives. Now the Senate has to act!
But Obama’s star is fading and many perceptive thinkers are taking a serious look under the covers of this disaster in the making.
Hanna observes, the Association of Manufacturers and the American Council have discovered that this union-backed legislation would actually increase the number of manufacturing jobs lost to overseas sources. Their analysis indicates that, should this legislation be enacted, over 1.8 million jobs would be lost by 2030. This includes "green jobs" created by Cap & Trade.
Hanna also notes that Cap & Trade would have serious economic costs for low/middle income families. These costs include lower wages, increased energy costs and higher taxes. An aside, Cap & Trade has been shown to have a negligible effect on global temperatures.
So why are unions endorsing Cap & Trade? For generations union families have looked to their unions for better working conditions. Now it seems those unions have turned to leftist dogmas over and above their workers’ interest.
As an example, when the Teamsters pleaded support for oil drilling in the Arctic, which would create more jobs, their union leaders condemned the projects. They turned from their own workers to unsubstantiated environmentalists. They followed the liberal left Democrats. George Meaney and Lane Kirkland probably turned over in their graves.
Hanna points out that Ronald Reagan gained union workers’ votes on the simple grounds of trust and shared patriotic-social values. Note this was partly because their leaders had lost touch with the rank and file. In the meantime, Ronald Reagan properly reflected their ideals.
Perhaps a new Republican leader can rekindle their support! Their leaders have again lost touch with the working man’s needs and values. Let’s help them find a strong leader. Republican needs and values have always been close to the workers in this dear country.
Readers, let’s team together to squash this dangerous Cap & Trade bill! Let’s lobby our friends and especially our vulnerable U.S. senators!
And, let’s thank Colin Hanna!
Daniel G. Anderson
Rehoboth Beach, and Chevy Chase, Md.
To respond to this letter, go to http://www.newszap.com, go to "Cap and Trade" in the State of Delaware Public Forum.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 4th, 2009 12:56 pm |
|
| How can you press your agenda and pass legislation when every vote hinges on passing the filibuster test?
|
Uncle Fire
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 4th, 2009 05:29 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: When did the Republicans own a filibuster free majoriy in the Congress for 12 years?
How is that even relevant? Its not.
They held 3 key areas of gov. and passed pretty much what they wanted.
The polices of the republican party have had effects. And so will this congress and president.
Many, not all, many, of the issues we have now are b/c of Bush's administration and policies. Obama will no doubt create his own issues.
To say Bush doesn't deserve any accountability for SOME of what we have today is naive and flat out wrong.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 4th, 2009 01:59 am |
|
| When did the Republicans own a filibuster free majoriy in the Congress for 12 years?
|
Uncle Fire
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 4th, 2009 12:59 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: When a Liberal can't argue logically, they blame it on Bush.
Typical cop-out. Gee, I thought conservatives/republicans were all about accountability and responsibility.
Are you suggesting that policies in the Bush administration over 8 yrs and 12 yrs of republican majority in both houses of congress have no consequences?
Heck, some republicans are still complaining about what Clinton did.
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 4th, 2009 12:56 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: When a Liberal can't argue logically, they blame it on Bush.
Always and absolutely!! Saul Alinsky!!
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 09:52 pm |
|
| When a Liberal can't argue logically, they blame it on Bush.
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 482 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 08:21 pm |
|
tink: and the closed minds are also dominating the opposite side of the argument. Considering the most prominent anti-AGW figure in the last decade also made several ludicrous statements like 'You're doing a heck of a job Brownie" and 'the jury is still out on evolution.' It is difficult to image what level of data is necessary to convince anyone from the other side.
|
Tinkerbelle
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 319 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 07:43 pm |
|
| Kirk, not all are of the same mindset but those in the UN and liberal politics would make it seem that wy. Remember Al Gore saying, "The science is settled?" They claim that there is no debate. Right you are that stats can be played with. Look at the large number of temperature stations that are giving inacurate readings because they were not properly placed according to NOAA standards thus giving false readings. The AGW advocates, more specifically Team AGO that Bix references refuse to take that into account. This is a world-wide problem.
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 482 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 07:05 pm |
|
duncan: I do not have a degree in science, but I do have enough background in statistics to understand the argument. AGW, just like any other politicized topic, has a range of views. Contrary to Bix's post - there is no one AGW argument that says "all climate change is solely the result of human activity". He is constructing a false argument when wording the debate in that manner.
AGW advocates have a range of political views and objectives, just like anti-AGW people. Just as it would be unfair to lump all anti-AGW people into a simplistic monoculture, the reverse also applies. Such bi-modal views of the world are very inaccurate.
Now, if we want to return to the debate on cap and trade that would probably be more interesting than rehashing the oft-posted lengthy ramblings of cut-n-paste list-serve notes pretending to be scientific analysis.
|
Duncan Idaho
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 481 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 04:20 pm |
|
Kirk: I sincerely hope that you are not an advocate for AGW. Bix's past posts (here is one of them) makes one think. I hope that's what you are doing. Just making us think and engaging in honest debate on an issue that is yet unsettled.
Bixby wrote: The Commissars of Cool
"Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue; or in any manner affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change and can trace its consequences; a harvest reared not by themselves but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow citizens." --Federalist No. 62
Last week, scores of Americans were mesmerized by an event they believed would have consequences of epic proportions for the nation. No, I'm not referring to the passage of the colossal CO2 "cap and trade" legislation, but the MSM's endless and equally mindless tributes to, um, well I can't recall his name but I think he was a black artiste who somehow morphed into a white performer -- but then, hybrids are all the rage these days.
Meanwhile, as the masses slumbered, the House passed H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey version of Barack Hussein Obama's Orwellian legislation to regulate and tax CO2 -- a gas byproduct of cellular synthesis and industrial output, ostensibly responsible for global climate change. The measure, all 310 pages of it, passed by a narrow vote of 219-212. Some 44 Democrats voted against the legislation, but eight Republicans voted for it, giving BHO the first leg of a cap-n-tax victory.
The two most invasive means our central government has at its disposal to control American lives and livelihoods are taxation and regulation, and this bill is a double header. It authorizes BHO's government to collect substantial new taxes and to exercise unprecedented economic control via new environmental regulations, all against a backdrop of the worst economic decline since Jimmy Carter was at the helm. (Fortunately Ronald Reagan implemented the right formula for economic recovery -- BO's "solution" is Carter's formula.)
After the bill's passage, Obama trotted out this whopper: "Thanks to members of Congress who were willing to place America's progress before the usual Washington politics, this bill will create new businesses, new industries, and millions of new jobs, all without imposing untenable new burdens on the American people or America's businesses."
Of course, that depends on what the definition of "untenable" is. In January 2008, Obama proclaimed, "nder my plan of a cap and trade [sic] system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket ... because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas ... you name it ... whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. ... [T]hey will pass that money on to the consumers."
Sidebar: Anyone interested in retaining what remains of the legacy of liberty bequeathed to us by our Founders might take pause to consider what BHO meant by "you name it," since you and everyone you know are emitters of CO2. Think about it: An American president is regulating and taxing carbon dioxide, the very thing we exhale, and the very thing that green plants on this planet use to generate the oxygen which sustains us.
Cap-n-tax requires American manufacturers to reduce by 2020 carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases by 17 percent from their 2005 emission levels. Even more egregiously, it requires an 80 percent cut by 2050. Industries would be "allocated" government permits specifying allowances for these gases. About 15 percent of these permits would be auctioned to the highest bidders and the resulting revenues would be transferred to offset energy expenses for Obama's low-income constituents.
And you thought the U.S. Tax Code was convoluted?
Now, if you're still under the illusion that Waxman's Malarkey is about saving the planet, you're either: A) a card-carrying member of BHO's sycophantic socialists; B) a true-believing disciple of AlGore's eco-theology; or C) too distracted by coverage of that chameleon-guy's funeral.
Here, at least the socialists are intellectually honest about their objectives. Albert Arnold Gore's minions, on the other hand, are still hooked on phony assumptions about the relationship between CO2 and climate change -- as if our planet's climate is supposed to remain utterly unchanged for all time. (Of course, Gore's objectives are the same as BHO's.)
However, the climate debate (yes, there is one) is far from over.
It is not for me to suggest that the extremely complex ecology of our planet -- its trillions of organisms and ecosystems and its interaction with the Sun -- is beyond the scope of what human scientists can understand so conclusively as to project how the restriction of one small contributory element, among all environmental influences, will affect our climate 100 years from now. After all, my advanced degrees are limited to psychology and public affairs.
Instead, you can read what some of the planets most renowned scientists have to say about climate change in "Global Warming: Fact, Fiction and Political Endgame" (update coming soon).
Or start with an open letter to Congress delivered last week, from academicians including Princeton physicists Will Happer and Robert Austin, and climatologist Richard Lindzen of MIT, in which they insist, "The sky is not falling ... the Earth has been cooling for 10 years [a trend that] was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them."
Heritage Foundation Senior Policy Analyst Ben Lieberman aptly sums up the current state of climate change hysteria. "Both the seriousness and imminence of anthropogenic global warming has been overstated. [H.R. 2454] would have a trivial impact on future concentrations of greenhouse gases. ...[It is projected to] reduce the earth's future temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degree C by 2100, an amount too small to even notice." (For the record, it would do this at an average annual cost of $2,979 per family of four. So much for BHO's pledge not to raise our taxes.)
A recent MIT study likewise concludes, "The different U.S. policies have relatively small effects on the CO2 concentration if other regions do not follow the U.S. lead. ... The Developed Only scenario cuts only about 0.5 °C of the warming from the reference, again illustrating the importance of developing country participation."
Two of the biggest producers of CO2, China and India, will continue industrial production unencumbered by this self-mutilating sham. Indeed, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson confessed in a Senate hearing this week, "I believe that ... U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels."
As former House Speaker Newt Gingrich explains, "The sponsors of Waxman-Markey are telling Americans that not only will the legislation save us from calamitous climate change, it will also produce new jobs and new prosperity by transitioning America to new forms of 'green' energy. In other words, there's no trade-off necessary to save the planet; no price to be paid. It's a win-win-win. Right. And 2+2=5. The reality is that the bill before the House today imposes what could be the largest tax increase in history on the American people. And every single one of us who heats a home, drives a car, and manufactures or consumes products made in America will pay the price."
Of course, Gingrich could be wrong. BHO's cap-n-tax plan could be as economically successful as his "stimulus" package. Oh, wait, that hasn't produced a single private sector job -- and the ranks of the unemployed have still soared. But maybe it "saved" some jobs that might have been cut, and it has certainly funded countless marginal government jobs occupied by the marginally employable in order to swell the ranks of government unions -- the Left's permanent constituency.
And at the expense of incomprehensible deficit accumulation that exceeds all previous presidents combined -- but I digress.
Cap-n-tax is nothing more than a well-executed piece of BHO's socialist playbook, which seeks to ratify central government administration of the economy by way of regulation and taxation.
This unbearable piece of legislation is now on its way to the Senate, where Obama has a filibuster-proof majority with the arrival of that "clown from Minnesota." It is likely to face opposition from some centrist Democrats, but, regretfully, there are still enough wayward Republicans left in the Senate to give Obama a victory.
Here, I would challenge the members of that august body to find anything in our Constitution's prescription for Rule of Law authorizing the central government to administer any and all elements of commerce that produce some amount of CO2. But then, who pays homage to the credence of that venerable old document, other than the 65 or 70 million modern-day Patriots standing at the ready to restore constitutional Rule of Law?
Next up -- ObamaCare -- and you thought cap-n-tax was bad. Again, I'm quite sure that there isn't a word in our Constitution authorizing the central government to administer healthcare, but then...
(From The Patriot Post)
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 482 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 02:48 pm |
|
Bix: because there are multiple causes to temperature changes. And, with a little training in statistics, we can focus on something called a Chow Test (an unfortunate name for a mathematician) which evaluates data series for structural changes. Advocates for AGW do not assert (at least the ones with any serious background in science) that all global warming is the result of man made causes. Rather, man made causes have altered the rate at which this is occuring.
While this does not sound too serious (it was all going to happen anyways) it is the fact that we have sped up the process by several centuries that is problematic.
Instead of having a few hundred (perhaps thousands) of years to figure out responses to our changing climate we are now reduced to a period measured in decades. A precursor of what can go wrong can be seen with New Orleans. (No, I do not advocate that any/all hurricane activity is a result of climate changes that have occured so far. Those people are nuts.) I look at the fact that we had a miserable time figuring out how to relocate 400,000 people on short notice. What kind of social unrest should we expect when millions of people living at sea level get displaced? How about the other billion or so that live just a few feet above sea level, like much of the U.S. population? NYC, Baltimore, DC (hmmmm, that's one way to clean up that town), Miami, Tampa/St.Pete, Houston, San Diego, LA, Delaware, etc...
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2354 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 12:16 pm |
|
| One of the questions that Team AGW (anthropogenic global warming or man-caused gw) is unable or unwilling to answer is: If man is responsible for the rise in CO2 which, in the Team AGW view causes the heating of the planet, is if such is the case then why have temperatures been rising BEFORE the rise in CO2 levels? There have been lags as much as 800 years. There is no cause and effect.
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 01:29 am |
|
The Euro-Meddlers
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 02, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Global Warming: Given rising voter anger, members of the U.S. Senate can't be blamed for going wobbly on costly cap-and-trade legislation. But maybe members of the EU Parliament can buck them up. Let's hope not.
Read More: Global Warming
Not satisfied just with ruining their own continent's economy, a few Euro-pols want to come over here and do us the same favor.
The Waxman-Markey version of cap-and-trade already passed the House in June on a narrow 219-212 vote. Now these members of the European Parliament want to lend support as their green-left comrades in the U.S. Senate ponder doing the same.
With China and India saying they won't take part in this green nonsense, the Euro-socialists' only hope is to get a foolish U.S. to pass an economically ruinous cap-and-trade bill by 2012. That's when the failed Kyoto Protocol to curb greenhouse gases expires.
"We have had signals from the Senate that it would be useful to send a delegation from the European Parliament before they take a decision," said Jo Leinen, the Euro-Parliament's top green official.
"Useful"? Memo to Congress and the Euro-pols: Cap-and-trade is wildly unpopular with Americans. No matter how many suave European continentals you send here, it won't change voters' minds.
Yet, as long as they're here, we hope they'll submit to a town hall meeting or two to answer a few pointed questions, such as:
• Why did CO2 emissions actually increase by 0.8% in Europe after the first phase of their plan began in 2005?
• Why did European officials create more carbon permits than CO2 emissions, thereby causing the price of carbon to collapse?
• What should American politicians tell their tax-wary constituents, given that 56% in a recent Rasmussen poll said they wouldn't pay one penny more in taxes to cut greenhouse gases?
While they're at it, they should also address the growing number of studies that show cap-and trade would be an economic disaster.
A recent Heritage Foundation study found that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill would cost the average family of four $4,609 a year and reduce overall GDP by $9.4 trillion by 2035. Some 2.5 million jobs will disappear over the same time.
Similarly, a George C. Marshall Institute review of a number of studies found similar high costs and huge job losses, on average. Taxes, for instance, would rise $2,000 by 2030. Food costs would go up $2,500 a year. Energy prices would grow 145%.
Such economic losses are intolerable. The Euro-pols are, of course, always welcome here. We can use their tourist euros. But they might want to watch some Tea Party YouTubes before they come over and start pushing Euro-style taxes on Americans.
Print | View All Editorials | Search
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 03:08 am |
|
Last edited on Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 03:09 am by dover-diva
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 2nd, 2009 12:09 am |
|
dover-diva wrote: I am going to do my best to give you some of the highlights from my 4 page letter I received from Mr. Castle on Wed.
"His priority begins with the economic opportunity and security for all who live in DE. What with state budget shortfalls,stagnant growth blah, blah, blah---"
"Major threat is our dependence on foreign oil ( my question ----is Canada considered that foreign to the USA?? Maybe Venzuala, but don't we LOVE Mexico?) Reliance on less than friendly gov'ts and indirect transmission of Am. dollars- into hands of those who organize to do us harm."
"Reflects a major wake-up call for diversifying our energy sources."
"Based on a report by 12 retired Generals and Admirals titled " National Security and the Threat of climate change" clearly stated our dependence on foreign oil, reduces our international leverage, places our troops in dangerous global regions"----------blah,blah-------
"The recent vote in the House of Representatives on the energy bill was whether to pursue new energy strategies, or hold onto the status quo-------------"
"I supported the legislation, because it is my belief, that we cannot turn away from the opportunity to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy and create new jobs".
He heard from Delaware Employers who were all excited ( I am now para phrasing) b/c it would a boon it would be for their business---------
ION POWER
ECLIPSE SOLAR
BLUEWATER WIND
DEL TECH- who will be developing an applied education center--------
Folks I did whittle it down, but, it is what he did write to me--- I wonder if he read this thing cause that isn't the way I understood the bill to be----- But silly me, what do I know 
Last edited on Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 03:07 am by dover-diva
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 1st, 2009 10:28 pm |
|
Last edited on Sun Aug 2nd, 2009 12:13 am by dover-diva
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 1st, 2009 12:17 am |
|
Last edited on Sun Aug 2nd, 2009 12:11 am by dover-diva
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 1st, 2009 12:16 am |
|
Last edited on Sat Aug 1st, 2009 12:16 am by dover-diva
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31st, 2009 10:42 pm |
|
tspong
Some may not know that Delaware already participates in the country’s first regional cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) along with nine other states in our area. The energy bill proposes a national standard, rather than having a small number of states bear the burden of what should be a nationwide effort.
This bill has been unfairly criticized as a jobs killer. While there may be a shift in jobs available in the energy industry, Delaware is poised to lead in alternative energy innovation such as offshore wind, fuel cells, and solar initiatives. Business, community and government leaders agree that Delaware will create new jobs in these important areas.
Kate Dickens
Legislative and Communications Director
Representative Mike Castle
If De is such a leader in anti-pollution, why is it that Nissan, who makes a very nice hybrid Altima (which I got by going out of state) won't even consider marketing this vehicle in the state of DE ??? They consider our state's air/pollution standards to be sub-standard.Last edited on Sun Aug 2nd, 2009 12:14 am by dover-diva
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31st, 2009 07:17 pm |
|
I am going to do my best to give you some of the highlights from my 4 page letter I received from Mr. Castle on Wed.
"His priority begins with the economic opportunity and security for all who live in DE. What with state budget shortfalls,stagnant growth blah, blah, blah---"
"Major threat is our dependence on foreign oil ( my question ----is Canada considered that foreign to the USA??) Reliance on less than friendly gov'ts and indirect transmission of Am. dollars- into hands of those who organize to do us harm."
"Reflects a major wake-up call for diversifying our energy sources."
"Based on a report by 12 retired Generals and Admirals titled " National Security and the Threat of climate change" clearly stated our dependence on foreign oil, reduces our international leverage, places our troops in dangerous global regions"----------blah,blah-------
"The recent vote in the House of Representatives on the energy bill was whether to pursue new energy strategies, or hold onto the status quo-------------"
"I supported the legislation, because it is my belief, that we cannot turn away from the opportunity to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy and create new jobs".
Heard from Delaware Employers who were all excited ( I am now papa phrasing) would a boon it would be for their business
ION POWER
ECLIPSE SOLAR
BLUEWATER WIND
DEL TECH- who will be developing an applied education center--------
Folks I did whittle it down, but, it is what he did write to me--- I wonder if he read this thing cause that isn't the way I understood the bill to be----- But silly me, what do I know 
Last edited on Fri Jul 31st, 2009 07:20 pm by dover-diva
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31st, 2009 05:59 pm |
|
His PR person writes a good letter and she is correct that Castle didn't vote for the other killer bill , the Porkulus bill that was rushed through. What he will do on the health bill remains to be seen but the House has enough Democrats to enact a "Monday is Friday" bill and it doesn''t need to make any more sense.
His vote on the so-called energy bill was a massive political mistake , more because he positioned himself as proponent of the global warming scam than because of what the possible benefits to us could be. Ignoring overwhelming opposition from constituents was silly, too. He simply aligned himself with people who see the need to deal with our energy problems by punishing people and business with higher costs without having the good sense to first try the approach that we need shared sacrifice and self sufficiency to the point we can manage it. We should be producing as much of our own oil as we can to avoid draining our dollars overseas [even if most of it goes to Canada and Mexico]. If the Dems had taken that approach instead of playing Al Gore frontmen , they, and our beleagured Congressman may have found a far less skeptical public on their side instead of violently opposed to having their future impacted by a bill no one read that was rushed through to make Pelosi appear omnipotent.
Last edited on Sun Aug 2nd, 2009 02:35 am by Hartlyboy
|
tspong
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31st, 2009 03:14 pm |
|
Copied below is a letter to the editor submitted to the Delaware State News. You can post your opinions by clicking on Reply.
In response to the letter printed July 29, I am writing to set the record straight on Congressman Mike Castle’s recent votes in the U.S. Congress.
As the health care debate continues, Rep. Castle has demonstrated clear opposition to the proposal considered in the House of Representatives and has voted against the bill as considered in the Education and Labor Committee. The bill’s contents remain in contentious debate among the Democrats in the House, and it has not yet come to a vote in the full House. The Congressman has been vocal in his disapproval throughout the process and even held a press conference — at which time he called on House Democrats to allow Republican legislators to participate in the bill development and insisted that cost cutting measures should be at the forefront of any health reform plan.
The letter then states that the Congressman supported the federal stimulus bill, which he condemned and voted against. He has been clear from the beginning that the stimulus bill (all deficit spending) was too large and should have been targeted to infrastructure and job creation. Now that we can no longer prevent the funds from being spent, Castle will work to ensure that Delaware’s taxpayer dollars are spent in Delaware and not in another state.
The energy bill was indeed a controversial vote, but the fact is that in addition to those who oppose the bill, there are also thousands of Delawareans who support the effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and on fossil fuels in general. Castle reluctantly supported this bill because he trusts the military leaders who agree that the United States must be more energy self-sufficient. Our reliance on less than friendly governments and the indirect transmission of American dollars into the hands of those who organize to harm us reflects a major wake-up call for diversifying our energy sources. The most contentious element of the bill has been the cost to consumers. The fact is that the Congressional Budget Office has determined that any increase to families and individuals could be in the form of higher utility costs up to $175 per year, beginning in year 2020 with most low and middle income taxpayers exempt. Without a change in the way that we derive and consume energy, experts state that the cost of fossil fuels will actually increase utility bills at a faster rate.
Some may not know that Delaware already participates in the country’s first regional cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) along with nine other states in our area. The energy bill proposes a national standard, rather than having a small number of states bear the burden of what should be a nationwide effort.
This bill has been unfairly criticized as a jobs killer. While there may be a shift in jobs available in the energy industry, Delaware is poised to lead in alternative energy innovation such as offshore wind, fuel cells, and solar initiatives. Business, community and government leaders agree that Delaware will create new jobs in these important areas.
Kate Dickens
Legislative and Communications Director
Representative Mike Castle
Note: The letter to which this letter responds, which was published July 29 in the Delaware State News, was posted on this topic thread July 24.
|
Lavitakus
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27th, 2009 06:11 am |
|
Hartlyboy wrote: I wonder if others , like myself, have such disgust with the cap and trade laws because we feel they are based on unproven mythology [co2 =global warming, we did it, etc., etc.]. Poll after poll shows the majority of us do not believe that and more are becoming skeptical all the time. All the window dressing about green jobs and how we are greedy Americans sucking up all the world's oil and such blather are also rubbing salt into the wound since many of us recognize that while we consume large amounts of oil , we are the #3 producer in the world and we buy the majority of what we import from our next door neighbors [Canada and Mexico] who share much of the benefits of our indutrialized society. In fact, the Canadians use more oil per person [27 bbls/yr] than we do [25 bbl/yr] but because their population is 1/10 of ours, they don't get all the Al Gore whining about how our use is denying the bushmen of Africa an SUV.
The point Congress should have made primary is that it is in our national interest [forget the rest of the world] to stop flooding our national treasure out the door for oil and we need to drastically drop the use of it. I would have accepted that AND , yes, rationing as being more like what we needed to do. If we all only got 10 gallons a week, we could trade those credits just like the big boys and figure out how to make a difference. As it is, I just feel we've all been duped by some special interests, haven't been listened to by our representatives and are pawns in the game rather than players trying to do something useful. Of course , after the Pork bill that Congress pushed through , we might not have bought into the need to actually save any of national treasure and reduce the deficits. Like trying to bail a rowboat with a teaspoon.
I would say that those who stand to lose the most money will use this " wiki-science" template as a last ditch effort to keep the debate( amongst themselves at this point, unfortunately) afloat. realistically, it's a redistribution and that is what they don't like about it. You see, they always had " the smarket will fix itself" to keep the pilfering going but they seem to have sold themselves the rope, as they say.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 26th, 2009 11:10 pm |
|
I wonder if others , like myself, have such disgust with the cap and trade laws because we feel they are based on unproven mythology [co2 =global warming, we did it, etc., etc.]. Poll after poll shows the majority of us do not believe that and more are becoming skeptical all the time. All the window dressing about green jobs and how we are greedy Americans sucking up all the world's oil and such blather are also rubbing salt into the wound since many of us recognize that while we consume large amounts of oil , we are the #3 producer in the world and we buy the majority of what we import from our next door neighbors [Canada and Mexico] who share much of the benefits of our indutrialized society. In fact, the Canadians use more oil per person [27 bbls/yr] than we do [25 bbl/yr] but because their population is 1/10 of ours, they don't get all the Al Gore whining about how our use is denying the bushmen of Africa an SUV.
The point Congress should have made primary is that it is in our national interest [forget the rest of the world] to stop flooding our national treasure out the door for oil and we need to drastically drop the use of it. I would have accepted that AND , yes, rationing as being more like what we needed to do. If we all only got 10 gallons a week, we could trade those credits just like the big boys and figure out how to make a difference. As it is, I just feel we've all been duped by some special interests, haven't been listened to by our representatives and are pawns in the game rather than players trying to do something useful. Of course , after the Pork bill that Congress pushed through , we might not have bought into the need to actually save any of national treasure and reduce the deficits. Like trying to bail a rowboat with a teaspoon.
Last edited on Mon Jul 27th, 2009 04:41 am by Hartlyboy
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2354 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 26th, 2009 09:59 pm |
|
SINGAPORE - Negotiators face a mammoth task to try to agree by the end of the year on the outlines of broader climate pact to replace the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol.
Key issues such as financing climate change adaptation programs in developing nations, transfer of clean-energy technology and disagreements over rich nations' targets to cut planet-warming emissions still need to be resolved.
Following are responses from Howard Bamsey, Australia's special envoy on climate change, on how the negotiations are proceeding as nations step up the momentum to try to seal the pact during a U.N. gathering in Copenhagen in December. (Reuters)
Responses click onto link:
Is Time Running Out To Seal Post-Kyoto Climate Pact?
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 24th, 2009 06:55 pm |
|
Sent similar letter to mr. castle. 3 times. Yet to have a reply. i told him to check the newszap forum, so he could get the scope of how angry people are.
(Maybe when they break for vacation-he'll really go on vacation.) Me thinks he's going to get an earful.
|
tspong
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 24th, 2009 03:30 pm |
|
Copied below is a letter to the editor submitted to the Delaware State News. You can post your opinions by clicking on "Reply."
OUR CONGRESSMAN SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO HIS CONSTITUENTS.
Mike Castle is Delaware’s sole Congressman. The majority of us are appalled that Mr. Castle voted for the "Cap & Trade" Bill when the great majority of his constituents asked him to vote against it. He voted for this knowing full well that it would increase our taxes, would reduce U.S. manufacturer’s ability to compete, and would certainly increase job losses in Delaware.
You are probably aware that Mr. Castle also endorsed the "Stimulu Package" which has myriad problems. We understand that he has also indicated that he may vote for the disastrous "Health Care" bill which is now underway in Congress.
Mike Castle is clearly entitled to his own personal opinions, radical as they may be, but as Delaware’s only voice in the House of Representatives, he should first reflect the needs, opinions and concerns of his Constituents who are "The People."
Daniel G. Anderson
Rehoboth Beach
|
tspong
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 24th, 2009 03:29 pm |
|
Copied below is a letter to the editor submitted to the Delaware State News. You can post your opinions by clicking on "Reply."
The following is a letter to U.S. Rep. Michael N. Castle, R-Del., dated July 8. A copy was sent to the Delaware State News for publication.
I understand that you decided to vote for the Cap & Trade Bill.
We both know that Cap & Trade will increase taxes, reduce our manufacturing companies ability to compete, and ultimately increase job losses.
Those of you who voted for this bill must have had some good reasons to believe it would somehow benefit your constituents.
Some Delaware Republicans and I request that you write us and put into words exactly how you believe Cap & Trade will improve our economy and help your constituents.
We will appreciate your response in writing within 10 days. If we do not receive this, we plan to make this request public.
Daniel G. Anderson
Rehoboth Beach Last edited on Fri Jul 24th, 2009 03:31 pm by tspong
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 802 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 17th, 2009 03:06 am |
|
Carbon credits are a form of fiat currency, yet as calls for carbon trading grow, ironically, another fiat currency collapses—destroying life savings, wiping out jobs, and taking down historic institutions overnight.
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 4822 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 16th, 2009 11:01 pm |
|
It is not endangered species, naturalists, or California environmental policies that are killing us.
In your dreams Kirk, in your dreams. It is, without a doubt, those whacko CA enviro weenie policies that are destroying this nation. There is some weirdo mindset that has the concept that if CA does it we have to as well.
Bravo Sierra. The fruits and nuts of CA need to stay where they are and those proposing the same crapola elsewhere in the US need to move to CA and stay there..........Then we need to just give them their own independence and delete anything and everything from all state and federal codes that originated from dumba$$ idea in CA.
That will be the first step toward returning this nation to her roots.
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 482 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 16th, 2009 06:43 pm |
|
Bix: is it justified? The cop-out answer is, "That is up to voters to decide", but from a personal perspective I see it is a matter of national policy interests. During different national emergencies, we have had to put up with some rather nasty social policies. During WW2 there were food, petrol, and many other price controls and quantity rationing. During the oil embargo in the 1970s we had gasoline purchasing restrictions. During the initial stages of our "War on Terrorism" we had to put up with secret wire taps and loss of privacy. We had a national immunization program because of polio, measles, mumps and TB. Sometimes the emergency is military in nature, sometimes the emergency is resource based. In this case, we have a resource emergency with national security implications. I do not want such social policies, but many millions of people appear to behave as if there is nothing amiss - we may need something that restricts some of our choices. We put up with 55 mph speed limits for a while, and something like that may be a necessary part of a wider policy package to reduce oil imports. While I appreciate all the "Greens" want to claim energy conservation as their cause, it is also the cause for many people concerned about the long-term security of our country. If the environmentalists want to buy into a 'cap and trade' program, great. Let's choose to be quiet about how this was the policy proposal of George W. Bush while Governor of Texas, and Ronald Reagan while President of the U.S. so that we don't lose their votes for the package. At present, we do not have an energy shortage in the U.S., we have an oil shortage.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2354 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 16th, 2009 03:44 pm |
|
Kirk wrote: As to petroleum prices... The less we use in the U.S., then the less money we are sending to countries in the world with agendas that are often contradictory to our own. How else are we going to get people to stop using gasoline? So far, asking us to conserve by driving slower failed. Asking us to buy more fuel efficient cars failed. Asking us to conserve fuel by carpooling or telecommuting, or riding transit, or living closer to their work, or bicycling, walking, crawling.... have all failed. Asking has failed to change behavior that is clearly contrary to our national interests. Congress has reached a point where they appear to believe that it is time to change laws to force changes in behavior. Since Congress does not have the support of voters to raise imported fuel prices by taxing the snot out of it, they get in through the back door and tax generating carbon. Is it a perfect substitute? Of course not.
Kirk. What you say is very true and you have aptly described the thinking of cap-and-trade supporters, but do you think that government forcing different behavior is justified? If they can force behavior in this area, they can (and will) force it in other areas such as health care among others. Cap and trade will force a much higher cost of living on all of us, less personal freedom and a less comfortable, convenient, dignified and hopeful existence. Last edited on Thu Jul 16th, 2009 03:45 pm by Bixby
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 482 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 16th, 2009 12:01 am |
|
I think there is some confusion about energy and oil.
Diva is correct, we have plenty of energy resources in the U.S. As it is, the overwhelming majority of our energy comes from domestic sources. When we turn on anything electric - most of it comes from coal, natural gas (more domestic than imported), and nuclear sources... with nukes being a distant third.
We do not have either an energy policy, nor a domestic industrial policy. We have had neither for a very long time. The reason I bring this up is that we have a dependence on a certain form of applicable energy - namely light petroleum refined as gasoline. It does not matter if we blast the top off of every mountain for coal, dig up every coastal reef, drill in every Alaskan (or elsewehre) refuge... these are not producing readily usable forms of energy - aka gasoline.
The major policy idea behind "cap and trade" is that this forces Americans to rethink the way we use energy, mostly petroleum. Theoretically, cap and trade should have no effect on coal prices because the coal industry has promised "clean coal". If they can deliver on this promise, then there will be no carbon emissions from coal and the tax on carbon emissions will be zero. This would make domestic energy cheaper than imported, and add lots of job in the coal/energy industries. The only way that carbon emissions effects coal energy output prices is if the coal industry has been lying about "clean coal" technology and they are unable to deliver. It is time for them to put-up or shut-up.
As to petroleum prices... The less we use in the U.S., then the less money we are sending to countries in the world with agendas that are often contradictory to our own. How else are we going to get people to stop using gasoline? So far, asking us to conserve by driving slower failed. Asking us to buy more fuel efficient cars failed. Asking us to conserve fuel by carpooling or telecommuting, or riding transit, or living closer to their work, or bicycling, walking, crawling.... have all failed. Asking has failed to change behavior that is clearly contrary to our national interests. Congress has reached a point where they appear to believe that it is time to change laws to force changes in behavior. Since Congress does not have the support of voters to raise imported fuel prices by taxing the snot out of it, they get in through the back door and tax generating carbon. Is it a perfect substitute? Of course not.
Digging up more coal is not going to reduce our imported fuel problem. Drilling up more natural gas will do little to reduce our problems as most of our imported nat gas comes from Canada and Mexico... and so far the Canadians seem a bit friendlier and have not invaded any time recently. It is not endangered species, naturalists, or California environmental policies that are killing us. They are irrelevant to the big picture - we burn oil and we don't have enough of it. Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Nigeria have it and do not burn that much of it.
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 15th, 2009 09:27 pm |
|
Footloose wrote: I gotta comment on this cap-n-tax stuff. The guys who pushed this for Obama (Waxman/Markey) must know that this would add big bucks to energy production. Everyone who uses energy will be forking up a huge part of their earnings to pay for it. It's not just the business people because manufacturers or growers of anyhing use energy and they are going to pass on the increased costs to all of us. Goods and services are going to climb sky-high. Oil com[panies are gonna stop producing energy because of the high cost of doing so. Then we will have to rely on foreign oil to produce the energy we need. So how does this reduce our dependence on foreign oil when we will have to buy more than ever before? This is nuts since we have plenty opf energy resources on our own soil.
We DO have PLENTY of our own resources in the USA. But, A group of "green" nuts, from save the dung beetle to the save our mouse in San Fran Nan's area, and the ACLU , lawyers, make drilling and putting forth new nuclear plants, coal, etc almost impossible. I think if the state has resources that are valuable to this country should be allowed to pursue them, to hell with the gov't and the crazies. (But that too simplistic )
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2354 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 15th, 2009 08:14 pm |
|
Footloose wrote: I gotta comment on this cap-n-tax stuff. The guys who pushed this for Obama (Waxman/Markey) must know that this would add big bucks to energy production. Everyone who uses energy will be forking up a huge part of their earnings to pay for it. It's not just the business people because manufacturers or growers of anyhing use energy and they are going to pass on the increased costs to all of us. Goods and services are going to climb sky-high. Oil com[panies are gonna stop producing energy because of the high cost of doing so. Then we will have to rely on foreign oil to produce the energy we need. So how does this reduce our dependence on foreign oil when we will have to buy more than ever before? This is nuts since we have plenty opf energy resources on our own soil.
The National Energy Tax bill is just the first act Democrats are taking to hit you and your family squarely in the pocketbook on energy taxes. The Obama Administration has even talked about installing GPS tracking devices in every vehicle so the government can tax you for every mile you drive. Where does the Democrats' Big Brother, ever-greater government intrusion into your daily life end?
|
Footloose
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 22nd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 418 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 15th, 2009 04:20 pm |
|
I gotta comment on this cap-n-tax stuff. The guys who pushed this for Obama (Waxman/Markey) must know that this would add big bucks to energy production. Everyone who uses energy will be forking up a huge part of their earnings to pay for it. It's not just the business people because manufacturers or growers of anyhing use energy and they are going to pass on the increased costs to all of us. Goods and services are going to climb sky-high. Oil com[panies are gonna stop producing energy because of the high cost of doing so. Then we will have to rely on foreign oil to produce the energy we need. So how does this reduce our dependence on foreign oil when we will have to buy more than ever before? This is nuts since we have plenty opf energy resources on our own soil.
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 15th, 2009 03:00 am |
|
Idaho Observer wrote:
"This climate bill will help bring about global governance."
Noted "climatologist"Al Gore praising passage of Cap and Trade. Now do some of you die hards realize where this is going?
Idaho: the only ones that seem to realize what is going on, are the ones who, from the getgo said it was a scam. We might have had a few converts, but, they'll NEVER admit their error of reasoning.( Kind of like nobody voted for BO)
|
Idaho Observer
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 14th, 2009 12:34 am |
|
"This climate bill will help bring about global governance."
Noted "climatologist"Al Gore praising passage of Cap and Trade. Now do some of you die hards realize where this is going?
|
Vindicator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 558 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 13th, 2009 08:39 pm |
|
Climate Czar says: Put Nothing in Writing: GOP Demands Investigation.
Carol Browner, former Clinton administration EPA head and current Obama White House climate czar, instructed auto industry execs "to put nothing in writing, ever" regarding secret negotiations she orchestrated regarding a deal to increase federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-WI, is demanding a congressional investigation of Browner's conduct in the CAFE talks, saying in a letter to Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, that Browner "intended to leave little or no documentation of the deliberations that lead to stringent new CAFE standards."
Read The Full Article
|
Cobra
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 520 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 13th, 2009 12:14 pm |
|
Climate Change Cap and Trade
Related Commentary
"Mr. Speaker, the Cap and Trade bill proposes what amounts to endlessly increasing taxes on any enterprises that produce carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gas emissions. We need to understand what that means. It has profound implications for agriculture, construction, cargo and passenger transportation, energy production, baking and brewing -- all of which produce enormous quantities this innocuous and ubiquitous compound. In fact, every human being produces 2.2 pounds of carbon dioxide every day -- just by breathing. So applying a tax to the economy designed to radically constrict carbon dioxide emissions means radically constricting the economy. And this brings us to the fine point of it. When you discuss the folly of the Hoover Administration -- how it turned the recession of 1929 into the depression of the 1930's, the first thing that economists point to is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that imposed new taxes on over 20,000 imported products. Waxman Markey [cap and trade bill] is our generation's Smoot Hawley. In fact, it's worse because it imposes new taxes on an infinitely larger number of domestic products on a scale that utterly dwarfs Smoot-Hawley. ... In the most serious recession since the Great Depression -- why would members of this house want to repeat the same mistakes that produced that Great Depression? Watching how California has just wrecked its economy and destroyed its finances, why would they want to do the same thing to our nation? Mr. Speaker, this is deadly serious stuff. It transcends ideology and politics. This House has just made the biggest economic mistake since the days of Herbert Hoover."
Rep. Tim McClintok
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2354 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 13th, 2009 04:04 am |
|
The Commissars of Cool
"Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue; or in any manner affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change and can trace its consequences; a harvest reared not by themselves but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow citizens." --Federalist No. 62
Last week, scores of Americans were mesmerized by an event they believed would have consequences of epic proportions for the nation. No, I'm not referring to the passage of the colossal CO2 "cap and trade" legislation, but the MSM's endless and equally mindless tributes to, um, well I can't recall his name but I think he was a black artiste who somehow morphed into a white performer -- but then, hybrids are all the rage these days.
Meanwhile, as the masses slumbered, the House passed H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey version of Barack Hussein Obama's Orwellian legislation to regulate and tax CO2 -- a gas byproduct of cellular synthesis and industrial output, ostensibly responsible for global climate change. The measure, all 310 pages of it, passed by a narrow vote of 219-212. Some 44 Democrats voted against the legislation, but eight Republicans voted for it, giving BHO the first leg of a cap-n-tax victory.
The two most invasive means our central government has at its disposal to control American lives and livelihoods are taxation and regulation, and this bill is a double header. It authorizes BHO's government to collect substantial new taxes and to exercise unprecedented economic control via new environmental regulations, all against a backdrop of the worst economic decline since Jimmy Carter was at the helm. (Fortunately Ronald Reagan implemented the right formula for economic recovery -- BO's "solution" is Carter's formula.)
After the bill's passage, Obama trotted out this whopper: "Thanks to members of Congress who were willing to place America's progress before the usual Washington politics, this bill will create new businesses, new industries, and millions of new jobs, all without imposing untenable new burdens on the American people or America's businesses."
Of course, that depends on what the definition of "untenable" is. In January 2008, Obama proclaimed, "nder my plan of a cap and trade [sic] system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket ... because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas ... you name it ... whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. ... [T]hey will pass that money on to the consumers."
Sidebar: Anyone interested in retaining what remains of the legacy of liberty bequeathed to us by our Founders might take pause to consider what BHO meant by "you name it," since you and everyone you know are emitters of CO2. Think about it: An American president is regulating and taxing carbon dioxide, the very thing we exhale, and the very thing that green plants on this planet use to generate the oxygen which sustains us.
Cap-n-tax requires American manufacturers to reduce by 2020 carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases by 17 percent from their 2005 emission levels. Even more egregiously, it requires an 80 percent cut by 2050. Industries would be "allocated" government permits specifying allowances for these gases. About 15 percent of these permits would be auctioned to the highest bidders and the resulting revenues would be transferred to offset energy expenses for Obama's low-income constituents.
And you thought the U.S. Tax Code was convoluted?
Now, if you're still under the illusion that Waxman's Malarkey is about saving the planet, you're either: A) a card-carrying member of BHO's sycophantic socialists; B) a true-believing disciple of AlGore's eco-theology; or C) too distracted by coverage of that chameleon-guy's funeral.
Here, at least the socialists are intellectually honest about their objectives. Albert Arnold Gore's minions, on the other hand, are still hooked on phony assumptions about the relationship between CO2 and climate change -- as if our planet's climate is supposed to remain utterly unchanged for all time. (Of course, Gore's objectives are the same as BHO's.)
However, the climate debate (yes, there is one) is far from over.
It is not for me to suggest that the extremely complex ecology of our planet -- its trillions of organisms and ecosystems and its interaction with the Sun -- is beyond the scope of what human scientists can understand so conclusively as to project how the restriction of one small contributory element, among all environmental influences, will affect our climate 100 years from now. After all, my advanced degrees are limited to psychology and public affairs.
Instead, you can read what some of the planets most renowned scientists have to say about climate change in "Global Warming: Fact, Fiction and Political Endgame" (update coming soon).
Or start with an open letter to Congress delivered last week, from academicians including Princeton physicists Will Happer and Robert Austin, and climatologist Richard Lindzen of MIT, in which they insist, "The sky is not falling ... the Earth has been cooling for 10 years [a trend that] was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them."
Heritage Foundation Senior Policy Analyst Ben Lieberman aptly sums up the current state of climate change hysteria. "Both the seriousness and imminence of anthropogenic global warming has been overstated. [H.R. 2454] would have a trivial impact on future concentrations of greenhouse gases. ...[It is projected to] reduce the earth's future temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degree C by 2100, an amount too small to even notice." (For the record, it would do this at an average annual cost of $2,979 per family of four. So much for BHO's pledge not to raise our taxes.)
A recent MIT study likewise concludes, "The different U.S. policies have relatively small effects on the CO2 concentration if other regions do not follow the U.S. lead. ... The Developed Only scenario cuts only about 0.5 °C of the warming from the reference, again illustrating the importance of developing country participation."
Two of the biggest producers of CO2, China and India, will continue industrial production unencumbered by this self-mutilating sham. Indeed, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson confessed in a Senate hearing this week, "I believe that ... U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels."
As former House Speaker Newt Gingrich explains, "The sponsors of Waxman-Markey are telling Americans that not only will the legislation save us from calamitous climate change, it will also produce new jobs and new prosperity by transitioning America to new forms of 'green' energy. In other words, there's no trade-off necessary to save the planet; no price to be paid. It's a win-win-win. Right. And 2+2=5. The reality is that the bill before the House today imposes what could be the largest tax increase in history on the American people. And every single one of us who heats a home, drives a car, and manufactures or consumes products made in America will pay the price."
Of course, Gingrich could be wrong. BHO's cap-n-tax plan could be as economically successful as his "stimulus" package. Oh, wait, that hasn't produced a single private sector job -- and the ranks of the unemployed have still soared. But maybe it "saved" some jobs that might have been cut, and it has certainly funded countless marginal government jobs occupied by the marginally employable in order to swell the ranks of government unions -- the Left's permanent constituency.
And at the expense of incomprehensible deficit accumulation that exceeds all previous presidents combined -- but I digress.
Cap-n-tax is nothing more than a well-executed piece of BHO's socialist playbook, which seeks to ratify central government administration of the economy by way of regulation and taxation.
This unbearable piece of legislation is now on its way to the Senate, where Obama has a filibuster-proof majority with the arrival of that "clown from Minnesota." It is likely to face opposition from some centrist Democrats, but, regretfully, there are still enough wayward Republicans left in the Senate to give Obama a victory.
Here, I would challenge the members of that august body to find anything in our Constitution's prescription for Rule of Law authorizing the central government to administer any and all elements of commerce that produce some amount of CO2. But then, who pays homage to the credence of that venerable old document, other than the 65 or 70 million modern-day Patriots standing at the ready to restore constitutional Rule of Law?
Next up -- ObamaCare -- and you thought cap-n-tax was bad. Again, I'm quite sure that there isn't a word in our Constitution authorizing the central government to administer healthcare, but then...
(From The Patriot Post)
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 11th, 2009 10:29 pm |
|
| It has been published in other places that Pelosi, and gore and other members of the house and congress, have monies already invested in the "greenhouse" trade. Now, why would they listen to any one that says different??They would lose their stake. I WISH!!
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 11th, 2009 09:48 pm |
|
| It is interesting to note both Democrats [Carper and Castle] use the same words quoting the World Meteorological Organization , a branch of the UN who put out the first screwed up IPPC report a few years back. Their claim that 1998 through 2007 are the warmest on record clashes with the claims that the past 10 years have shown a cooling trend. If we are trending down, why isn't there some discussion about the need to do the drasctic things the people in Washington are pushing? Because the people in power don't want to take a chance they'll be proven wrong and have to give up the big tax and power grab they've initiated? Last edited on Sat Jul 11th, 2009 09:49 pm by Hartlyboy
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 03:04 pm |
|
Last edited on Sat Jul 11th, 2009 02:35 pm by dover-diva
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2354 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 12:34 pm |
|
In Rep. Castle's response to Diva, he wrote: "The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations issued a summary of its fourth assessment on climate change, concluding for the first time ever that global warming is "unequivocal" and it is "very likely" that human activity is the main driver. The Panel's conclusions were reached after a three-year review of hundreds of comprehensive studies and supercomputer simulations, and the report draws from the work of 2,500 scientists from 130 countries. Furthermore, researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies have found the planet is absorbing almost one watt more of the sun's energy than it is radiating back into space as heat - a historically large imbalance that can only be attributed to human actions. NASA's scientists concluded that, "there can no longer be substantial doubt that human-made gases are the cause" of global warming."
This is so full of simulations, conjecture and theory that it actually fails scientific muster. The truth is that he, as most of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) advocates do, is that they are co-mingling and mixing global warming with greenhouse gas emissions. Mixing these two different topics only tend to confuse the debate, as they no doubt intend to do. Global warming is not proof that greenhouse gases caused that warming.
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 7th, 2009 11:22 pm |
|
This is the reply I received from Senator Carper:
Thank you for contacting my office to express your concerns about proposals for reforming the energy sector and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I appreciate hearing your views on this very important matter.
Comprehensive energy reform is crucial to our domestic security and to our environment. Our country currently generates 70 percent of its electricity from two fossil fuels: coal and natural gas. Our heavy reliance on just these energy sources does not foster a stable market for electricity in our country. In order to address higher energy prices and fossil fuel dependence, we need to diversify our nation's energy portfolio. We must prioritize and increase the use of clean energy sources that can be produced right here in the U.S. One of the most important steps our nation can take in this regard is to encourage investments in conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy production. I believe it essential for federal and state governments to foster innovation in renewable energy technology and promote energy conservation and efficiency measures.
With respect to climate change, please allow me to take a moment to convey my thoughts. I have not always been a believer that we must do something to combat global warming. I used to think we needed more science to justify action. Moreover, I used to fear that taking action could do more harm to the economy than good. As a member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, I have attended dozens of hearings on this matter and heard from numerous experts from across the scientific, academic, and business communities.
The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations issued a summary of its fourth assessment on climate change, concluding for the first time ever that global warming is "unequivocal" and it is "very likely" that human activity is the main driver. The Panel's conclusions were reached after a three-year review of hundreds of comprehensive studies and supercomputer simulations, and the report draws from the work of 2,500 scientists from 130 countries. Furthermore, researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies have found the planet is absorbing almost one watt more of the sun's energy than it is radiating back into space as heat - a historically large imbalance that can only be attributed to human actions. NASA's scientists concluded that, "there can no longer be substantial doubt that human-made gases are the cause" of global warming.
As you know, domestic and international pressure is steadily building to curb our nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Man-made carbon emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels to power our cars, produce electricity, and manufacture consumer and industrial products. With that said, I believe Congress and the Obama Administration need to work together to craft a comprehensive climate change strategy with emissions reduction targets and well-defined means for achieving those targets. Carbon emissions regulations are so important that we need to make sure we get it right: We need to enact policies that curb the growth of carbon emissions without weighing down our economic growth.
The good news is that a free market mechanism exists that, if implemented, would recognize the true environmental, social and economic costs of these activities, while incentivizing investments in clean alternative forms of energy. I have enough faith in American technology, ingenuity and know-how, to believe we can do that while fostering - not endangering - our economic growth. In fact, if we're smart about it, we will end up creating hundreds of thousands of new "green" jobs, and we will create products and technology that we can export around the world.
Last year, Congress considered but failed to pass legislation that would have specified mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide. I am hopeful that we can find the common ground necessary to move forward on this issue and pass legislation that makes sense for our country in the current economic downturn. As you know, in recent months the House Energy and Commerce Committee has been drafting a comprehensive climate change bill. The chief sponsors of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act are Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Representative Edward Markey (D-MA). The legislation would require greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced by 17% compared to 2005 levels by 2020, by 42% in 2030, and by 83% in 2050. The Senate does not yet have a companion measure, however my colleagues and I have been very closely monitoring the bill's progress in the House of Representatives.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act would create jobs for Americans, reduce our country's dependence on oil, and limit the carbon pollution that contributes to climate change. H.R. 2454 would also support renewable energy, a modern electric grid, and advance standards and incentives for improving energy efficiency. These provisions would create jobs retrofitting buildings with the energy efficiency and advanced energy technology, and would save homeowners and businesses money on their utility bills. The House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act on June 26[size=th], by a vote of 219-212. To learn more about the provisions of the bill, please visit: http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1622&catid=155&Itemid=55.
As a senior member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I have been and will continue to be actively engaged in this process. The Committee will begin consideration of H.R. 2454 in the coming weeks. At the end of the day, we need to view the cap and trade legislation in its entirety. With a bill this large, there will be elements of it that I do not support. Ultimately I will ask myself: does it represent good public policy? Does it get us to where we need to go in terms of avoiding a tipping point for disastrous climate change?
In closing, I assure you that I will keep your views in mind as Congress develops legislation that will make our air cleaner, while at the same time improving our competitiveness in the modern global economy. Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about other matters of importance to you.
So says the idiot from Delaware. He never read anything.
Last edited on Sat Jul 11th, 2009 02:36 pm by dover-diva
|
Toledo Tom
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 7th, 2009 05:58 am |
|
| Well at least most of you got a reply. Of the three or four emails I sent in asking him to be opposed to the "cap and trade" I also asked "Eisenhowers Transportation Trust Fund." My email did not even get acknowledged as having been received. I suspect the former Governor wants to be the former Representative while being currently called "Senator." In my mind he was and is the "former congressman" while still occupying the space. When, oh when, will the people respond by voting these sorts out of office.
|
Current time is 02:32 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
|
|