Tomorrow the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on Cap and Trade legislation, H.R. 2454.
Democrat John Dingell (D-MI) says it is “a tax and it’s a great big one.”
Democrat Charlie Melancon (D-LA) says, “I believe this bill would create an undue burden on families who are already paying too much in energy bills.”
Democrat Mike Ross (D-AR) says of Cap and Trade, “‘If you don’t like $4-a-gallon gasoline, you’re really not going to like your electric bill sometime between now and 2030.”
There are several Democratic Congressmen from Georgia sitting on the fence.
You can call them and, as is your preference, encourage them to vote yes or — hopefully — no on H.R. 2454, the Cap and Trade legislation.
Sanford Bishop at 229-439-8067
Jim Marshall at 478-464-0255
John Barrow at 706-722-4494
David Scott at 770-210-5073
The vote on H.R. 2454 will be tomorrow afternoon.
{ 35 comments }
John Barrow’s office indicated a NAY vote.
No other office indicated their Rep’s preference.
Barrow voted against the bill in committee.
It’s a Tax and it’s not just for the “rich”.
Linder will be voting no.
Deal ?? I hope he’ll vote no.
Simply an insane bill, this one is.
Of course Deal will vote against it.
That was my thought too. I had to leave a message when I called so I could not ask.
Barrow is voting no as well.
Oh sorry didn’t see that above.
Shows who’s ‘fer and agin, sittin’ on the fence for Cap and Trade:
http://climatebill.org/
Last count 180 or so fer 160 or so agin.
I oppose this Bill because it is complicated and difficult to administer. A carbon tax, which I also oppose, is a simpler methodology.
Cap and trade should be what the GOP is proposing, and the Dems. should be backing a carbon tax
Yeah I said it.
Here is Mark Levins list of fence sitters.
Call away.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AT
202-224-3121 AND TELL THEM NO TO CAP AND TRADE
Repubs:
Bartlett (MD)
Bono Mack (CA)
Castle (DE)
Dent (PA)
Ehlers (MI)
Frelinghuysen (NJ)
Gerlach (PA)
Inglis (SC)
Tim Johnson (IL)
Kirk (IL)
Lance (NJ)
LoBiondo (NJ)
Petri (WI)
Platts (PA)
Ros-Lehtinen (FL)
Democrats:
Altmire (PA)
Bright (AL)
Dahlkemper (PA)
Drieshaus (OH)
Ellsworth (IN)
Kissell (NC)
Kratovil (MD)
Kanjorski (PA)
Minnick(ID)
Teague (NM)
Bill likely to pass the House, according to this:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023896.php
Tell me about the tabloid news. It seemed all they would discuss in the news was pure garbage, and meanwhile, there’s a Cap and Trade bill going through Congress. They’re going to pass it right by without us even noticing.
It’s like they’re shooting us with a silencer on.
Just got off the phone with Marshall’s office here in Macon. Still no official word on how he plans to vote. My name is on the “you better not” list now…
Too much disinformation out there.
So how about we go to the non-partison congressional budget office and see what they think:
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion–or about $175 per household. That figure includes the cost of restructuring the production and use of energy and of payments made to foreign entities under the program, but it does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in GHG emissions and the associated slowing of climate change. CBO could not determine the incidence of certain pieces (including both costs and benefits) that represent, on net, about 8 percent of the total. For the remaining portion of the net cost, households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020, while households in the highest income quintile would see a net cost of $245.
should read: non-partisan, not partison.
Jeez. Where’s the coffee?
We know the CBO always gets it right. Or not.
but it does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in GHG emissions and the associated slowing of climate change.
Perhaps because one cannot quantify fairy tales.
Also the cost as a tax are exceeded by the costs of the regulation and the cost of artificial scarcity, creating artifical winners and loser.
Al Gore will personally benefit greatly financially, this is a fact. Everyone else, not so much.
Here’s an idea:
Why not pressure our power companies (Georgia Power, Amicalola Electric, MEAG, etc.) to start adding line items to the price we pay detailing how much of our power costs are due to government? Such costs are already there, and if “cap and trade” becomes law, you’ll see those numbers skyrocket.
Part of me sort of wants Obama to have his way on all his dumb, childish, destructive ideas, so that by the 2012 election, his policies will have come to fruition and he would be cast out like his mirror image, Jimmy Carter, was. Then we can get back to being America instead of imitating a failed, socialist, Europe.
And, for the record: There is no scientific evidence for anthropogenic global climate change. None. Nada. And for the public school educated libs – scientism is not science.
Well then, MS, we had better get on the ball coming up with a candidate who will actually govern by conservative, common sense principles. The absence of Obama in the White House is not a solution in itself.
Now there’s a PP topic that would likely generate some heat! “Who do you want to see as a conservative candidate for President, and who do you not want to see?”
we had better get on the ball coming up with a candidate who will actually govern by conservative, common sense principles
BUT, they must first demonstrate how insanely “pro-life” and a “Christian” they are.
Bill Simon wrote: they must first demonstrate how insanely “pro-life” and a “Christian” they are.
Could somebody name me a Republican candidate for President, since Roe v Wade, who has won by not overtly supporting pro-life and common morality? McCain tried lip service to life issues, but few believed he was serious. I guess character does matter, at least for Republicans.
Most voters who would vote for a conservative on economic and defense issues won’t trust a candidate who has no regard for social conservatism (neo-Whigs). The same neo-Whigs that have led the party to defeat with Dole, McCain, and the defeat of the neo-Whig Republicans in 2006 will continue their streak of defeats so long as they keep the ones who are conservative across the board from influencing the party. Bush41 went down to defeat because he campaigned in 1988 as a Reagan conservative, but governed as a neo-Whig. Bush43 campaigned as a conservative, but waited until after the 2004 election to show his neo-Whig principles, and lost tremendous support in his last term. In 2008, Romney, Giuliani, and McCain all showed their neo-Whig principles, and we see what happened to them.
To call oneself conservative, and reject pro-life and common morality as necessary for the security of this country, is a non-sequitor. It is a liberal thought process that has no qualms about denying the Constitutional right to life to an unborn baby.
If the neo-Whigs want the Republican party to themselves, then let them get and keep control of it at the primary level. Why try to silence consistent conservatives in the party? Let the primary voters decide.
For clarity, I use Neo-Whig, Rockefeller Republican’ts, and Liberal Republicans interchangeably.
In the UNESCO Courier of November 1991, Jacques Cousteau wrote, “The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics-it is equal to the degree of development. One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes… This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
“Bertrand Russell said, “At present the population of the world is increasing…War so far has had no great effect on this increase… I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others…If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full…the state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of others.”
Is that the new moto? “Kill the people, save the planet?”
Kill the left-wingers, save the planet, should be the motto.
MBAss,
Could somebody name me a Republican candidate for President, since Roe v Wade, who has won by not overtly supporting pro-life and common morality?
The fact that those candidates won as Republicans GAVE this country Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.
“Winning” for them proved harmful to this country for a long time. The 2 Bushes SUCKED as President each time they served.
If all you do is wrap yourself in your Bible and hold that up to be the touchstone of a Republican, then don’t cry when things like Cap & Trade get rammed down your throat.
MBass, Part 2
It is a liberal thought process that has no qualms about denying the Constitutional right to life to an unborn baby.
The 14th Amendment clearly defines an American citizen as someone born on American soil. It does not say “conceived.”
Therefore, it is quite clear that the writers then, as did the writers of the Declaration of Independence, did not consider for a moment the “unborn” as deserving of Constitutional protections.
Interpreting the Constitution’s specific words is not “liberal,” but reality.
People like YOU who presume the Constitution meant something else than what it says are the true “liberals” in America.
There were no abortion clinics when this country was founded, and I don’t believe the Founders had a clue that this would ever be an issue in this great Nation. The context of the word “born” in the 14th amendment relates to the location of birth, not the definition of a person.
Interesting approach Bill, but do you think if we really elected moderate Republicans to the Presidency, that the far left still wouldn’t be cramming this cap and trade crap down our “collective” throats?
GOPGeorgia,
If we had elected smart Republicans, we would still be in charge of Washington is my point, Doug.
AND, a “smart Republican” is one who adheres to the fiscal responsibility side of the party, not wrap themselves up in the game of kowtowing to religious socialists (i.e. people who want others to worship and pray the way THEY think everyone else should).
Unfortunately, “fiscal responsibility” is being wrapped in “no taxes ever” and “the government can’t do anything right” wrapping paper. Add to that the inspired brew of “moral certitude” and you end up with a Republican Party that doesn’t have a prayer (pun intended) of winning elections in most of the country.
All brought to a head in glorious fashion by Terri Schiavo and Tom DeLay.
You didn’t want a vibrant Democratic Party? You should have voted for people who were serious about governing with the consent of the governed.
IMO, the Republicans we elected were smart, but they let their greed for power get in the way of voting along party ideology. Most of them deserved to get kicked out. Newt did OK in 1994 and the party sort of stayed on track until 1998. After that the GOP congress got more concerned with getting reelected than watching wasteful spending. However, there’s a difference between controlling congress and the white house.
Just so I know your preference, and for a little fun, tell us who we should have had as our nominee since 1980. I’m not even going to assume that RR was your choice in 1980. In 1996 Steve Forbes seems to fit your bill, maybe Elizabeth Dole in 2000.
Who are your GOP dream presidential candidates over the past 30 years?
Comments on this entry are closed.