The Neville Awards
Home | The Liberals' Corner | Hypocrisy Watch | Recommended Media | The Butcher's Bill |
Obama's Daily March To Socialism & Surrender | The Obama Gallery | Videos

Eight Republicans Support Tyranny--Help Pass Climate Change House Bill

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
June 26, 2009

With the help of eight Republicans the House just voted to run your life. We don't normally use profanity here at The Neville Awards but these eight contemptible pieces of treasonous shit who voted for the $800 billion American Clean Energy and Security Act, better known as the Waxman-Markey bill, should be targeted and primaried next year. These eight votes made the difference in a 219-212 loss.

Call these lowlife turncoats and tell them they are now on our collective radar screens and they will pay with their jobs in 2010. We won't forget these losers. Let's make this outrage the beginning of the end of the Dem majority in the House.
  • Bono, Mary, CA 202-225-5330
  • Castle, Michael N. DE 202-225-4165
  • Kirk, Mark Ill 202-225-4835
  • Lobiondo, Frank NJ 202-225-6572
  • Lance, Leonard NJ 202-225-5361
  • McHugh, John M. NY 202-225-4611
  • Reichert, David G. WA 202-225-7761
  • Smith, Chris NJ 202-225-3765
Filibusters are not allowed in the House. They’re a province of the Senate. But House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) tried just such a procedure as the voting neared. Overnight, House Democrats tacked on a last minute 3:00 AM 300-page amendment. So Boehner took his time to speak against the package at the end of the debate and decided to peel through major portions of the amendment and read them aloud before his House colleagues. No speed-reading here.

This amendment turned a 1200 page bill that nobody had time to read into a 1500 page bill that nobody had time to read. This was a repeat of the tactic that Democrats used for the $787 billion Stimulus package. That's because they are in a hurry to pass socialist legislation before anyone notices and before any serious debate can take place.

This scam, in reality, legalized theft, is the biggest tax increase in U.S. history. So what is the bill's effect? Read it and weep:
  • The Bill places extreme restrictions on carbon emissions from American businesses and households. These restrictions will be felt most acutely in the energy industry where about 60% of our nation’s electricity is generated by coal.
  • Public utilities commissions estimate that electricity costs will go up somewhere between 40-48%.
  • The bill limits the cap in early years and then explodes it in the out years.
  • Per the Wall St. Journal: The Congressional Budget Office's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon.
  • The costs of buying the cap and trade permits, especially to the oil and electricity industries, will be passed on to you, the taxpayer and consumer.
  • Jobs will be shipped overseas...there will be no new green jobs.
Our Fraudinator-in-Chief is on record stating that he knows the costs of such regulations will be passed on the consumer, but also that his plan would “bankrupt” the coal industry. That's what he wants.

The bill is based on “junk science” that claims human activity is causing the planet to warm up. Despite the fact that overwhelming evidence points toward natural, cyclic climate change, the no-growth, flat-earth, horse & buggy progressive Marxists in our government insist on pressing forward with these draconian plans.
  • Climate evidence going back thousands of years in Greenland and other places show much warmer periods in our past
  • Temperature data tracks with solar activity, NOT human activity
  • Warming is occurring on other planets such as Mars and Jupiter(where there are no SUVS, coal power plants or capitalists)
The story continues below

Now comes word from the Competetive Enterprise Institute that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suppressed information that shows global temps are cooling, and evidence that points toward natural causes.

The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.

New data also indicate that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, and that reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases. All of this demonstrates EPA should independently analyze the science, rather than just adopt the conclusions of outside organizations.

Hopefully enough Democrats in the Senate AND NO REPUBLICANS will see reason and torpedo their version of the bill. Can we count on you Collins and Snowe from Maine? Specter from Pennsylvania? Now that you are an independent can we see your independence on display?

The Cap and Tax Fiction-Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

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

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

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

After all these years of arguing over climate change, the United States must act. But not in haste.
Reading List