Saturday, June 27, 2009

Frank Kratovil and GOP Cap and Trade 8

Waxman-Markey/cap and trade (to call it by its real name is an affront to the English language) passed the House last night 219-212. Frank Kratovil—who as of Friday afternoon had not read the bill—along with Steny Hoyer, Chris Van Hollen, Dutch Ruppersberger all voted aye, leaving Roscoe Bartlett the only Maryland representative voting against this massive energy tax.

Unfortunately eight Republicans were bought off and crossed over providing the decisive margin. Followers of Maryland state politics are familiar with spineless Republicans. Two examples being: Delegate Marie Antoinette (Page Elmore), who literally sold his vote for cake, and James Milquetoast King, who in his explanation of his vote for slots—enabling Martin O’Malley’s tax increases—tried to tell us two plus two equals five.

Friday afternoon, C-SPAN was actually an interesting channel to watch. Representatives were literally making deals on the House floor, see the video below of a representative asking for “clarification” of exactly what goodies he’s getting in return for his vote.

Should the bill become law, Frank Kratovil just handed Andy Harris the 2010 congressional election.


Well despite the cooked-book CBO report many Dems waved in the air like canon law, Waxman-Markey in reality would:

·Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.6 trillion;
·Destroy 1,105,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs;
·Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;
·Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent;·Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent;
·Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,500; and
·Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 26 percent, or $29,150 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation.

All for a meaningless one nine-hundredth of a degree change in average global temperature.

Memo to Frank Frank Kratovil: Not a good idea to follow the Martin O’Malley energy strategy: Promise lower energy costs, then do everything in your power to increase them.

Oh and don’t bother to ask about the scientific report—suppressed for political reasons by Obama’s EPA—that debunked the EPA’s endangerment finding on carbon dioxide, because you know our leader told us that science no longer takes a back seat to ideology. The only government report Obama wants criticized is the CBO report that laid out the true, staggering price tag of his health care bill.

Hopefully the Senate will have the wisdom to kill Waxman-Markey as it did Lieberman-Warner last year.


George said...

So the non partisan cbo report on the energy bill was cooked but the health care one wasn't? You can't have it both ways pal.

And if made law the bill doesn't go into effect until 2012 so even if your litany of fear mongering it won't be until after the 2010 election.

The GOP now wants you to believe that at least two bills, the recovery act and the stimulus, will destroy America. So what happens when in 2010 the economy is rebounding from the worst recession since the depression. Will people believe the GOP that the destruction of America is around the corner?

George said...

I meant recovery act and the energy bill, not recovery act and stimulus because obviously those are the same thing.

Mark Newgent said...

Your hyperbole masked as argument aside, here's where you're wrong.

Not all CBO reports are written by the same people.

The CBO report on health care has been widely seen as fairly accurate, versus the report on Waxman-Markey. It is Obama and the Dems who want it both ways.

When the bill takes effect is irrelevant because the effects will be well known in advance.

The GOP didn't say that the stimulus and Waxman-Markey would "destroy America." We said the stimulus wouldn't help the economy or have you not noticed the double digit unemployment rate.
Furthermore, even if the economy begins to rebound in 2010, only a fraction of the stimulus money would have been spent--torpedoing the very argument of its proponents.

On Waxman-Markey we are saying it will destroy jobs, which it will. Or do you not understand the relationship between energy and economic activity.

It's also telling that you couldn't defend Waxman-Markey on its own merits.

Next time, try making an argument instead of typing a temper tantrum.

EasternShoreman said...

I think the assertion by the GOP that this bill is a job and economy killer is short sighted at best.

There seems to be a fundamental belief in their argument against intervention by the government on environmental matters such as Cap and Trade that business will eventually make the changes necessary in due time in order to remain competitive in the marketplace. This is unlikely as businesses will only make changes once faced with no other options, and some will go under because of it.

I think most Americans would agree that progress needs to be made on moving the country to become more efficient in our expending of energy. This bill definitely would accomplish that; furthermore, it would recalibrate the market to increase the amount of productivity per BTU of energy expended in order to be more cost efficient. Initally I think we all agree that there will be an increase in cost, but the realities of allowing the energy consumption in this country to grow steadily while trying to maintain the same cost to the consumer without relying to much on foreign entities is impossible, cost of energy with the current strategy will increase exponentially as well due to the growth in countries like China and India. I'm already fed up that we are at the beckon call of the middle east powers because of their influence on our energy industry. This bill, while not perfect, is the step in the right direction toward energy independence and thus a more stable economic solution than what is presented by the GOP.

The jobs that will be lost will increasingly be replaced by new technology jobs designed to increase efficiency in the market. It is a longterm plan that will essentially create an entire new industry with new challenges and thus will create more jobs.

I also do think that while it is important to consider the effects environmental legislation has on business, it is just as important to consider the effect of business on the environment. With respect to MD-1 and the environmental interests that exist like our treasured Chesapeake Bay, I do believe Rep. Kratovil made the best choice for his district also considering that the businesses in MD-1 rely so much on the health of the environment.

To say that he handed the 2010 election to Harris is remarkable since I do believe that with full knowledge of the complexities of this bill, MD-1 voters will largely support his vote.

This is a longterm plan to create more energy independence thus creating more economic stability and also reducing the negative effects our businesses have on the environment.

Mark Newgent said...


I appreciate your thoughtful comments. However, to create the green jobs you speak of millions more non green jobs must be destroyed in order to do achieve that goal of a "green economy" Waxman-Markey does exactly that.

Leaving the report that EPA and CBO cooked aside. The bill, if enacted, will be a huge drag on family budgets. No artful turn of a phrase in defense of the bill will change that.

Government may have picked renewable energy as the winner (among other politically connected interests) but even at their full capacity wind and solar cannot come near meeting our energy demands. They are too expensive to generate and transmit, hence their nearly $5 billion in federal subsidies last year.

To the point of protecting the environment--cap and trade simply won't work. It's the dirty little secret in Europe. Its emissions trading scheme has enriched the wind barons but hasn't reduced carbon emissions. Now I don't beleive that reducing carbon emissions has an effect on temperature as emissions have increased over the last decade yet temperature has leveled and in some years cooled. Still if you do beleieve that reducing emissions helps that fact torpedos your argument.

MIT found that Waxman-Markey would reduce temperature somewhere in the range of two tenths of degree over the next 100 years. Let me repeat that: over the next 100 years. Do the math, the cost far far outweighs the barely detectable benefit.

Steve said...

More Andy Harris attack dogs on the loose here. These people would rather tear down any attempt at energy independence and continue the status quo that has our Federal Government and the "Private" Energy industry wheeling and dealing with the very people that fund 'exiled' terrorists a la the Bin Laden family. They would rather spend our hard earned tax dollars on faux wars in the middle east to protect 'US business interests' under the guise of nation-building, as opposed to charging a few more dollars for energy at home, while saving the lives of our soldiers abroad. Again, they are simply ignorant party hacks that cannot see the big picture. Or worse, they know exactly what they are doing and are happy as the puppets of the powers that control them.