The Democratic .44 Mag and the GOP’s Magical 8-Ball.

One of the saddest things about the Crap-and-Trade Bill being passed through the House is how little it would have taken to stop it. Final vote was 219-212.

In the final tally of party betrayals, 44 Democrats voted "nay" and 8 Republicans voted "aye." Surprisingly, if 4 or more of those 8 Republicans would have voted along party lines, HR 2454, or the American Clean Energy and Security Act, would have been defeated. At the least, sending it back to the drawing board if not down the toilet, forever.

Another interesting note coming from Truth and Reason, out of the 52 member Democratic conservative Blue Dog caucus in the House, 22 voted for HR 2454.

If this bill is not resoundingly stopped in the Senate the long term economic cost stands to be painful. As pointed out by the Heritage Foundation's, Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment, Ben Lieberman in his testimony before the Senate Republican Conference .

What are those costs? According to the analysis we conducted at The Heritage Foundation, which is attached to my written statement, the higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill's provisions take effect in 2012. For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.

Given that hardly any of the Representatives read the bill, or its amendment, in their entirety. Or that many Americans, mostly Democrats and Independents, even know what cap and trade is or the economic impact it could incur. The ignorance that is attached to this monstrosity should not be that surprising.

It is incumbent upon the American voter to demand a reasonable and well thought out piece of legislation that matches their future energy and environemental needs. No one, in their right minds,  should be against clean air, clean water, or the best energy innovations American ingenuity can offer. However, these needs should not be used, by public officials,  as propaganda to garner support for central planning styled legislation that will eventually curtail our freedoms or pocket books. It seems more and more that this is about power and control for a few rather than the needs of many.

Your rating: None


Hear, hear.

This is what we need: to reject the populism that denies climate change and peak oil altogether, and embrace the individualism that believes the free-market can do a better job of fixing it than can the government.

how different do you see this as

than emission standards? often companies are unable to make changes that they should, simply because they are economically inefficient at small scales...

gov't ain't always the problem -- sometimes it gives a GREAT return on investment.