CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Stop funding big energy boondoggles

A recent item in The Hill, from Agriculture Energy Coalition’s Lloyd Ritter, called for passage of the Senate version of the Farm Bill, which amounts to little more than an expansion of the status-quo boondoggle we’ve seen for years:

Another simple extension of existing Farm Bill energy programs would ignore some important policy expansions contained in this year’s legislation and fail to make essential investments in rural energy infrastructure. The Senate’s version of this year’s Farm Bill Energy Title establishes long-overdue parity for renewable chemical manufacturers and includes $900 million in mandatory energy program funding. I encourage the conference committee to include these provisions in any final package.

Where to begin. For starters, $900 million in new spending of any sort should make any conservative cringe.

We’re more than $17.2 trillion in debt and facing a litany of other fiscal woes at the moment. Are expanding big government edicts in the energy sector really the right move?

In addition to piling on nearly $1 billion in new spending, the Senate Farm Bill designates the funds as mandatory spending, meaning government has mandated that amount be spent under its direction, and funding cannot be decreased or shifted if programs become unnecessary or ineffective. Mandatory spending does nothing to wean the energy and agricultural sectors off of governmental reliance.

According to Stephen DeMaura, a different path is outlined in the House’s counter-Farm Bill:

The House bill eliminates mandatory funding for subsidy programs under the energy title (Title IX), authorizing only discretionary spending for these programs that can be eliminated as market forces dictate, thus ending the practice of subsidizing billionaire agribusiness tycoons.

Ritter’s piece goes on to highlight several programs funded within the Farm Bill's energy title, arguing for their positive impact on rural communities and energy producers. It is a short-sighted view indeed to believe that a marketplace shackled by dependence on mandatory funding from Washington is a marketplace that will ever be self-sufficient and growth-oriented. 

The House's discretionary and market-driven approach to appropriations, on the other hand, enables the phasing out of these subsides and allows taxpayers to save billions:

Enacting the House legislation and phasing out these energy title programs is projected to save $160 billion over the next decade – a drop in the bucket that is our $17 trillion national debt but an important step toward getting government out of private industry and one that would send a clear message to subsidy-seeking entities that the accountability-free cash register is closing.

It is incumbent on House and Senate Republicans (and Democrats interested in getting reelected) not to be deceived by liberal rhetoric on the Farm Bill; tacking the word "rural" in front of government spending is merely cloaking a wolf in sheep's clothing. This is a simple choice between scaling back government, saving billions, and charting a free market-based course forward versus continuing the failed practice of letting government pick winners and losers.

Democrats throw Obama under the bus and Obama caves again

The Democrat-controlled Senate voted 89-10 to pass an extension of the payroll tax cut. According to the Associated Press, the two-month extension requires President Obama to grant a permit for the Canada-to-Texas Keystone pipeline within 60 days unless he determines that the pipeline is "not in the national interest."

Obama had implied that he would veto any bill that required that he make a decision before it was politically expedient for him to do so. During his December 7, 2011-presser with Canada's Prime Minister Harper, Obama put everybody on notice:

First of all, any effort to try to tie Keystone to the payroll tax cut I will reject.  So everybody should be on notice.    

If you can stomach it, you can watch Obama say it here.

Obama, putting politics before country, tried to kick his decision down the road until after the 2012 elections. The Republican-controlled House didn't let Obama get away with that and passed a payroll tax cut extension bill despite Obama's veto threat.

Thrown under the bus by Senate Democrats, Obama again caved. White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer indicated Obama would sign the two-month extension measure. 

Senate Democrats: cap and trade should be delayed

Democrat Senators Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska say the Senate should abandon efforts to pass cap-and-trade this year.

Cap-and-trade legislation will require 60 votes to pass the Senate. According to Bloomberg, at least 15 of the Senate's 60 Democrats have said the House-passed version -- the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade tax climate change legislation -- would hurt the economy and must be changed before they can support it. Most Republican Senators oppose the cap-and-trade measure.

The resistance by Senate Democrats Lincoln undercuts President Obama’s plan to cap carbon dioxide emissions and establish a market for trading pollution allowances. A plan that presidential candidate Obama said will cause electricity rates to "necessarily skyrocket" and will bankrupt anyone who builds a coal-powered plant.

Does Obama's cap-and-trade tax, face the same fate as President Clinton's BTU energy tax, which died in the Senate?

Democrats are starting to feel the American people's real disgust about Obamacare

Indiana Republican Congressman Dan Burton on Cap and Trade Tax, Obamacare and those Town hall meetings:

Cap and Trade Tax

• Spain has tried this already. And for every job, a new job created that would help the environment they lost two and a half jobs.

• Because of the new programs its gonna cost American jobs, American people jobs. It's gonna drive jobs overseas.

• Its gonna cost the American consumer about $3000 a year in additional expenses because when they turn on their lights it'll cost more because the producer of the electricity is gonna have to pay more taxes. Its gonna cost more for gasoline and anything that's an energy source that pollutes in any possible way.

• I don't think the Senate ultimately will pass it because constituents across the country are becoming very interested in this and the health care issue.

• We don't need more taxes. We don't need more spending. We don't need to have jobs driven overseas when we need to create more jobs here at home.

Obamacare

• Its gonna take money, billions of dollars, out of Medicare.

• Its gonna do away with Medicare Advantage.

• Its gonna cause the rationing of health care.

• This is a bad, bad bill and its socialistic.

• We need to make some improvements in health care, but this ain't the way.

• The Democrats are starting to feel what the American people want them to feel -- real disgust about this bill [Obamacare].

Town Hall Meetings

• I've had town meetings now for a long, long time. And I can tell when there's a put up job and when there's real concern among constituents. These people are angry. They're not being sent there by anybody.

Watch the following video of Congressman Burton's interview with Jamie Colby.

Obama signs climate pact at G-8 meeting

President Obama signs climate pact at the G-8 meeting.

The agreement seeks to cut half of all emissions linked to climate change by 2050 and calls for halting the world's average temperature from rising 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above current levels by switching to green-energy sources, such as wind and solar power.

Unfortunately, emerging industrial powers like China and India will not be parties.

Obama Signing the G-8 climate change pact that does not require emission reductions by China and India is the same as Clinton/Gore signing Kyoto. At least in 1997 the Senate warned President Clinton not to give the emerging industrial powers an economic advantage. The Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution. Byrd-Hagel stated the sense of the Senate that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing nations as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States." Byrd-Hagel prevented Clinton from even trying to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Byrd blasts ‘cap and trade’

Senator Robert Byrd opposes the Waxman-Markey "cap and trade" climate change legislation pushed by President Obama and passed, but not read by the House:

"I cannot support the House bill in its present form," Byrd said in a statement. "I continue to believe that clean coal can be a 'green' energy. Those of us who understand coal's great potential in our quest for energy independence must continue to work diligently in shaping a climate bill that will ensure access to affordable energy for West Virginians."

It is no surprise that the Democrat, who grew up in grew up in West Virginia coalfields, would oppose cap and trade. After all, Obama says cap and trade will bankrupt anyone who builds a coal-powered plant.

Also, Senator Byrd's was one of the two sponsors of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which the senate unanimously passed, 95–0, in 1997. Byrd-Hagel stated the sense of the Senate that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing nations as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States." Byrd-Hagel prevented Clinton from even trying to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which like the Waxman-Markey "cap and trade" climate change legislation, would have put the U.S. economy at an economic disadvantage to China and India.

Only 19% believe the House cap and trade bill will help the economy

Rasmussen reports that only 19% believe the Waxman-Markey cap and trade tax climate change legislation the House passed last week will help the economy, but 42% say it will hurt the U.S. economy.

A majority of both Republicans (56%) and Independents (52%) think the bill will hurt the economy.

Among Democrats, 30% say it will help the economy.

Just like polling on bailouts, tea parties, and immigration, Rasmussen found a telling divide between divide between Mainstream America and the Political Class on cap and trade:

Fifty percent (50%) of Mainstream Americans say the climate control measure will hurt the economy, but two-thirds of the Political Class (67%) say it will help.

How can our leaders be that out of touch with their constituents?

More Obama say one thing do another - science suppression edition

In his December 20, 2008 weekly address, President-elect Obama set forth some soaring rhetoric regarding science:

Because the truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources – it’s about protecting free and open inquiry.  It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.  It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient.  Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us.  That will be my goal as President of the United States – and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work.

Just words.

Contrary to Obama's rhetoric his administration has suppressed inconvenient scientific evidence that global warming isn't as bad as the cap and trade advocates have been telling us.

The following video outlines the story:

Declan McCullagh reports that according to recently disclosed emails, the Environmental Protection Agency suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming:

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message (PDF) to a staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward...and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."

The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be an independent review process inside a federal agency--and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.

E-mail messages released this week show that Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, was ordered not to "have any direct communication" with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.

The suppressed Carlin report was especially inconvenient for Obama's cap and trade push:

Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature.

If there is a need for the government to lower planetary temperatures, Carlin believes, other mechanisms would be cheaper and more effective than regulation of carbon dioxide. One paper he wrote says managing sea level rise or reducing solar radiation reaching the earth would be more cost-effective alternatives.

How long will President Obama get away with saying one thing while he does the opposite?

Only 15 more Senate votes needed for cap and trade

Darren Samuelsohn reports cap and trade backers are 15 Senate votes short of the 60 needed for passage.

According to Samuelsohn's article, the Senate count stands at 45 yes or probably yes, 32 no, and 23 fence sitters:

To start, there are 45 senators in the "yes" or "probably yes" camp, including Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Maine Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.

There are 23 fence sitters. Alaska's Mark Begich (D) and Lisa Murkowski (R) need to keep their home state's oil and gas interests in mind, while Ohio's Sherrod Brown (D) and Michigan Democrats Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow are pressing for provisions that help agriculture and their state's ailing manufacturing and auto industries.

There are also 32 Republicans who are unlikely to vote for a climate bill of the shape and size that Obama and congressional Democratic leaders envision, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Missouri Sen. Kit Bond and Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, an outspoken skeptic about the link between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

Have things change so much since the 1990's? Back then, the House approved President Clinton's energy tax, also known as the BTU tax. That vote was as close as Friday's on the Democrats' cap and trade energy tax:

In 1993, the legislation containing the Clinton energy tax was adopted on a 219-to-213 vote with 38 Democrats defecting. On Friday, the House bill was approved 219 to 212, with 44 Democrats defecting.

Clinton's energy tax didn't pass the senate and the Democrats lost the senate in the following election.

The whole point of both Clinton's BTU energy tax and the current cap and trade energy tax is to price fossil fuels out of the market. Imposing higher energy costs on our economy, costs which don't apply to economic competitors such as China and India, does not make sense for a struggling economy facing Obama's out of control spending, higher taxes and ever growing multi-trillion dollar deficits.

In 1997 the Senate unanimously passed, 95–0, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing nations as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States." Byrd-Hagel prevented Clinton from even trying to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which also would have put the U.S. economy at an economic disadvantage to China and India.

Have things really changed so since the 1990s that the U.S. Senate would vote to give our economic competitors an advantage?

President Obama hasn't even tried to wiggle out of his admissions that under his cap and trade plan electricity rates will skyrocket and would bankrupt anyone who builds a coal-powered plant.  

Have things really changed so much that the Senate would vote cause electricity rates to skyrocket and to bankrupt anyone who builds a coal powered plant?

Pawlenty to Obama: Stop spending

"With all due respect, Mr. President, if we're out of money, quit spending it." - Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, CNN's State of the Union, June 28, 2009

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty discussed, health care, cap and trade and stimulus on CNN's State of the Union with John King. Pawlenty did a terrific job countering Obama/Democrat talking points:

• On President Obama's so-called stimulus:

  The General Accounting Office, said recently of the $800 billion stimulus bill, only about $150 billion of it is really stimulative for the economy. The rest was spent on government programs, government social service programs that are not stimulative. And so this is a bill that was misdirected,mis-targeted, mis- prioritized, mis-focused.

• On Out-of-Control Spending:

Well, the president said not long ago in an interview quote-unquote, "we are out of money." With all due respect, Mr. President, if we're out of money, quit spending it.

This is a nation that has got a debt load and a deficit load that is unsustainable. We're going to have, in my view, the federal government debt crisis equivalent of the mortgage crisis within 20 years.

• On Cap and Trade:

It's a cap and trade bill. It's going to cap our job growth and trade our jobs to other countries who provide a more competitive business environment. 

We should do things to reduce emissions and pollution, but we have to do it in a way that doesn't wreck our economy or put unreasonable burdens on our citizens. And this bill does not meet that test.

• On Health Care:

  Well, there are goals of three parts for health care reform, John. One is extending coverage, called access, but there are other goals, as well, which is cost containment, because it's bankrupting cities, states, businesses, the federal government. And the third is making sure we maintain quality.

  So you can obsess just about access, but if you don't also contain costs and preserve quality, you're in big trouble.       

  We share, as Republicans, the goal of health care reform, to get more access, to control costs, to improve quality. But the way to do that isn't to have the government take over the system.

Watch the video:

The full transcript of Governor Pawlenty is available here.