Last week, a draft memo surfaced from the Department of Homeland Security suggesting ways to administratively circumvent existing law to allow several categories of illegal immigrants to avoid deportation and, indeed, for some to be granted permanent residency. Most disturbing was the stated rationale. This was being proposed "in the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." In other words, because Congress refuses to do what these bureaucrats would like to see done, they will legislate it themselves.
Regardless of your feelings on the substance of the immigration issue, this is not how a constitutional democracy should operate. Administrators administer the law, they don't change it. That's the legislators' job.
When questioned, the White House played down the toxic memo, leaving the impression that it was nothing more than ruminations emanating from the bowels of Homeland Security. But the administration is engaged in an even more significant power play elsewhere.
A 2007 Supreme Court ruling gave the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate carbon emissions if it could demonstrate that they threaten human health and the environment. The Obama EPA made precisely that finding, thereby granting itself a huge expansion of power and, noted The Post, sending "a message to Congress."
It was not a terribly subtle message: Enact cap-and-trade legislation -- taxing and heavily regulating carbon-based energy -- or the EPA will do so unilaterally. As Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch noted, such a finding "is likely to help light a fire under Congress to get moving."
Well, Congress didn't. Despite the "regulatory cudgel" (to again quote The Post) the administration has been waving, the Senate has repeatedly refused to acquiesce.
Good for the Senate.
Showing posts with label cap-and-trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cap-and-trade. Show all posts
Friday, August 6, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Three retiring Republican senators could resurrect cap-trade
Despite claims to the contrary, the energy tax known as cap and trade is still alive. Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has supposedly pulled the plug on it, our implacable Senatorial leadership is reportedly conspiring to foist the Kerry-Lieberman bill on the American people by bringing it to a vote during the lame duck session. They would then reinstate the cap and trade provision during conference with the House's Waxman-Markey Bill. This scheme would not only impose huge new taxes on the American people, it could also transfer billions of dollars and many thousands of jobs to Mexico.
The first reason for timing the vote after the election should be obvious. The Democrats hope that retiring Republican Senators George Voinovich (OH), George LeMieux (FL), and Judd Gregg (NH), who have voiced support for climate legislation in the past and will no longer need to worry about responding to their constituents, will buck the party line in order to cement their respective "legacies" in the eyes of the media and liberal historians. Asked about this possibility, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said he "certainly wouldn't rule it out." This threat must be taken seriously.
Most Americans understand that cap and trade would mean skyrocketing energy costs -- as the President himself admitted during his election campaign -- but that's not all. Cap and trade would carry serious geopolitical ramifications for the United States.
The first reason for timing the vote after the election should be obvious. The Democrats hope that retiring Republican Senators George Voinovich (OH), George LeMieux (FL), and Judd Gregg (NH), who have voiced support for climate legislation in the past and will no longer need to worry about responding to their constituents, will buck the party line in order to cement their respective "legacies" in the eyes of the media and liberal historians. Asked about this possibility, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said he "certainly wouldn't rule it out." This threat must be taken seriously.
Most Americans understand that cap and trade would mean skyrocketing energy costs -- as the President himself admitted during his election campaign -- but that's not all. Cap and trade would carry serious geopolitical ramifications for the United States.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
If cap-and-trade was enacted, we'd still drill for oil and gas
Prior to the Gulf disaster, the American Power Act (the Senate version of cap-and- trade) seemed all but dead. This is as it should be. But with the Senate back from the July 4 recess, either the American Power Act will be explicitly taken up or another clean energy bill will be proffered to which the key provisions of the American Power Act will be attached.
The problem is that there is no real link between cap-and-trade regulations and the crisis in the Gulf. As President Obama himself admitted in a speech at Andrews Air Force Base in March of this year:
"The bottom line is this: Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we're going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy (emphasis added)."
Therefore, even if cap-and-trade legislation were passed, we will still need to drill for oil and natural gas. Furthermore, cap- and-trade regulations do not fix the problems that led to the Gulf crisis in the first place, so we will still need to fix these problems.
All that would change if cap-and-trade legislation were passed is that President Obama and Congress would have chosen the worst possible time to impose job-killing legislation on the economy.
The U.S. economy has been growing thus far in 2010, but not at the robust pace one would expect at this phase of an economic recovery, and the joblessness rate remains unacceptably high.
The problem is that there is no real link between cap-and-trade regulations and the crisis in the Gulf. As President Obama himself admitted in a speech at Andrews Air Force Base in March of this year:
"The bottom line is this: Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we're going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy (emphasis added)."
Therefore, even if cap-and-trade legislation were passed, we will still need to drill for oil and natural gas. Furthermore, cap- and-trade regulations do not fix the problems that led to the Gulf crisis in the first place, so we will still need to fix these problems.
All that would change if cap-and-trade legislation were passed is that President Obama and Congress would have chosen the worst possible time to impose job-killing legislation on the economy.
The U.S. economy has been growing thus far in 2010, but not at the robust pace one would expect at this phase of an economic recovery, and the joblessness rate remains unacceptably high.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Capturing, sequestering our breath = 80% higher electrical cost
A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today found that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) schemes favored by Democrats under their proposed cap and trade national energy tax boondoggle would increase electricity costs, reduce electricity output and increase water consumption.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking Republican of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), released the GAO today covering the status, cost, and reliability of current CCS technology for coal-fired power plants.
The release states, “Based on GAO's survey of stakeholders, including utilities and state regulators, current CCS technology would increase electricity costs by 30 to 80 percent, reduce electricity output between 15 and 32 percent, and increase water consumption at power plants.”
These findings do not bode well for Democrats pushing the cap and trade national energy tax scheme.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking Republican of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), released the GAO today covering the status, cost, and reliability of current CCS technology for coal-fired power plants.
The release states, “Based on GAO's survey of stakeholders, including utilities and state regulators, current CCS technology would increase electricity costs by 30 to 80 percent, reduce electricity output between 15 and 32 percent, and increase water consumption at power plants.”
These findings do not bode well for Democrats pushing the cap and trade national energy tax scheme.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Having failed to enact a 2011 budget, Dems gave up a vital tool
In electing to deem a federal budget, instead of enacting one, the Democrats have inadvertently handed crucial blocking power to the minority Republicans.
Lacking a budget, the Democrats can not resort to budget reconciliation, a tool that would allow them to enact controversial legislation with just 51 votes, instead of the 60 required to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.
On red-meat issues such as cap-and-trade, the Democrats will have first and 10 on their own 10-yard line instead of first and 10 at mid-field.
Here is how the Washington Independent describes the situation:
On Tuesday, the Treasury Department announced that the country’s deficit had hit the $1 trillion mark just nine months into the fiscal year. Fear of the deficit had already led Congress to kill or delay an administration-backed jobs bill, a federal extension of unemployment benefits, a war funding bill and federal funding for Medicaid. Now, the 13-digit monster has claimed its latest victim: a full budget for the coming fiscal year.
Recognizing that Democrats would be reluctant to record “yes” votes for a budget that would augment the deficit, the House leadership opted to deem as passed a “budget enforcement resolution” instead, just before the July 4 recess. While the distinction between an enforcement resolution and a full budget is largely technical, there is one crucial difference: Under the enforcement resolution, Democrats can no longer use a parliamentary tactic known as budget reconciliation next year — a process Democrats had hoped might allow them to pass key pieces of legislation, such as a jobs bill, with 51 votes in the Senate, as opposed to the usual 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.
Under the arcane rules of the Senate, budget reconciliation can only be used if it was written into the budget rules passed the previous year. With no full budget, there can be no reconciliation. As a consequence, Democrats lose a valuable tool for passing budget-related items on a majority-rules vote. Stimulus and jobs measures, if they combined short-term spending with longer-term deficit reduction, would have qualified for reconciliation.
Some policy advisers and members of Congress pushing for a such a measure — and recognizing that it could not make it past a Republican filibuster — viewed reconciliation as a last hope. “What we want to do is end up with legislation that is going to create a substantial number of jobs,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told reporters. “We don’t have 60 votes to do that. We could do that through majority rule, 51 votes.”
But a desire among Democrats to avoid voting on a deficit-increasing budget won out over the need to preserve reconciliation in creating the budget enforcement resolution. “Members looked at the budget and said, ‘We might need more deficit spending,’” said Jim Horney, the director of federal fiscal policy at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. “And anything you do to try to reduce those deficits would necessarily include policies that might not be popular — tax increases, cuts in major programs.” The House leadership judged the enforcement resolution as less of a political risk for moderate Democrats who will face difficult re-election campaigns in the fall.
Lacking a budget, the Democrats can not resort to budget reconciliation, a tool that would allow them to enact controversial legislation with just 51 votes, instead of the 60 required to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.
On red-meat issues such as cap-and-trade, the Democrats will have first and 10 on their own 10-yard line instead of first and 10 at mid-field.
Here is how the Washington Independent describes the situation:
On Tuesday, the Treasury Department announced that the country’s deficit had hit the $1 trillion mark just nine months into the fiscal year. Fear of the deficit had already led Congress to kill or delay an administration-backed jobs bill, a federal extension of unemployment benefits, a war funding bill and federal funding for Medicaid. Now, the 13-digit monster has claimed its latest victim: a full budget for the coming fiscal year.
Recognizing that Democrats would be reluctant to record “yes” votes for a budget that would augment the deficit, the House leadership opted to deem as passed a “budget enforcement resolution” instead, just before the July 4 recess. While the distinction between an enforcement resolution and a full budget is largely technical, there is one crucial difference: Under the enforcement resolution, Democrats can no longer use a parliamentary tactic known as budget reconciliation next year — a process Democrats had hoped might allow them to pass key pieces of legislation, such as a jobs bill, with 51 votes in the Senate, as opposed to the usual 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.
Under the arcane rules of the Senate, budget reconciliation can only be used if it was written into the budget rules passed the previous year. With no full budget, there can be no reconciliation. As a consequence, Democrats lose a valuable tool for passing budget-related items on a majority-rules vote. Stimulus and jobs measures, if they combined short-term spending with longer-term deficit reduction, would have qualified for reconciliation.
Some policy advisers and members of Congress pushing for a such a measure — and recognizing that it could not make it past a Republican filibuster — viewed reconciliation as a last hope. “What we want to do is end up with legislation that is going to create a substantial number of jobs,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told reporters. “We don’t have 60 votes to do that. We could do that through majority rule, 51 votes.”
But a desire among Democrats to avoid voting on a deficit-increasing budget won out over the need to preserve reconciliation in creating the budget enforcement resolution. “Members looked at the budget and said, ‘We might need more deficit spending,’” said Jim Horney, the director of federal fiscal policy at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. “And anything you do to try to reduce those deficits would necessarily include policies that might not be popular — tax increases, cuts in major programs.” The House leadership judged the enforcement resolution as less of a political risk for moderate Democrats who will face difficult re-election campaigns in the fall.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Imhofe: With 53 senators opposed, Senate will block cap-trade
One would think that, when it comes to the Gulf spill, our top priorities would be as follows: plug the leak, mitigate and clean up the environmental damage, and provide help to those affected by it. But as President Obama indicated in his Oval Office address last Tuesday night, he sees things quite differently.
In his address President Obama found occasion to trumpet his radical cap-and-trade agenda for the nation’s energy sector. He referred approvingly to the disastrous Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, which the House narrowly passed last summer. He sent clear signals that he wants the Senate to pass a “strong and comprehensive clean energy and climate bill,” which are Obama code words for cap-and-trade, mandates, taxes, and bureaucracy.
But the Senate will pass no such legislation, because opposition to it runs deep. The vote on June 10 on Sen. Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) resolution to overturn the Obama EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases is a case in point. Though it failed, 47 to 53, it became clear as the debate progressed that there is a bipartisan majority in the U.S. Senate that either opposes any EPA greenhouse gas regulation, or wants such regulation delayed for two years. That latter option has been proposed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D.-W.Va.), who voted for the Murkowski resolution.
Thus far, at least six Democrats have pledged support for Rockefeller’s two-year delay. Those six Democrats stole victory away from Murkowski, but combined with the 47 ‘yes’ votes on the resolution (six of whom were Democrats), there are 53 members of the Senate who want to stand in EPA’s way. What’s more, these same senators want nothing to do with Obama’s radical cap-and-trade agenda.
In his address President Obama found occasion to trumpet his radical cap-and-trade agenda for the nation’s energy sector. He referred approvingly to the disastrous Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, which the House narrowly passed last summer. He sent clear signals that he wants the Senate to pass a “strong and comprehensive clean energy and climate bill,” which are Obama code words for cap-and-trade, mandates, taxes, and bureaucracy.
But the Senate will pass no such legislation, because opposition to it runs deep. The vote on June 10 on Sen. Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) resolution to overturn the Obama EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases is a case in point. Though it failed, 47 to 53, it became clear as the debate progressed that there is a bipartisan majority in the U.S. Senate that either opposes any EPA greenhouse gas regulation, or wants such regulation delayed for two years. That latter option has been proposed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D.-W.Va.), who voted for the Murkowski resolution.
Thus far, at least six Democrats have pledged support for Rockefeller’s two-year delay. Those six Democrats stole victory away from Murkowski, but combined with the 47 ‘yes’ votes on the resolution (six of whom were Democrats), there are 53 members of the Senate who want to stand in EPA’s way. What’s more, these same senators want nothing to do with Obama’s radical cap-and-trade agenda.
Friday, June 11, 2010
What you are exhaling is now a dangerous gas, say Democrats
Senate Democrats yesterday voted to empower unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), trial lawyers and activist judges to enact Obama’s cap and trade national energy tax through regulation and against the will of the American people.
Voting down Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Ak.) resolution of disapproval (S.J. Res.26) by a 47-53 margin, Democrats approved handing the EPA the unprecedented power to drastically regulate carbon dioxide, the very substance human beings exhale when we breathe.
All Republicans voted in favor of the disapproval resolution that would have stripped the EPA’s ability to enforce their “endangerment” finding, six Democrats crossed over to vote with Republicans.
How did your Senator vote?
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Democrats looking for escape on issue of EPA power grab
Democratic leaders are scrambling to prevent the Senate from delivering a stinging slap to President Barack Obama on climate change.
They have offered a vote on a bill they dislike in the hopes of avoiding a loss on legislation Obama hates.
The president is threatening to veto a resolution from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would ban the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating carbon emissions.
But if the president were forced to use his veto to prevent legislation emerging from a Congress in which his own party enjoys substantial majorities, it would be a humiliation for him and for Democrats on Capitol Hill.
So Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and other Democratic leaders are doing what they can to stop it.
They are floating the possibility of voting on an alternative measure from Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from the coal state of West Virginia, which they previously refused to grant floor time, Senate sources say.
A spokeswoman for Reid declined to comment on the offer. But Democrats on Wednesday thought it was good enough to win a crucial vote on the Republican resolution.
Murkowski, ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is using the Congressional Review Act, an element of the Contract With America, which allows Congress to overturn executive branch regulations with simple majority votes in both chambers. The Review Act expedites a floor vote.
Republicans don’t have the two-thirds majority they would need in both chambers to overturn an Obama veto. But Republicans say passing the resolution through one chamber would be a big win.
“Anything close to half the Senate says this is a congressional responsibility and not the administration’s, that’s a strong message from the country to the president,” said Senate GOP conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), referring to the EPA plan to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act.
Democrats suffered a serious setback Tuesday when Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Commerce panel, announced he would vote for Murkowski’s resolution. He joined Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (La.), who are co-sponsors of the measure.
If Republicans keep their conference unified, that would give them 45 votes for Murkowski’s proposal, with a handful Democrats, such as Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.), Evan Bayh (Ind.) and Jim Webb (Va.), in play as potential allies.
Rockefeller said EPA regulation of carbon could have a “devastating” impact on West Virginia. He threw his support to Murkowski after his leaders denied him a vote on his alternative bill resolution, which would prevent the EPA curbing carbon emissions for two years from stationary sources, such as power plants and factories.
They have offered a vote on a bill they dislike in the hopes of avoiding a loss on legislation Obama hates.
The president is threatening to veto a resolution from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would ban the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating carbon emissions.
But if the president were forced to use his veto to prevent legislation emerging from a Congress in which his own party enjoys substantial majorities, it would be a humiliation for him and for Democrats on Capitol Hill.
So Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and other Democratic leaders are doing what they can to stop it.
They are floating the possibility of voting on an alternative measure from Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from the coal state of West Virginia, which they previously refused to grant floor time, Senate sources say.
A spokeswoman for Reid declined to comment on the offer. But Democrats on Wednesday thought it was good enough to win a crucial vote on the Republican resolution.
Murkowski, ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is using the Congressional Review Act, an element of the Contract With America, which allows Congress to overturn executive branch regulations with simple majority votes in both chambers. The Review Act expedites a floor vote.
Republicans don’t have the two-thirds majority they would need in both chambers to overturn an Obama veto. But Republicans say passing the resolution through one chamber would be a big win.
“Anything close to half the Senate says this is a congressional responsibility and not the administration’s, that’s a strong message from the country to the president,” said Senate GOP conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), referring to the EPA plan to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act.
Democrats suffered a serious setback Tuesday when Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Commerce panel, announced he would vote for Murkowski’s resolution. He joined Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (La.), who are co-sponsors of the measure.
If Republicans keep their conference unified, that would give them 45 votes for Murkowski’s proposal, with a handful Democrats, such as Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.), Evan Bayh (Ind.) and Jim Webb (Va.), in play as potential allies.
Rockefeller said EPA regulation of carbon could have a “devastating” impact on West Virginia. He threw his support to Murkowski after his leaders denied him a vote on his alternative bill resolution, which would prevent the EPA curbing carbon emissions for two years from stationary sources, such as power plants and factories.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
A "monstrous collection of payoffs" masquerading as a cap-and-trade bill has no chance of enactment
The chance that the Senate will pass a comprehensive energy-rationing (a k a climate) bill this year remains close to zero. BP’s big oil spill in the Gulf changes very little.
The global warming movement peaked last June 26 when the House passed the Waxman-Markey bill. When members went home for the Fourth of July, many who voted for it discovered that their constituents were angry and mobilized.
Seeing the public reaction, Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) dropped plans to move a cap-and-trade bill before the August recess and turned to health care reform. It’s been all downhill since then.
The Kerry-Boxer bill, which is very similar to Waxman-Markey, passed the Environment and Public Works Committee last fall, but it was clear that it couldn’t get 51 votes, let alone 60, on the floor. That’s when Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) began working on a “middle-of-the-road” package with Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.).
Even if he does finally release a draft of the measure this week, it’s still not going anywhere. Whether Graham is on board doesn’t matter because he doesn’t bring any other Republicans with him.
Kerry’s draft has restricted cap-and trade to electric utilities only. And he’s stopped calling it cap-and-trade because the American people have figured out that it is an indirect tax on them. Now it’s “pollution reduction and investment.” Similarly, a gasoline tax has been renamed “linked fee.” Call it whatever you want, it’s still a tax that consumers will have to pay. Adding some offshore oil or nuclear incentives or clean coal research can’t hide the fact that prices will go up when energy is rationed.
What’s become increasingly apparent is that this legislation no longer has much to do with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a monstrous collection of payoffs to big business special interests, ranging from Goldman Sachs to Duke Energy to General Electric.
The global warming movement peaked last June 26 when the House passed the Waxman-Markey bill. When members went home for the Fourth of July, many who voted for it discovered that their constituents were angry and mobilized.
Seeing the public reaction, Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) dropped plans to move a cap-and-trade bill before the August recess and turned to health care reform. It’s been all downhill since then.
The Kerry-Boxer bill, which is very similar to Waxman-Markey, passed the Environment and Public Works Committee last fall, but it was clear that it couldn’t get 51 votes, let alone 60, on the floor. That’s when Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) began working on a “middle-of-the-road” package with Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.).
Even if he does finally release a draft of the measure this week, it’s still not going anywhere. Whether Graham is on board doesn’t matter because he doesn’t bring any other Republicans with him.
Kerry’s draft has restricted cap-and trade to electric utilities only. And he’s stopped calling it cap-and-trade because the American people have figured out that it is an indirect tax on them. Now it’s “pollution reduction and investment.” Similarly, a gasoline tax has been renamed “linked fee.” Call it whatever you want, it’s still a tax that consumers will have to pay. Adding some offshore oil or nuclear incentives or clean coal research can’t hide the fact that prices will go up when energy is rationed.
What’s become increasingly apparent is that this legislation no longer has much to do with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a monstrous collection of payoffs to big business special interests, ranging from Goldman Sachs to Duke Energy to General Electric.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
