Late last Tuesday night the House Democrats made a deal on cap and tax (cap and trade) so the more  conservative Democrats felt better about the bill and would ensure their vote for the legislation.  The deal involved many of the Democrats from the mid-west and farm country where agriculture was a major concern for these representatives. 

The House is prepared to vote on the bill to push it through the Senate by this Friday.  Nancy Pelosi believes that given 2 days’ time she will have enough votes for a majority. 

This bill is incredibly harmful, hurtful, expensive, and it quite frankly is one of the nastiest pieces of legislation I have seen in a long time.  Liberals continuously use the straw-man argument that Republicans try to fear monger others into voting a certain way or believing certain things… I could say the exact same thing for GloBull warming, which is the biggest hoax of this century.  In fact, when people finally wake up and figure out that the politicians are all in bed with “Green” companies, holding significant amounts of equity, and wanting legislation like this passed, not because it’s based on a true premise, but because it will line their pockets – then maybe common sense can reign supreme.

This cap and tax bill will have very little effect on the poorest – because they don’t pay taxes to begin with.  They are leeches on productive society.  The top quintile of the country, or the richest, will be burdened with this particular tax, but not as much as their federal income taxes.   No, cap and tax will fall squarely on the middle class.  Whether you are lower-middle class, middle, or upper, you will feel this significantly. 

If you look at only the bottom quintile, C&T is more progressive than anything else in the federal tax system. But it’s downhill from there: The share of cap and trade paid by the middle quintile is three times the federal tax system’s average, and the share paid by the richest quintile is half that of the average.

I don’t really have a strong normative point to make here. Progressivity is in the eye of the beholder and all that. Nonetheless, I hope this puts some of the debate over the burdens of cap and trade in context.

If you are the least bit curious you can actually calculate the cap and tax burden on your household/family. 

I have written several times regarding Cap and Tax – whether it was posting a video clip of Democrat Rep. Dick Durbin stating that all this legislation is one big tax, or Henry Waxman’s incompetency.  I have written about our economy and how this will completely destroy sectors, increase the cost of living, increase our gas and energy prices, decrease our standard of living, and repress those who work hard to make a living.

Most of America disagrees with Cap and Trade, and congress was trying to come up with ways in wich they could cover up the bill and pass it off as some other cleverly deceptive rubbish:

The latest IBD/TIPP poll shows that cap and trade is a no go in the public eye.  More people are beginning to understand what it actually entails/means.  Indiana has also found a way around cap and trade this past week.

However, the Obama administration seems as though it may want to advance this agenda, but just under a different name.

How does the “The Clean Energy Divide” sound to you?

The Obama administration is exploring alternative names for cap and trade legislation.

People don’t really know what cap and trade means, but they don’t like it. So a new name is being concocted to gather support for the legislation.

It doesn’t look like the names “carbon tax” or “regressive tax” are in the mix, though. How does “clean energy divide” grab you?

WSJ: Seeking to bolster public support for climate legislation, the Obama administration is consulting pollsters who advocate avoiding phrases such as “cap-and-trade” and “global warming.” On Monday, the White House Council on Environmental Quality was scheduled to meet with Robert Perkowitz, president of ecoAmerica, a Washington-based nonprofit that uses “psychographic research” to “shift personal and civic choices of environmentally agnostic Americans,” according to its Web site.

“We’re trying to give them phrases that work,” Mr. Perkowitz said in an interview. He said that in a survey of some 2,000 Americans conducted by his group in March and April, less than half of the respondents said they would support a “cap-and-trade” policy, and that only 24% said they knew what the phrase means. “If you call it ‘clean energy dividend’…almost anything other than ‘cap and trade,’ you’ll get people responding a lot more favorably,” he said.

Isn’t that nice?  let’s trick the American people so we can still strap the poor and the middle class with tax hikes to obtain our faulty liberal green agenda so Al Gore can receive a bunch of profits as well as GE, Google and Microsoft…

Not only will we have to ration Obamacare we will be back to rationing gas and unemployment will not only reach 10%, as Obama predicts, but higher – you cannot destroy the mining/coal industry and expect your unemployment rate to stay the same.  Coal is one of the most abundant natural resources that America has… it is one thing that keeps us competitive abroad – and with this legislation you can kiss that goodbye.  Is it really so “tin-foil” hat to think that the Democrats are in bed with foreign countries, selling out America for a little extra cash?  (I’m sure we will also figure out who some of the Republican Reps./Senators are after the vote as well). 

There still exist some principled Congress-critters and politicians, but they are few and far between.  Michele Bachmann has been on the forefront of this debate, Jim DeMint is pretty outspoken when it comes to fiscal irresponsibility and unconstitutional legislation… but, other than that, it’s hard to make a case for most who waffle on their principles – so much so they may as well say “Leggo” my values.

The only way we can at least attempt to curtail the passage of this bill Friday is through melting the phones.  Many of our represenatives won’t listen to our pleas or our common sense logic – believe me, my Senator and Represenative are Progressives!  (Sarbanes & Cardin), but it’s still imperatiave that we at least try. 

Find your Reps. here.

Share on Facebook

Let the Green Policies and Environmental Restrictions begin.  Not only will this type of ideologue nonsense annoy a good portion of the population, but it will also wind up crippling companies and the free market.  As the IMF director said today – the right policies need to be put in place today to avoid a massive global depression and it’s policies like these that will have the exact opposite affect. 

Welcome to Animal Farm.

The Environmental Protection Agency concluded Friday that greenhouse gases linked to climate change “endanger public health and welfare,” setting the stage for regulating them under federal clean air laws.

The EPA action marks the first step toward imposing limits on pollution linked to climate change, which would mean tighter rules for cars and power plants. Agency officials cautioned such regulations are expected to be part of a lengthy process and not issued anytime soon.

In announcing the proposed finding, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said it “confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations.” She reiterated that the Obama administration prefers that climate change be address by Congress through broad, economy-wide limits on climate-changing pollution. But the EPA finding of endangerment prepares for possible regulatory action if Congress fails to act.

The agency said in its finding that “in both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem” and that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases “that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”

The EPA concluded that the science pointing to man-made pollution as a cause of global warming is “compelling and overwhelming.” It also said tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles contribute to climate change.

Congress is considering imposing an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions along with giving industry the ability to trade emission allowances to mitigate costs. Legislation could be considered by the House before the August congressional recess.

Other scientists have different opinions than what the EPA manifests as real science or factual studies.  These scientists continuously contend that we are actually going through a cooling phase rather than a warming phase that is mainly caused by natural weather and climate patterns.  Man-made causes have a limited affect on the environment but it is still important that we take care of our surroundings.  Visit www.icecap.us for their latest articles about this faulty science. 

There is also a write-up trying to stop the EPA, which of course is a biased organization which was last run by Carol Browner and imagine that – she is now part of the Obama administration:

The EPA’s former director, Carol Browner, was recently discovered to be a commissioner in Socialist International, described by Steven Milloy of JunkScience.com as “a decidedly anti-capitalistic political cause.” Socialist International’s principles are the communist principles set forth by Karl Marx.

Browner is presently the chief White House advisor to the President on environmental issues.

The announcement that the EPA has declared carbon dioxide a “pollutant” and all so-called greenhouse gases a danger to human health and welfare now clears the way to regulate every single economic activity in the nation, most notably the emissions from automobiles.

The EDF hailed the announcement saying “The U.S. is taking its first steps as a nation to confront climate change.” Vickie Patton, EDF’s deputy general counsel, went on to say “Global warming threatens our health, our economy, and our children’s prosperity.”

Only there is NO global warming and there is NOTHING that the U.S. government or all the governments of all the nations of the world can do about “climate change.” This is a “threat” that does not exist!

What the EPA and other elements of government can and will do is use the international “global warming” hoax to pass new laws and more regulations to destroy the economic viability of all activities that utilize energy.

The site and post goes further into the science behind why these findings are not substantiated and how the EPA is politically biased.

Not only do we have the EPA and the Obama administration, but now we have far left witch hunters like Henry Waxman stating that he wants to hold onto his bill that will require a 20% reduction in greenhouses gases by 2020.   

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman said he won’t compromise on his proposed 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases over the next decade in the face of criticism from lawmakers who say the economy could suffer.

“I want to keep those caps in place,” Waxman said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt” airing this weekend. “It’s what the scientists are telling us we must do” to avoid a global catastrophe, he said.

Waxman, a California Democrat, said he would be willing to give ground in other areas of the measure, which comes up for its opening round of debate in Congress next week.

Waxman, creepily also feels that congress should have even more power and the EPA should not be conducting these studies.  Apparently, these buffoons in congress also feel as though they received science degrees and can really evaluate scientific studies.  I still don’t feel as though the EPA is a scientific agency but rather another tool for the liberals to get their agenda through and create another hysteria or crisis telling us “the sky is falling.”  Thank you chicken little.

Waxman said Congress, and not the EPA, should determine how to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions.

“I don’t think the EPA ought to be regulating carbon emissions,” he said. Instead, pollution should be controlled by his climate-change bill, which proposes a cap on the amount a company can pollute along with the ability of companies to buy and sell pollution permits.

I think the most idiotic claim by Waxman was that the devastating policy of cap-and-trade which will inevitably be enacted, should use its revenues for other things other than tax-cuts and here is a look into his idea of “other things.”

He took issue with President Barack Obama’s plan to use 80 percent of the estimated $646 billion in revenue raised from carbon permits under a so-called cap-and-trade system to help fund middle-class tax cuts.

“I don’t think that’s the best use of it,” Waxman said. “By and large” it should be spent on green technologies, he said, and part of it could be used to “help consumers with higher energy costs” and hard-hit industries, “especially coal.”

I have an idea – why don’t we not enact these policies during a recession?  Here we go – the downward spiral of doom and gloom and utter destruction of our founding principles all for the sake of an ideology and a political agenda to “fundamentally transform” this country as Obama has stated in his campaigns. 

If you hate this country so much – may I suggest you move somewhere else. 

Let’s take a look at the idiocy of the man they call Henry Waxman.  I watched a documentary the other day called Bigger, Stronger, Faster and it was about three brothers, two of which used steroids and the other one weight lifted naturally.  One of the men went to Henry Waxman’s office to speak with him and he didn’t even know the national legal drinking age without having to ask his aide.  There were various other questions that he could only answer with the help of his aide in the background.  That should scare everyone!  Henry Waxman and Joe Biden were the two leading the witch hunt against steroids several years ago.

This decision is already ruining offshore drilling, in which today, a mandate was given to Alaska in regards to this Clean Air Act decision and the EPA’s findings that would ban the offshore drilling proposal off the coast of Alaska.  I just find it ironic that this ruling came down today around the same time the EPA made its announcement.

A three-judge panel in Washington found that the Bush-era Interior Department failed to consider the effect on the environment and marine life before it began the process in August 2005 to expand an oil and gas leasing program in the Beaufort, Bering and Chukchi seas.

The appeals court ordered the department, now run by President Barack Obama’s appointee Ken Salazar, to analyze the areas to determine environmental risks and potential damage before moving ahead with the program. Salazar was in Alaska this week holding public hearings on plans made under the Bush administration to hold lease sales over the next five years in those three areas.

The seas are home to wildlife including polar bears, whales, seals, walruses and seabirds. The lawsuit was brought by three environmental groups that want to protect the ecosystem and the Native Village of Point Hope, a community that lives off the wildlife on the Chukchi Sea coast of Northwest Alaska.

The decision comes at a time when oil and gas producers are finding it increasingly difficult to find new reserves and boost production at home and abroad. Output from the biggest U.S. oil companies has largely been in decline in the past few years.

These decisions are being made and will have a huge impact on our own oil industry and our national security but what about the overall impact on our economy?  If would could produce oil and nuclear energy we would be a producing country again and would have more exports – it’s really about common sense, something the liberals lost a long time ago.

Here’s the problem, bluntly:

The science is not settled on whether CO2 is in fact responsible for climate change, and if so, to what degree.
CO2 is inherently a product of energy production that results from combustion of any chemically-stored form of solar energy that involves the carbon atom.
People think of this as “fossil fuels” but in fact those fuels are nothing more or less than the capture of solar energy over time.  It is entirely possible to capture that energy over a shorter period of time (e.g. biodiesel, ethanol, burning of wood cut and seasoned, charcoal in your grill, etc.)

In fact all we are really talking about is cycle time when it comes to so-called “fossil fuels”, which are better called “carbon-based energy storage.”

The problem with regulating “greenhouse gases” is that you produce them.  You exhale CO2.  So does your dog, your cat, and your fish.

The cow in the field that makes milk emits greenhouse gases – they fart.  Really.  And methane is several times as potent as a greenhouse gas as is CO2.  What’s the “cow tax” going to be?  And what’s the tax on that bowl of chili I want to eat – you know what comes next, right?

CO2 is in fact essential for life on earth.  The paradox is that without CO2 there would be no free O2 – that is, oxygen – for you to breathe.  Green things – from algae to your lawn to trees in the back yard – in fact respire, taking in CO2 and emitting O2.  The second paradox is that the higher the atmospheric CO2 content the faster those plants grow.

So if you’re going to tax me for emitting CO2 from my tailpipe, then you must also credit me for having nearly 3/4 of an acre of lawn.  See, that grass sequesters approximately 3 tons of CO2 per acre per year, according to the same scientists.

Of course you’re not going to see the EPA promulgate regulations forcing the government to cut me a check for my personal carbon sequestration, but they’ll sure as hell tax me for my carbon fuel use.

Its funny how science and fact never get in the way of a bad idea to play hell with the economy and markets.

The Obama administration is an abomination or an Obamanation if that’s what you would like to call it – a flat out disaster that will ruin this country all for control, power and political gain.

Share on Facebook