Global Warming—The House of Representatives gives us “Cap and Trade” in 1,400 pages
GreenWatchAmerica sent the following information to me on July 2, 2009. The material as received and put into my format:
“Last Friday night (June 26, 2009—my addition), in an extremely close vote, the US House of Representatives passed the energy tax bill they’ve been threatening us with for months. At least, they think they have. Of course, they don’t know for certain, since in all likelihood, they haven’t even read it.
Through a series of parliamentary inquires, the Republicans learned that the 300-plus page managers’ amendment, added to the bill last night in the House Rules Committee, has not even been integrated with the official copy of the 1,090-page bill at the House Clerk’s desk, let alone in any other location. The two documents are side-by-side at the desk as the clerk reads through the instructions in the 300 page document for altering the 1,090 page document. (That the document, which is to become law, is 1,090 pages, without the 300+ pages of one amendment, is in itself telling. Do you actually believe the members of the House of Representatives knew what they were voting on let alone possible ramifications of some sections of the bill? Just by the length of this one proposed bill, any reasonable person should be skeptical of the results once passed. This bill seems too complicated to be a positive answer to a “problem”—Al Gore’s version of Global Warming—that, in all likelihood, does NOT exist—my addition.)
But they cannot be simply combined, because the amendment contains 300 pages of items like this: ‘Page 15, beginning line 8, strike paragraph (11)...’ How many members of Congress do you suppose have gone through it all to see how it changes the bill?
Amazingly, a near 1100 page bill had a 300 page amendment added just hours before voting (According to a Republican House member on C-SPAN during the debate, this amendment was given to House members at 3:09 AM EDT on June 26th—the day the bill was passed!—my addition), and the bill and amendment were never actually physically merged, which means the House of Representatives didn’t even have an actual physical bill they were voting on. They were voting on an idea, not an actual plan of action. But frankly, that fits, given that the global warming movement decided a long time ago that it has no time to stop and actually consider either A) the scientific facts (And yet President Barack Hussein Obama has said his policies were going to be based on science!—my addition), or B) the disastrous ramifications of their plans. If they thought about the former, they’d have paid even the slightest bit of attention when scientists of immense accomplishment and distinction penned an open letter to the House telling them, among other things, that ‘the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists’ computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.’
If they thought about the consequences, they would care that, according to The Heritage Foundation, 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.
But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600.
Beyond the cost impact on individuals and households, Waxman-Markey also affects employment, and especially employment in the manufacturing sector. We estimate job losses averaging 1,145,000 at any given time from 2012-2035 (Wait! President Barack Hussein Obama has promised that this monstrosity will CREATE jobs. Who is right?—my addition). And note that those are net job losses, after the much-hyped green jobs are taken into account. Some of the lost jobs will be destroyed entirely, while others will be outsourced to nations like China and India that have repeatedly stated that they’ll never hamper their own economic growth with energy-cost boosting global warming measures like Waxman-Markey.
Since farming is energy intensive, that sector will be particularly hard-hit. Higher gasoline and diesel fuel costs, higher electricity costs, and higher natural gas-derived fertilizer costs all erode farm profits, which are expected to drop by 28 percent in 2012 and average 57 percent lower through 2035. As with American manufacturers, Waxman-Markey also puts American farmers at a global disadvantage, as other food-exporting nations would have no comparable energy-price raising measures in place.
Overall, Waxman-Markey reduces gross domestic product by an average of $393 billion annually between 2012 and 2035, and cumulatively by $9.4 trillion. In other words, the nation will be $9.4 trillion poorer with Waxman-Markey than without it.
According to a Rasmussen poll, only 14% of Americans would be willing to pay more than $100 extra per year in taxes and utility bills to combat global warming. (When the bills actually come in, probably less than 14%—my addition.)
So what can you do to stop this unread disaster from becoming law? You can contact your Senators and tell them in no uncertain terms that if they vote in support of this bloated, economy ruining science-free disaster that they will never again receive your vote. Of course, were it not for the 219 votes for the bill in the House it never would have gotten this far. If you’re a Republican, the following eight Republican Representatives voted for the bill:
[Mary] Bono Mack (Calif.) [from the 45th Congressional District—my addition]
[Michael] Castle (Del.) [Delaware has only one member of the House]
[Mark] Kirk (Ill.) [from the 10th Congressional District—this is the same Mark Kirk who voted for the “hate crimes” bill in the House that provides that homosexual behavior is a protected group—my addition.]
[Leonard] Lance (N.J.) [from the 7th Congressional District—my addition]
[Frank] LoBiondo (N.J.) [from the 2nd Congressional District—my addition]
[John] McHugh (N.Y.) [from the 23rd Congressional District—my addition]
[David] Reichert (Wash.) [from the 8th Congressional District—my addition]
[Christopher] Smith (N.J.) [from the 4th Congressional District—my addition]
(There were also two Republicans and one Democrat who did not vote. The vote was extremely close: recorded vote: 219 yes – 212 no. If these seven Republicans would have voted no and the 44 Democrats who voted no also continued voting no, it would NOT have passed in the House of Representatives—my addition.)
If you’re represented by any of them, contact their office and let them know that they’ll pay a price at the voting booth for their irresponsible vote. If you’re a Democrat, contact your own representative and tell them the same. Politicians as a whole are a cowardly bunch: If they feel like they might lose their position of power, they’ll bury their principles ….”
“This Week’s Headlines:
Electric Cars Attract Hype, but Reality is Less Exciting
Message in the CLOUD for Warmists: The End is Near
US Will Suffer So Dems Can Save the Planet
India Rejects Any Greenhouse-Gas Cuts Under New Treaty
No Climate Debate? Yes, There Is
Most Egregious Claim of the Week:
From the Washington Post:
When Obama entered the [global warming bill] fray on May 5, summoning all 36 committee Democrats to the White House, he didn’t make a single demand. Rather, participants say, he pointed to a portrait of Abraham Lincoln and said, ‘He had a chance to affect history. You, too, have a chance to affect history.’ (The question is: will it be positively or negatively?—my addition)
Passing a global warming bill no one has read = ending slavery. Good to know, Mr.
President. Good to know.
Edited by Patrick Gallagher
Published by Richard Vigilante
Email us at mailto:GreenWatchAmerica@gmail.com?subject=
Follow us on twitter
Be our friend on facebook
GreenWatchAmerica
7400 Metro Boulevard
Suite 217
Minneapolis, MN 55439”
GreenWatchAmerica sent the following information to me on July 2, 2009. The material as received and put into my format:
“Last Friday night (June 26, 2009—my addition), in an extremely close vote, the US House of Representatives passed the energy tax bill they’ve been threatening us with for months. At least, they think they have. Of course, they don’t know for certain, since in all likelihood, they haven’t even read it.
Through a series of parliamentary inquires, the Republicans learned that the 300-plus page managers’ amendment, added to the bill last night in the House Rules Committee, has not even been integrated with the official copy of the 1,090-page bill at the House Clerk’s desk, let alone in any other location. The two documents are side-by-side at the desk as the clerk reads through the instructions in the 300 page document for altering the 1,090 page document. (That the document, which is to become law, is 1,090 pages, without the 300+ pages of one amendment, is in itself telling. Do you actually believe the members of the House of Representatives knew what they were voting on let alone possible ramifications of some sections of the bill? Just by the length of this one proposed bill, any reasonable person should be skeptical of the results once passed. This bill seems too complicated to be a positive answer to a “problem”—Al Gore’s version of Global Warming—that, in all likelihood, does NOT exist—my addition.)
But they cannot be simply combined, because the amendment contains 300 pages of items like this: ‘Page 15, beginning line 8, strike paragraph (11)...’ How many members of Congress do you suppose have gone through it all to see how it changes the bill?
Amazingly, a near 1100 page bill had a 300 page amendment added just hours before voting (According to a Republican House member on C-SPAN during the debate, this amendment was given to House members at 3:09 AM EDT on June 26th—the day the bill was passed!—my addition), and the bill and amendment were never actually physically merged, which means the House of Representatives didn’t even have an actual physical bill they were voting on. They were voting on an idea, not an actual plan of action. But frankly, that fits, given that the global warming movement decided a long time ago that it has no time to stop and actually consider either A) the scientific facts (And yet President Barack Hussein Obama has said his policies were going to be based on science!—my addition), or B) the disastrous ramifications of their plans. If they thought about the former, they’d have paid even the slightest bit of attention when scientists of immense accomplishment and distinction penned an open letter to the House telling them, among other things, that ‘the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists’ computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.’
If they thought about the consequences, they would care that, according to The Heritage Foundation, 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.
But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600.
Beyond the cost impact on individuals and households, Waxman-Markey also affects employment, and especially employment in the manufacturing sector. We estimate job losses averaging 1,145,000 at any given time from 2012-2035 (Wait! President Barack Hussein Obama has promised that this monstrosity will CREATE jobs. Who is right?—my addition). And note that those are net job losses, after the much-hyped green jobs are taken into account. Some of the lost jobs will be destroyed entirely, while others will be outsourced to nations like China and India that have repeatedly stated that they’ll never hamper their own economic growth with energy-cost boosting global warming measures like Waxman-Markey.
Since farming is energy intensive, that sector will be particularly hard-hit. Higher gasoline and diesel fuel costs, higher electricity costs, and higher natural gas-derived fertilizer costs all erode farm profits, which are expected to drop by 28 percent in 2012 and average 57 percent lower through 2035. As with American manufacturers, Waxman-Markey also puts American farmers at a global disadvantage, as other food-exporting nations would have no comparable energy-price raising measures in place.
Overall, Waxman-Markey reduces gross domestic product by an average of $393 billion annually between 2012 and 2035, and cumulatively by $9.4 trillion. In other words, the nation will be $9.4 trillion poorer with Waxman-Markey than without it.
According to a Rasmussen poll, only 14% of Americans would be willing to pay more than $100 extra per year in taxes and utility bills to combat global warming. (When the bills actually come in, probably less than 14%—my addition.)
So what can you do to stop this unread disaster from becoming law? You can contact your Senators and tell them in no uncertain terms that if they vote in support of this bloated, economy ruining science-free disaster that they will never again receive your vote. Of course, were it not for the 219 votes for the bill in the House it never would have gotten this far. If you’re a Republican, the following eight Republican Representatives voted for the bill:
[Mary] Bono Mack (Calif.) [from the 45th Congressional District—my addition]
[Michael] Castle (Del.) [Delaware has only one member of the House]
[Mark] Kirk (Ill.) [from the 10th Congressional District—this is the same Mark Kirk who voted for the “hate crimes” bill in the House that provides that homosexual behavior is a protected group—my addition.]
[Leonard] Lance (N.J.) [from the 7th Congressional District—my addition]
[Frank] LoBiondo (N.J.) [from the 2nd Congressional District—my addition]
[John] McHugh (N.Y.) [from the 23rd Congressional District—my addition]
[David] Reichert (Wash.) [from the 8th Congressional District—my addition]
[Christopher] Smith (N.J.) [from the 4th Congressional District—my addition]
(There were also two Republicans and one Democrat who did not vote. The vote was extremely close: recorded vote: 219 yes – 212 no. If these seven Republicans would have voted no and the 44 Democrats who voted no also continued voting no, it would NOT have passed in the House of Representatives—my addition.)
If you’re represented by any of them, contact their office and let them know that they’ll pay a price at the voting booth for their irresponsible vote. If you’re a Democrat, contact your own representative and tell them the same. Politicians as a whole are a cowardly bunch: If they feel like they might lose their position of power, they’ll bury their principles ….”
“This Week’s Headlines:
Electric Cars Attract Hype, but Reality is Less Exciting
Message in the CLOUD for Warmists: The End is Near
US Will Suffer So Dems Can Save the Planet
India Rejects Any Greenhouse-Gas Cuts Under New Treaty
No Climate Debate? Yes, There Is
Most Egregious Claim of the Week:
From the Washington Post:
When Obama entered the [global warming bill] fray on May 5, summoning all 36 committee Democrats to the White House, he didn’t make a single demand. Rather, participants say, he pointed to a portrait of Abraham Lincoln and said, ‘He had a chance to affect history. You, too, have a chance to affect history.’ (The question is: will it be positively or negatively?—my addition)
Passing a global warming bill no one has read = ending slavery. Good to know, Mr.
President. Good to know.
Edited by Patrick Gallagher
Published by Richard Vigilante
Email us at mailto:GreenWatchAmerica@gmail.com?subject=
Follow us on twitter
Be our friend on facebook
GreenWatchAmerica
7400 Metro Boulevard
Suite 217
Minneapolis, MN 55439”
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 4:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home