Tag Archives: “cap and trade”

YouTube – Donna Campbell – I want to Be Heard

YouTube – Donna Campbell – I want to Be Heard

via YouTube – Donna Campbell – I want to Be Heard.

http://www.youtube.com/v/VJtAId1pWUk&feature=player_embedded

PolitiFact Texas | Donna Campbell says that Rep. Lloyd Doggett voted for health care, cap-and-trade, and stimulus legislation

PolitiFact Texas | Donna Campbell says that Rep. Lloyd Doggett voted for health care, cap-and-trade, and stimulus legislation

via PolitiFact Texas | Donna Campbell says that Rep. Lloyd Doggett voted for health care, cap-and-trade, and stimulus legislation.

Even the Austin American agrees with Dr. Donna Campbell’s ad about Lloyd Doggett’s voting record click on the above link to check out what PolitiFact has to say!

 

 

My Way News – Election trouble brewing for House Dems in 2010

Sep 13, 12:01 PM (ET)

By BETH FOUHY

NEW YORK (AP) – Despite sweeping Democratic successes in the past two national elections, continuing job losses and President Barack Obama’s slipping support could lead to double-digit losses for the party in next year’s congressional races and may even threaten their House control.

Fifty-four new Democrats were swept into the House in 2006 and 2008, helping the party claim a decisive majority as voters soured on a Republican president and embraced Obama’s message of hope and change. Many of the new Democrats are in districts carried by Republican John McCain in last year’s presidential contest; others are in traditional swing districts that have proved tough for either party to hold.

From New Hampshire to Nevada, House Democrats also will be forced to defend votes on Obama’s $787 billion economic recovery package and on energy legislation viewed by many as a job killer in an already weak economy.

Add to that the absence of Obama from the top of the ticket, which could reduce turnout among blacks, liberals and young people, and the likelihood of a highly motivated GOP base confused by the president’s proposed health care plan and angry at what they consider reckless spending and high debt.

Taken together, it could be the most toxic environment for Democrats since 1994, when the party lost 34 House incumbents and 54 seats altogether. Democrats currently have a 256-178 edge in the House, with one vacancy. Republicans would have to pick up 40 seats to regain control.

“When you have big sweeps as Democrats did in 2006 and 2008, inevitably some weak candidates get elected. And when the environment gets even moderately challenging, a number of them are going to lose,” said Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College in California.

Since the mid-19th century, the party that controls the White House has lost seats in virtually every midterm election. The exceptions were in 1934, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt navigated the Great Depression, and in 2002, after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, strengthened George W. Bush’s image as a leader.

With history as a guide, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who heads the party’s House campaign committee, said he has warned colleagues to be prepared for an exceptionally challenging environment going into 2010.

But Van Hollen said voters will make their choices on the strength of the national economy and will reward Democrats for working aggressively to improve it.

“We passed an economic recovery bill with zero help from Republican colleagues,” he said. “I think voters will see that and will ask themselves, ‘Who was there to get the economy moving again, and who was standing in the way?'”

Democrats have gotten off to a much faster start than Republicans in fundraising for 2010. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had $10.2 million in the bank at the end of July, with debts of $5.3 million. The National Republican Congressional Committee had just $4 million in cash and owed $2.75 million.

The economy poses the biggest problem for Democrats, with job losses of 2.4 million nationwide since Obama took office. Despite recent signs the country is pulling out of the recession, the unemployment rate in 15 states still was in double digits in July, led by Michigan at 15 percent.

Democrats must defend as many as 60 marginal seats next year, as opposed to about 40 for Republicans. Among those, about 27 Democratic and just 13 Republican seats are seen as especially ripe for a party switch.

Some involve incumbents stepping down to run for higher office.

For example, Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Penn., is mounting a primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter. Sestack’s seat, until then safely Democratic, now becomes a top GOP target. The same goes for Louisiana Rep. Charlie Melancon, a Democrat in a GOP-leaning district who also is seeking a Senate seat.

But Republicans are on the losing side of that equation as well. Two Republicans in heavily Democratic districts – Reps. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Joe Gerlach of Pennsylvania – are vacating their seats to run for Senate and governor, respectively.

At least one Republican is considered extremely vulnerable: Joseph Cao of Louisiana, who defeated Democrat William Jefferson after the nine-term incumbent was indicted on corruption charges. The district, which includes most of New Orleans, is considered one of the most Democratic in the country.

Beyond that, most of the closest races involve Democrats who rode the Obama tide in 2008.

They include at least four in Ohio, a perennial presidential swing state that has been battered for years by a persistently weak economy. Two represent bellwether areas: Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy, whose district covers most of Columbus and its suburbs, and Rep. Steve Driehaus, whose district includes much of Cincinnati and its suburbs.

Each won with the help of a strong showing among Obama supporters, and each faces face a rematch with the candidate who narrowly lost last year.

“I don’t know if Kilroy or Driehaus have any particular problems, but we have a bad economy, the president’s popularity has gone down, and conservatives are aroused and angry about government spending, cap and trade and the health care plan,” said John Green, a political science professor at the University of Akron.

Indeed, the “cap and trade” bill that narrowly passed the House last spring is creating headaches for several Democrats. The legislation, which would cap carbon emissions and tax industries that exceed the cap as a way to reduce global warming, is largely unpopular in areas of the country where jobs rely on oil, gas or coal production.

One Democrat most affected is New Mexico Democrat Harry Teague. His district, which McCain carried last year, is one of the largest oil and gas producing areas in the country, and Teague has faced angry crowds back home ever since voting yes.

Teague will face Republican Steve Pearce, who held the seat for three terms before giving it up to run unsuccessfully for the Senate last year.

Without Obama on the ticket, a lower predicted black turnout in 2010 could also affect Democrats in several tight races in the South. These include Reps. Bobby Bright and Parker Griffith of Alabama, Travis Childers of Mississippi, and Tom Perriello of Virginia, who won by just 745 votes last year in a district that is 24 percent black.

Concerns about Obama’s health care plan and the mounting federal debt could ensnare two first-term Florida Democrats, Alan Grayson and Suzanne Kosmas. Both represent districts along the state’s competitive I-4 corridor, which is heavily populated by independent voters and retirees. Polls show Obama has lost ground among both of those demographic groups nationwide.

(This version CORRECTS stimulus amount from $757 billion to $787 billion.)

via My Way News – Election trouble brewing for House Dems in 2010.

My Way News – Election trouble brewing for House Dems in 2010

Sep 13, 12:01 PM (ET)

By BETH FOUHY

NEW YORK (AP) – Despite sweeping Democratic successes in the past two national elections, continuing job losses and President Barack Obama’s slipping support could lead to double-digit losses for the party in next year’s congressional races and may even threaten their House control.

Fifty-four new Democrats were swept into the House in 2006 and 2008, helping the party claim a decisive majority as voters soured on a Republican president and embraced Obama’s message of hope and change. Many of the new Democrats are in districts carried by Republican John McCain in last year’s presidential contest; others are in traditional swing districts that have proved tough for either party to hold.

From New Hampshire to Nevada, House Democrats also will be forced to defend votes on Obama’s $787 billion economic recovery package and on energy legislation viewed by many as a job killer in an already weak economy.

Add to that the absence of Obama from the top of the ticket, which could reduce turnout among blacks, liberals and young people, and the likelihood of a highly motivated GOP base confused by the president’s proposed health care plan and angry at what they consider reckless spending and high debt.

Taken together, it could be the most toxic environment for Democrats since 1994, when the party lost 34 House incumbents and 54 seats altogether. Democrats currently have a 256-178 edge in the House, with one vacancy. Republicans would have to pick up 40 seats to regain control.

“When you have big sweeps as Democrats did in 2006 and 2008, inevitably some weak candidates get elected. And when the environment gets even moderately challenging, a number of them are going to lose,” said Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College in California.

Since the mid-19th century, the party that controls the White House has lost seats in virtually every midterm election. The exceptions were in 1934, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt navigated the Great Depression, and in 2002, after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, strengthened George W. Bush’s image as a leader.

With history as a guide, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who heads the party’s House campaign committee, said he has warned colleagues to be prepared for an exceptionally challenging environment going into 2010.

But Van Hollen said voters will make their choices on the strength of the national economy and will reward Democrats for working aggressively to improve it.

“We passed an economic recovery bill with zero help from Republican colleagues,” he said. “I think voters will see that and will ask themselves, ‘Who was there to get the economy moving again, and who was standing in the way?'”

Democrats have gotten off to a much faster start than Republicans in fundraising for 2010. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had $10.2 million in the bank at the end of July, with debts of $5.3 million. The National Republican Congressional Committee had just $4 million in cash and owed $2.75 million.

The economy poses the biggest problem for Democrats, with job losses of 2.4 million nationwide since Obama took office. Despite recent signs the country is pulling out of the recession, the unemployment rate in 15 states still was in double digits in July, led by Michigan at 15 percent.

Democrats must defend as many as 60 marginal seats next year, as opposed to about 40 for Republicans. Among those, about 27 Democratic and just 13 Republican seats are seen as especially ripe for a party switch.

Some involve incumbents stepping down to run for higher office.

For example, Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Penn., is mounting a primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter. Sestack’s seat, until then safely Democratic, now becomes a top GOP target. The same goes for Louisiana Rep. Charlie Melancon, a Democrat in a GOP-leaning district who also is seeking a Senate seat.

But Republicans are on the losing side of that equation as well. Two Republicans in heavily Democratic districts – Reps. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Joe Gerlach of Pennsylvania – are vacating their seats to run for Senate and governor, respectively.

At least one Republican is considered extremely vulnerable: Joseph Cao of Louisiana, who defeated Democrat William Jefferson after the nine-term incumbent was indicted on corruption charges. The district, which includes most of New Orleans, is considered one of the most Democratic in the country.

Beyond that, most of the closest races involve Democrats who rode the Obama tide in 2008.

They include at least four in Ohio, a perennial presidential swing state that has been battered for years by a persistently weak economy. Two represent bellwether areas: Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy, whose district covers most of Columbus and its suburbs, and Rep. Steve Driehaus, whose district includes much of Cincinnati and its suburbs.

Each won with the help of a strong showing among Obama supporters, and each faces face a rematch with the candidate who narrowly lost last year.

“I don’t know if Kilroy or Driehaus have any particular problems, but we have a bad economy, the president’s popularity has gone down, and conservatives are aroused and angry about government spending, cap and trade and the health care plan,” said John Green, a political science professor at the University of Akron.

Indeed, the “cap and trade” bill that narrowly passed the House last spring is creating headaches for several Democrats. The legislation, which would cap carbon emissions and tax industries that exceed the cap as a way to reduce global warming, is largely unpopular in areas of the country where jobs rely on oil, gas or coal production.

One Democrat most affected is New Mexico Democrat Harry Teague. His district, which McCain carried last year, is one of the largest oil and gas producing areas in the country, and Teague has faced angry crowds back home ever since voting yes.

Teague will face Republican Steve Pearce, who held the seat for three terms before giving it up to run unsuccessfully for the Senate last year.

Without Obama on the ticket, a lower predicted black turnout in 2010 could also affect Democrats in several tight races in the South. These include Reps. Bobby Bright and Parker Griffith of Alabama, Travis Childers of Mississippi, and Tom Perriello of Virginia, who won by just 745 votes last year in a district that is 24 percent black.

Concerns about Obama’s health care plan and the mounting federal debt could ensnare two first-term Florida Democrats, Alan Grayson and Suzanne Kosmas. Both represent districts along the state’s competitive I-4 corridor, which is heavily populated by independent voters and retirees. Polls show Obama has lost ground among both of those demographic groups nationwide.

(This version CORRECTS stimulus amount from $757 billion to $787 billion.)

via My Way News – Election trouble brewing for House Dems in 2010.

Government study: Climate bill spells gloom for jobs – Washington Times

Government study: Climate bill spells gloom for jobs

Spikes seen in energy costs

 

Despite President Obama’s prediction that it would create new jobs, the climate change bill passed by the House will mean fewer jobs by 2030 than if Congress did nothing at all, according to the first comprehensive study of the measure by the federal government.

The report by the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration said the bill would lead to small increases in electricity costs for consumers — what Democrats said was an affordable sacrifice for the environmental benefits of lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

“We can move to a clean energy future at a cost of less than a postage stamp per family per day,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu said.

The report said the average cost to a household by 2020 would be $114, though those costs would more than double to $288 by 2030 as the rules on polluters tighten.

The Democrat-controlled House narrowly passed its climate change bill on a 219-212 vote June 26. A week later, Mr. Obama told chief executives that the legislation “holds the promise of millions of new jobs — jobs, by the way, that can’t be outsourced.”

Mr. Chu repeated the assertion Tuesday.

But a chart in the EIA report showed the employment rate — just like the economy as a whole — worsening for the first several years, improving slightly in the midterm, peaking in 2024 and then declining steadily. It showed 0.25 percent fewer jobs in 2030 under the Democrats’ bill, with the manufacturing sector suffering a 2.5 percent lag.

For the economy as a whole, immediate energy price spikes would be followed by relative calm as the economy adjusted. But when stricter rules go into effect in 2025 “the rapid increase in energy prices causes the economy to contract,” EIA said.

The House bill imposes a limit on overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and tightens that cap over time, requiring polluters to either reduce their emissions or offset their pollutants by paying others to reduce their emissions. The system is known as “cap-and-trade.”

The Senate is still drafting its version of the climate bill.

via Government study: Climate bill spells gloom for jobs – Washington Times.

Cap and Trade: Greenhouse Gas Regulations and the Impact on Texas

Cap and Trade: Greenhouse Gas Regulations and the Impact on Texas.

Cap and Trade: Greenhouse Gas Regulations and the Impact on Texas

Global warming has a price. So does turning down the world’s thermostat. The question is, who pays for reducing greenhouse gases? And is the burden shared — or shifted unfairly?

U.S. Congress is acting now on regulatory legislation that would enlarge the federal budget, eliminate jobs and increase food and energy prices. This cap and trade proposal also would create a commodities market for Wall Street to help companies buy and sell pollution rights.

The legislation would penalize Texas because it is the nation’s energy capital and a manufacturing center.

Texas could lose 135,000 to 277,000 jobs in 2012, the first year of the proposed cap-and-trade regulation. The average Texas household could pay up to an extra $1,136 on household goods and services over a year with a total potential cost to Texas families of 6.9 billion.

Is this the best approach? How can we fully mitigate the impact? Will Congress have the money to stimulate a green economy to replace lost jobs?

Join the Conversation

  1. Learn more about cap and trade, the proposed federal legislation and what it could mean.
  2. Track steps Texas is already taking to address energy efficiencies and reduce greenhouse gases.
  3. Stay informed on this important issue: join our cap and trade e-mail list and share this information with others who care about the future of Texas.
  4. See how you can do your part to be efficient to help Texas reduce its energy consumption.

Breaking Down Government Motors – HUMAN EVENTS

Breaking Down Government Motors – HUMAN EVENTS.

Breaking Down Government Motors

<!–

–>

During a recent speech denouncing capitalism, Venezuelan strong man Hugo Chavez said, “Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right.” The conversion of General Motors to Government Motors should be of grave concern to all Americans. It appears that President Bush’s bailout of Wall Street merely set the table for an all-out assault by the Obama administration on capitalism.

Thankfully, freedom still has a voice in Congress. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) introduced legislation that would require Congressional approval before the government takes ownership of a private enterprise. This bill would allow Congress to stop the current shift away from free-market principles.

Johanns is not the only free-marketer. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) has introduced legislation to require the federal government to distribute its ownership shares in General Motors and Chrysler to taxpayers when those companies emerge from bankruptcy proceedings. Alexander argues, “instead of the Treasury owning 60 percent of shares in the new GM and 8 percent of Chrysler, you would own them, if you were one of about 120 million individuals who paid taxes on April 15. This is the fastest way to get the stock out of the hands of Washington and back into the hands of the American people in the marketplace where it belongs.”

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) also joined the fray last weekend, introducing legislation that would restore private ownership to companies that have been effectively nationalized. The Thune proposal would make July 1, 2010 a new day of independence. By that date, the government would have to sell any ownership stake acquired over the past year-and-a-half. There’s no better way to fight the ever-expanding power of the federal government’s ownership in private enterprises than to legislate it out of existence.
 
Speaking of debt, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told the House Budget Committee earlier this month “we cannot allow ourselves to be in a situation where the debt continues to rise.” Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) responded, “Bernanke helped open up the floodgates of government spending for the last year. Did he finally have an epiphany this morning before the House Budget Committee or is he just trying to cover-up his mistakes? America is looking at mounting debt because of Chairman Bernanke’s support of policies that will put the American taxpayer an estimated $2.8 trillion more in the red.” The recent explosion of government spending and expansion of the money supply by the Fed are poor decisions by the Obama administration that will further lead America down the pothole-filled road to socialism.
 
The Supreme Court of Health Care

The recently released health reform legislation drafted by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) contains numerous provisions that propose fundamental changes to our health care system. Many are deeply troubling. One is the call for a Medical Advisory Council that would be comprised of Washington bureaucrats with the power to make significant decisions on health policy for all Americans. This Council would become the Supreme Court of health care, and these unelected bureaucrats would make final decisions about your treatment options.

The Kennedy bill includes an individual mandate requiring all Americans to purchase a health insurance plan approved by the federal government. The Medical Advisory Council would decide what constitutes a “qualified health insurance plan.” It would also determine the “essential health care benefits” that would be included in the much-discussed and debated public-run government plan that would compete against private health insurance plans if it’s created.

To recap: a faceless group of Washington bureaucrats could be making life-and-death decisions about private health care for individuals.

Rather than propose reforms that truly offer Americans better and more affordable health care, Senate Democrats and the Obama administration seem eager to expand the role of government in the lives of individual Americans and their families. By pushing legislation that contains things like the Medical Advisory Board these politicians are endangering our freedoms and seek to come between individuals and their health care choices.

“Save” the Climate — Hurt Farmers

The national energy tax snaking its way through the House of Representatives has a new potential victim — farmers. The cap-and-trade scheme would increase energy prices, building costs and a slow the economy. My colleagues at The Heritage Foundation calculate that farm income, which is the pre-tax amount that farmers live on after all their expenses, would drop 28% in the bill’s first year. In 2035, the last year analyzed, farm income drops a whopping 98%. These numbers should raise a red flag for Midwesteners, and cause concern among all Americans who eat.


Brian Darling is director of U.S. Senate Relations at The Heritage Foundation.


Share

Obama and Your Electric Bill – HUMAN EVENTS

Obama and Your Electric Bill – HUMAN EVENTS.

Click on this link to read the full story.  No one was listening during the campaign when Obama warned about this.  Now you have it. …..

 President Obama’s energy tax plan — a version of the failed European “cap and trade” global warming fiasco — may cost families $1,800 yearly in higher utility bills, far exceeding his promised $800 a year tax cut for 95% of Americans.

While campaigning, Obama admitted that his energy plan would cause electric bills to “skyrocket.”   Few took note, perhaps because Sen. John McCain also backed some form of a “cap-and-trade” energy tax.

Obama’s official budget claims that his proposed energy tax would add $646 billion to energy costs over 8 years. But that’s low-balling it.