The perversion of the interstate commerce clause

Interesting video on the interstate commerce clause and the decision by the Supreme Court to weaken it; this affects more than just wine sales to other states, it also negatively impacts the sale of health insurance policies across state borders. Since some states have imposed community rating and community issue mandates on the health insurance sold in their states, this has exacerbated the fiefdom and oligarchy of insurance companies that never have to worry about competition from other companies in other states.

Killing Capitalism - Cap and Trade

If you haven't seen Glenn Beck comment on Cap and Trade, here is a video.

HT: Liberty Pen

EPA Suppressed Scientific Evidence Against CO2 Regulation

Why am I not surprised?

Cap And Tax Vote Tomorrow!!

API has provided an updated SocialCapital widget that allows users to tell their representatives where they stand on this legislation. Do it now!!

Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Bill Fiasco

Jane Van Ryan brought this to my attention yesterday. It seems that two of the most liberal congressmen in America want to rush
an expensive cap and trade bill through Congress. Go figure. We've been through this before and here we go again. Cap and trade in any form is a tax increase, in my opinion. It doesn't even work to reduce emissions as promised and it threatens the economy. The Club For Growth stated:

This bill would set up several new government programs and regulations, redistribute money in the form of subsidies to individuals and for corporate welfare payments, and perhaps worst of all, it would slap "carbon trade barriers" on any country that doesn't implement a climate change scheme similar to this proposal. And, according to the Heritage Foundation, the direct and indirect taxes on a family of four would reach almost $3000 per year if Waxman-Markey passes. Heritage also reports that, in the aggregate, GDP would drop by over $9.4 trillion with unemployment increasing by 2.5 million. This bill should be vigorously opposed.

And from Jack Gerard of the American Petroleum Institute:

As independent analysis suggests, this legislation will drive up consumer prices for gasoline and other fuels. At today’s prices, it would mean gasoline at more than $4 a gallon. It also will create huge disincentives for the production of America’s abundant natural gas resources, and force jobs and productive capacity overseas.

We know that environmentalists want higher energy prices (particularly fossil fuels) in order to make alternatives attractive...even if it wreaks havoc on our economy. E-mail your congressman today and urge him or her to vote NO on Waxman-Markey (HR 2454).

Cap and Trade Loses in Senate

You may have missed this since the main stream media is too busy covering Obama's European tour; it seems that the cap and trade scheme that Obama and environmentalists have been pining for has hit a snag in the Senate; Democrats will not be able to ram it through with a simple majority. Senators from manufacturing states, even Democrats, know that the cap and trade scheme would be a major blow to their base and the 2010 mid-term elections aren't that far off for constituents to forget how some Senators voted away their economy--they obviously know where their bread is buttered.

The above chart provided by the Heritage Foundation.

Here Come Some Taxes

Here it comes---higher taxes and a cap and trade carbon scheme! It is just what our economy needs. I'm starting to seriously believe that Obama doesn't know what he is doing. When Obama calls for raising taxes on "the wealthy," you should know that this really means small businesses. The cap and trade scheme is a massive tax increase.

Best post I've read today...

Jeff Perren over at Shaving Leviathan comments on Barack Obama and his derisive stance on the coal industry while shunning nuclear power as a viable alternative to meet our energy needs of the future:

Once again, the goal is to use the power of government to rush ahead of the market to create a 'clean' source of energy. The cover story for this is to usher in a new age of energy production with no alleged downside: solar, wind, biodiesel. The fact is, that all these have significant drawbacks both economically and environmentally.

Beyond that, they have one major drawback that no one knows how to overcome yet. They don't exist, not on anywhere near the scale that would be required to replace coal as an energy source. (Coal is used to power over 48% of all U.S. electricity production.

The only viable replacement for coal, and it's a superb one both from the standpoint of cost and pollution, is nuclear fission power plants. That technology is safe, cost-effective, and well-developed. There are also immediately deployable improvements that would make it lower cost, safer, and provide for long-term energy supply.

Conference call with API

Yesterday, I participated in a blogger conference call with the American Petroleum Institute. The conference was very informative. One of the issues that stood out in my mind was the issue of ethanol subsidies and the cost incurred by taxpayers particularly now since gasoline prices have plummeted quite a bit over the last several months. Right now the cost of producing ethanol and bringing it to market is simply not cost effective but because of congressional mandates, the American taxpayer basically props up an industry that can't compete with gasoline. The question that always sticks in my mind about ethanol is how long before this bad idea of subsidizing ethanol gets undone by our government? Once a government mandate starts, no matter how bad it is, it takes years to undo it--at a substantial cost to the taxpayer.

Moderator:
Jane Van Ryan, Senior Communications Manager, API

Speakers:
Lou Pugliaresi, President, Energy Policy Research Foundation
Rayola Dougher, Senior Economic Advisor, API
Ron Planting, Manager of Statistics, API

Listen to the conference call below:

A Brave New Green World!!

Oh, boy! Hang on to your wallets! Wait till you get a load of this. Currently, in the U.K., there is legislation to ration personal CO2 emissions: When you gas up, or when you buy that airline ticket to visit grandma, the government will track all of your CO2 use. When you overuse your allotment of personal CO2, you will have to buy some credits from someone who has them. Imagine that! This is where modern environmentalism is taking us, folks--a massive leviathan of a bureaucracy with ever more control of our lives and our freedom in the name of “saving” the planet.

It would cost a country like Britain billions of dollars a year to run a personal cap-and-trade system nationwide, but set that aside. War-time-like energy rations are a clear illustration of the extent to which environmentalists hope to control every aspect of modern life. Do you really want to blow much of your annual "ration" on that long carbon-spewing jet flight to Florida, or should you swap that summer AC for weekend drives in the country?

The global warmists want you to sacrifice for their cause. And the duration of their war on carbon will make the decade-and-a-half of British rationing during and after World War II seem like a fleeting moment. The pending climate-change bill calls for a 60% cut in carbon emissions from their 1990 levels by 2050. Once 2050 rolls around, who exactly will declare the end of hostilities?

The prospect of personal CO2 rations should debunk the idea that the cost of curbing carbon emissions would fall on the owners of dirty old factories. That notion was always a green herring: Like corporate taxes, the business costs of carbon reduction will be passed on to consumers. In that sense, we should be grateful to the Brits for showing us where this anticarbon crusade really ends up.

Can you imagine what this sort of personal cap-and-trade would cost if it were implemented in the U.S.? My only hope is that this sort of bureaucracy would frustrate Americans to no end and any politician that suggested it would be sent packing. I can only hope.

On environmentalists that oppose cap and trade

There is a great post by A Disgruntled Republican on how some environmental groups opposed the Lieberman-Warner Bill; I understand that many were primarily concerned with the bill allocating some funds for Nuclear power plants. I think that this country needs more nuclear power and less coal plants. And I have always felt that environmentalist groups (like Greenpeace) have been primarily responsible for polluting our air and making some of our citizens suffer from breathing ailments due to their zeal in blocking the construction of nuclear plants but not stopping (with the same zeal) the construction of coal fired plants. Yes, you read it correctly—groups and individuals that resist nuclear power plants (This includes the great eco-messiah, Al Gore) have done more to destroy and despoil our environment than even the federal government---the greatest polluter in the country.

Yet, on the Lieberman-Warner bill, groups like Greenpeace and I found common ground.

New cap and trade chart!

I received this new chart from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It is simply mind-boggling. This cap and trade scheme is a bureaucratic nightmare.

Click here to see the full chart in PDF
HT: Brad Peck at Chamberpost

Climate bill in Senate turns into a squabble

From Road Runner: A Senate debate over global warming legislation turned into late-night drama Wednesday marked by an eight-hour reading of the 492-page bill and a call for senators to return _ some of them from their homes _ to cast a procedural vote not long before midnight.

An angry Majority Leader Harry Reid demanded senators return to the Capitol for the late-night vote after Republicans blocked his attempt to limit amendments on the bill, arguing there were not enough senators in the chamber for Reid to proceed.

Comment: One of the law-makers had to show up in shorts and a t-shirt for the procedural vote that eventually failed. Majority leader Harry Reid had the temerity to accuse the Republicans of “making political points” because they disapprove of this massive bureaucratic bill. Yet, the entire spirit of the bill is about scoring “political points.” If the sponsors of this bill really cared about carbon emissions, why don’t they push for a far simpler carbon tax? They don’t because they want to hide the true cost of this boondoggle from the American taxpayer. Is it any wonder why the legislative branch of government has a lower approval level than the hated George W. Bush?

A big Hat Tip to Bobo at The BoBo Files for this story.

Cap and Trade is not a market solution

Here is a great article on the cap and trade scheme and how it is a poor way to reduce carbon emissions. Note that the article points out that most politicians favor cap and trade because they fear the word “tax.”