BREAKING: Carbon Tax bill coming Thursday to Senate

Senators Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer will outline the legislation on Thursday morning. They are even going to let that wacky 350.org activist Bill McKibben speak. Sheesh.

Billed as “major” and “comprehensive” legislation, it will have a carbon tax. Here is the statement from Sanders’ office (bold mine):

Sanders, Boxer to Introduce Major Climate Change Legislation

February 12, 2013

WASHINGTON, Feb 12 – Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) will hold a news conference on Thursday, Feb. 14 to announce comprehensive legislation on climate change. Boxer is Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Sanders serves on the environment committee and also is a member of the Senate energy committee.

Under the legislation, a fee on carbon pollution emissions would fund historic investments in energy efficiency and sustainable energy technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. The proposal also would provide rebates to consumers to offset any efforts by oil, coal or gas companies to raise prices.

Environment and consumer leaders set to participate include Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org; Mike Brune, executive director of Sierra Club; Tara McGuiness, executive director of the Center for American Progress Action Fund; Tyson Slocum, Public Citizen’s energy director; and David Bradley, National Community Action Foundation executive director.

Who:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)

Bill McKibben, 350.org founder

Mike Brune, Sierra Club executive director

Tara McGuiness, CAP Action Fund executive director

Tyson Slocum, Public Citizen’s Energy Program director
David Bradley, National Community Action Foundation executive director

What: News conference on climate change legislation

When: 11 a.m., Thursday, Feb. 14 

Where:  SD-406, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing room

Source here

About these ads

121 thoughts on “BREAKING: Carbon Tax bill coming Thursday to Senate

  1. Having just watched the President’s remarks concerning Climate Change- he is either woefully uninformed and saying things which are untrue, but that are fed to him by advisors, or he does know the truth and is lying to the American people.
    There is no other way to look at it.

  2. Gee, the only one missing is Van Jones, who is at least honest enough to admit being a Communist
    This is a huge, stinking pile of horse manure shoveled out to every imaginable rent-seeker and enviro-advocacy group. Fight it tooth and nail.

  3. Well, welcome to our world (Oz).

    The proposal also would provide rebates to consumers to offset any efforts by oil, coal or gas companies to raise prices.

    So if those eeeviiilll corporations were to be so dastardly as to actually raise prices when the cost of their main product significantly increases, we’ll be really, really kind, and help you out!

    For a while, though, only for a while …

  4. OMG – this will be chucked out, right? The Senate knows – please – that a carbon tax doesn’t work. I thought people are waking up to this foolishness, not still falling for it. Please kick it out.

  5. This won’t pass, note noone in leadership will be there (No Pelosi or Reid or their whips; noone form White House). This is much ado about nothing.

  6. Further note no co-cponsors. This means no one has signed up to vote for it – if a bill has momentum it has 20 or more co-sponsors behind it at rollout. This is DOA.

  7. The democrats believe being seen to do something about climate change will please their more vocal supporters. The fact that the bill won’t have any effect at all on the climate and most of those supporters are idiots for thinking that it might doesn’t factor into the political calculus. They’ll support an ineffective bill that will actually hurt most of their constituents because it is politically expedient to be seen to do so.

    The republicans will oppose. But actually they know that a scheme of this type for trading worthless pieces of paper along with all the associated scams and rorts and opportunities for the unethical to make billions will greatly please their supporters in the finance and banking industries who are most likely lobbying behind the scenes for this to pass. So they’ll complain a bit for the cameras and then quietly give it the nod.

    Or am I being too cynical.

  8. What causes American “progressives” to believe they can take every failed idea in history and make it work?

    They are insane.

  9. Sarah-

    And what makes the tea party think we can slash our way to prosperity wherein every historical standard shows we need a defense and we need a social safety net to survive.

    The answer my friend is not blowing in the wind, it stares you in the face and it is in the middle. Compromise for both sides.

  10. Steph C and Sunspot…not a problem. Obama is following the way of Lenin,Stalin,Mao Tse Tung,Agenda 21,etc. The carbon tax is just a sideshow to keep the low information voter ocuupied.

  11. “Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and given him triumphal processions. Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the new wonderful good society which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean more money, more ease, more security, and more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.”

    ~ Marcus Tullius Cicero

  12. The speech was empty propaganda.

    The “Climate Change Legislation”, like the failed 2010 bill, can best be described as the “Permanent Depression Act”.
    I am not surprised that Boxer is one of the Senators introducing it.

  13. The once great United States of America will be just a shadow of itself after Obama is finished with it. The sad thing is, there is no viable Republican counter .

  14. The odds of this reaching the President’s desk is approximately zero. The odds of it even reaching the floor in the House of Representatives is infinitesimal.

  15. If anyone’s seen the movie “Idiocracy” they’d understand what I am thinking now. The people of Europe and America have become so damned ignorant that we’ve elected a president named Obama. He recycles old dis-proven fodder, without having an ounce of understanding about the subject matter… and receives a round of applause from the brain-dead self-absorbed politicians who see more $$ coming from the too few remaining tax payers.

    Someone must stop this nonsense… I absolutely cannot believe this is actually still happening.

  16. So why do they keep picking on carbon? There’s two other atoms in a CO2 molecule, after all. I think everyone should write to your senators and representatives to demand a tax on oxygen production.

    Really. Think about it: IRS taxes carbon and oxygen. EPA regulates them. USDA can run incentive programs for farmers to sequester carbon, while penalizing them for the O2 surplus.

    …and we can finally watch the fedgov collapse under the weight of its own bureaucracy and get on with our lives.

  17. The socialist wing of the democratic party introduces this legislation almost annually. Normally it doesn’t get any press as absolutely NO ONE wants this on their record unless they are from California or have already told their constituents they are a socialist (Sanders has an (I) behind his name not a (D)). It will make for the annual CAGW gab fest in a side meeting room and will never be heard from again. Though the activists may dislocate their shoulders patting themselves on the back at how they stuck it to the establishment!

  18. The Carbon-Tax opposition should engage in political Jujutsu.
    Let the proponents push the legislation right into the spotlight.
    “Step right up, Senators! Who will be the next one to co-sign this P. O. S.
    Smile for the camera.”

  19. Well, we in Australia can tell you a carbon (sic) tax does not work.

    We have a carbon (sic) tax for 8 months now, and have had bushfires & floods, and in the northern hemisphere you have a tropical storms and blizzards.

    We were told the tax would stop the climate from changing, but, summer is coming to an end, and autumn is looming, closely followed by winter, and all the weather that will come with the changing of seasons defined as climate.

    The war on reality (Quote Obama:”climate change is real,” “the reality of climate change’) is for the delusional & mis-informed.

    Though no one here needs to be warned, take a hint from those of us who “are living the experience,” the carbon (sic) tax is climate fraud.

  20. What they announce is a press conference. A press conference means nothing. They are hoping for some support. They will not get it. Boxer is throwing crumbs to the Greens. Sanders is a crumb. Let’s hope that McKibben makes a long, heartfelt speech. Nothing hurts these people more than public exposure.

  21. With all the crap going on, its hard to know which letter to write first.
    So I have a solution:

    Dear senator,
    please go home, and stay there.

  22. Anthony, if I may, this forum could do with a ‘like’ or ‘unlike’, or ‘+1′ facility. There is such a great range of comments here from well-informed contributors.

    Is anyone archiving all this stuff for when we kick a$$ and take names?

  23. LOL, they’re going to compensate consumers if fossil fuel prices go up? Where’s that money going to come from? While at the same time mileage taxes are being considered at the state and federal level because fuel efficient cars are reducing gas tax revenue?

  24. This won’t even pass the Senate much less the House–but I do hope Harry Reed lets it come up for a vote. There are several Democratic senators from conservative states who have to run in 2014. I would like to see how they would vote on this. Their constituents would too…

  25. Bear quite reasonably asks: So why do they keep picking on carbon?

    Indeed. What is their problem with organic chemistry. I thought they liked organic things.

  26. In a country which relies havily on shalegas it´s crazy to think about windmills, biomass and other Greenpeace dreams.

  27. On one hand you could have a strong economy. On the other, you could have a carbon tax. You won’t have both.

  28. Come on guys do something about it. Start your own propaganda to show them what really is going on. Fight these hoaxers with their own weapons.
    If this carbon tax is for real, then be prepared for a longer economic crisis for years to come

  29. On CSPAN today I saw Bernie Sanders defend the poor people of Vermont (tax the wealthy corporations rather than cut social programs). Tonight he’s going to screw the poor (and all the) people of Vermont with a large tax increase on CO2. Can’t trust these politicians for 15 minutes.

  30. DOA, don’t see it going anywhere. Boxer has been trying to regain momentum for ages and just won’t give up. No way will there be enough votes garnered to be passed in the Senate, let alone the House. A particular pinch point will be “Blue Dog” Dems in coal country states. In a way, not too different from Feinstein’s gun control bill not going anywhere after senators such as Manchin got an earful from their constituents.

  31. I just notified my senators (Sherrod Brown (right, that one – hates reliable carbon and nuclear energy) and Rob Portman (pretty level-headed, but an establishment republican). Portman should vote against Sanders/Feinstein.

  32. Ian H,

    You just gave me the perfect come back the next time someone brings up C02 as a pollutant.

    “But it’s organic!”

  33. Get Congress to evaluate proposals against the following:

    1. Cost of implementation in terms of contribution to budget deficit.
    2. Effect on US economy, focussing on lost jobs before jobs which might be created.
    3. Effect on climate of all this activity.
    4. Scientific evidence underpinning ‘climate change’.

    Clearly point 4 depends on who provides the evidenc, as climate science is not science currently.

    I”m sure you can sell the electorate a programme that ‘costs a fortune, destroys jobs, does nothing to affect climate variability and is based on fraudulent science’, can’t you?

  34. “Michael Jankowski says:

    February 12, 2013 at 8:55 pm”

    If we use Australia as an example, the compensation (Compo) will come from the revenue raised by the tax (At an initial price of AU23$/tonne CO2 rising every year until 2015 when Aus joins with the New Zealand and EU ETS systems *HA HA HA HA HA HA*). The only problem with this, in Aus at least, is the revenue raised fell short to the tune of AU$420mil after compo. Then, one of our more clever MP’s, commited 10% of this revenue to the UN climate fund. Certainly *isn’t* a smart nr lucky country anymore! Any shortfall will come from, as we call it here, the consilidated fund; the taxpayer!

  35. “OMG – this will be chucked out, right? The Senate knows – please – that a carbon tax doesn’t work. I thought people are waking up to this foolishness, not still falling for it. Please kick it out”

    It’s less about climate and more about “making this a better world”?
    Bill Clinton visited Norway yesterday and had some meetings on high levels. And he might have convinced them or each other that they are saving the World with international socialism?

  36. To those who say this proposed bill is “DOA”:
    Congressional approval is no longer needed!
    Executive orders are the “New Normal”. Congress is now obsolete (Once upon a time they used to work on “budgets” or something).
    A quarter century of eco-fascist brainwashing in the media and schools has sealed our ‘collective’ fate. Through the looking glass we go…

    Obama says he will use executive action on climate if needed

    http://reut.rs/VRFzGq

    “But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy,”

  37. Dead giveaway that this is just a tax grab:

    The proposal also would provide rebates to consumers to offset any efforts by oil, coal or gas companies to raise prices.

    If the end-consumers have no incentive to reduce consumption, the quantities consumed will remain unchanged. They will regardless of “rebates”. Energy consumption isn’t that flexible; especially in a country already in recession.

    For many in Australia, the “rebates” arrive a long time after the expenditure. Combined with other taxes, it’s created a toxic business climate. There is even less private investment in stuff that matters than there was previously. Australians have a knack for squeezing blood out of subsidy stones. Massive wastelands of PV solar; dangerously-installed home insulation; cash handouts; … while taxes rise to pay “compensation” to those who built on historic flood plains; and whose houses got swept away as nature goes through its cycles. Cycles known for over a century.

    In Germany, where heavy users of energy (industrial) are exempt; the measures have resulted in no significant reduction in CO2. Consumers without exemption have gone broke if their business is too small, or they have shifted energy consumption to the untaxed; e.g. returning to heating using smog-producing wood. Unfinanced subsidies ensure national indebtedness until at least 2025; paying for “production” from inefficient and ineffective producers; whose “production plant” will be FUBER by the end of that period.

  38. Rhys Jaggar, “I”m sure you can sell the electorate a programme that ‘costs a fortune, destroys jobs, does nothing to affect climate variability and is based on fraudulent science’, can’t you?” Unfortunately, this has been done In Australia and the EU, I hoped that sanity might prevail in the US, but it’s by no means certain.

    The Greens-supported Australian Labor Party government is likely to be thrashed in the September election, but the incoming government is still somewhat in thrall to the CAGW story. Mosher assumed at Climate Etc that decision-makers would seek suitable evidence and advice re CAGW, but unfortunately they’ve bought it as being politically expedient, and will back it until it bites them in the bum, by which time even more damage will have been inflicted on the community.

  39. Politics is more a question of timing than a question of reason. So i suppose these experienced policymakers consider this moment the right time.
    There is no reason for it from the perpsective of effect on CO2 emissions. As Europe has learned you just make goods more expensive, inviting stronger imports of goods, an with them importing their cheaper untaxed energy. And you are happy if trading collapses.

    There could be the argument of overall cost reduction for the economy. In the playfield of politics an opponent of carbon tax is mostly fighting against reducing Coal mining and burning, which itself has a bad image and pollutes more than the other fossil fuels.

    There are two possilble actions to take:
    1) delay – just prolong the process of negotiation until it is more obvious the it doesn’t help the climate and you have reached better image for these “heavy” fossil fuels.
    2) attack – show that their argument is wrong.

    What i would do: show them you have means to attack their argument (to take away a bit of their impulse), then you can play the delay game seemingly joining them: ,,Your argument is to weak but we support you by being in a constructive dialog”.

    And i would do this totally open, no secrecy required.

    Machiavelli can be fun after all ..

    ;)

  40. Mistake, this sentence shuol not be:
    And you are happy if trading collapses.
    It should be:
    And you are happy if carbon trading collapses.

  41. RE: Theo Goodwin says:
    February 12, 2013 at 8:33 pm
    “What they announce is a press conference. A press conference means nothing. They are hoping for some support. They will not get it. Boxer is throwing crumbs to the Greens. Sanders is a crumb. Let’s hope that McKibben makes a long, heartfelt speech. Nothing hurts these people more than public exposure.”

    Amen to that, brother. However the media will not expose. Therefore it is up to us. Listen carefully to their nonsense, and politely and persistantly point out the balderdash. (I may have trouble being polite.)

  42. Well. Fuel in the U.S. is too cheap and – as a logical consequence – the economy is too inefficient.
    Tax on carbon and/or on energy would be a good first step towards modernisation.
    The U.S. seem got stuck in the 20. century.

  43. Carbon dioxide taxes are a tax on the air you breathe out they do nothing but inhibit business and employ hundreds of thousands of unproductive leeches sucking the life out of a country.

    I have great faith in the American people, as Winston Churchill said, ” Americans always do the right thing, after exhausting all other possibilities” Most of your possibilities have been exhausted, thus I look forward to a climate change in public thinking in the very near future and a change back to the values that made your country great. Wayne from OZ

  44. I wonder how many of the speakers at the hearing know (or care):

    1) The US only accounts for 16% of global CO2 emissions.
    2) US emissions have been declining and are now lower than they were in 1996.
    3) If the US were to reduce emissions by 100%, the increase in China alone would fully offset that reduction in seven years at their current growth rate.

    Anyone commenting on policy should be aware that nothing the US does affecting only US activities will have any material influence on long term global emissions

  45. “alex says:

    February 13, 2013 at 1:40 am”

    Was there a tax on horses that “forced” people to “modernise” transport and power technologies? Was there a tax on steam engines to modernise? Wind turbines are so 18th century!

  46. “Al Gore says:

    February 12, 2013 at 10:53 pm”

    More snake oil. Sellinghis new book…”The Future”, or whatever. Sure, “making a better world”, for whom?

  47. A.D. Everard says:
    February 12, 2013 at 7:35 pm
    OMG – this will be chucked out, right? The Senate knows – please – that a carbon tax doesn’t work. I thought people are waking up to this foolishness, not still falling for it. Please kick it out.
    ———————
    Of course it will work. Just watch how much money they all make.
    cn

  48. No need to worry too much. Per the U.S. Constitution, Bills for raising Revenue must originate in the House of Representatives for one. I’d like to see if they’ll ignore it, like they did with PPACA. I’m not even sure an arbitrary assessment, such as this, can be considered a legitimate tax. Besides, they simply wish to launder the monies.

    The only hang up I see is the “fiscal conservative” economists and tax reform advocates whom prefer consumption taxes to income taxes (e.g. Art Laffer); though they only seek it at worst as revenue-neutral, as in replacement of the current income-tax structures in toto.

  49. Forgot my commentary:

    This was timed from the SOTU, and this is the opening gambit. We’ll hear about it all year. I’m most worried about the leadup to summer and then all throughout. Like the firearms ‘debate’ we’re having, there’s going to be props because…well…Earth relative to the Sun, and Earth is going to get warmer, seasons and all. I can’t describe how moronic people have become with the technology/telecom revolution. Be ready for tornados, heat, then the always drought drought-map, god forbid big hurricanes hit. Mix in the debt-ceiling again March/April and it’s going to be a exhausting year watching the “news”.

  50. Patrick says:
    February 13, 2013 at 1:54 am
    “alex says:

    February 13, 2013 at 1:40 am”

    Was there a tax on horses that “forced” people to “modernise” transport and power technologies? Was there a tax on steam engines to modernise? Wind turbines are so 18th century!
    ————————–

    Why you ask? Of course, there was.

    http://www.nas.gov.uk/guides/taxation.asp

  51. This bill will go nowhere. Keep tabs on those who will NOT support it, other than the usual suspects. The next time you tangle with an Alarmist and their insufferable arrogance throw those names in their face. If their overwhelming scientific evidence for CAGW is so strong why are they unable to convince their most likely allies in Congress? All of these years, all of these government “climate scientists” marching in lockstep and all they can round up are a handful of socialists and Barbara Box-o-rocks? Heh.

  52. If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
    If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat,
    If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat,
    If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.
    Taxman.

    Even George Harrison at his cynical best, upon discovering he was in a 95% tax bracket, didn’t imagine that governments would have the audacity to actually tax air.

  53. justsomeguy31167 says:
    February 12, 2013 at 7:56 pm
    And what makes the tea party think we can slash our way to prosperity wherein every historical standard shows we need a defense and we need a social safety net to survive.

    First nice straw man! The “social safety net” has only been talked about being made less generous not eliminated, but that doesn’t stop demagogues from using your straw man. We have the richest poor people in the world. I personally like Franklin’s quote about making people comfortable in their poverty – look it up if you have never read it.

    Then there is that whole “it worked in 1946″ thing. Most people credit WWII with getting the American economy out of the depression and they would be mostly wrong. Sure all our competitors were destroyed, but the congress of 1946 cut the budget to half of the 1938 level and set the stage for the economy of the 1950′s. Those were real cuts, not “reductions in baseline projected increases” like we hear about these days as though they were something akin to Armageddon. It seems to work whenever it is tried, but the 1946 cuts aren’t even what the TEA party is asking for. Initially just zero out the baseline growth and spend next year exactly what you spend this year (that would be demagogued as a “cut of 7%”). Then consolidate social programs to gain efficiency and make it easier to catch double/triple and quadruple dippers. Streamline the bureaucracy to increase efficiency (Yes this will lead to laid off government workers). We don’t have to spend ourselves into insolvency, and we are already spending more of our GDP than we have at any point in our history.

  54. Can somebody explain how this works practically in terms of passing the legislation?

    In UK if the government presents a Bill to the House of Commons, it has a pretty good chance (>90%) of eventually becoming law.

    But I know that US arrangements are very different from ours. Please can we have the low-down on its likely path and chances of success. Thanks.

  55. Sarah says:
    February 12, 2013 at 7:51 pm

    What causes American “progressives” to believe they can take every failed idea in history and make it work?
    They are insane.

    That is a definition of a “Progressive.”

    Have you not noticed, BTW, that EVERY left-wing title is the reverse of what it really means.

    e.g. “The National Socialists” were called Right Wing by Stalin as he didn’t want two Left wing organisations in existence.
    “Progressives” try to force us back to living in caves!
    “Liberals” are always Totalitarian.
    “Democrats” believe that votes are for them not the rest of us!

  56. Why not?

    CodeTech says:
    February 13, 2013 at 4:09 am
    If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
    If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat,
    If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat,
    If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.
    Taxman.

    Even George Harrison at his cynical best, upon discovering he was in a 95% tax bracket, didn’t imagine that governments would have the audacity to actually tax air.
    ———————————

    They were once wicked enough taxing sunlight. Why not air now?

  57. Does anyone know what organisations will send representatives there?
    I’d love to hear a reporter ask them “How much will the temperature change as a result of this tax?”
    and “How much will it cost?”
    and “Do you agree that even if the whole world stopped producing Carbon Dioxide right now it would be a thousand years before the temperature dropped?”

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_flannery_admits_no_gain_from_this_carbon_tax_pain/

    It might be a good idea to compare claims and actual outcomes from Australia too.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_much_will_it_cut_temperatures_by_again/

  58. How does this work, taking a carbon tax which obviously gets passed onto consumers by the producers of the goods, and putting that money towards windmills while ALSO rebating the money to consumers? Somehow they turn $1 into $2? They really must have been promised that there would be no math.

  59. A.D. Everard says:
    February 12, 2013 at 7:35 pm
    OMG – this will be chucked out, right? The Senate knows – please – that a carbon tax doesn’t work. I thought people are waking up to this foolishness, not still falling for it. Please kick it out.”

    They don’t care. The government needs money. And this is a great way to get it. They don’t care about carbon nor the environment nor energy independence. They want money and lots of it. This is just a convenient method to get their hands into your pockets.

    Pray the Republicans in the House stick together and block it. In addition, pray that in two years both House and Senate go Republican and they stick to their consrevative values.

  60. A Carbon Dioxide tax failed in one of the Scandinavian countries and has been withdrawn…and it has achieved nothing in the UK except subvert our democracy, add 20% to our feul bills and make us energy deficient.
    As for the USA…your emissions have reduced by 13% over the last 5 years and your weather has become more changeable.
    Refer Sun Cycle 24 and look up the likely weather when Cycle 25 comes in.
    Never in the history of the media have so many unprofessional journalist’s completely shafted the truth.
    A disgrace one and all.
    It is tantamount to treason.

  61. While it is unlikely this legislation will ever be passed by the current congress, it is quite clear to me that the electorate here in the U.S. (at least a small majority of voters in certain states) WANTS to pay more taxes. So why not an insane carbon tax? Heck, while you’re at it, go ahead and tax junk food, big gulps, salt, tobacco, pot, the internet, cell phones, … America, this is what you voted for in 2012!

    (BTW – look for our greedy climate heroes to ensure they get their slice of the carbon tax pie…).

  62. Latimer Alder says:
    February 13, 2013 at 4:18 am
    Can somebody explain how this works practically in terms of passing the legislation?

    In UK if the government presents a Bill to the House of Commons, it has a pretty good chance (>90%) of eventually becoming law.

    But I know that US arrangements are very different from ours. Please can we have the low-down on its likely path and chances of success. Thanks.

    A succinct but overly simplified version is here (used to educate children during Saturday morning cartoons in the mid 70′s):

    The gist for bills that raise taxes is that the bill must originate in the House of Representatives (commonly called “the House”) and pass that body. It then goes to the House of the Senate (commonly called “the Senate”) where it must again be passed. If passed in identical form by both houses it goes to the president for signature to become law If there are any differences in the House of Representatives and the House of the Senate versions of the bill they form a supercommittee to iron out then differences then send that consolidated bill to both houses for passage.

  63. Perhaps someone should remind Senators Sanders and Boxer of Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution which reads:

    “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;”

    Simply put, a tax bill originating from the Senate would have no constitutional legitimacy and therefore cannot be enforced.

    Regards, Kforestcat

  64. ” justsomeguy31167 says:
    February 12, 2013 at 7:56 pm

    Sarah-

    And what makes the tea party think we can slash our way to prosperity wherein every historical standard shows we need a defense and we need a social safety net to survive.”

    slash our way to prosperity? When you have run out of money, spending more will not create more prosperity! CUTTING spending means that prosperity will eventually return.

    You cannot borrow and spend your way to prosperity, just as you cannot borrow your way out of debt. You can only spend and borrow your way into unsustainable debt.

  65. justsomeguy31167 says:
    February 12, 2013 at 7:56 pm

    Sarah-

    And what makes the tea party think we can slash our way to prosperity…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    What needs slashing is idiotic regulations on the federal, state and local level.

    There is now so much red tape that a new business has to go through before they can open their doors many die from strangulation before opening and the rest, having spend so much time and money jumping through hoops cannot make it through the first two years. This is of course on purpose because the big boys do not want any competition. Unfortunately it is working.

    The chairman of the House Small Business Committee states. small firms consistently create 60 to 70 percent of new jobs, year after year, and employ more than half of the entire U.S. workforce… the federal government has weighed them down with red tape, mandates, taxes and uncertainty. Don’t overlook the consequences of uncertainty. Owners of small firms have testified over and over before the House Small Business Committee that they need certainty… The Institute for Justice released a series of studies documenting government-imposed barriers to entrepreneurship ~ Small businesses losing out to red tape A rotten economic climate and uncertainy means 64%—of small-business executives surveyed said they weren’t expecting to add to their payrolls in the next year and another 12% planned to cut jobs, according to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce report and 82% of Small Business Executives Think The U.S. Economy Is On The Wrong Track and 70% of Small Business Owners are Very Concerned About the Fiscal Cliff.

    Agenda 21 is the modern equivalent of a feudal estate or a company town. The key moves are:

    1. World Trade Organization shipping jobs overseas. Deindustrial Revolution?

    2. Foreclosuregate ~ forcing people out of their homes. Background: link 1 and link 2 and link 3. and link 4 What it actually means to homeowners link 5 and Obama helps drive people into foreclosure. link 6

    3. Closing of coal plants and “Cap & Trade” OBAMA under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…” This will drive even more people out of their homes as their electric bill starts to rival and then surpass their mortgage.

    4. Food prices will also skyrocket as the cost of the “Food Safety Modernization Act” and equivalent laws hit. Many farmers will quit instead of trying to meet the UN/WTO’s ‘Guidelines especially as huge fines are used to make examples of “wrong-doers” The FDA has already said they will use the international guidelines link The OIE Guide to good farming practices [animal] the full PDF The Guide to good agricultural practices (GAPs) The FAO documents and do not think the small guy is left out. The FAO Training manual on good agricultural governance: A resource guide focused on smallholder crop production “… sustainable intensification of smallholder crop production, sustainable crop diversification, seed supply and plant genetic resource management…” The UN/FAO is Training our bureaucrats????

    4. Tiny crowded homes and apartments await those driven out of suburbia. WSJ: California Declares War on Suburbia and “micro-unit” mini-apartment is coming to NYC and L.A. County’s Private Property War uses zoning to oust homeowners. Sustainia is an alliance of international organizations and companies working to create sustainable growth A democrat working in the California government tells How your community is implementing Agenda 21- Utube She hyighlights ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability

    5. Once transportation becomes too expense you are stuck in a ‘company Town’ It will also be too expensive to ship in food. Enter the “Food Shed’ stage left that limits the number of people each location can carry: See Cornell mapping tool

    This is John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar’s “Planetary Regime” He said in the 1973 book“Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.” The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”

    It is happening right now as we watch: 19 Stunning Facts About the Deindustrialization of America

    Welcome to the new Neo-feudal world of Agenda 21.

  66. alex says:
    February 13, 2013 at 1:40 am
    “Well. Fuel in the U.S. is too cheap and – as a logical consequence – the economy is too inefficient. Tax on carbon and/or on energy would be a good first step towards modernisation.
    The U.S. seem got stuck in the 20. century.”

    The desire to make profit drives the U.S.economy. The economy is inefficient now because of government regulation and taxes. Over regulation and taxes drive costs up and profits down so business must cut expenses in other ways to maintain profits. That leads to fewer jobs, lower wages and reduced reduced benefits which in turn leads to less consumer spending. It really isn’t that hard to understand but you must first acknowledge the fact that our supposed leaders have a vested interest in keeping people poor and dependent upon government because that is the source of their power.

  67. alex says:
    February 13, 2013 at 1:40 am

    Well. Fuel in the U.S. is too cheap and – as a logical consequence – the economy is too inefficient.
    Tax on carbon and/or on energy would be a good first step towards modernisation.
    The U.S. seem got stuck in the 20. century.
    ————————————————————————–
    Alex I’m not attacking you on this, but I am genuinely curious. How does cheap fuel make the economy inefficient? What do you mean by ‘economy is too inefficient’?

    Mark

  68. The excellent Christopher Booker on the soon to be introduced UK Carbon Tax

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9575598/George-Osbornes-CO2-tax-will-double-UK-electricity-bills.html

    For those of you not acquainted with Booker, he is a rare voice of sanity in the UK mainstream media.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/

    As is his comrade-in-arms, the openly offensive and most amusing James Delingpole, whose anti-CAGW rants are of the highest order. He really is not afraid to upset people.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100200909/wind-turbines-not-just-hateful-but-ruddy-dangerous-too/

  69. Obama knows the legislation will fail, but will use the “failure” of Congress(with blame directed at Republicans) as justification for an Executive Order authorizing the EPA to implement rules that will eliminate coal as a source of electricity, generally make fossil fuel based electricity more expensive, and create federal “sources of funds” for wind and solar.

    The only solutions are for Congress to take some power from the EPA, or hope a winning case can be made with the Supreme Court.

    We no longer have 3 equal branches of government bounded by a free and unbiased press. The President can effectively legislate from the Executive Branch and ignore the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.

  70. Nothing like proposing a bill that weakens the senators in the oil producing states – the same ones up for election 2014.

  71. Credit where credit is due: a more efficient way of torpedoing the U.S. economy couldn’t be found than punishing “carbon”.

  72. Patrick says:
    February 13, 2013 at 1:54 am
    Was there a tax on horses that “forced” people to “modernise” transport and power technologies? Was there a tax on steam engines to modernise?
    =======
    What isn’t taxed? If they could find a way to tax the air we breathe, they would. Oh wait, this is what they are talking about.

    The notion that taxes make the economy more efficient in nonsense. The market makes the economy efficient. Over time goods and services naturally find the most economic means of production, similar to the way that nature always finds the most economical way to accomplish anything.

    For example, throw a ball through the air. The path it takes is the most efficient path energy wise. Water flowing downhill does the same. The planets in orbit, the motion of a boat drifting on the water without power, all describe the minimum energy path. How nature accomplishes this remains one of the great mysteries.

    Thus, everything the government does through tax policy makes the economy less efficient, because it seeks to restrain the market from finding the most efficient method (path) and replace this will a method that will advantage one group over another.

    For example, the carbon tax is claimed to advantage the future over the present. We are sacrificing today to benefit someone else tomorrow. Those people promoting the legislation hope to be part of the group that benefits tomorrow, at the expense of the rest of us today.

  73. @justsomeguy…

    Your concern about “slashing” government is misplaced. There has been no slashing of anything. On reductions (minor) in the future rate of government increase. Have you never heard of baseline budgeting? Methinks you’ve been reading too much NYT.

  74. alex says:
    February 13, 2013 at 1:40 am

    Well. Fuel in the U.S. is too cheap and – as a logical consequence – the economy is too inefficient.

    What nonsense. Our economy has thrived precisely because of relatively inexpensive fuel.

  75. From the PR of Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.),

    “Under the legislation, a fee on carbon pollution emissions would fund historic investments in energy efficiency and sustainable energy technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. The proposal also would provide rebates to consumers to offset any efforts by oil, coal or gas companies to raise prices.”

    It is so feeble that it must have come from some tired old tenured university sociologists who in their prime first sponsored and then apologized for all the failures of 20th century European style and Asian style socialism.

    Boxer and Sanders have provided a clear example of the essential authoritarian thinking. Implied in their thinking ‘a priori’ is a superior kind of human knowledge processed by social advocates that shall guide them in legally enforcing a ‘social safety net’ for those lessor humans without their superior special social knowledge.

    The authoritarians promise a socialistically better world if you trust in their government enforced special knowledge instead of the manifold and creative knowledge of independent individual choices of free people making their own un-coerced decisions in the open marketplace of both ideas and trade.

    I say ‘nuts’ to this continuous BS which is only the tired old world socialist feebleness being recycled by Obama.

    John

  76. A.D. Everard says:”OMG – this will be chucked out, right? The Senate knows – please – that a carbon tax doesn’t work.”
    Gas taxes in Europe have caused most (not all) people to buy smaller cars, you should chuck…I mean, check it out. I would say a gas tax is a form of carbon tax, and it does seem to work. As a side product, it also softened the blow to the european auto industry in 2007 when the oil prices went so high, while here in Michigan, when people stopped buying our fine SUVs (what with gas twice the $$$), we had a recession before the real recession.

  77. Gail Combs says:
    February 13, 2013 at 6:15 am

    What needs slashing is idiotic regulations on the federal, state and local level.

    ——————————————-
    I couldn’t agree more. You know it’s bad when the WH Chief of Staff (Bill Daley, June 2011) resorts to saying ‘sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible’ at a meeting of the National Association of Manufacturers. It’s ~worse~ than tax and I didn’t realize that was possible. At least with taxes there are revenue receipts that can be put to some use. Over regulation is like destroying industry for the sake of destruction.

  78. “every historical standard shows… we need a social safety net to survive.”

    That’s pretty funny, since the “social safety net” has been in existance for an incredibly tiny part of history. How did we survive till that pt?

  79. “A country that tries to tax its self into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to pull himself up by the handle” -Winston Churchill-

  80. I thought the First Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits “The making of any law respecting an establishment of religion…”, which is what this appears to be.

  81. “Simply put, a tax bill originating from the Senate would have no constitutional legitimacy and therefore cannot be enforced. ”

    Ah, but you see, it will be put forward as a revenue-neutral environmental bill instead.

  82. alex says:
    February 13, 2013 at 1:40 am ….

    You forgot the /sarc tag. It was already mentioned that even though there are more cars on the road than ever driving more miles than ever, gas tax revenue is declining because of the widespread adoption of fuel efficient vehicles. That U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are dropping. That adoption of manufacturing efficiencies are not driven by tax penalties or subsidies, but by competitive market forces. That the Japanese are visiting U.S. steel plants to learn efficient new methods of production.
    U.S. manufacturing stuck in the 20th century? I think not. For instance, the sodium filled exhaust valves used in most high power/high efficiency engines (a very high tech and extremely precision bit of manufacturing) are made in the U.S. and (of all places) Mexico.
    Is everything perfect? Of course not. But not anywhere near as dire as your “glass half empty” comment would suggest.

  83. Republicans are now fully sophisticated about the global warming fraud and are today on Fox News giving tens of millions of people a sense of perspective:

  84. Typo alert!

    Pet peeve of mine: “wack job” derives from wacky and means crazy person. “Whack” is the sound of hitting something.

    REPLY: wacky is what I meant, so I’ve changed it to reflect that thanks – Anthony

  85. “every historical standard shows… we need a social safety net to survive.”

    That’s pretty funny, since the “social safety net” has been in existance for an incredibly tiny part of history. “How did we survive till that pt?”

    We didn’t, obviously. Everyone from back then is now dead. [MIC DROP]

  86. To state, Congress no longer represents the Will of The People is an understatement.

    I sent an email to Barbara Boxer last year related to the Law of the Sea Treaty — Senator Kerry attempted to sneak a Carbon Tax into the treaty. I pointed out that over 70% of California voters do NOT support the tax in any form.

    Her response was disingenuous and party centric.

    I respect Barbara Boxer but Democrats are several bricks shy of a full load related to the climate nonsense.

    Tax and Spend is Not a Plan — when will they wake up.

  87. Solar Minimum already cured global warming. Thank you solar cycle 24. Climate change can’t be cured, its been happening for billions of years.

  88. Owen in Ga says:
    February 13, 2013 at 4:16 am
    Kforestcat says:
    February 13, 2013 at 6:01 am
    Ken Hall says:
    February 13, 2013 at 6:09 am
    Gail Combs says:
    February 13, 2013 at 6:15 am

    Well said, All of you!
    Fiscal Discipline. Constitutionally Limited Government. Free Markets.
    MtK

  89. Rhys Jaggar says:
    February 12, 2013 at 9:48 pm
    Get Congress to evaluate proposals against the following:

    1. Cost of implementation in terms of contribution to budget deficit.
    2. Effect on US economy, focussing on lost jobs before jobs which might be created.
    3. Effect on climate of all this activity.
    4. Scientific evidence underpinning ‘climate change’.

    Clearly point 4 depends on who provides the evidenc, as climate science is not science currently.

    I”m sure you can sell the electorate a programme that ‘costs a fortune, destroys jobs, does nothing to affect climate variability and is based on fraudulent science’, can’t you?

    I’ll answer:

    #1 – Not one thin dime! They plan to “give the money back” to the people through more government services.

    #2 – More jobs! All those new corporate and public bureaucrats who will have to be hired to ensure compliance means more jobs.

    #3 – We already stopped the rising of the oceans (by electing Obama). This is for social justice, not the climate.

    #4 – Four out of five dentists scientists surveyed said so. All four of them are protesting Keystone XL with Hansen right now.

  90. The extreme AGW paradigm pushers want a carbon tax to spend money on green scams. Green scams do not significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions which is not a problem anyway at there is no extreme warming crisis to solve. Green scams increase the cost of electrical power and transportation fuel in the US, further reducing US competitiveness.

    The wind farm scam is a good example.

    The Obama administration’s claim that 50% of new installed power generation in the US was wind farms is disingenuous. Wind farm installed capacity is quoted at the maximum theoretical capacity of the wind farm. As the power generated by a wind turbine is proportional to the velocity of the wind squared and there are times when the wind does not blow, actual average generated power from a wind farm varies from 15% Germany (The Germans install wind farms for ideological reasons and hence install wind farms in regions where there is insufficient wind), 20% (California. Californians also install wind farms for ideological reasons) to 35% for the best locations in the US and other locations in the world. Ignoring the fact that the best locations for wind farms are typically far from population centers so the US wind farms are being installed low wind locations or massive power lines need to be constructed (there is a loss of up to 20 to 30% for a long electrical power line) and have not been included in the economics.

    It is odd that the extreme AGW crowd and the Obama administration are not aware of or are in denial concerning the wind farm technical show stopper.

    The problem with wind power generation is the wind does not necessary blow when power is required. As there is no energy storage in an electrical grid this means fossil fuel power generation stations must be turned off when the wind blows or when wind speed increases to balance the electrical grid. If one includes the extra power required to turn fossil fuel power stations on and off there is almost no net carbon dioxide reduction from the installation of the wind farms, as noted by this technical brief that discusses wind farm installations in Ireland (which is one of the best locations to install wind farms).

    If there is almost no reduction in CO2 emissions due to the installation of wind farms (if the higher fuel consumption for cycling fossil fuel plants is included in the calculations) and the generation cost from the wind farm is 3.7 times higher than a conventional fossil fuel power generation plant what is the driver to subsidize the installation of wind farms?

    http://docs.wind-watch.org/EirGrid-WindImpact-Main.pdf

    The electrical output from Wind Powered Generation (WPG) is intermittent in nature.
    Unlike conventional plant the output is not necessarily related to customer demand.
    Maximum wind production may occur during low customer demand periods and
    conversely at times of peak demand there may be little or no WPG. As WPG may be
    subject to priority dispatch (and has a very low variable production cost) this analysis
    assumes that the electricity produced by wind is always accepted onto the system and that
    the output of WPG is curtailed by wind conditions alone. As a consequence the output
    required from the other sources of electricity is more volatile in nature. This report
    examines three measures of performance that display the increasing operational duty on
    thermal plant as a result of a rising WPG. The three parameters examined are ;

    Start-ups. A large amount of energy is required to start-up large thermally powered
    units. For example a large oil fired unit can consume 3000 GJ of energy during the startup
    process, and if a typical price for oil is 350 cents/GJ a single start up would cost
    €10,500. The start-up process is also a quite onerous on the mechanical integrity of the
    unit. Even for peaking units such as open cycle gas turbines it is quite common to
    determine the allowable period between maintenance outages by specifying a maximum
    permissible number of start-ups. From our detailed hourly unit commitment and dispatch
    studies the number of start-ups required per annum, as WPG is increases, has been
    determined.

    Ramping duty. The ability to pick up or reduce load on a generation unit is limited by
    the thermal and mechanical stresses imposed on the unit during the process of changing
    load levels. It is normal for manufacturers to specify a maximum permissible ramp-up
    and ramp down rate in terms of MW per minute. Ramp up rates in the range of 1 to 10
    MW per minute and ramp-down rates in the range from 1 to 15 MW per minute are
    typical performance levels for thermal units. As there are limits to the ramp rate on
    individual units a number of units must act in unison in order to maintain the demand
    supply balance during periods when either the demand or supply of electricity is
    changing rapidly. For this study the impact of increasing levels of WPG on the ramping
    duty of units was quantified by determining the ‘Average Hourly MW Change’ for a unit
    over a period of one year. The higher the Average Hourly MW Change the more onerous
    the ramping duty and hence the greater the mechanical and thermal stresses being
    imposed on the thermal units.

    http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html

    A Problem With Wind Power
    The head of Xcel Energy in the U.S., Wayne Brunetti, has said, “We’re a big supporter of wind, but at the time when customers have the greatest needs, it’s typically not available.”

    Throughout Europe, wind turbines produced on average less than 20% of their theoretical (or rated) capacity. Yet both the British and the American Wind Energy Associations (BWEA and AWEA) plan for 30%. The figure in Denmark was 16.8% in 2002 and 19% in 2003 (in February 2003, the output of the more than 6,000 turbines in Denmark was 0!). On-shore turbines in the U.K. produced at 24.1% of their capacity in 2003. The average in Germany for 1998-2003 was 14.7%. In the U.S., usable output (representing wind power’s contribution to consumption, according to the Energy Information Agency) in 2002 was 12.7% of capacity (using the average between the AWEA’s figures for installed capacity at the end of 2001 and 2002). In California, the average is 20%. The Searsburg plant in Vermont averages 21%, declining every year. This percentage is called the load factor or capacity factor. The rated generating capacity only occurs during 100% ideal conditions, typically a sustained wind speed over 30 mph. As the wind slows, electricity output falls off exponentially. [Click here for more about the technicalities of wind as a power source, as well as energy consumption data. Click here for conversions between and explanations of energy units.]

    In high winds, ironically, the turbines must be stopped because they are easily damaged. Build-up of dead bugs has been shown to halve the maximum power generated by a wind turbine, reducing the average power generated by 25% and more. Build-up of salt on off-shore turbine blades similarly has been shown to reduce the power generated by 20%-30%.

    Eon Netz, the grid manager for about a third of Germany, discusses the technical problems of connecting large numbers of wind turbines [click here]: Electricity generation from wind fluctuates greatly, requiring additional reserves of “conventional” capacity to compensate; high-demand periods of cold and heat correspond to periods of low wind; only limited forecasting is possible for wind power; wind power needs a corresponding expansion of the high-voltage and extra-high-voltage grid infrastructure; and expansion of wind power makes the grid more unstable. [Click here for a good explanation of why wind-generated power can not usefully contribute to the grid and only causes greater problems, including the use of more "conventional" fuel.]

    Despite their being cited as the shining example of what can be accomplished with wind power, the Danish government has cancelled plans for three offshore wind farms planned for 2008 and has scheduled the withdrawal of subsidies from existing sites. Development of onshore wind plants in Denmark has effectively stopped. Because Danish companies dominate the wind industry, however, the government is under pressure to continue their support. Spain began withdrawing subsidies in 2002. Germany reduced the tax breaks to wind power, and domestic construction drastically slowed in 2004. Switzerland also is cutting subsidies as too expensive for the lack of significant benefit. The Netherlands decommissioned 90 turbines in 2004. Many Japanese utilities severely limit the amount of wind-generated power they buy, because of the instability they cause. For the same reason, Ireland in December 2003 halted all new wind-power connections to the national grid. In early 2005, they were considering ending state support. In 2005, Spanish utilities began refusing new wind power connections. In 2006, the Spanish government ended — by emergency decree — its subsidies and price supports for big wind. In 2004, Australia reduced the level of renewable energy that utilities are required to buy, dramatically slowing wind-project applications. On August 31, 2004, Bloomberg News reported that “the unstable flow of wind power in their networks” has forced German utilities to buy more expensive energy, requiring them to raise prices for the consumer. [Note, April 2012: State support for industrial wind fluctuates, but the trend noted here has continued.]

    A German Energy Agency study released in February 2005 after some delay [click here] stated that increasing the amount of wind power would increase consumer costs 3.7 times more than otherwise and that the theoretical reduction of greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved much more cheaply by simply installing filters on existing fossil-fuel plants. A similar conclusion was made by the Irish grid manager in a study released in February 2004 [click here for 172-KB PDF]: “The cost of CO2 abatement arising from using large levels of wind energy penetration appears high relative to other alternatives.”

    http://docs.wind-watch.org/mason-windpowerindenmark-2008.pdf

    5. Carbon emissions
    Denmark’s annual carbon emissions represent a tiny part of the amounts released globally into the atmosphere (47). Despite its ‘green’ reputation, however, this country remains amongst the world’s biggest consumers of coal and producers of carbon dioxide per head of population (36), and has yet to demonstrate consistent reductions in domestic carbon emissions (16) or its dependence on fossil fuels.

    The intermittent and variable nature of its industrial wind power system and the associated need for dependable sources of spinning reserve mean that the operational efficiency of its backup plant is reduced (i.e. greater amounts of carbon dioxide produced per kWh of conventionally generated electricity (85; 86)). This counteracts a significant proportion of the carbon saving claimed for wind power.

    A leading Elsam expert has also intimated that with its present electricity supply system further increases in wind power generation will not reduce Denmark’s emissions of carbon dioxide because more wind power leads to greater exports to neighbours (60). Such exports may reduce carbon emissions in some of these countries, but few emission savings will accrue (for example) to Norway at times when high levels of rainfall keep its reservoirs fully replenished (51; 85; 86).

  91. Do this and say bye bye to your position as the biggest economy in the world – this will ensure you never reduce that deficit – the Europeans prove this over and over.

    Are you sure these people aren’t foreign agents ?

  92. Dear
    kcrucible says: February 13, 2013 at 10:07 am

    Where you state “Ah, but you see, it will be put forward as a revenue-neutral environmental bill instead.”

    Nope… under established legislative procedure a bill containing a “tax” originating from the Senate can be “blue slipped” by the House. The blue slip notes the House’s constitutional prerogative and immediately returns the bill to the Senate – without taking further action.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slip

    Furthermore, even if the House does not blue slip a tax bill the law can be challenged in the courts. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in United States v. Munoz-Flores (1990), where the Court rejected the argument that origination issues are nonjusticiable political questions. The Court held that a plaintiff with standing may pursue a claim that a revenue statute improperly originated in the Senate.

    So, should the Senate pass Ms. Boxer’s bill, the bill can be stopped dead by both the House and any citizen with standing.

    Regards,
    Kforestcat

  93. Australia discovered the most important about a Carbon Tax, never stand between a financially strapped government and a bucket of money.

  94. As many have noted, getting a carbon tax thru congress likely isn’t to happen. But that isn’t the plan. According to Terence Corcoran of the Financial Post, the plan is to use the EPA –
    ” Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel recently outlined how the president might demand a carbon tax in return for approval of energy projects, including Keystone. Getting a carbon tax through Congress looks tricky. But Ms. Strassel reported that California Senator Barbara Boxer outlined how a carbon tax could be imposed administratively through the Environmental Protection Agency.”

  95. Financial recompense may offset the reluctance of some to serve as skeptics.
    They would accept hardships in recompense for having been selfish and lazy.

  96. talldave2 says:
    February 13, 2013 at 11:49 am

    “every historical standard shows… we need a social safety net to survive.”

    That’s pretty funny, since the “social safety net” has been in existance for an incredibly tiny part of history. “How did we survive till that pt?”

    We didn’t, obviously. Everyone from back then is now dead. [MIC DROP]
    ————————————————————————
    We have a social safety net now and people are still dying. [STAGE DROP]

  97. @talldave2 says:
    February 13, 2013 at 11:49 am

    “every historical standard shows… we need a social safety net to survive.”
    +++++++++++
    The safety net is making people abuse it… and others lazy. It used to be that generous people would donate money and volunteer… but the safety net grew big enough to entitle people… And I stand by these comments!

Comments are closed.