Final vote: 219 Yea, 212 Nay
Lets hope for defeat in the Senate. The list of votes is below.
As they say, making legislation is like making sausage. There’s a final product, but you surely don’t want to see the ugly process of it being made.
Today, those of us watching CSPAN, saw the ugliness of the sausage factory.
Here is the link to the vote tally:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll477.xml
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
59 Democrat Senators. They need 51 votes to pass it.
And I should have hope it won’t pass…. tell me again why.
I know a lot of republicans who petulantly refused to turn out and vote last November. Talk about letting the best be the enemy of the good.
Well, we get the government we deserve.
And I should have hope it won’t pass…. tell me again why.
Because it needs 60 votes for cloture. Otherwise it can be filibustered and it never gets to the floor for a vote. It will be close.
“Tom (21:29:11) : like President Obama has in a little more than 6 months.”
3 1/2 more years to go. And maybe 4 more after that.
filibustered
Ok. Then next—I should have hope the Republicans have the b@ur momisugly#*s to do a filibuster…. tell me again why.
evanmjones (21:50:03) :
I know a lot of republicans who petulantly refused to turn out and vote last November.
I didn’t know there was a Republican running for President last November.
Thomas has it exactly right. Leave the two-party idea out and the picture becomes quite clear.
I didn’t know there was a Republican running for President last November.
Even if you didn’t have someone to vote for, you sure as heck had someone to vote against. We lost a lot of congressmen as well, thanks to those who sat it out.
Leave the two-party idea out and the picture becomes quite clear.
Majority rule makes two parties or two coalitions inevitable. There is no getting away from that. The alternative is one party, which is worse.
Plurality rule doesn’t work, either. It’s a disaster.
Then next—I should have hope the Republicans have the b@ur momisugly#*s to do a filibuster…. tell me again why.
A couple will defect. But there are quite a few dems in the coal states who may cross the aisle. Filibusters have become standard procedure these days. I’m not sure I object. It makes it harder to pass laws, and we don’t exactly have a law shortage as it is.
That is the point — there is but one.
It’s late, just got back from a wedding, and I was hoping for some good news this early in my east coast morning.. damn!
BTW, is Norman Page (19:34:45) speculating too much about the impact of Government dictating of home and mortgage appraisal values?
Is there no limit to the stupidy of our elected oficials? My super GREEN congressman Jay Inslee voted yes as expected but the only Republican, Dave Reichart, on the west side of the Cascades here in the EverGreen state of Washington also voted for it. I was very pleased that he survived the Obama landslide but now I see that it made no difference. He did not have the backbone to stand up to the Green Mafia that controls this state! I phoned and e-mailed Inslee fully knowing that it would not change his vote. Now I will do the same with our two senators and I expect the same results.
That is the point — there is but one.
These things change. If the election were reheld today, the results would be different. Splitting the GOP hasn’t worked out so well so far. I suggest putting our (admittedly substantial) differences aside and pulling in the same direction. The dem coalition is large, but it is also fragile. The GOP is not perfect, but it is clearly preferable.
Haven’t caught up with most of this thread yet, so sorry if this’s been discussed at all, but otherwise, I think it’s mostly on-topic question.
In a news story I read about WM passing, it mentioned that they’re now they’re only planning on auctioning 15% of the initial emissions allocations. Does anyone know, as the legislation’s written now, who chooses who receives the allocations and how they choose how many? Cheers
Charlie Gibson gave the vote (not yet final) about 30 seconds on ABC tonight, about as much attention as the average MC gave it. The rest of the “news” was devoted to Michael Jackson.
Gary Strand (17:54:05) :
I would prefer Hansen’s plan of a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
———-?????
Hey I got one of those, guess what the Government of BC came up way short on the revenue and over spent on the “neutral” part of subsidies and tax credits for low income people. Made for a structural deficit. Gov cannot do anything “revenue neutral”.
Great plan though, this year tax goes up 50% so they can have a another whack at it, maybe they can be 50% more in the red. Psst in a dynamic economy you cannot predict consumption revenue, you can judge by GDP, Inflation and taxpayer migration/attrition what the base line for non-descretionary spending will be but to fund a program via consumption taxes is lunacy at its best, especially when you are actively taxing something to discourage its use.
Example: SChip Healthcare funded via tobacco tax, when the smokers are priced out of tobacco use there will be not revenue for SChip, then what the kids get the boot from the program?
Even if you didn’t have someone to vote for, you sure as heck had someone to vote against.
Who said I stayed home?
Wintering-Over in Antarctica. We celebrated Mid-Winters Day a week ago today and our station leader read a Mid-Winters greeting from our nation’s leader that included a reference to climate change. I later remarked about this to a colleague which led to an argument about manmade global warming, climate change or whatever it’s now called. This spoiled what had been up to that point an enjoyable Mid-Winters celebration. I’m really hoping this Congressional dog and pony show was just for Pelosi’s benefit and sanity rules in the Senate.
There is a proverb:
“Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad”.
possibly wrongly attributed to Euripedes.
The ancient greek ” Μωραίνει Κύριος ον βούλεται απολέσαι” has the more apt translation:
Whom God wants to destroy, he turns into an idiot/ fool.
Moros, is from the same root as “baby” and is used for adults as an insult .
I think that is what is happening in the US in an accelerated rate, that started after WWII. Eisenhower had forseen it but could not avert it.
I suppose it is inevitable that all imperia fall because of internal stupidities. One would expect that in this age of instant information this could have been averted, but watching the US give the sacrificial knife to China shows that there must be an inevitable God induced folly/blindness in human societies after all.
I think focusing on the Senate is a bad idea. Instead, people who called their Congressman, call again and thank them for voting no. If there is a nearby Congressman who voted yes, let your Congressman know that you plan on working to defeat their colleague in the next election over this issue.
Several of these no votes were ready to vote yes if needed, and the bill will have to come back to House for a second vote. That time, no amendments will be allowed.
Also, you need to act now to get some of the yes votes switched back.
When is the bill to be deliberated/voted in Senate?
Who said I stayed home?
Well, good. We need to pull in the same direction.
I’m not a political analyst, but echoing some prior comments on this thread: maybe it’s not Dems vs. Reps, or Liberals vs. Conservatives. Are those false dichotomies?
Here’s another theory. Maybe it’s the Public Sector vs. the Private Sector. Government vs. the citizenry. Do our elected officials represent us to the government, or represent the government to us?
In the case of the Cap-and-Stifle Bill, who are the winners and who are the losers? Follow the money. The Private Sector pays, the Public Sector reaps.
Is it any different in public forest management? Who wins when forests burn down? It’s not the public; it’s the government employees. We get our forests, watersheds, homes, and livelihoods destroyed: they get double overtime.
The economic crash has pushed national unemployment into double digits. How many of those were government workers? Which sector gets stimulated by the Stimulus?
Who employs the Alarmists? Isn’t it mainly the government? How many climate realists work for Uncle Sam? When a government employee departs from the Alarmist Party line, how long to they keep their jobs?
Is it all a Sector struggle, not a political partisan struggle? And if so, what strategies might be useful, (and which traditional political ontologies basically useless)?
Something to think about.
“anna v (23:07:41) : Whom God wants to destroy, he turns into an idiot/ fool”
Maybe it’s just that he keeps them from their foolishness unless that is what they would rather have.
Mike D. (23:58:22) :
There are people who don’t like to see this happening but would do the same if they were in power.
Something to think about.
evanmjones (23:38:07) :
I wanted Giuliani. You were going that way?
I emailed my Democratic Rep, even though I knew it wouldn’t do any good. Here’s part of the response I got back:
Quote…
In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a scientific body set up by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program, found indisputable evidence that global temperatures were changing, largely due to human activities resulting in greenhouse gas emissions. Further, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a group of thirteen federal departments and agencies that has studied this problem over the last four presidential administrations, concluded in June 2009 that changes in precipitation patterns, increasing sea levels and altering glacial activity would dramatically affect the Earth’s ecosystem.
… If we fail to act, the world’s leading climate scientists predict that during our children’s life times, climate change will raise the average temperature by 3 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit, causing 3 out of every 5 species to die, the sea to rise by 2 feet, and our state’s drinking water supply to be in jeopardy. Experts predict that failing to act now will cost us $1.9 to $3 trillion by 2100.
…the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy reported that the bill will provide the average American household with energy efficiency savings of approximately $200 per month in 2020, and cumulative savings of $3,900 per household by 2030. The bill also contains several programs designed to return the revenues collected by this legislation to consumers in order to offset any price increases. Additionally, this bill protects low income families and would reduce their energy costs by an average of $40 per year.
… A report by the University of Massachusetts concludes that the bill’s expansion in clean-energy investments coupled with the recovery legislation passed earlier this year will generate roughly $150 billion per year in new clean-energy activity. This would generate a net increase of about 1.7 million jobs.
…unquote.
Wow, we must be a bunch of idiots to oppose this thing! It’s amazing! We’re going to shut down all the coal burners, tax every form of hydrocarbon fuel that makes our civilization possible, and somehow that’s magically going to create jobs and money out of thin air!
I can’t wait until the next election cycle. Dems are going to pay for this big time! Of course there’s the short attention span of the voters… the sold-out eco-marxist media… the sold-out eco-marxist school system… the unions selling their members out… the greedy politicians and businesses who will trade our country’s economic health for a green badge of honor and all the money that comes with being connected with the right political “leaders”… and then there is the inept GOP that apparently can’t control its sexual urges and spends like dems when it has any power…
Never mind… we’re doomed…