Waxman, Markey, and Inslee's argument

U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce of...

Image via Wikipedia

Last week the House Energy & Power Subcommittee marked up H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act. Today, the full House Energy & Commerce Committee will mark up the bill.

Opponents, especially Reps. Waxman, Markey, and Inslee, viciously attacked the bill last Thursday. Their arguments are reviewed in detail at the blog GlobalWarming.Org.

The post concludes with this summary of the Waxman-Markey-Inslee argument as follows:

We know what is good for America and the world. It’s a future without fossil fuels. We can’t persuade the people’s representatives to support our agenda and turn it into law. Therefore, it is necessary for EPA to implement our agenda regardless of the defeat of cap-and-trade, the November 2011 elections, and the separation of powers. Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.

The question on limiting of the breadth of power of the EPA to have control over the future of the United States energy policy is one of the most important debates of our time.

h/t to Marlo Lewis

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Brent

They are awfully full of themselves aren’t they

Dave Springer

“We know what is good for America and the world. It’s a future without fossil fuels.”
With all due respect, Mr. Inslee, you are wrong about what’s good for America and the world.
What’s good for America and the world is less expensive, renewable, clean energy that doesn’t require massive infrastruture replacement in the way of distribution and consumption.
Your plans would cripple our ability to develop a better energy future by killing the goose that is laying the golden eggs before we have a better goose to replace her. You sir are a moron.

Theo Goodwin

This topic will require some research. If the summary of the WaxMarIns position is accurate then their position is repugnant to the vast majority of Americans.

James Sexton

I think the summation is accurate for the context of the whole climate change discussion and not simply confined to Waxman, Markey, and Inslee.

We know what is good for America and the world.

Those people scare me the most. For the reality is they are not even smart enough to know what they know not. And in this case, it is just about everything.

Henry chance

Irony.
On youtube last year we saw Waxman admit that he had not read the monstrous cap and trade bill.

Metryq

Wow. Is that about EPA policy, or “progressive” policies in general? A severe case of “Quincy syndrome” if ever I saw it.

ew-3

“Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.”
This so outrageous. What about their oath to defend the constitution ?
It would seem that something about this must be illegal.

golf charley

Isn’t there something in the American Constitution about this sort of behaviour? Perhaps it is tucked away at the back somewhere, written with a quill pen taken from a sparrow

Pull My Finger

[snip – over the top – Anthony]

Noelle

The sentence immediately before the quotation you cite is: “I would summarize the core premise of Waxman, Markey, and Inslee’s opposition to H.R. 910 as follows: ”
I think it’s important to point that out that because the words cited are not from Waxman, Markey, or Inslee, but, instead, the author of the blog.
Also, because the EPA’s action is based on scientific findings, by arguing that the EPA should be controlled in the way the current Congress is trying to, is it fair to characterize you argument that the scientific expertise of Congress is superior than that of the EPA and other scientists who have the training and conducted research?

“We know what is good for America and the world.”

and,

“Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.”

Yeah, right, never mind the constitution, or our right to choose our own destiny. They want to stuff their perspective down our throats. Whether we like it, or not.
sounds like a pretty darn repugnant attitude to me. In the last century, didn’t the Nazis have similar views about Germany ‘and the world’?

John Marshall

It is time for revolution in America. These guys should swing for this even though stupidity is not really a capital crime, or perhaps it is in their case.
It might be time to ask Japan how they feel about power cuts, etc. after their terrible experience. They wish to get back to the 21st cent.

Jeremy

We can’t persuade the people’s representatives to support our agenda and turn it into law. Therefore, it is necessary for EPA to implement our agenda regardless of the defeat of cap-and-trade, the November 2011 elections, and the separation of powers. Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.

That right there is a justification for a dissolution of our government. These elected officials are saying, “to hell with our government, what we want is more important, we’re doing it anyway.” Honestly, how do they think they can get away with this?

Ken Hall

And when I said some time ago that these climate alarmist supporting politicians are using “climate change” to create a dictatorship, I was branded a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.
And yet here in black and white from out of their own mouths do they condemn themselves.

We know what is good for America and the world. It’s a future without fossil fuels. We can’t persuade the people’s representatives to support our agenda and turn it into law. Therefore, it is necessary for EPA to implement our agenda regardless of the defeat of cap-and-trade, the November 2011 elections, and the separation of powers. Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.

IF the alarmists are correct, then even if we reduced our CO2 output to zero, we would still not be able to cool the planet by more than one degree for about 1000 years. Reducing our CO2 output to zero would mean a literal return to the stone age. No more flights, no more cars, no more TV, no more computers, no more JOBS, no more electricity and no more industry.
Even if we did all that, we would not reduce the temperature of the earth. So the tiny amount of change that is being offered by the politicians is nowhere near enough.
They are sacrificing our income, way of life, our homes, jobs, families for NOTHING.
IF the alarmists really believed what they are saying, then they would NEVER even consider getting on a plane to their luxurious climate conferences.
They would be doing all they could to reduce CO2.
The fact is we are not going to reduce CO2 output by the amount that the alarmists are screaming for. That would destroy the economy entirely. So we are going to miss whatever arbitrary timetable for a tipping point they invent.
So we may as well enjoy our guaranteed ride to extinction and relax all the CO2 restrictions. What is the point of a miserable road to hell? We may as well enjoy it. I wanna buy a V12!!!
Besides, we may just discover that the alarmists are wrong, and then find that we saved our economy in the process.
I say we hang these human hating climate alarmists from lamp-posts and let them lead their human depopulation agenda from the front!

David S

ew-3 says:
March 15, 2011 at 7:32 am
“Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.”
This so outrageous. What about their oath to defend the constitution ?
Exactly!!!
IMHO the founders missed the boat by not providing a means to immediately remove from office anyone who refuses to uphold his oath. As a result we have had one constitutional violation after another, going all the way back to the Adams administration and the Alien and Sedition Act.

If EPA had followed the mandates of the CAA, they would not have “found” CO2 to be a pollutant. Their “finding” was politically motivated by the desire to be able to control the use of fossil fuel energy. That same motivation established the IPCC whose “science” the “findings” are based.

Chris in Ga

It’s the last sentence that worries me and defines what they think.
Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.”

etudiant

Do note that this summary is written by the blog poster, not by the people engaged in the debate.
This kind of far reaching summation can be applied to almost any case where regulatory mission creep pushes the boundaries of what is regulated. In every case, the rule making will fill in a lot of space that the original law left open.

Alexander K

As an interested observer of the American politcal scene, I understand the Constitution is the document that enshrines and defines how politicians must act. To openly defy that which is laid down in the American Constitution must be treason, which I understood to be utterly beyond the pale. Surely these carpetbaggers cannot be allowed to overthrow the Constitution, so who is empowered to stop them. To my mind there seems little point to the Constitution if it cannot be enforced.

Alan the Brit

I have warned you chaps & chapesses in the colonies before. Watch out for your democracy, it’s a frgile thing & easily taken away in front of your eyes as it has been done over here in the PDREU/EUSR! We can elect a “state” government of any policital hue into the Westminster Parliament, we could elect a Hitler or a Stalin in fact (having said that, despite their revolting & abysmal reputations they at least got things done), it would make no difference as to how & by who we are governed. That’s the EU for you, the only thing the European Parliament in the way of power is to cede more of it to Bruxelles! The EU is driving Global Goverment & it will be the same bodies in charge! Kick your politicians where it hurts, in the ballot box!

You All are missing the point, look at them pictures, aliens thats what.

Jaye Bass

Hang on now, did they actually say that?

MikeEE

Didn’t President Obama say it would be so much easier being president of China? Then you wouldn’t have to waste time with negotiations.
MikeEE

Keith Battye

A lot of guys running countries in Africa subscribe to this “I know what’s best for everybody and damn the constitution” thinking.
It doesn’t usually work out so good.

Alan Clark of Dirty Oil-berta

Uhhhh folks…. this is a somewhat sarcastic “summation” or paraphrasing of the Markley-Waxman-Inslee position. It’s not a direct quotation.

Keith Battye

BTW , just so’s you know . . Google “Waxman Markey Inslee and WUWT comes up as the first return.

David44

Come on guys. We may hate these guys’ agenda or even them, but none of them said what is in that summary paragraph. This is what Mr. Lewis’ thinks they think. He may even be right, but his inflammatory “summary” is over the top. Had he put quotes around it, either they would be guilty of treason, or he would be guilty of libel.

tom in indy

Let me frame this for you. Special interests control American politics. On the left, we have unions and on the right we have big oil. The right is trying to gain control of the debate by reducing union membership, dues and hence union campaign contributions. The left is trying to gut the oil industry for the same reason.
When we were young and naive, we believed that government served the people. Now that we are older and wiser, and the curtain has been pulled back, we see that government serves special interests.

RHS

I wish that would make the 5 o’clock news somewhere, anywhere. Can’t believe I have to visit this site for meaningful insight to politicians as well as science. Not that I mind really!

Pete H

“Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.”
I would hope that the MSN and everyone who reads that will rise up to ensure that everyone can see what these people are like! 10/10 again!

Dan Lee

Wow, how’s that for a kill quote? Anyone who supports AGW and related legislation must now defend:
…implement our agenda regardless of:
-the defeat of cap-and-trade
-the November 2011 elections
-the separation of powers.
– the question, “Is your agenda more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with?”
Answer yes to the above, and THEN let’s discuss global warming, in the context of what we intend to do about it besides adapt?

TomRude

Who bought their election campaign?

Frank K.

“We know what is good for America and the world. It’s a future without fossil fuels. We can’t persuade the people’s representatives to support [blah, blah, blah]…”
Actually, this statement is no different than a concluding statement in a typical NASA GISS (or similar) climate journal paper. It could have been written by any of our manic CAGW climate heroes…

To Jay,
No. They did not actually say that. However, it is a relatively accurate summary interpretation of a lot of “politically correct” speaking.

James Sexton

Jaye Bass says:
March 15, 2011 at 8:12 am
Hang on now, did they actually say that?
=========================================
No, the summation was done by Marlo Lewis. It seems some here are missing this detail. Even so, I believe the summation to be a correct assessment of their position.

rbateman

The summary smacks of self-coronation (they have a full tank of Green Energy gas, plenty of GCM cigarettes, and are on a Mission from GAIA).

ferdberple

“Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.”
The EPA policy is being enacted by the President of the United States. He has made this very clear in his public statements. He knows best what is right for the country. Congress and the People have it wrong.
Waxman, Markey, and Inslee are showing their loyalty to the President through their actions. Their statements reflect the President’s policy on this matter. The People and Congress need to start doing as they are told.

MarkW

“Therefore, it is necessary for EPA to implement our agenda regardless of the defeat of cap-and-trade, the November 2011 elections,”
Whoa there, they already know who’s going to win in this years elections?

pat

These scientific illiterates have been bullying others for years. To them science is just an excuse to further their bizarre need to have every American and every American institution conform to leftist Utopian ideal. They are painfully ignorant on virtually every matter of which they effusively opine. Being unaware that the talking points fed to them by the Warmists, Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, etc are just that: Talking points. Not facts.

tom in indy says:
“Let me frame this for you. Special interests control American politics. On the left, we have unions and on the right in the center we have big oil.”
Fixed it for you.
“Big oil” can be you. Just buy stock in Exxon-Mobil and you can collect the dividends as an owner. “Right” is used as a pejorative, indicating an extremist, when it is always the Left that is extreme Big Government supporters.
It’s always irritating to se anyone try to demonize an honest, law abiding company that provides a necessary product. Don’t like ’em? Then don’t buy their products. There are always bicycles. Avoid anything made of plastic. And of course, don’t buy food that uses commercial fertilizer.
You don’t want to be a hypocrite, right?
But I do agree that special interests own the government – and disreputable carreer politicians like Waxman and Markey. Unions take members’ dues, give it [97%] to the Democrat Party, and in return get self-serving laws passed that extract money from non-union workers and hand it over to union members to pay them far in excess of their market skills. It’s a caste system, with the low caste taxpayers paying excessive salaries, benefits and pensions to the gilded upper caste unions.

CRS, Dr.P.H.

Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.
OK, now, where did I leave that musket?
Absolutely outrageous. However, I’m glad they blew the cover off of their agenda for all to see. Cockroaches hate nothing more than bright light. They will come to regret that they ever uttered those words.

Folks, Waxman, Markey and Inslee did NOT make that statement. It was a “summary” by the blogger, his interpretation of what the Democrats meant by their arguments. It is a somewhat over-the-top statement and I think Representatives Waxman, Markey and Inslee would reject that formulation and be horrified at the sentiment…. even if it is not that far off the mark.

Snotrocket

Anthony, it may be a fair summation, and I’m sure it represents the spirit of warmism, however I think it would have played a lot more ethically – for those who did not bother to read the link in GlobalWarming.org – if you had included Marlo Lewis’s first line of the summary: “I would summarize the core premise of Waxman, Markey, and Inslee’s opposition to H.R. 910 as follows:”
That said, I am entirely comfortable with the idea that wanting to bypass government with the EPA is the sort of idea that these democrats want to see.

dragineez

tom in indy says:
March 15, 2011 at 8:24 am says: “on the right we have big oil”
Do just a little research on just which political party receives the most contributions from oil companies. You’ll obviously not be pleased with what you find.

oakgeo

Smokey @ March 15, 2011 at 8:52 am says:
It’s a caste system, with the low caste taxpayers paying excessive salaries, benefits and pensions to the gilded upper caste unions.
I certainly seems to have come to this. Unions, although historically instrumental in improving conditions across the board for workers, now benefit only themselves. Think of all the GM bondholders who lost big while the UAW was saved from making any substantive concessions.

Joel Shore

Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.

I’m a little confused about what the Constitutional principle is that Waxley, Markey, and Inslee are claimed to be wanting to ignore. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled back in 2007 that the EPA had the authority to regulate CO2 from cars under the Clean Air Act: http://miratechcorp.com/site/miratech/section/140 and in fact the duty to do so or to provide an explanation for not doing so.
Last time that I checked, the Supreme Court was the branch of government charged with interpreting both our laws and our Constitution. The Republicans in Congress certainly have the right to try to limit the EPA’s authority (since that authority is provided by statute, not innate Constiutional right). However, the Democrats in the Senate and the Democrat in the White House also have the right to try to block any such law, which is what they are doing.

Philip Peake

Those statements sound suspiciously close to treason to me.

Jaye Bass

James Sexton says:
March 15, 2011 at 8:41 am
No, the summation was done by Marlo Lewis. It seems some here are missing this detail. Even so, I believe the summation to be a correct assessment of their position.

I absolutely agree with your last statement. However, lets deal with the facts and debate from there.

Steve Keohane

From the Way-Back machine, 4/26/09, “Waxman’s Stunningly Stupid Statement”
“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap..” juxtaposed with We know what is good for America and the world. The inmates are indeed in charge of the asylum.
link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/quote-of-the-week-5-waxmans-stunningly-stupid-statement/
Inspired this take on Waxman and his ilk’s effectiveness at saving the arctic.
http://i44.tinypic.com/2062dk0.jpg