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
oakgeo: Working conditions and salaries were improving long, long before unions ever came on the scene. There is no evidence that the unions have been successful in permanently accelerating this already existing trend. (To the extent that they have managed to accelerate the trend, it wasn’t permanent, as the company soon went bankrupt and stopped paying their workers anything.)
@ur momisugly SMOKEY and PHIL R.
You guys are wrong on where the energy money goes. One of you suggested I do a little research, so I did.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E&goButt2.x=7&goButt2.y=11
I am conservative. I am on the side of business. I directly benefit if government favors business over unions, social services, etc. However, if you can’t see the obvious fact that special interests run both parties, then you have been brainwashed by your party of choice. Republicans push breaks for industry, democrats push for breaks for unions. There is a battle for control going on right now. Sure, some industries are hedging their bets and they shifted a bit toward the left in the last election cycle, e.g. finance and banking. But that only proves the point. WE THE PEOPLE are waking up, but we don’t stand a chance against special interests on both sides unless we can get together at the ballot box.
the left constantly puts words in our mouths … aren’t we all “global warming deniers” ? I say turnabout is far play … let them prove they don’t mean the summation … quit playing by MoQ rules and punch back just as hard as they punch us … keep the punches above the belt even though they don’t …
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
David44 says:
March 15, 2011 at 8:23 am
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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You do have a point David, however their favorite climatologist…..Jim Hansen WAS quoted by AP several months ago opining that when it came to controlling CO2 emissions “Democracy is a failure.”
tom in indy,
What I objected to was the implication that oil companies are extreme radicals on the Right, just like people like Waxman and unions are radicals on the extreme Left. That is an odious comparison that unfairly demonizes oil companies. Law-abiding companies that provide essential products are mainstream centerists, they are not extremists like Henry Waxman. And if you have a 401-K, you’re probably already an owner of Big Oil.
I agree with you regarding special interests, as I commented above:
It’s even worse than that, but I won’t go into details. I’ve seen the corruption from the inside, having been the elected president of my union Local for four terms. I constantly heard complaints from people who objected to having union dues taken out of their paychecks. But they didn’t have a choice. If they refused to pay dues, the company was contractually obligated to fire them. Nice, huh?
2010 elections not 2011.
“I would summarize the core premise of Waxman, Markey, and Inslee’s opposition to H.R. 910 as follows: We know…”
Dudes – the politicians didn’t say what the “summary” says. It’s a spin. A personal opinion that has been inserted with misleading optics. This is how conspiracies start.
Please for your readers’ sake, modify the quote.
” 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.”
Our elected representatives, and our military, are required to take an oath to protect us and our constitution against all enemies, foriegn OR DOMESTIC. The EPA has delcared themselves to be above our democratic institutions, our law, and even our highest law, our constitution. Therefore, legally, the use of deadly force against the EPA is authorized, and even demanded, by our constitution and the oaths our
representatives and military made.
So get to it boys. It’s the law.
@Smokey says: March 15, 2011 at 8:52 am
re: your anti-union extremism
My union uses my union dues for lawyers at bargaining time to get a binding contract, just like my CEO and VP’s have a lawyer that get a deal signed for themselves. When my CEO gets “let go” he/she gets a multi-million dollar severance and pension, my CEO’s get muti-million dollar bonus’s every year that they don’t earn. What’s good for the gander is good for the goose. I suspect you don’t have the cojons to get organized and wrestle with the CEO’s, VP’s and boards of directors for a piece of the pie. If you have no cojons to unionize the CEO’s will take your lunch for themselves and leave you with a pittance for a wage.
tom in indy,
Smokey says:
March 15, 2011 at 1:30 pm
“tom in indy,
“What I objected to was the implication that oil companies are extreme radicals on the Right, just like people like Waxman and unions are radicals on the extreme Left. That is an odious comparison that unfairly demonizes oil companies. Law-abiding companies that provide essential products are mainstream centerists, they are not extremists like Henry Waxman. And if you have a 401-K, you’re probably already an owner of Big Oil.”
What he says.
I think we both agree with you as far as special interests, and that special interests are looking out for…well…their own interests. It’s just that the comment hints at moral or ethical relativism. They are not the same. “Big Oil” (and by extension, Big Business) is not perfect, but they provide a lot of benefits to society in the way of energy, jobs, investment value, etc. What value have the people (read taxpayers) of Wisconsin received with the childish antics of their state senators and striking teachers over the last few weeks?
The fact is that what are called fossil fuels are not, but stupid is as stupid does I suppose.
November 2011 elections… I totally trust these people to be the best and brightest.
According to Waxman and Markey their agenda is more important than anything else.
This is so typical of elitists; they THINK they know what is good for everyone else.
The chutzpah of these imbeciles is incredible.
Until we re-engineer the cosmic energy harnessed by the ancients and most recently by Tesla, fossil fuels are the only answer. Wind and solar have EROEI’s of < 1 and are colossal wastes of resources, and nuclear has again become too controversial and dangerous.
I know what is best for the world. It is a world without Waxman and Markey, and a world powered by shale, coal, oil and gas. The USA sits on over 21% of the entire world's recoverable reserves of fossil btus. This is the stuff that made the USA the greatest empire on Earth. But for some liberal pinheads who unfortunately are in high political office, they just can't stand being the biggest and best.
Sun Spot says:
“re: your anti-union extremism”
If you will re-read my post, you will see that I am not anti-union. I am anti-collecting-dues-and-sending-some-of-the-collected-money-to-Democrats [who get 97% of all union contributions].
It is illegal under the L.M.R.D.A. [the federal law regulating unions] to use union dues to support political candidates. But unions have learned to game the system, and they get around that restriction. The SEIU is notorious in that regard.
I was elected president of my Local 4 times [and twice elected as a statewide officer] before I retired. I was a union negotiator, and the company we worked for was extremely tough in negotiations. I know how it works. But I object to public sector unions. I do not agree that they should be allowed to exist – in that respect FDR and I are in agreement.
The reason is simple: public sector unions are negotiating for more taxpayer money, with politicians who almost always take the easy way out by agreeing to their demands.
In return the politicians get union votes, and the public employee unions get more and more taxpayer money, causing taxes [or public debt] to rise inexorably. The taxpaying public has no say in the process, even though it is their money that’s being handed out in ever increasing amounts. [And don’t say we can vote the bastards out; they have gerrymandered the voting districts to the point that their job security is on a par with public sector unions.] Public sector unions are parasites on the taxpaying public. They should be outlawed.
I fully support unions in the private sector. As for public employee unions: Bust ’em!
Sun Spot says:
March 15, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Sun Spot – if you hate working for private industry – then, please quit your job, start your OWN company, becomes its CEO, then YOU can call the shots. Pretty simple…
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?
Science informs politics. Science does not govern.
Science informs politics. Science does not govern.
Addendum: And no arm of the Executive branch governs either. They IMPLIMENT the government dictated by congress, who are duely elected representatives of the people of the united states.
So if Congress wants to reign in something that they feel is over the line, that’s entirely their perogative. If the people disagree they’ll lose their jobs for it.
To Joel Shore ,
You are mistaken. I worked for EPA doing research in atmospheric science for over 20 years. My job included reviewing all related peer reviewed papers, but was mainly original research that was published in peer reviewed journals. I was responsible for writing a chapter in most of the Air Quality Criteria Documents that were mandated by the CAA. In using the IPCC report as gospel “findings”, they did not follow the CAA instructions and this will be proven in the courts some day. Between now and then, congress has the responsibility of lessoning the damage that a politically motivated EPA can do to our country.
Sun Spot says:
My union uses my union dues for lawyers at bargaining time to get a binding contract, just like my CEO and VP’s have a lawyer that get a deal signed for themselves. When my CEO gets “let go” he/she gets a multi-million dollar severance and pension, my CEO’s get muti-million dollar bonus’s every year that they don’t earn. What’s good for the gander is good for the goose. I suspect you don’t have the cojons to get organized and wrestle with the CEO’s, VP’s and boards of directors for a piece of the pie. If you have no cojons to unionize the CEO’s will take your lunch for themselves and leave you with a pittance for a wage.
Sun Spot,
I haven’t had to bother with unions, because I’ve been able to make MYSELF valuable enough to my bosses that they don’t WANT to let me go. Once, I had made myself valuable enough to get a 50% raise simply by asking for it. Has your union ever accomplished that for you?
Of course, I’ve also never treated my boss like an enemy.
I apologize for being needlessly antagonistic in my previous post.
As the topic of labor unions is not really appropriate for this forum, I will be dropping the subject.
Exactly when did we add another branch of power to the constitution? We didn’t? So what these politicians are admitting to is that this is a necessary green-military police Coup. And just which branch of the guvmnt is allowing that to happen?
These people seem irrational and they are, in fact “fit to be tied”. Two years ago they were only inches from victory. They only needed to get the legislation through a largely socialist Congress. It was supposed to be over by July 09. Then their world fell apart. They thought they would be lioized in the history books as couragous leaders who delivered America into a Marxist/Maltusian Utopia, the new Founding Fathers. It now seems clear that, to the extent the Inslee’s and Markey’s of this world will be remembered at all, it will be, at best, as clowns.
I’m really starting to question some people’s reading comprehension skills…
good grief.
The politicians did NOT utter that closing argument.
Really. Wow.
Mother nature I think will have the last say on all this nonsense.. surprising the most recent events she unleashed should have brought a little humility to these people..
QUOTE
Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.
UNQUOTE
The are saying that their agenda is more important than the rule of law.
Do you agree?