If Dems win the House, ‘climate committee’ will return – seeking energy taxes

by Mike Bastasch

Should Democrats win control of the House this election, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will ask her caucus to create a select committee on climate change similar to the now-defunct panel behind the failed effort to pass cap-and-trade legislation.

Pelosi said the committee would “‘prepare the way with evidence’ for energy conservation and other climate change mitigation legislation,” she told The New York Times in an interview released Wednesday.

“Pelosi said it was clearly still needed to educate the public about the impact of more frequent extreme weather events,” TheNYT reported of Pelosi’s interview remarks.

Pelosi wants a committee similar to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that stood from 2007 to 2011. Then-Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Ed Markey chaired the committee, which spearheaded the effort to pass cap-and-trade legislation.

Markey’s cap-and-trade bill passed the House in 2009, but it failed to get enough support from moderate Senate Democrats. Cap-and-trade opponents successfully labeled the effort as an energy tax, since it would have raised gas and electricity prices.

Republicans disbanded the committee shortly after winning the 2010 election.

The defeat of Markey’s cap-and-trade bill pushed Democrats off the issue for years, relying on the Obama administration to implement a climate agenda through executive actions.

However, with President Donald Trump in the White House, a Democratic House would likely propose legislation aimed at fighting man-made global warming. Democrats have already said they would make global warming a major priority if they retake the House this election.

Democrats are keen to use House committees’ powers to push subsidies for green energy and even cap-and-trade or a carbon tax.

Full story at the Daily Caller

Advertisements

111 thoughts on “If Dems win the House, ‘climate committee’ will return – seeking energy taxes

  1. There is such corruption of data and deliberate scare tactics being used by those who make a steady income from this global fraud. Some politicians have fallen for this notably the mentally deficient Al Gore, and sheeple like Biden and that hopeless low IQ J. Kerry and Obama as well. Thank heavens for Preside t Trump and advisors who have seen through the scam.

    • Fred, do you think these people are so “mentally deficient” and “low IQ” that they can’t even spell “VETO”? Sort of looks like it, doesn’t it? I’m guessing President Trump can spell VETO.

    • Energy conservation is a good policy – except when it is deployed by the Left as way to achieve the de-industrialisation of western economies and advance the UN’s agenda of creating an unelected, unaccountable, socialist-marxist global government.

      • And the Liberal governments of Ontario and Quebec went down in 2018. Both of these Liberal governments had signed cap-and trade agreements with California.

    • I’ll put a “Like” on that. However, I don’t think it’s up to the federal government to impose a one-size-fits-all policy on the entire nation.

      • Where does the Constitution give power to Congress to mandate any sort of conservation, energy or otherwise? And do not quote the general welfare clause; that’s not what it is about.

    • The government has no business legislating or funding energy conservation. If individuals or businesses want to save energy as a way of saving money over time, they are free to do so. Spending $2 to save $1 worth of energy is bad policy.

    • MC: you’re quite right, energy conservation is a good idea at a personal level, but as a policy it smacks too much of big state. Unless someone’s overuse of energy effects others they should be at liberty to use it, assuming they pay for it.

      • It is a “regressive” tax, impacting those at the lower end of the economic pyramid more severely. Part of this is pure elitism, a desire to keep the peons in their place, and part is a desire to deindustrialize.

    • M Courtney, right you are, but the global gov folk always throw in conservation, eradication of poverty and increasing jobs as the “hook”, just the kind of motherhood ‘goals’ at greatest risk from their real plan. Its questionable renewables save energy at all and much of the saving is making it unaffordable for ordinary folk to use. The ‘jobs’ come from 50 times as many people needed to make gigawatt, and poverty and death of the poor is a byproduct.

    • In an ideal sense it is good concept, yet it invariably leads to bad policy when foisted upon the general public by fools attempting to look wise.

    • When it makes sense economically, conservation emerges on its own, especially since most of the value added to raw materials is now energy, rather than labor, so conserving energy to reduce costs is a no brainer. Conservation for the goal of mitigating climate change by limiting CO2 emissionsis an act of no brains.

      • Shouldn’t have made this comment as I have a personal rule not to comment on foreign politics. It’s their affair. However, in this case the article seemed to be condemning a policy because of its origin rather than the policy itself. Playing the man, not the ball, annoys me.

        Still, I reply to you co2isnotevil as you make a very good point that hadn’t occurred to me. Not that the policy is wrong but that it is redundant. As it’s a good thing no-one needs to be made to choose it.

        That makes sense. It’s like legislating against unnecessary plastic packaging. If the packaging is unnecessary it will be cut from the costs soon enough anyway. Makes sense.

        • We object because such programs when propagated by government always devolve into mandates, taxes and subsidies. None of which actually help people, but allow government officials to portray themselves as caring people.

          • It allows governments to portray themselves as being caring in order to provide the pretext for increased bureaucratic power through legislated control, intrusion and supervision. Notice how the IPCC claims they are benevolently saving the world in order to provide pretext for the UNFCCC’s agenda of global bureaucratic control that reports to no one? This swamp wants to swallow up all other swamps.

      • Agreed, and well summarized – ” Conservation for the goal of mitigating climate change by limiting CO2 emissionsis an act of no brains.”

    • Energy conservation doesn’t need to be a policy.
      If it makes economic sense, people and companies will do it on their own.
      If it doesn’t make economic sense, it shouldn’t be done.

    • The left doesn’t want conservation nor durability. The left wants “regulations” that makes existing cars, trucks, power plants, factories either plain illegal or impossible to run for a profit, leading to the destruction of huge capital and the loss of a lot of natural ressources.

      For example, the left cheers when a clean, safe nuclear plant is scrapped. The left complains about the minuscule effect of the plant on a tiny part of the ocean where the sea water will be slightly warmer. (In France, these areas around nuclear power plants on the Atlantic are known as good fishing places. The fishes never got the memo about how horrible warm water is.)

      The left will make up any story to justify the destruction of existing proven technology. The criticisms of nuclear power plants are often the most ridiculous ones, as even a child would easily see: a possible small increase of ambiant radioactivity, well below the difference of natural background radiation between regions, cannot possibly cause a health catastrophe. Anything that’s a small variation of compared to variation of natural exposure is a priori not catastrophic.

      The left pretends to hate cheap throwaway stuff, but makes it hard to keep and recycle existing stuff.

      On another, closely related topic, the leftright (represented by Faux News) wants to promote newer, unproven medical drugs (with too few data on rare side effects) that don’t clearly perform better than old cheap drugs in the most common case. Newer is better according to the leftright. The leftright just love Big Pharma and the idea that US drug industry drives progress… what progress?

  2. It is simply another attempt to raise taxes that will hit those at the bottom of the economic scale the hardest. But it’s cooked up by the ignorant to be foisted on the most vulnerable and least able to afford it.
    It’s time to give some of these self-absorbed politicos the heave-ho.

    • Oh but don’t you know how this works? They’ll give those at the bottom “credits” or “subsidies” – which can then be held in front of them like a carrot to a donkey to keep it moving in the direction they like. “Don’t vote for [fill in the blank], he’s going to take away your [energy subsidy]” – you know, the one that wouldn’t be NEEDED without the government energy “policy” meddling.

    • But where did the energy go? Sea level rise has been pretty tepid for the last 2-3 years. If this were true, how would the world be. So to make up for the increased ocean warming missing volume has Antarctica been growing ice as well as Greenland? Someone has to be wrong.

      • Didn’t you read the latest? There is enormous heat hiding in the ocean. ( No telling what happened to thermal expansion ) Well, it could be the deformed sea floor, no wait, it’s something else, or maybe it’s the oceans becoming more acidic.
        AGW has the most idiotic explanations that contradict other statements they make. Seriously, the enormous heat in the oceans was in the news yesterday. You can’t have ‘enormous heat’ and no thermal expansion. The stupidity is growing at an exponential rate.
        If the oceans had warmed as little as 0.1 C, it would have resulted in a SLR of 10 cm. So they are telling us they can measure 0.01C to get a 1 cm rise…. oh, no, it’s worse than we thought, it’s 0.001 C to get a 1 mm rise.
        We can measure that…. in fantasy land.

        • What they’re counting on is the stupidity or gullibility or inattention of their target audience. The strategy, as it has long been, is to bury us with bullshit until we can’t shovel fast enough to get out from under it.

    • I’m waiting for someone to tell us it (the extra heat found in oceans) was all down to models. Put it this way, if it’s based on measurements then someone got the initial measurements drastically wrong – which doesn’t give us much confidence in other measures being made.

  3. Wouldn’t any such carbon tax legislation just be vetoed by President Trump? What’s the point, since any such legislation wouldn’t receive any 2/3 vote by either House to override a presidential veto. Out of the 44 Presidents that have issued a total of 2571 vetoes, only 109 have ever been overridden.

    • It’s been hard enough to get bills sponsored by Republicans through the Senate. Even if the Democrats take the House, the Senate will stay in Republican hands and they can just start to pass some of the 500 or so pending bills the House has already passed, as long as they don’t want to make changes. After that, it will be grid lock for at least 2 years and nothing will get done. At least the markets will like the stability …

  4. The Dem’s will gain seats in the House… probably 15-35. They need 23 to take the House. If the Dem’s take the House, it will be by a narrow margin. The Republicans will most likely gain 2-3 seats in the Senate.

    I doubt that a 225-210 Democrat majority in the House could pass any new taxes.

    If they did, such a bill would be DOA in the Senate.

    • This is the Republican’s election to lose. I personally think Americans have a measure of the dems diabolical plans. They never changed a thing from their losing campaign.. Doubling down on the old stuff shouldn’t work. Moreover, I think African Americans will increse their vote for Repubs.

      • History says that the party without the Presidency always gains House seats in the midterm elections.

        I am preparing myself for the worst. I expect the Senate to hold, but the House to fall.

        I’ve voted – which I often don’t and encourage others with similar slothful habits to do the same

        • Yeah, it’s two different stories between the house and the senate.

          The house will be difficult for the Republicans to hold on to. Dems likely to pick up several seats, possibly enough to flip.

          The Senate on the other hand, will be difficult for the Dems to take as only a small number of republican seats vs a large number of Dem seats that are on the ballot this year. Not only do the Dems have to pick up a Republican seat or two, they also have to successfully defend all of their seats that are on the ballot (many of which are in red states).

          While I’m loathe to make predictions, I wouldn’t be surprise to see the Dems pick up seats in the house and loose seats in the Senate this year. Hopefully they won’t get enough seats to flip the house.

          • The only issue I support Trump on is immigration – and here the Democrats should steal the Emperor’s clothing (which they won’t).

            Otherwise he is a lying, conniving, unethical, narcissistic real estate salesman who has besmirched the reputation of the Presidential Office. The Dems controlling the House will put an end to his shinannigans and he may even be impeached for 1) collusion with the Ruskies or 2) financial misdemanours aided and abetted by his grifter sons and son-in-law.

          • Bill Clinton was impeached. Other than tying up the white house lawyers, it didn’t really have that much effect as Bill was not tossed out of office.

            So yeah, if the dems take the house they can impeach Trump, but they won’t have enough seats in the Senate (even if they somehow manage to pick up every Republican seat on the ballot without losing a single Dem seat) to actually toss him out of office, so other than tying up the white house lawyers time, impeachment isn’t going to mean squat.

            No, where the Dems can do the most damage is gumming up the legislative works (which will make Trump follow Obama’s playbook and do everything by executive order, to an even greater extent than currently) and start up investigation after investigation tying up the Trump Cabinet in appearances before the house committees.

          • Besides which, if they could successfully impeach/toss out of office, then that would give them President Pence. As much as the left hates Trump, they dread the idea of President Pence as much if not more so.

      • “Moreover, I think African Americans will increse their vote for Repubs.”

        When Trump ran for office in 2016 he got about nine percent of the African-American vote. Trump’s current approval rating among African-Americans is 40 percent!

        • which was up from the 6% that Mitt got in 2012 and 4% that McCain got in 2008
          (incidentally George W got 8% in 2000 and 11% in 2004)

  5. A recent editorial in the New York Times was titled:

    “IN CALIFORNIA, FACTS AND SCIENCE STILL MATTER”
    “Jerry Brown’s California is moving toward carbon-free electricity as President Trump’s Washington beds down with the fossil fuel lobby. We stand with California.”

    I am so tired of these uneducated imbeciles with arts degrees and NO understanding of the Scientific Method spouting off on global warming nonsense, that I decided to call them out. Following is my rant…

    letters@nytimes.com

    To The Editorial Board of the New York Times – Read this and learn about climate and energy – you are misguided on these subjects.

    I do not know any of you, but I suggest, sight unseen, that I am better educated and better informed on this subject than any of you. I further suggest that I am far more accomplished and have a better predictive track record than you on these subjects.

    ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD:

    Richard Feynman on The Scientific Method (1964)
    https://youtu.be/0KmimDq4cSU
    at 0:39/9:58: ”If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”
    At 4:01/9:58: “You can always prove any definite theory wrong.”
    At 6:09/9:58: “By having a vague theory, it’s possible to get either result.”

    See also the writings of Karl Popper, for example
    “The Logic of Scientific Discovery”
    “The Open Society and Its Enemies”

    “By having a vague theory, it’s possible to get either result.” – Richard Feynman

    “A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.” – Karl Popper.

    The “Climate Change” (aka “Wilder Weather”) hypothesis is so vague and changes so often that it is not falsifiable. It must be rejected as unscientific nonsense.

    The “Catastrophic Manmade Global Warming” hypothesis is falsifiable, and it has been falsified, as follows.

    ON CATASTROPHIC MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING

    The Catastrophic Manmade Global Warming hypothesis has been falsified:

    1. By the ~32-year global cooling period from ~1945 to ~1977, even as fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2 strongly increased;

    2. By “The Pause”, when temperature did not significantly increase for about two decades, despite increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations;

    3. By the absence of runaway global warming over geologic time, despite much higher CO2 concentrations than at present;

    4. A hypothetical doubling of CO2 from the so-called “pre-industrial” level of VERY approx. 280ppm to 560ppm would cause AT MOST about 1C of global warming (Christy and McNider 2017, Lewis and Curry 2018) , such that any credible humanmade warming predictions would NOT be dangerous, but would be net-beneficial for humanity and the environment.

    5. The only conclusive evidence is that Increasing atmospheric CO2 is hugely beneficial for the environment and humanity, due to greatly increasing plant and crop yields.

    In conclusion, there is no credible evidence of dangerous manmade global warming driven by increasing atmospheric CO2, and ample evidence to the contrary.

    ON GREEN ENERGY

    Green energy schemes are highly destructive – driving up energy costs, destabilizing electric grids, and increasing energy poverty and winter mortality. As an energy expert, I have known these facts for many decades.

    Green energy is typically not green and produces little useful (dispatchable) energy. The core problem is intermittency, which is the fatal flaw of grid-connected wind and solar power. Green energy enthusiasts ASSUMED they could solve this fatal flaw with battery storage, which is more uneconomic nonsense.

    An audit in 2018 by Germany’s Federal Audit Office concluded that Germany’s Energiewende was a colossal and hugely expensive debacle. Almost a trillion dollars was squandered in Germany alone, just on wind power – the German audit estimated the loss at about $800 billion.

    Then there is all the wind power in other countries, and all the solar, and corn ethanol in North America, and sugar cane ethanol in Brazil, and all the canola and palm oil biodiesel and many more nonsensical schemes.

    Side-effects of these green energy schemes included accelerated draining of the vital Ogallala Aquifer for corn ethanol production in the USA and clear-cutting of the rainforests in South America and Southeast Asia to grow biofuels. These actions caused huge environmental damage.

    Based on the evidence, including the Climategate emails, global warming and green energy are the greatest scams, in dollar terms, in the history of humanity.

    A fraction of these wasted trillions could have put safe water and sanitation systems into every village on Earth, and run them forever. About two million kids below the age of five die from contaminated water every year – over sixty million dead kids from bad water alone since the advent of global warming alarmism.

    The remaining squandered funds, properly deployed, could have gone a long way to ending malaria and world hunger.

    ON FOSSIL FUELS

    Fully 85% of global primary energy is fossil fuels, and the rest is hydro and nuclear. Green energy would be near-zero except for huge wasted subsidies and use mandates. Only a few places have enough hydro to provide their needs, and greens hate hydro. The only practical alternative is nuclear, and the greens hate nuclear too.

    Eliminate fossil fuels, and most people in the developed world would freeze or starve to death within a few months.

    OUR PREDICTIVE TRACK RECORD

    In science, the ability to predict is probably the one truly objective measure of one’s competence.

    In a 2002 written debate with the Pembina Institute, my co-authors and I wrote:
    “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

    Since then, all the scary climate model “projections” quoted by the IPCC have run far too hot, and any warming that has occurred has been mild and net-beneficial to humanity and the environment.

    We also correctly predicted the failure of most green energy schemes in the same 2002 debate, as follows:
    “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

    Since then, tens of trillions of dollars of scarce global resources have been squandered on destructive green energy schemes that have driven up energy costs, destabilized electrical grids and increased energy poverty.

    ONE REMAINING PREDICTION

    In 2002, I predicted that natural global cooling would commence by 2020 to 2030, in an article published 1Sept2002 in the Calgary Herald. There have since been many cooling predictions. I hope we are all wrong – humanity suffers during cooling periods.

    It is long past time to prepare for the possibility of moderate global cooling. This would involve:
    1. Strengthening of electrical grid systems, currently destabilized by costly, intermittent green energy schemes;
    2. Reduce energy costs by all practical means.
    3. Development of contingency plans for food production and storage, should early frosts impact harvests;
    4. Develop contingency plans should vital services be disrupted by cold weather events – such as the failure of grid power systems, blocking of transportation corridors, etc.
    5. Improve home insulation and home construction standards.

    The current mania over (fictitious) catastrophic global warming has brewed the “perfect storm” – energy systems have been compromised and energy costs have been needlessly increased, to fight imaginary warming in a cooling world.

    This recommended path has no downside, even if global cooling does not occur, and considerable upside if moderate cooling does commence.

    Regards, Allan MacRae. P. Eng.
    __________________________________________

    References predicting imminent global cooling are too numerous to mention, but here is one of the first, published in 2003:

    NEW LITTLE ICE AGE INSTEAD OF GLOBAL WARMING?
    Theodor Landscheidt,
    May 1, 2003
    https://doi.org/10.1260/095830503765184646

    Abstract
    Analysis of the sun’s varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8°C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected…

    • Good stuff, but most likely wasted on the NY Times editorial board. They’re probably scratching their heads and googling “Richard Feynman” and “Karl Popper”, and have no idea what “falsifiable” means, let alone the Scientific Method. To them, the “Scientific Method” is a researcher puts out a paper that sounds right, and that means Science was done.

      • Re: “Your intro will definitely turn them off.”

        Hope so…

        These people surround themselves with bootlickers who agree with all their nonsense.

        Intelligent people with significant responsibilities appreciate being told when they are wrong, because there are severe consequences to their mistakes.

        When you are a senior executive, your best friends are those who tell you the hard truths that you need to know, not the ones who are always blowing smoke up your fundament.

    • Good letter, Allan. You should send it to other papers too, maybe some will publish the response as an editorial to counter the brain-dead NYT staff.

    • >>
      Richard Feynman on The Scientific Method (1964)
      <<
      0:03: “In general, we look for a new law by the following process: first we guess it . . . .”
      4:58: “So we are never right; we can only be sure we are wrong.”

      Jim

  6. “Pelosi wants a committee similar to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming …”

    What exactly did that committee accomplish on energy independence? What has Washington ever accomplished on that? I’m old enough to remember the government promising energy independence all the way back in the 1970s. And guess what, the private sector delivered it in about 4 yrs.

    • But can only continue to do so if the government doesn’t put the shackles back on them, which is exactly what Pelosi and company would love to do.

  7. You only have to look at the economic damage that has been done in Canada with their cap and trade scams and carbon taxes to know you don’t want either. Here in Alberta the leftist’s carbon tax has went through the economy like a wrecking ball. Driving up prices on everything to levels that make living next to impossible for all but the very rich. The tax on your natural gas heating bill is more than the cost of the gas, and food prices are skyrocketing. Investment left and the jobs went with it, as we’re well on our way to becoming Venezuela north.

  8. Pelosi said the committee would “‘prepare the way with evidence’ …

    Okay then …

    We have a story that the oceans are absorbing 90% of the excess warming due to greenhouse gasses.

    Then we have this other story that the oceans are absorbing 60% more heat than previously thought.

    The first story is undated but it looks like it predates the second story. In that case we have 90% which is then increased by 60%. Hmmm. Such is the nature of Pelosi’s facts.

    We need a robust response to Pelosi’s facts. The Republicans on such a committee need to be well briefed.

  9. If that becomes the case… Then President Trump will simply veto anything they do and use his own “Pen and Phone” and create any executive order to countermand them that he feels like doing. Obama and the Democrats have set all the precedents when it comes to Executive Order shenanigans.

    But I think Donald Trump is going to help do the almost impossible… He is going to help win or retain the Republican seats in both houses of parliament for them. Trump has energized the Republican voting base like never before for a midterm election. What was going to be a shoe in for the Dems is now beginning to look like a nightmare.

    We’ll have to wait and see… six more days.

  10. It blows my mind that people will vote for more taxes, when taxes only benefit government and those who invest in government – the super wealthy donor class. All the while the poor and middle class get shafted.

    • Unfortunately it’s fairly simple to convince people that someone else will be paying the tax, and that some of the money from that tax will be given to the individual in question.

      In other words, they are being bribed using stolen money.

    • Reading down in the WaPost article about this “startling research”, it describes “The new research does not measure the ocean’s temperature directly. Rather, it measures the volumes of gases, specifically oxygen and carbon dioxide, that have escaped the ocean in recent decades and headed into the atmosphere as it heats up.”

      Laure Resplandy (Princeton geoscientist lead author) notes the existence of the ARGO float data (direct ocean temperature measurements) but apparently feels her data means the oceans absorbed more heat than “expected” and somehow more than measured by ARGO

      This is clearly a modeling exercise, presumably using some measure of isotopic ratios for O and C, but that’s a long way from ocean heat content

      Bogus

      • “The new research does not measure the ocean’s temperature directly, because the actual ocean temperature data wouldn’t support our ridiculous conclusions.”

        There, fixed it for ’em.

  11. It’s amazing – the lemming-like quality – they’re actually running on the platform ‘vote us in so we can start screwing you’ – and they’ve got have the country following along right over the cliff.

    Which frankly, wouldn’t bother me, if they weren’t so intent on beating us over the cliff with them – preferably at the head of the pack.

    Free will apparently has no place in the modern left.

  12. Don’t need to wait for the Dems to take the House back next Tuesday. Back in September of 2017, legislation was introduced in the House to transition off of fossil fuels and transform the U.S. to 100% renewables by 2035. It’s called the “Off Fossil Fuels” bill and was introduced by a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3671

    “…To justly transition away from fossil fuel sources of energy to 100 percent clean energy by 2035, and for other purposes….”.

    Not surprisingly, the bill would probably require a major scaling up of wind turbines and solar panels (most of the latter are not made in the U.S., but in China or other foreign countries). The website promoting it says that the legislation only has the support of about 45 Democratic members of Congress so far. If the Republicans hold on to the Senate, this legislation will never get past them anyway. Even if it did, Trump would likely veto it.

    Don’t know how many members of Congress actually believe the climate alarmist narrative and think that solar panels and wind turbines are the answer to what they perceive as a problem. But the ignorance behind this legislation will only go away when the President goes on the offense with skeptic scientists and starts showing the country that the supposed evidence supporting the climate scare is highly questionable and debatable.

    • Back in September of 2017, legislation was introduced in the House to transition off of fossil fuels and transform the U.S. to 100% renewables by 2035. It’s called the “Off Fossil Fuels” bill and was introduced by a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii.

      And that bill went nowhere. Even with a Dem house, if that bill manages to get out of the house (not a given as there are democrats from red states that would find it difficult to vote for such a bill) it still has to pass the Senate. Even assuming the dems manage to get a (slim) majority in the Senate, it will never survive a presidential veto, so it’s a non-starter at least until 2020, when the Dems would have to gain (or maintain) control of both houses of congress *and* retake the white house. Oh they’ll pass bill after bill as a virtue signaling exercise to appease their base, but they don’t have the numbers to actually get it done even if the midterms go their way.

  13. As long as Republicans retain control of the Senate, no need for a VETO.

    There’ll be plenty of bombast, but little else from Pelosi, Waters, et al.

  14. Ron, you think Trump makes decisions on policy. Did he want the bomb strikes on Syria? Did he like the several budgets with nothing for the wall? Did he feel he had to fire Comey exactly then and in that manner?
    Jared and the Brick make all important policy decisions and they will not Veto any green legislation. I will bet $25 if it can be arranged.

  15. If Dems win the House, they won’t have enough votes to override Trump’s veto in either chamber.

    And it’s really a big “if” now. People who with negative opinions about Trump are now “awoke” to the real agenda of the Dems and liberals. The “Blue Wave” has always been a bunch of hype to suppress voter turnout. The “Blue Wave” was proclaimed in February, long before the mid-terms.

  16. This is a mute point. Even if Democrats retake the House of Representatives, which is probably 50:50 at this point, they won’t get any of their resistance garbage past an even stronger GOP Senate.

    They can impeach to their hearts content, take back their taxes, reflate Obamacare, in fact waste everybody’s time, while Trump and Senate unleash their own investigations. Trump won’t even need his veto.

    The Dems want to turn this into a blood sport; they have succeeded, but imho they are the ones who will bear its political and legal consequences.

  17. Doesn’t matter if a (slim) Democrat-majority House or even House and Senate wants climate taxes. They won’t get them passed anytime soon with a Republican President who is opposed to regulations that stifle private-sector productivity. That’s the beauty of the separation of powers and checks and balances built into the Constitution. They force a more deliberative approach to legislation and require sponsors of legislation to persuade a majority as well as the President.

    Always remember that gridlock is the next best thing to a constitutional republic. Most of the time, Congress not getting things done is a feature—not a bug—that benefits citizens and keeps them from meddling where they probably shouldn’t.

  18. Dems could have implemented a climate tax back when Obama was first elected. But the didn’t…

    Look for them (should they win the house) to push the climate tax and then bleat about how Trump and the Republicans are blocking climate action.

  19. From the article: “Pelosi said it was clearly still needed to educate the public about the impact of more frequent extreme weather events,” TheNYT reported of Pelosi’s interview remarks.”

    Pelosi clearly needs to be educated to the fact that extreme weather events are less frequent today, not more frequent. She has it just backwards.

  20. I wonder whether in fact they will be silly enough to re-introduce taxes. I rather suspect that by now they are beginning to realise that they backed the wrong horse. My bet is that they have learnt their lesson.

    • Where’s this evidence that Nancy gets support from any other than Democrats.
      Heck, there’s not much evidence that she gets all that much support from Democrats.
      Even when they had super majorities, they still couldn’t get much done.

      As to your evidence, it isn’t.
      Your evidence is thoroughly shredded in another post.

  21. What is so hard to understand ? For me it’s hard to understand people actually can vote on anything even close to socialism. We have the result of such policies. Many times. One of the best examples is Sweden. Taxes, taxes and taxes. Look at the carpark, compare to most of countries. Essentially small cars, few BMW, Mecedes and forget about Ferraris or Supercars. Look at a train station, so simple and look exactly the same as it did in the 1950ies. My wife say this is a poor country. People are poor. Only one thing is ‘good’. You pay little for healthcare when you get it. There is lines, takes usually 3 to 6 month to get help, compare to lines for food in Russia back in the 70ies and 80ies. What beats me ? How the hell do people vote for this mess ??? We don’t even have democracy. We vote for representatives for a party and when we have a public vote for something it’s only regarded as an advice ! Politicians has the veto right which hould belong to voters. Compare Switzerland which also makes it much better for the people. Our pensions is very low and a lot of pensioneers live poor. That what you want ? Vote democrat ! You want an opportunity, want to decide your own life ? You want to live in a free country ? vote republican !

    • Jesus Christ comments like this annoy me they are so ill informed. Basically there are a huge number of people in the US living below the poverty line. Vice News recently did an expose on US citizens having to live out of their cars – using secure car parks specially provided for them at night – because they cannot afford an appartment, even though many of them are working. Basically, under Trump and his billionaire ilk, the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.
      Forget about the US claiming it is better than countries like Sweden or any other European country. There are thousands of people who have no hope of getting out of the squalour and poverty they currently live in – especially under the Republicans who don’t give a f**k. Living standards in the US for thousands of people are much worse than in Europe – face the facts and reality!

      • “Jesus Christ comments like this annoy me they are so ill informed. Basically there are a huge number of people in the US living below the poverty line. Vice News recently did an expose on US citizens having to live out of their cars – using secure car parks specially provided for them at night – because they cannot afford an appartment, even though many of them are working. Basically, under Trump and his billionaire ilk, the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.”

        Just yesterday it was announced that the Trump administration has eliminated veteran homelessness in seven U.S. cities, including Washington DC with the ultimate goal of eliminating homelessness for all military veterans. The Trump administration is starting projects in the poorest parts of America’s largest cities to give them an economic stimulus.

        The number of people living in poverty is a lot less now that Trump is in Office and his economic policies are starting to take hold. It was said this morning that 50 million Americans have 401K investment programs and those 401K’s have grown by at least 30 percent since Trump implemented his economic policies. Billionaires and regular citizens are both profiting by have Trump as president.

        Progress is being made and there will be more to come in the future barring effective Democrat obstructionism.

        • All these are simply statements made by you without any factual evidential documentation from verifiable and trustworthy sources to back them up. I could say the US ecomomy’s GDP tripled during the Obama administration – BUT I would need to provide evidence.

      • Speaking of ignorance, here comes ivanski to show case his.
        Of course there are a huge number of people living below the poverty line. The poverty line is DEFINED as being a set fraction of the median income.

        As the country gets richer, the poverty line moves up, even though the people under the poverty line are getting richer.

        That people can’t afford apartments in places like San Francisco and New York are do to liberal policies that restrict new construction.

        The poor aren’t getting poorer, but liberals are getting dumber.

        Once again, giving a f*ck is defined by being willing to steal money from those who work in order to use it to buy votes from those who don’t want to.

        • LOL @ MarkW: “liberal policies that restrict new construction”

          You are dead wrong. Landowners, and rich people that own real estate in these areas are not liberal, they are conservative. They restrict new construction to enhance the value of their properties.

          Prove me wrong.

      • “Basically there are a huge number of people in the US living below the poverty line. “
        “There are thousands of people who have no hope of getting out of the squalour and poverty they currently live in –“
        As you said yourself: “All these are simply statements made by you without any factual evidential documentation from verifiable and trustworthy sources to back them up.”

        • Check out Vice News and a recent UN Commissioner report. He travelled through the US looking into poverty across the country and was appalled by what he saw. He said it was like a third world country.

          Extreme wealth in the US is obscene and Bernie Saunders/Elizabeth Warren have some very good ideas on improving the lot of the poor – the Republicans will never do it.

    • “What is so hard to understand ? For me it’s hard to understand people actually can vote on anything even close to socialism. We have the result of such policies. Many times.”

      Sadly, very many people are seriously misinformed about socialism (and a lot of other things). That makes sense since most of Western news media are socialists themselves and they push their political agenda relentlessly so the general public only gets one side of the argument most of the time.

      The West has a huge propaganda machine in the Leftwing News Media and they are doing serious harm to numerous countries with their lies and distortions of the truth..

      • It’s easy to convince people that the only reason why they don’t have everything they want is because the evil rich stole it.
        It’s easy to convince people to raise taxes on other people so that they can have more.

  22. If they want to tax CO2 output, tariffs on China imports would be a good start; in general, a trade war against those who keep emitting more and more CO2.

    You know, just what President Trump is doing. They must support that if they care about CO2.

      • Why would someone pay a UN Commissioner? Basically you don’t like the truth of the message so you decide to go after the messenger.
        This is not a media outlet that may have some bias – this is a UN report. But probably you will put it down to a socalist conspiracy hatched up by the International Socialist Party that is financing anti-American bias in the UN.

          • No Tom you are utterly hopeless. You are a fool for buying into all these conspiracy theories propounded by Trump and his ilk that everyone is out to get America – even its European allies.
            I suggest you start seeing through the rhetoric of paranoia. Trump lives in his own crazy bubble snf many Americans are now fed up with it … you want to join him – well be my guest.

          • No Tom you are utterly hopeless. You are a fool for buying into all these conspiracy theories propounded by Trump and his ilk that everyone is out to get America – even its European allies.
            I suggest you start seeing through the rhetoric of paranoia. Trump lives in his own crazy bubble snf many Americans are now fed up with it … you want to join him – well be my guest.

          • No Tom you are utterly hopeless. You are a fool for buying into all these conspiracy theories propounded by Trump and his ilk that everyone is out to get America – even its European allies.
            I suggest you start seeing through the rhetoric of paranoia. Trump lives in his own crazy bubble snf many Americans are now fed up with it … you want to join him – well be my guest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *