The Vote that (may have) Changed the World

The American Thinker ^ | April 08, 2009 | Raymond Richman and Howard Richman

[Scanian]

In a procedural vote on April 1, 2009, fifteen Democratic Senators joined all of the Republicans in defeating, for now, a climate change bill that would have allowed fast-tracking of President Obama's cap-and-tax proposal so that it could be passed as part of the current Federal budget. (Click here to see how your Senator voted.) Senator Lamar Alexander called this "the biggest vote of the year."

The bill that would have passed would probably have resembled the Waxman-Markey discussion draft of The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, a bill proposal designed to combat global warming by encouraging the use of "renewable" energy sources (nuclear energy providers need not apply). So it is possible to look closely at the Waxman-Markey draft to see what the Senate rejected.

The draft is full of subsidies, while at the same time providing that electric utilities impose energy and efficiency standards on their customers to achieve one percent reduction of carbon emissions in 2012 increasing to 15 percent in 2020. (If renewable energy is going to be so plentiful and cheap, why does it require tremendous subsidies and command and control methods to achieve its goals?) But the worst part of the bill by far is its plan to auction rights to emit carbon dioxide in order to fight global warming, as noted in the bill's summary:

Global Warming Pollution Reduction Program. The draft establishes a market-based program for reducing global warming pollution from electric utilities, oil companies, large industrial sources, and other covered entities that collectively are responsible for 85% of U.S. global warming emissions.

[palmer]

There may be hope for Webb (D-VA) yet.

[erman]

There may be hope for Webb (D-VA) yet.

the senators just haven't figured out how to make money off of it. After a "long debate" and some convenient memory jostling about "FBI" files... the votes will be there for a "modified" Cap-Trade bill that will be called

....er... uh..... ummm.... "The Energy Independence and Patriotic Prosperity Bill of 2010"

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[2111USMC]

Does anybody out there have any memory of the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during the Carter Administration? Anybody? Anything? No?

Didn’t think so.

Bottom line . . we’ve spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember.

Ready? It was very simple, and at the time everybody thought it very appropriate.

The Department of Energy was instituted 8-04-1977 TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL. HEY, PRETTY EFFICIENT, HUH?

AND NOW IT’S 2009, 32 YEARS LATER, AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR, THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE!

[Venturer]

It may have been beaten this time, but you can bet it will be back.

[ScottinVA]

“There may be hope for Webb (D-VA) yet.”

Maybe, but we still have Mark “the independent voice” Warner reflexively siding with his messiah with a “YEA” vote.

[RipSawyer]

AND NOW IT’S 2009, 32 YEARS LATER, AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR, THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

They could have paid me a million a year and gotten off with a lousy 32 million dollars total and we would be much better off than we are because I would have goofed off the whole 32 years and not interfered with the energy industry.