Posted on 06/18/2008 7:19:32 PM PDT by bd476
"Another Failure on Climate Change," the June 11 editorial about the recent Senate debate on global warming legislation, was off the mark.
Questioning the scheduling of the debate because of high gas prices makes little sense. If gas prices don’t go down, should we never address global warming? Of course not.
Many Republicans used gas prices as a reason not to act, even though the long-term solution to gas prices lies in the new green technologies that will come to the fore once we do act.
In addition, our bill sets aside more than $2 trillion that can be used for consumer relief for energy costs. The economic modeling of our bill indicates a very small (2 cents per gallon) increase in gas prices per year over the 38-year life of the bill, which will be largely offset by new fuel economy requirements.
The editorial also suggests that economic issues should have been the subject of more hearings on the bill. Before the global warming legislation hit the Senate floor, dozens of hearings were held, many focused on economic issues...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
From the New York Times Letter to the Editor excerpted and posted above:
"In addition, our bill sets aside more than $2 trillion that can be used for consumer relief for energy costs. The economic modeling of our bill indicates a very small (2 cents per gallon) increase in gas prices per year over the 38-year life of the bill, which will be largely offset by new fuel economy requirements."
Admittedly I do not understand the language of taxation and budget. Where does Senator Boxer propose to get the $2 trillion dollars?
Two cents more per gallon per year for thirty-eight years is taxation, isn't it?
However, as to Senator Boxer's dissatisfaction with the June 11th New York Times Editorial (excerpted and posted below) as usual the New York Times dutifully dissed President Bush.
The New York Times placed Senator Barack Obama's name before Senator McCain.
The New York Times attacked Senator McCain and then half-heartedly ineffectually flailed at Senator Barack Obama.
The New York Times described Senator Harry Reid trumpeting something successfully which was an interesting, if not Romanesque-type touch. However, a hearty Hail Caesar was excluded from the New York Times Editorial. Maybe that was it.
When distributing blame, the New York Times began with all inclusive bad-boys Republicans and then mentioned only some Democrats.
Certainly Senator Boxer noticed that the New York Times Editorial Board used the broad brush for the Republicans and used a number three pencil for the Democrats.
Perhaps Senator Boxer preference for invisible ink used in hiding taxes and her socialist agendas extends to New York Times Editorials which reference negative Democratic attributes.
Yet, other than pointing out Senator Boxer's neglectful obfuscation of costs, and Senator Boxer's shadow-play reference to the overall budget, it's unclear what else in the New York Times screed didn't meet with the Senator's approval.
Below is an excerpt of the June 11, 2008 New York Times Editorial referenced in Senator Boxer's Letter to the Editor. The link to the editorial follows the excerpt.
Perhaps you will be able to find the source of Senator Boxer's displeasure.
Another Failure on Climate Change
Published: June 11, 2008
The most obvious lesson to be learned from the Senate’s failure to mount any sort of grown-up debate on climate change last week is that the country needs a new occupant in the White House.
By that we mean a president who not only understands and cares deeply about the issue — which both Senators Barack Obama and John McCain say they do, and which President Bush clearly does not — but who is willing to invest the time and the political capital necessary to push good legislation through Congress.
The bill sought to reduce American emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by nearly 70 percent by 2050, short of what most climate scientists believe is necessary but an important first step.
The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, trumpeted climate change as “the most important issue facing the world today,” and all of the players insisted they understood the stakes. Yet after three-and-one-half days of unhelpful partisan sniping, the Democratic leadership pulled the bill from the floor when only 48 senators voted to prevent a threatened Republican filibuster.
There was blame enough to go around. Republicans and some Democrats complained — not without reason — that the bill’s manager, Barbara Boxer, had spent too little time in preliminary hearings discussing its potential economic impact. She also confused matters by adding last-minute amendments, including one aimed at reducing the federal deficit, that seemed to have little to do with the issue at hand..."
End of excerpt. Editorial continues: Another Failure on Climate Change
Just raise gas taxes. That should pay for it.
And yet, Sosha Security is still broke.
Yes! Thank God for those soon to be appearing green fantasmagorical technologies to save us from high gas prices. Total liberal bullshit.
The best way to get new technologies to appear is to keep energy prices high. If they come back down, there will once again be no incentive to invest in new tech, as has been the case for the last 25 years or so.
Shhhh! Instead of saying "gas taxes" Senator Boxer wants us to say "very small (2 cents per gallon) increase."
Practice saying it with me:
"very small (2 cents per gallon) increase per year for only thirty-eight years."
There you go. Good job! ;-)
I have a box of rocks down in the garage...
Just thought I’d offer it to the People of California in case they would perhaps like to replace Boxer with something with a higher IQ.
Oh relax, Libloather. Senator Boxer is taking care of getting $2 trillion poured into her global warming till first. She'll be taking more money from us real soon.
Count on it. ;-)
She needs beaten with a clue stick.
“Box-o-rocks for brains” Boxer strikes again.
And I have a brigde to sell you Sen "Dumb As*" Boxer. Who built that "model" Greenpeace? You are going to place limits on carbon emmission. One of the major sources of carbon emmissions is gasoline and you claim this will only crease gas by 2 cents a gallon. This defies any sense of logic
Thanks LHI. While it's true that at first glance, Senator Boxer's intelligence is not readily apparent, it is very present in her continual march left converting our great country into a dismal socialist "paradise."
Make no mistake. Senator Boxer is there because the socialists want her there.
I always chuckle when I hear Michael Savage comment about Boxer’s (lack of) qualifications to be a US Senator:
“In my day, tops, she’d be running a brassiere shop on Eastern Parkway, in Brooklyn”.
People and businesses are getting killed NOW with high energy prices. I don't foresee them dropping to where they were in the past but anything that can be done NOW to moderate/stabilize them somewhat needs to be done. This economy simply can't survive in the long term with oil/energy at this level.
“Just raise gas taxes’
My take is that there is a lot of untaxed $ sitting in 401K plans.
Just sitting there. Not taxed.
A little bit “for da childrens” couldn’t hurt. Or a little bit for Igor’s globull warming. Or a little bit for....
That's nice. We drive around in cardboard deathboxes and the government reaps the benefits of the fuel savings. What a deal.
I’m criticizing those, like Boxer, who claim to want an oxymoron. Lower energy prices will be definition mean less incentive to develop alternative sources of energy.
She seems to think that lowering prices will result in the development of alternative energy, not inhibit such development.
This is a lot like raising taxes to stimulate economic growth, another policy that has often been popular with liberals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
