Climate Change Bill Suffers Senate Meltdown

Today, Harry Reid said about the Democrats Cap and Tax bill,

"We know we don’t have the votes..."

One thing is certain. If Harry Reid doesn't have the votes now, he will have less in 2011.

The Politico reported:

Senate Democrats pulled the plug on climate legislation Thursday, pushing the issue off into an uncertain future ahead of midterm elections where President Barack Obama’s party is girding for a drubbing.

Rather than a long-awaited measure capping greenhouse gases — or even a more limited bill directed only at electric utilities — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will move forward next week on a bipartisan energy-only bill that responds to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and contains other more popular energy items.

“It’s easy to count to 60,” Reid said. “I could do it by the time I was in eighth grade. My point is this, we know where we are. We know we don’t have the votes [for a bill capping emissions]. This is a step forward.”

Senate Democrats Unveil Cap And Tax Legislation

In a bid to use shock over the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Senator's John Kerry and Joe Lieberman have unveiled the Senate version of Cap and Trade. The bill seeks to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 through use of what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called "a job-killing national energy tax." No Republican is currently supporting the bill. Many think anthropogenic global warming by CO2 has been called into question by the Climategate scandal.

AP reported:

Sens. John Kerry and Joe Lieberman unveiled a long-awaited bill Wednesday that aims to curtail pollution blamed for global warming, reduce oil imports and create millions of energy-related jobs.

The 987-page bill, the product of more than seven months of negotiations and tweaked recently in response to the Gulf oil spill, also includes new protections for offshore drilling and for the first time would set a price on carbon dioxide emissions produced by coal-fired power plants and other large polluters.

NYT: Obama's $3.8T Budget Lays Groundwork for Cap-And-Trade

According to this NYT's article, President Obama's new budget proposal includes a 'placeholder' for Cap and Trade. President Obama wants to go 'full speed ahead' with Cap and Trade in spite of mounting evidence of bogus claims in the IPCC reports and the Climategate email scandal.

The president's $3.8 trillion spending plan calls for lawmakers to set up a "comprehensive market-based climate change policy" that would curb heat-trapping emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, followed by midcentury cuts of more than 80 percent.

Democrat Barbara Boxer Throws Out Rule Book To Move Cap & Tax

Senate rules require at least two Republicans to be present before a committee can pass a bill to the floor. Senator Barbara Boxer threw the rule book out the window and voted the Cap and Trade bill out of the committee without a single Republican present.

Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) discusses the outrageous move. He calls Cap and Trade a 'Monstrous Tax.'

Obama Administration: Cap & Tax Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year

An Internal Obama administration document released under the FOIA act admits Cap and Tax will cost American households an extra $1,761 a year.

From CBS News Talking Liberties Blog:

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

Obama is "open" to taxing your sugary drinks

President Obama thinks taxing soda is "an idea that we should be exploring." I guess Obama must think only rich people drink sugary drinks. He did promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less then $250 thousand a year. Of course he broke that promise when he signed an law raising taxes on cigarettes. Be careful what sin you allow the government to tax. Yours may be next.

The NY Daily News reported:

The President, in an interview with Men's Health magazine released yesterday, said he thought taxing soda and other sugary drinks is worth putting on the table as Congress debates health care reform.

"It's an idea that we should be exploring," the president said. "There's no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda. And every study that's been done about obesity shows that there is as high a correlation between increased soda consumption and obesity as just about anything else."

New study: Cap and Tax to cost up to 2.4 million jobs

The National Association of Manufacturers has a new study out. The Waxman-Markey bill could cost as many as 2.4 million jobs by 2030.

From NAM:

This study analyzes the Waxman-Markey bill under low
and high cost cases with respect to a baseline that projects
the future in the absence of the bill.1,2 W/M sets targets that
would reduce GHG emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by
2020; 42% below 2005 levels by 2030; and 83% below
2005 levels by 2050 (Figure 1). The price of carbon permits
(what companies must pay to emit CO2) could reach
between $48 and $61 per metric ton of CO2 (MT) by 2020
and could increase to between $123/MT and $159/MT by
2030.

Impact on Jobs
The jobs impact of W/M is delayed by the free allocation of
permits and generous carbon offsets. By 2030, as emission
reduction targets tighten and other W/M provisions phase
out, U.S. jobs decline by 1.8 million under the low cost
case and by 2.4 million under the high cost case (Figure 2).
The primary cause of job losses is lower industrial output
due to higher energy prices, the high cost of complying
with required emissions cuts, and greater competition from
overseas manufacturers with lower energy costs.

Americans Want Tax Cuts, Not New Health Care Spending

A new Rasmussen poll has found that a majority of Americans would prefer middle class tax cuts to new government spending on health care. Meanwhile, the Democrats are struggling to fund their health care reform. Tax increases for the middle class are still on the table.

From Rasmussen:

Fifty-four percent (54%) of U.S. voters say tax cuts for the middle class are more important than new spending for health care reform, even as President Obama’s top economic advisers signal that tax hikes may be necessary.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, taken Monday and Tuesday nights, finds that 34% disagree and say new spending for health care reform is more important. Twelve percent (12%) are not sure.

It is important to note that this question asked about new government spending for health care reform rather than about the overall concept of health care reform itself.

The partisan and ideological divide on the question is sizable. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Democrats say new spending for health care reform is the priority. But 80% of Republicans and 62% of voters not affiliated with either party favor tax cuts for the middle class.

Cap and Tax Has Regional Problems in the Senate

Republicans will filibuster the climate change bill when it comes to the Senate. Last year, June 2008, Democrats failed to get cloture by a vote. They came up 12 votes short of invoking cloture and ending a Republican filibuster. The challenge does not look any easier this year. Hopefully, Republicans and Democrats form coal producing and Midwestern States will stop this fraud.

From The Hill:

Backers of climate change legislation celebrated a historic victory in the House, but the breakout of the vote may reinforce the notion that the Senate will pose a bigger hurdle for the landmark bill.

Republican lobbyist and pollster Michael McKenna noted in a memo to his clients that House Democrats from several critical states voted against the measure, which he suggests puts pressure on Democratic senators from those states to do the same.

In all, 44 House Democrats resisted the entreaties from their leadership and voted no on the climate bill, which would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent over the next four decades. The legislation squeaked by 219-212 anyway. But with Senate Republicans pledging to filibuster, Democratic unity in the Senate is even more critical for climate backers, although some Republicans are likely to cross party lines to support a bill.

The Democratic delegations from West Virginia, Louisiana, South Dakota and North Dakota voted against the climate bill. (Only West Virginia has sent more than one Democrat to the House. Each of the Dakotas only has a one representative.) House Democrats from six other states – Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina – also voted against the measure, although others in the delegation supported the climate bill.

According to McKenna, the House vote indicates that “the Senate’s climb has gotten steeper rather than gentler since last year.”