Running on the Promise to Repeal Obamacare is Short Sighted and Dangerous Strategy for Republican Candidates

Before I start getting hate mail/comments or being told I am not a true conservative, hear me out.  I didn’t support Obamacare and would like to see it repealed as much as anyone.  However, it isn’t going to happen anytime soon for two BIG reasons.

Kerry, Graham, Lieberman to Unveil Climate Bill (Update: Unveiling on Hold After Sen. Graham Balks Over Immigration Reform)

 Update:   This just in from Politico.com.  "The planned Monday unveiling of a bipartisan climate bill was postponed after one of its three authors, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), said that he couldn’t support the legislation if Democrats moved it to the backburner to focus first on immigration reform. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) announced the postponement Saturday evening, saying that 'external issues have arisen that force us to postpone only temporarily.'”

Kerry, Graham, Lieberman to Unveil Climate Bill

In their last and best shot at enacting a climate bill this year, Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) plan to unveil a draft Monday that will provide a streamlined system for capping greenhouse gas emissions from the utilities and transport sector but still aims to reduce the nation's carbon dioxide output by 17 percent in 10 years.

The measure offers numerous concessions to businesses, including allowing manufacturing and energy-intensive industries four years before they would be subject to the carbon cap; provisions for offshore oil drilling; $10 billion for the coal industry to capture and store its carbon emissions; and enough loan guarantees and incentives to provide for the construction of 12 nuclear power plants.

"Because of the broad-based industry support that I expect the bill will garner, both at the rollout as well as beyond, I think this is the best path forward," said Fred Krupp, who heads the Environmental Defense Fund.

In a telephone briefing Thursday for business supporters, Kerry said the Edison Electric Institute -- whose members generate the bulk of the nation's electricity -- would endorse the measure, along with three of the nation's five biggest oil and gas companies. He did not name the three oil companies, but a source familiar with the negotiations said Shell, BP and ConocoPhillips would support the bill.

Significant sections of the bill remained blank as of Friday evening, according to several sources, and that lack of specificity could deter some senators and many business interests from endorsing the measure at the outset.

"I'd like to support it, but I have to look at it," said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), adding that she was concerned about what it would do to home heating oil and gas prices. "In this economy, we have to see how much we can do."

One of the most complex areas has been the question of how to limit carbon emissions from transportation. Initially the senators had hoped to create a linked fee on fuels that would be tied to the price of carbon, but that idea came under attack last week as a gas tax.

"If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck," said Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.). "I don't care whether you call it a linked fee. It is a tax on energy."

To avoid that pitfall, the bill's authors are going to require oil and gas producers to buy special, non-tradable emissions allowances, at a price set by the Environmental Protection Agency. It would be pegged to the carbon market and must be retired at a certain date.

"We're not going to raise gas prices," Graham said.

To keep utility costs from rising too high, two-thirds of the revenue generated by auctioning off pollution allowances for utilities would be returned to consumers through local electricity distributors.

And in an effort to win over moderate Republicans, such as Sen. George V. Voinovich (Ohio), the bill will preempt both the states' and the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, as long as emitters comply with the standards outlined in the measure. The agency will monitor and enforce compliance with the law.

The measure aims to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels in a decade and 80 percent by 2050.

Thomas J. Gibson, president of the American Iron and Steel Institute, said inclusion of the emissions cap means that someone in the business sector would suffer because the number of pollution allowances the federal government could give away are limited. "If the utilities and refineries are going to be the winners, who are going to be the losers?" he asked.

Jeremy Symons, senior vice president of the National Wildlife Federation, said the bill constituted the kind of compromises that often take place when crafting major legislation.

"The bill is ultimately about the grand bargain of pulling together national security interests with environmental concerns, and an economic job program to create clean-energy jobs," he said, adding that his group was still evaluating its position on the measure.

 

via washingtonpost.com

Surprisingly, according to this article, the Senate bill appears to be less draconian than the House bill. But then again Rep. Waxman is the prime sponsor of the House version and he is not known for using common sense in this area. The big question is what are the blank spots going to say when they are filled in. We shall see, but either bill will be bad for the economy and America while being good for government growth.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics' posterous

Kerry, Graham, Lieberman to Unveil Climate Bill

In their last and best shot at enacting a climate bill this year, Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) plan to unveil a draft Monday that will provide a streamlined system for capping greenhouse gas emissions from the utilities and transport sector but still aims to reduce the nation's carbon dioxide output by 17 percent in 10 years.

The measure offers numerous concessions to businesses, including allowing manufacturing and energy-intensive industries four years before they would be subject to the carbon cap; provisions for offshore oil drilling; $10 billion for the coal industry to capture and store its carbon emissions; and enough loan guarantees and incentives to provide for the construction of 12 nuclear power plants.

"Because of the broad-based industry support that I expect the bill will garner, both at the rollout as well as beyond, I think this is the best path forward," said Fred Krupp, who heads the Environmental Defense Fund.

In a telephone briefing Thursday for business supporters, Kerry said the Edison Electric Institute -- whose members generate the bulk of the nation's electricity -- would endorse the measure, along with three of the nation's five biggest oil and gas companies. He did not name the three oil companies, but a source familiar with the negotiations said Shell, BP and ConocoPhillips would support the bill.

Significant sections of the bill remained blank as of Friday evening, according to several sources, and that lack of specificity could deter some senators and many business interests from endorsing the measure at the outset.

"I'd like to support it, but I have to look at it," said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), adding that she was concerned about what it would do to home heating oil and gas prices. "In this economy, we have to see how much we can do."

One of the most complex areas has been the question of how to limit carbon emissions from transportation. Initially the senators had hoped to create a linked fee on fuels that would be tied to the price of carbon, but that idea came under attack last week as a gas tax.

"If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck," said Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.). "I don't care whether you call it a linked fee. It is a tax on energy."

To avoid that pitfall, the bill's authors are going to require oil and gas producers to buy special, non-tradable emissions allowances, at a price set by the Environmental Protection Agency. It would be pegged to the carbon market and must be retired at a certain date.

"We're not going to raise gas prices," Graham said.

To keep utility costs from rising too high, two-thirds of the revenue generated by auctioning off pollution allowances for utilities would be returned to consumers through local electricity distributors.

And in an effort to win over moderate Republicans, such as Sen. George V. Voinovich (Ohio), the bill will preempt both the states' and the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, as long as emitters comply with the standards outlined in the measure. The agency will monitor and enforce compliance with the law.

The measure aims to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels in a decade and 80 percent by 2050.

Thomas J. Gibson, president of the American Iron and Steel Institute, said inclusion of the emissions cap means that someone in the business sector would suffer because the number of pollution allowances the federal government could give away are limited. "If the utilities and refineries are going to be the winners, who are going to be the losers?" he asked.

Jeremy Symons, senior vice president of the National Wildlife Federation, said the bill constituted the kind of compromises that often take place when crafting major legislation.

"The bill is ultimately about the grand bargain of pulling together national security interests with environmental concerns, and an economic job program to create clean-energy jobs," he said, adding that his group was still evaluating its position on the measure.

via washingtonpost.com

Surprisingly, according to this article, the Senate bill appears to be less draconian than the House bill. But then again Rep. Waxman is the prime sponsor of the House version and he is not known for using common sense in this area. The big question is what are the blank spots going to say when they are filled in. We shall see, but either bill will be bad for the economy and America while being good for government growth.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics' posterous

Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill

Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill

By PAUL DAVENPORT and JONATHAN J. COOPER
The Associated Press
Friday, April 23, 2010; 7:08 PM

PHOENIX -- Gov. Jan Brewer ignored criticism from President Barack Obama on Friday and signed into law a bill supporters said would take handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation's gateway for human and drug smuggling.

With hundreds of protesters outside the state Capitol shouting that the bill would lead to civil rights abuses, Brewer said critics were "overreacting" and that she wouldn't tolerate racial profiling.

"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," Brewer said after signing the law. "But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."

Earlier Friday, Obama called the Arizona bill "misguided" and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level - or leave the door open to "irresponsibility by others."

"That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe," Obama said.

The legislation, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants, allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws, and make it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund said it plans a legal challenge to the law, arguing it "launches Arizona into a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions."

Brewer ordered the state's law enforcement licensing agency to develop a training course on how to implement the law while respecting civil rights.

The bill will take effect in late July or early August.

At the Capitol, some 2,000 protesters booed county Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox when she announced that "the governor did not listen to our prayers."

"It's going to change our lives," said Emilio Almodovar, a 13-year-old American citizen from Phoenix. "We can't walk to school any more. We can't be in the streets anymore without the pigs thinking we're illegal immigrants."

Brewer signed the bill in a state auditorium about a mile from the Capitol complex where demonstrators have protested the legislation since the measure was approved by lawmakers on Monday. Their numbers grew steadily throughout the week, with buses bringing protesters from as far away as Los Angeles.

Brewer, who faces a tough election battle and growing anger in the state over illegal immigrants, said the law "protects every Arizona citizen."

Anti-immigrant anger has swelled in the past month, after rancher Rob Krentz was found dead on his land north of Douglas, near the Mexico border. Authorities believe he was fatally shot by an illegal immigrant possibly connected to a drug smuggling cartel.

Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants, and its harsh, remote desert serves as the corridor for the majority of illegal immigrants and drugs moving north into the U.S. from Mexico.

U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, said he closed his Arizona offices at noon Friday after his staff in Yuma and Tucson were flooded with calls this week, some from people threatening violent acts and shouting racial slurs. He called on businesses and groups looking for convention and meeting locations to boycott Arizona.

The bill's Republican sponsor, state Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, said Obama and other critics of the bill were "against law enforcement, our citizens and the rule of law."

Pearce said the legislation would remove "political handcuffs" from police and help drive illegal immigrants from the state.

"Illegal is illegal," said Pearce, a driving force on the issue in Arizona. "We'll have less crime. We'll have lower taxes. We'll have safer neighborhoods. We'll have shorter lines in the emergency rooms. We'll have smaller classrooms."

--

Associated Press Writer Julie Pace in Washington contributed to this report.

via washingtonpost.com

"'It's going to change our lives,' said Emilio Almodovar, a 13-year-old American citizen from Phoenix. 'We can't walk to school any more. We can't be in the streets anymore without the pigs thinking we're illegal immigrants.'" Interesting words from a 13-year old. Obviously he has not been raised to respect the law or those who enforce it. This is no different than any other law passed. If you aren't doing something wrong, then there is nothing to fear. Besides the only time that law enforcement can ask about immigration or citizenship status is when there is probable cause.

"Obama called the Arizona bill 'misguided' and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level - or leave the door open to 'irresponsibility by others.'" Since when is it "irresponsible" to enforce the law or have a state pass a law allowing enforcement of a federal law when it is clearly their constitutional right and those in the federal government are willfully not upholding that law? Arizona has the constitutional authority to pass such legislation when it is an issue within their state boundaries. Apparently that has become forgotten in this day and age of the all powerful, all providing federal government.

"The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund said it plans a legal challenge to the law, arguing it 'launches Arizona into a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions.'" What a ridiculous statement. This is like saying that we shouldn't enforce laws against theft or murder because it will only cause crime to increase and cause fear amongst those who commit those crimes. There is no logic in the statement. The only way that there will be an increase in crime, fear, and distrust is if those who oppose this bill are the cause.

I am getting tired of having everything dealing with immigration being spun to be anti-Mexican or anti-Hispanic. There are plenty of other nationalities and ethnicities who are in this country illegally for various reasons. Remember several of the 9/11 hijackers were here illegally having stayed past the expiration of their visas. Will Hispanics here illegally be more at risk to being caught than others in Arizona? You bet. They have the largest population among those who are in the country illegally in Arizona.

I am all for immigration and allowing those who want to come to this great country to be allowed in. However, like every other action it must be done in a legal manner. Are there issues within immigration that need to be fixed? Yes. But still the law needs to be followed until those changes are made.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics' posterous

Cap and Trade Part 1: The Cap and Trade Programs According to the Congressional Budget Offce Cost Estimate

I have just finished the CBO report for H.R. 2454, otherwise known as Cap and Trade, and it is just like a well written 1,428 page horror story that gets scarier with every turned page.  In fact it is such a well written horror story that only Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA7) was willing to be a co-sponsor.  The CBO report shed a bit of a different light on the legislation than the summary because it lays out the fiscal damage and government growth points better.  It is also easier to read and understand.  Despite these benefits, there is also a great deal of pertinent information that the CBO report does not touch on.  Therefore, I will write a multi-part series on this fiasco and will do the same when the Senate version becomes available on April 26^th. 

H.R. 2454 is all about attempting to mitigate America’s role in manmade global warming while assisting and encouraging other countries to do the same.  The bill will limit the amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted by a variety of sources from power generating facilities to product manufacturers and everything in between.  H.R. 2454 will also mandate a myriad of energy efficiency programs as well as the creation of a national smart grid, regulate the efficiency of a standard light bulb, create new agencies and bureaucracies, implement more cash for clunkers programs, and the list goes on. The hardest hit will be the power production entities and manufacturers.  There are several points that need to be brought to light from the CBO report.  Each point will be examined in its own part of this series.  The first is the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and subsequent government “allowances” for emitting such gases.