North Carolina’s Sen. Elizabeth Dole is one of a handful of Republican senators backing a comprehensive climate-change bill that is anticipated to see a cloture vote in the U.S. Senate this morning. Her support for the bill will be offset, however, by the opposition of N.C.‘s Sen. Richard Burr.
According to a news report in today’s News & Observer of Raleigh, Dole’s “eureka moment” on global warming came more than a year ago, when research forced her to the conclusion that the Earth’s climate is indeed warming. She signed on to the Climate Security Act, which the N&O article describes as “a basic cap-and-trade system for energy companies that emit greenhouse gases.” Burr, the article says, thinks the bill would hurt the Southeast because it targets coal-powered plants. The bill has endorsement from environmental and labor groups and some utility companies. Duke Energy in North Carolina, according to the report, has lobbied against it. Dole’s Democratic opponent in this fall’s general election, state Sen. Kay Hagan of Greensboro, is cited as supporting the bill.
According to the League of Women Voters of the U.S., a nonprofit, nonpartisan voter education and advocacy group, this morning’s action will be a procedural vote for/against cloture. Support for cloture, which requires 60 votes, would then move the bill itself forward for action. In attempting to delay the vote, according to the LWV, opponents procedurally forced the Senate clerk to read the bill’s entire 491 pages.
— Nelda Holder, associate editor
We need to do something, but most of the articles – from both sides of the isle surprisingly – that I’ve read conclude this bill is a bonanza for the lobbying industry and bloated bureaucracy. Is that the best solution we can come up with? Does every solution have to entail ridiculous money changing hands on an exponential scale?
According to a current Associated Press report, the cloture vote fell one dozen short of the 60 required to end the filibuster. Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid has pulled the bill for now.
Until the Congress is more firmly in Democratic hands (which is surely will be after November), and knuckle-dragging obstructionists like Mitch McConnell and his ilk are neutralized, there will be nothing done to address this rush to global suicide.
This bill will raise everyone’s power bill. And if the democrats sweep in in Novemebr, taxes on working people will rise. Couple that with high gas prices and you have R E C E S S I O N. Thanks a lot feel-good liberals. You really do care about the working class don’t you?
William,
Weren’t you wagging your finger about hyperpartisanship the other day?
The recession is now. Blame whomever you like, but let’s get a few things straight:
– Barack Obama’s plan will cut taxes to the middle class and working class. Cut. Taxes.
– The only people whose taxes will rise under Democrats are the folks who got a tax cut in 2001. That tax cut, as designed by the Republicans, will expire. Why expire? Because we’re so deeply in debt as a nation that the current system of borrow and spend is unsustainable.
– Democrats raised working people’s wages in this session of Congress.
– Democrats expanded access to college loans for lower income people.
– Democrats want to provide health insurance choices for the millions of involuntarily uninsured.
I haven’t read this plan, so I don’t have an opinion. On the whole, however, bills that reduce pollution and move us further away from fossil fuels are steps in the right direction.
so a little bit more taxes = recession? why is that always the argument against trying to save our environment? and aren’t we already in an recession? are you getting ready to blame it entirely on the left already?
This bill and the movement behind will not add a “little bit more taxes”. It will ultimately wreak the economy and eliminate the opportunities available to our children in the years to come. All of this is being fueled by a disreputable social movement bolstered by a pseudo science portrayed as consensus. Common sense and authentic scientific examination is being buried under an avalanche of misinformation and political rhetoric presenting itself as scientific.
Rather than there being a consensus to justify Washington’s move embracing this nonsense, over 31,000 “flat earth” (Al Gore’s ad hominem attack)scientists, including 9,400 PhDs, have signed the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’ petition refuting the political movement’s insistence that CO2 is a culprit in climate change.
We just came off one of the roughest winters in many years that erased decades of “global warming data”. There has been no evidence presented that CO2 is responsible for any change in climate data. The computer models fueling the whole premise of “global warming” have been found faulty. The list goes on and on. The only global warming causing serious damage is the hot air being blown by social change advocates and the impact it is having on our politicians.
I will add as well that I would have to examine the OISM’s qualifying controls on their petition. I am not sure they can verify the credentials of all their signers.
Gordon, in the 1930s a famous bank robber was asked why he robbed banks. His reply was “because that is where the money is”. The old worn liberal chant that only the “rich” will have their taxes raised just isn’t so. Why? Because the “rich” cannot be taxed enough to provide all the money needed for “universal healthcare”. The middle class will have to be taxed in order for a new big government format to have enough funds.
The idea that only rich people got a tax cut by Bush is just flat out false, and democrat propaganda. I got a tax cut, my refund was measureably more after Bush’s tax cut went into effect. And I am retired on a combined income of about $35,000 a year. I clearly remember when Clinton raised taxes when he was elected. My normal Christmas bonus of $1500 was cut in half by his new “windfall tax”. All Bush did was return the tax level to what it was before Bill Clinton was elected.
Gordon, I am a libertarian. I agree with liberals on social issues, in the main. I strongly disagree with them on big government, more regulation, and higher taxes. Just doesn’t work, period.
I am an original liberal, as was Thomas Jefferson. This quote of his sums up my political philosophy in a nutshell. “The government that governs least, governs best” – T Jefferson, Virginia’s favorite son (in addition to General Robert E Lee of course!).
I am all in favor of caring for the environment. But we must balance this with care not to raise taxes and cause higher utility bills. Not all of us are trust fund babies, Gordon.
William,
First off, I’m not a “trust fund baby”, and I’m not sure why you can’t get through a comment without hurling an insult. I’m in business for myself.
Returning Taxes to 1990s levels is hardly the destructive force imagined by travelah. You may remember that period of massive expansion.
Promoting the general welfare is a function of government. The general welfare includes a clean environment, protections against exploitation, education, health care, and more.
It’s a difference in political philosophy, and I respect yours. I simply disagree with it.
“88% of all Americans will receive $100 or less from the Administration’s latest tax cuts. But even above and beyond this, the tax cuts and the deficits they have created have forced the Administration to raise fees and cut services for most Americans.”
– State taxes have gone up to make up for shortfalls.
– Tuition fees have skyrocketed since the Bush tax cuts.
– Costs for veterans have increased re: health care and housing.
– And now here we are in the largest debt of any nation in the history of the world.
Borrow and spend Republicans have buried us in debt, watching as corporate profits break records while workers’ wages remain stagnant.
If we’re going to stop pouring money into Iraq, Halliburton, and other black holes, and if we’re going to allow the Republican tax cut sunset to happen the way they wrote it, then there’s going to be money to invest in our energy future.
Gordon said: “State taxes have gone up to make up for shortfalls.”
Gordon, way back before the latest democrat take over here in North Carolina, we had low state taxes here. It is the big spending, entitlement bureaucracy in NC that wants to be funded even if the money isn’t always there. You can’t blame that on Bush’s tax cuts. It is the tendency of large bureaucracies. They want their money no matter the economy or the condition of the average taxpayer.
And I meant no insults towards you in my post. I know several liberals who are trust fund babies, cut off intellectually from how their income came about, and that is why I mentioned it. Not aimed at you. I assume you are self-sufficient in business or elsewhere because you are such a self-starter, passionate about your views. I respect you for that.
Gordon, I do disagree with you on big government and high taxes. It just doesn’t work. Look at the past and see that. The Jimmy Carter years are a perfect example. We had double digit house loan rates, double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, and credit card rates at 20%. Carter even had a fireside chat with us saying we were in a national malaise. His successor corrected his malaise by libertarian policy changes. Lower taxes, less regulation not only grew Treasury receipts, but caused a great boom economy that lasted for a long time, and floated all boats.
We must weigh the cost to the working citizens of any environmental agenda. Afterall, higher utility bills, higher taxes affect the working poor and working middle class more than anyone. Shouldn’t we be looking out for them?
“Afterall, higher utility bills, higher taxes affect the working poor and working middle class more than anyone. Shouldn’t we be looking out for them?”
Yes, even as our environment falls apart around us, we should worry about going to work and paying taxes. Because the economy is far more important than biological systems.
Well Donald, I don’t know about you, but I like to eat and have a roof over my head. Higher bills and higher taxes will make that harder. Plus, the government almost always screws things up. I am all for protecting the environment as much as possible, but I haven’t made it a religion. Most of those who screech about the environment use plenty of carbons. Just look at old Albert Gore Jr. His mansion’s electric bills top $5000 a month. He rides in a private jet around the country to preach about “global warming”, yet private jets use a tremendous amount of gasoline and cause a tremendous amount of polution for only a few passengers. That would be Al and a few toadies. If the dude really cared about the environment, he would ride coach on a commercial airliner.
I think one important point – though they’ll change the subject on you if you bring it up – is that the radicals of CO2 reduction don’t care about the poor. They are the necessary sacrifice. What is more important? BTW, Russia, India and China will never comply. The radicals don’t want to talk about that either. Its like they want us to lash our own “backs mid-evil style” for our sins.
There has to be reasonable compromises.
William,
You state that ‘ Most of those who screech about the environment use plenty of carbons’ and then rail against Al Gore. Although I’m sure it will blow your mind to know I think Gore is as Lame as Bush, I was wondering if you had any other examples, or if by ‘most’ you mean ‘one’?
The reality is, weather patterns are changing. Dod you disagree with this?
Mr. Pearson, are those weather patterns changing as a result of CO2, Methane or natural world cycles? Thirty five years ago, the political environmentalists were issuing dire warnings of an impending ice age. Recently, we have political environmentalists screaming about global warming. The actual scientists who count have not committed to either scenario (contrary to public misinformation). The past couple of winters have erased decades of trended warming, all of a single degree change. What do you suppose a couple more harsh winters would accomplish? What would one major volcanic eruption do to ALL the efforts of mankind over a decade (assuming the efforts of men have any bearing whatsoever of global climate change)?
There is a long list of questions and concerns that remain unanswered and given the group think hysteria in play now, most likely will not be paid attention to.
Gordon Smith, increasing taxes on the American population is not a constructive endeavor. Contrary to popular myth, if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to “sunset”, the average American family (middle class and not rich) will see their tax burden increase by $2-3K. It is a certainty that State governments, local and city governments, are not going to lower taxes in the face of reduced energy revenues, increased energy costs and massive environmental costs imposed upon a population at all levels, who have no comprehension of the economic impact in store for them. All that we can look forward to in the “new regime” is having the same familiar faces working two jobs while serving that craft ale and bringing you the food you ordered IF you can continue to afford it.
Taxes have a great measurable cost and it is the foolish minded politician who refuses to heed economic warnings whether his name is Bush, McCain or Obama.