There Is Only One Solution

DRILL BABY DRILL!!!!

How Obama Is Making Gas Prices Higher

Yesterday, for the first time since September 2008, the price of a barrel of crude oil topped $100 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. But while the recent unrest in the Middle East has had some marginal effect on rising prices, the most significant factor has been increased oil demand worldwide. That is why, long before the recent protests even began, analysts were predicting $4 a gallon by this summer and $5 a gallon by 2012. Anyone could have predicted that the recovering world economy, coupled with the continued growth of India and China, was going to push oil prices higher. So if an Administration wanted to keep gas prices down, they could have mitigated increased oil demand by increasing domestic oil production. But that is not what the Obama Administration has done. Instead of increasing domestic oil supplies, the Obama Administration has cut them at every opportunity, and Americans are now suffering because of those choices.

Back in February, when the protests in Egypt were first unfolding, Energy Secretary Steven Chu was asked what the Administration could do to combat rising world oil prices. Chu responded: "The best way America can protect itself against these incidents is to decrease our dependency on foreign oil, in fact to diversify our supply." It is now one month later and the Administration has not updated its talking points. Pressed on gas prices yesterday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said: "We are also, as you have seen over the past two-plus years, very focused on the need precisely to develop other energy sources so that we are not as dependent on foreign oil as we have been in the past." So what are these "other energy sources" the White House has been developing? How does the White House plan to "diversify supply" to reduce gas prices? The answers are corn, wind, sun, and electric cars. And they won't help a bit.

According to Heritage analysts Nick Loris and John Ligon, Obama’s energy policy consists of: increased biofuel production, increased electric vehicle production, and increased renewable power production. These are all terrible public policies. The major source of biomass production, corn-based ethanol, produces less energy per unit volume than gasoline, contributes to food price increases, costs taxpayers $4 billion to produce 2 percent of the total gasoline supply, and has dubious environmental effects. The electric cars the Obama Administration has invested in are prohibitively costly, do not fit the needs of the American consumer, and are also environmentally suspect. The other sources of energy the Obama Administration is subsidizing and promoting—wind and solar—not only make up a minuscule 1 percent of America’s electricity generation but are entirely irrelevant to gasoline supply in the transportation sector.But not only has President Obama failed to diversify our energy supply in any meaningful way; he has actually proactively moved to cut our own domestic energy supplies:

First, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceled 77 leases for oil and gas drilling in Utah in his first month in office. According to the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management, there are 800 billion barrels (a moderate estimate) of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation, which goes through Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. This is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

Then last summer, President Obama needlessly instituted not one but two outright drilling bans in the Gulf of Mexico. The Energy Information Administration estimates that President Obama’s offshore drilling ban will cut domestic offshore oil production by 13 percent this year.

Last fall, Interior Secretary Salazar announced that the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic coast, and the Pacific coast will not be developed, effectively banning drilling in those areas for the next seven years. At least 19 billion barrels of easily recoverable oil lie off the currently restricted Pacific and Atlantic coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

President Obama has also failed to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil lie beneath a few thousand acres that can be accessed with minimal environmental impact. Those 10 billion barrels are equivalent to 16 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia at the current rate.

"The Obama Administration is repeating the mistakes of President Jimmy Carter’s failed energy policies, which marred his term and stigmatized the 1970s. They are leading us straight into another national energy disaster," Steve Forbes warned in Politico yesterday. And what would that "energy disaster" cost the American people? According to The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, an increase in the per-barrel price of imported crude oil by $10 in the first quarter of 2011 and by $20 in the second quarter would reduce gross domestic product by $20 billion, drop potential employment by nearly 100,000 jobs, and increase gasoline prices by 18 cents per gallon in 2011 alone.Yesterday, Carney said that "the president is extremely aware of the impact that a spike in oil prices can have on gasoline prices and therefore on the wallets and pocketbooks of average Americans."

If that is true, and if Energy Secretary Chu really has recanted his belief that Americans ought to be paying $8 a gallon for gas, then the President must completely reverse his entire energy policy so far by allowing Americans to develop our own natural resources, issuing permits in a timely manner, and removing regulatory and litigation delays on energy projects.

They Never Give Away Anything

PYLE: Oil drilling head fake
Obama didn't open land for energy production, he closed it

Nearly 30 years ago, Congress imposed a moratorium on the safe and environmentally sound practice of offshore oil and natural-gas exploration. In the early 1990s, President George H.W. Bush imposed a similar ban in the form of an executive order. And while this ban was in place for decades, many in Congress and the public at large had no idea that the United States was the only country in the industrialized world purposely embargoing its own energy resources.

Fast-forward to the summer of 2008: Oil was $150 a barrel, the price at the pump exceeded $4 a gallon, and the American people - of all political stripes - were genuinely outraged. In response, the Democrat-controlled Congress and President George W. Bush retired both the congressional and executive bans on offshore oil and natural-gas production.

That move effectively opened nearly the entire Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) for responsible energy production.

Now fast-forward to March 2010: President Obama announced that he, for the first time, is opening new lands in the OCS for energy exploration. You might be scratching your head at this point, because many energy-industry leaders, newspaper reporters, cable news pundits, lawmakers and politicos applauded the president's announcement as some major policy breakthrough and the White House's willingness to compromise on energy policy. However, the announcement, along with the president's sudden eagerness to trade his proposed national energy tax for increased oil and natural-gas drilling, is nothing more than political theater.

Read the rest at the Washington Times.

Always be wary when your opponent seems to be conceding anything. Its usually a good indicator they have something else planned.

Its Time For An Executive Order

H/T FreeRepublic and HokieMom

Governor Bob McDonnell should write the EO for offshore exploration and have it published. Let the citizens of the Commonwealth vote on whether it stays or not. Put it up for a statewide vote, instead of letting the Democrat controlled Senate shoot it down.

This is ridiculous. The dumbos in the VA Senate have voted down the Offshore Exploration bill with the same old tired argument they were using 10 years ago.."It will take 10 years to see any benefit."

Well guess what, dumbotwits, if we had started 10 years ago, we'd now be seeing benefits, when we need them the most.

Are these knuckleheads on the OPEC payroll?

Is Arab money being funneled through enviro-nazi groups and into the hands of politicians?

Do they want independence from foreign oil or not? Do they really care about the average Virginia worker? We are the ones who would benefit immediately from the creation of jobs. If they are so stupid they can't see the relationship between energy exploration and job creation, they are to stupid to be serving as representatives of the citizens of this Commonwealth.

FACES of Coal

The Virginia Senate is considering SB 564, a law called the “Stream Saver Bill” to fool voters about the bill’s real intent. This proposed legislation would ban mountaintop mining and effectively shut down coal mining operations in our state.

Virginia coal supports more than 30,000 jobs in mining and many other sectors. By ending coal mining in Virginia, we are jeopardizing the well-being of communities that are already battered by a recession. Moreover, coal generates almost half the electricity Virginians need to go about their daily lives.

Click the link below and to write your state legislators today. Urge them to stand up for affordable, domestic energy and good jobs. Tell them to say “No” to SB 564.

Thank you for your support.

Federation for American Coal, Energy and Security
(FACES of Coal)

Click the link below to log in and send your message: http://www.votervoice.net/link/target/faces39996085.aspx

A Message From FACES of Coal

As 2009 draws to a close, we would like to thank you for your support of FACES of Coal and your efforts to ensure that lawmakers and the American people understand that coal energizes our nation and fuels our economy.

Since we launched our campaign in August,

• 40,000 individuals have registered as members of FACES of Coal;
• 104 organizations, including chambers of commerce, fiscal courts, manufacturers and retailers, support our coalition; and
• 1,349 lawmakers representing 44 states have received 30,000 e-mails and letters in support of coal.

Washington bureaucrats have still taken no action on dozens of mining permits that have been arbitrarily stalled. Our legislators have still not delivered the balanced energy and economic policy we need and deserve.

The future of coal mining in America remains uncertain, and we need you to continue writing and calling your elected representatives (you can do so now by clicking the link below).

Remind them our holiday lights are shining bright because of the affordable electricity generated by coal. And we can provide good food and gifts to our families and friends in our warm homes, because of the good jobs sustained by coal.

Thank you for your efforts to protect our jobs and secure our future.

We wish you and yours a happy holiday season and a prosperous New Year.

Federation for American Coal, Energy and Security(FACES of Coal)

Click the link below to log in and send your message:
http://www.votervoice.net/link/target/faces39210323.aspx

Atlas Shrugs On Sarah Palin

and Pamela, as always, nails it.

Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska announced yesterday that she is resigning and will not seek a second term as governor. Many conservatives are characterizing this as an abdication of responsibility and a failure of will.

Quin Hillyer wrote in the American Spectator that "Sarah Palin's resignation is an appalling dereliction of duty and a highly cynical move to set herself up for a presidential run for which she is manifestly unqualified."

I vehemently disagree. She did not quit. From what I saw of her speech before Fox inexplicably cut it off (after seven days of wall-to-wall Michael Jackson coverage), this is not a woman who is retiring or "cutting and running," as Hillyer put it.

She is getting into the fight to save America. Palin committed herself to fighting "for our state and our country, and campaign(ing) for those who believe in smaller government, free enterprise, strong national security, support for our troops and energy independence."

Obama's treasonous presidency has made this struggle necessary.

Palin, like all patriotic Americans, is shocked by what is happening.

Obama is destroying this country. She knows it. We all know it. We need a leader.

Palin is that leader.

On Friday she assumed the mantle. She delivered a campaign speech. She spoke on the eve of Independence Day about the sacrifices great Americans have made, and what our Founding Fathers fought and died for.

Without naming Obama, she went after his disastrous policies, saying that "living beyond our means today is irresponsible for tomorrow," and noting that as governor she had "vetoed debt-ridden stimulus dollars." She believes in and wants to fight for free enterprise, small government and national security.

American Resources Review

We can't stop using coal. But we should use every flammable substance we have to generate power.


Millions of Jobs would be Exported

National Mining Association President and CEO, Hal Quinn, contributed to a recent forum on National Journal’s “Energy and Environment” experts blog:
We do not believe that the public interest is well served by policies that approach
our energy future as a zero-sum game.

Public policies encouraging the replacement of coal based electricity generation with natural gas are the bridge for accelerating the export of our manufacturing base and, with it, millions of high-wage jobs.

Look no further than actual experience over the past decade. As the use of natural gas increased for generating electricity, our manufacturing sector paid substantially higher prices for electricity (56 percent) and natural gas (200 percent).

In a report released last year, the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) warned that “policies that encourage the use of natural gas to substitute for coal in power generation could very well lead to spectacular price increases for households and industry.”

Zero Cares More About China Than America

China has no environmental concerns, no EPA, no controls.

China buys into U.S. off-shore oil leases.
Mark Tapscott, Beltway Confidential
"If the administration approves the deal, it will be more vulnerable to charges that the White House is being careless with U.S. national security issues in the energy sector, and that it is putting the interests of a foreign power before those of U.S. energy consumers."

UPDATE: Bishop says Obama policy aids foreign nations, not U.S.

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-UT, says the Statoil/CNOOC deal is indicative of the Obama administration's failure to protect U.S. consumers from foreign nations seeking to tap into this country's abundant energy resources:

“Unemployment will continue to exceed acceptable levels and the economy will continue to suffer until this administration reverses its anti-energy policy. China and other foreign countries are gaining access to the abundant natural resources located in the American OCS, meanwhile an energy starved U.S. continues to experience the detrimental effects of Secretary Salazar’s decisions to place special-interests before the American people.

Since taking office this administration has made great strides in helping countries gain access to American energy resources, it’s just too bad the U.S. isn’t one of them.”

Bishop is chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, which includes a number of representatives from Western states with significant energy and other natural resources.

Cap and Tax-NewsMax

Nobel Prize-Winner: Cap-and-Trade Could Ruin U.S. Economy

With climate change legislation under consideration by Congress, an environmental expert with a Nobel Prize-winning organization warns that the cap-and-trade bill supported by Democrats could destroy the American economy.

Dr. Steve Running, Director of the University of Montana’s Climate Change Studies program, is on the board of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with global warming crusader Algore.

During a Wednesday interview with a radio talk show host in Montana, Dr. Running said efforts to deal with climate change will fail unless they involve all nations.

"If the U.S. passed cap-and-trade and other countries did not, it wouldn’t work," he declared.

"It would ruin the U.S. economy and it wouldn’t save the climate either. So this is a global issue, the global climate statistics are global in nature, global carbon emissions are global in nature, and we really have to have an international consensus of what to do. That is going to stretch our international diplomacy to its limit, there’s no doubt about that."

Running called on the U.S. to show leadership on the climate change issue, saying other countries will follow suit. But China and India, two nations that produce large amounts of greenhouse gases, are not expected to adopt cap-and-trade measures like those being debated in the U.S. Congress.

Sen. James Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has voiced sentiments similar to Dr. Running's. He told Newsmax in a recent interview that cap-and-trade won't work because "it doesn't matter what we do in America — if we drive our manufacturing base off to places like China, India, and Mexico, places where they don't have any emissions standards or restrictions, then it's going to have the effect of increasing and not deceasing CO2."

He also said cap-and-trade would amount to the "largest tax increase in the history of America."

Reminder: Dick Armey and FreedomWorks in Richmond

Reminder: Armey Event in Richmond Thursday

This is a quick reminder about the FreedomWorks Virginia event in Richmond on Thursday, October 29th at the Europa Cafe (1409 E Cary St.) at 6pm.

FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey will be discussing the Tea Party movement, healthcare, cap and tax, among other relevant issues. The event will also feature Doc Thompson of WRVA-Richmond and John Taylor of The Virginia Institute and Tertium Quids. John Taylor will focus on issues central to Virginia - a critical state in the upcoming election.

This will be a great chance to meet other area activists and talk strategy on the big state and federal issues we're facing.

In the meantime, make sure you've seen the latest in our Health Care Online War Room and a new tool we launched last week to stop Cap and Trade, the next big government bailout.

While there is no charge for this event, we appreciate any help with expenses.

I hope to see you there!

Family Foundation of Virginia Gala Last Night

This blog supports every item reiterated by Mrs Victoria Cobb last night in her opening remarks:

• We expect that the first budget introduced by the next Governor of Virginia will ban taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood.
• We expect that the first budget introduced by the next Governor of Virginia will fund roads, not the destruction of innocent human life.
• We expect that the next Governor of Virginia will restore right of state police chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus.
• We expect that the next Governor of Virginia will not stop at Charter Schools, but will open the locked doors of a quality education for all children in Virginia by providing real school choice.
• We expect the next Governor of Virginia to reduce, not increase, the tax burden on Virginia’s businesses and families.
• We expect the next Governor of Virginia to care more about the culture of Virginia than the road to the White House.

This blog also expects the administration to demand a full accounting of the Literary Fund, a re-affirmation of the sovereignty of the Commomwealth by encouraging the passage of HR-61, and a immediate action to expand the use of all the energy resources within the borders of the Commonwealth, with special emphasis placed on offshore drilling, new refining capability, and up-fit of existing refining facilities.

All crude extracted and refined within the Commomwealth will remain inside the Commonwealth and all surplus petroleum will be sold on the spot market at market rates.

If we pump it here, we burn it here.

VoteVets, Soros, and Moveon.ogre

PA State Legislator Attacked By Soros/MoveOn.Org-Connected VoteVets.Org

Operation Free exposed as front group working to subvert America’s Constitution and sovereignty through climate control, energy cap-and-tax agenda

Pennsylvania State Representative Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler County) officially responded today to an attack ad now running on KDKA radio and several other local stations urging listeners to contact his district office and demand that he resign.

“The sponsors of this ad are attacking me because my comments have exposed that Operation Free’s radical leftist agenda has absolutely nothing to do with America’s national security, energy independence or protecting our environment, but is a direct attack on our Constitution,” said Metcalfe, a U.S. Army veteran whose honorable service record between1980-84 includes defending the West German border during the height of the Cold War.

Operation Free is a front group for a vast “non-profit” coalition that includes the Truman National Security Project, the National Security Network and the sponsor of the ad campaign VoteVets.org. VoteVets.org supports a far-left group of state and national politicians, including U.S. Congressman John Murtha. All of these groups are affiliated and receive funding from billionaire George Soros and his even more controversial political organization MoveOn.org.

“I stand by my original comments,” said Metcalfe. “Any veteran lending their name to promote the leftist propaganda of global warming and climate change, in an effort to control more of the wealth created in the U.S. economy, through cap-and-tax type policies, is a traitor to the oath he or she took to defend the Constitution of our great nation. If someone is advocating for our government to make statutory or regulatory changes in policy or enter into treaties that violate our Constitution, and they have taken an oath to uphold and protect that same document, then they are traitors to that oath.

“Operation Free and VoteVets.org stand with the likes of Congressman John Murtha, who accused our marines of killing ‘innocent civilians in cold blood.’ I stand with the vast super majority of my fellow veterans in defense of the U.S. Constitution,” concluded Metcalfe.

Krauthammer On Domestic Energy

Weekly Standard via DCExaminer

There are, of course, major threats to the American economy. But there is nothing inevitable and inexorable about them. Take, for example, the threat to the dollar (as the world's reserve currency) that comes from our massive trade deficits. Here again, the China threat is vastly exaggerated.

In fact, fully two-thirds of our trade imbalance comes from imported oil. This is not a fixed fact of life. We have a choice. We have it in our power, for example, to reverse
the absurd de facto 30-year ban on new nuclear power plants. We have it in our power to release huge domestic petroleum reserves by dropping the ban on offshore and Arctic drilling. We have it in our power to institute a serious gasoline tax (refunded immediately through a payroll tax reduction) to curb consumption and induce conservation.

Nothing is written. Nothing is predetermined. We can reverse the slide, we can undo dependence if we will it.

There are things to be done. Resist retreat as a matter of strategy and principle. And provide the means to continue our dominant role in the world by keeping our economic house in order. And finally, we can follow the advice of Demosthenes when asked what was to be done about the decline of Athens. His reply? "I will give what I believe is the fairest and truest answer: Don't do what you are doing now."

This article - condensed from The Weekly Standard - is based on syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer's 2009 Wriston Lecture delivered for the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research in New York on October 5.

Heritage Morning Bell - Wacky/Marxist Bill

The Transparent Costs of Cap and Trade

On June 26th of this year, the House of Representatives narrowly passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. More commonly known as the Waxman-Markey bill (named after bill sponsors Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA), the 1,427-page bill tries to control global temperatures by creating a “cap” on greenhouse gas emissions, and then hoping that greenhouse emitters would “trade” emissions permits meet the cap. Under the scheme, the government would issue fewer allowances each year, causing the cost of the permits to rise. The cost of these allowances is a tax, and under Waxman-Markey, the tax would rise each year. As with any tax, it will ultimately be passed on to consumers in the form of higher energy and product prices.

On August 6th, the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis released a report detailing the economic costs of the Waxman-Markey. Since energy is the lifeblood of the American economy, 85 percent of which comes from CO2-emitting fossil fuels, the Waxman-Markey bill’s arbitrary and severe restrictions on the current energy supply and infrastructure will not only have direct impact on consumers’ budgets through higher electric bills and gasoline prices, but also cause unnecessary inefficiencies at virtually every stage of production. CDA estimates that Waxman-Markey legislation would cost the average family-of-four almost $3,000 per year, cause 2.5 million net job losses by 2035, and a produce a cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) loss of $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035.

Surely our study did not produce the results Waxman and Markey expected. Earlier this month Reps. Waxman and Markey sent us, and a number of other institutions, a letter asking us to answer 33 methodological questions about the analytical techniques used in our study. We were delighted by Waxman and Markey’s letter since it is just the kind of thoughtful investigative work our lawmakers should do more often. For example, they asked if our model took into account an increase in private sector investments in research and development that would be sparked by the legislation and a new carbon market. Answer: It did. Our model incorporates both short and long-run responses to higher energy prices.

Waxman also asked if our model quantified any benefits of avoided climate change. Answer: It didn’t. Because according to estimates based on IPCC data, the Waxman-Markey bill would only impact global temperatures by .044 degrees C (about .09 degrees F) by 2050. There simply are no economic benefits from such a minuscule impact.

Waxman-Markey did not send their questions to some notable organizations that have conducted analysis of their bill like the Congressional Budget Office and the Brooking Institution. After we requested they do so, we have since received word that Waxman and Markey sent the same letter to the CBO. They had previously included the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Energy Information Administration (EIA), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), CRA International, the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), and the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC).

In the interests of an honest and transparent debate about the costs of cap and trade the Heritage Foundation has devoted a space on our website, www.heritage.org, where we have posted our answers in their entirety. We have formally invited the other organizations who were asked these questions to allow us to post their responses as well, in the interest of full transparency.

Let’s hope the Waxman-Markey questionnaire signals that a serious debate can now take place. American families deserve to be kept fully apprised of how Congress intends to act, and how those actions will most likely affect their pocketbooks, their jobs, and their lives.

Another RINO That Needs To GO ASAP

The Seduction Of Lindsey Graham
Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
October 17, 2009

This article was first published by American Thinker on October 16, 2009

According to most conservatives in South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has officially gone over to the dark side. Under the guise of 'bipartisanship,' Graham has signed on to one of the left's most ambitious plans to impose a socialist agenda in America - government control of the formerly free market through implementation of cap-and trade, the 1,400 plus page Waxman-Markey bill approved earlier this year by the House.

The main (scientifically unproven) premise of cap and trade is that the earth is melting and government must step in to save the world. Of course, it will be expensive, but hey, this is Mother Earth we're talking about. And its urgent and essential that the government immediately establish a $700 billion "market" for business to buy and sell "steadily declining number of permits for creating carbon emissions."

In a New York Times Op-Ed Graham co-authored with Sen. John Kerry (did you know he served in Viet Nam?) cutely entitled 'Yes We Can' (get it?) Sen Graham states "..we agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security."
Huh?

Reasons 7 Thru 10 of "10 Reasons to Oppose Cap and Tax"

7. It prevents market forces from working for the environment:

The market distortions imposed by a cap and trade system would be significant. Recently, major energy companies such as ExxonMobil and Shell have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in technologies that capture and store carbon as well as lower carbon alternative energy sources. A cap and trade system however, sets up perverse incentives that will distract these and other companies from market-based solutions to curb carbon output. Resources instead will be funneled to the artificial market for carbon allowances that cap and trade sets up.

8. It threatens to put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage with other countries:

Though the E.U. and the United States may be buying into cap and trade, industrial giants like China and India are not. Remember the lost jobs we talked about in point #4? In addition to China and India, nearby Mexico (another country where cap and trade is not even a remote possibility) are more than willing to pick up the U.S. slack and bolster their already robust manufacturing sectors.

9. It opens the door to massive fraud and corruption:

As energy companies look to game the system, cap and trade would open the door wide for fraud and corruption that could devastate U.S. investors and the economy as a whole. This has been seen already in the UK, a country currently participating in cap and trade. In a recent article by the British-based Guardian newspaper they report: “Britain’s biggest polluting companies are abusing a European emission trading scheme (ETS) designed to tackle global warming by cashing in their carbon credits in order to bolster ailing balance sheets.”

In the United States we have seen what happens when companies engage in creative accounting measures to hide losses and the staggering domino effect it can have on Wall Street investors and the larger economy. If you need more proof of this threat, look no further than this report by The Competitive Enterprise Institute that discusses Enron’s support for a cap and trade scheme that would allow them to dominate this new, made-up market for carbon.

10. It threatens to bust the federal budget at a time when the United States can scarcely afford it:

Federal spending continues at a breakneck pace. The recent passage of the trillion-dollar stimulus bill along with even more taxpayer funded bailouts looming on the horizon add to U.S. budget woes and sink us deeper into recession. And as if times weren’t tough enough, the CBO reports that cap and trade would heap additional undue pressure on our fragile budget.

According to their report, government would face the same challenges with higher energy costs that consumers do. Additionally, the fall in production for U.S. industry would lead to a loss of federal government tax revenues. Further increasing spending while decreasing revenues makes cap and trade a tough sell in the current economic climate.

Reasons 5 and 6 of "10 Reasons To Oppose Cap and Tax"

5. It is in effect a hidden regressive tax:

We’ve talked about how cap and trade causes energy prices to goup. That doesn’t just hit American industry, but American consumers as well. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) correctly notes that as these prices go up in the form of higher gasoline, heating oil, and electricity, the poor are hit hardest with what is in effect a hidden regressive tax.

President Obama promises to return revenues to vulnerable communities, families and businesses, but that leaves taxpayers at the whim of government to redistribute income rather than letting taxpayer keep their hard earned dollars.

6. It sets a dangerous precedent:

While extremist environmentalists and their liberal allies have been whining about climate change for years, most stop short of declaring cap and trade the silver-bullet solution.

Environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense Council are generally supportive of the concept of cap and trade.

However, as The Heritage Foundation has pointed out, these groups have found fault with actual proposals such as America’s Climate Security Act of 2007, criticizing them for not going far enough and willing only to endorse them as “a good first step.”

As much damage as a cap and trade scheme would cause in its own right, this posture by extreme environmental groups foreshadows even more draconian regulations in our future.

Reasons 3 and 4 of "10 Reasons To Oppose Cap and Tax"

3. It doesn’t work where it has been tried:
Speaking of Europe, let’s take a closer look at how cap and trade is fairing. As mentioned earlier, the EU is watching carbon emission levels rise despite the fact that they have had a cap and trade system since 2005.

Furthermore, the Heartland Institute reports that 12 of the 15 EU nations taking part in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, a program that sets greenhouse gas reduction targets and serves as a precursor to cap and trade, are failing to meet their reduction targets, with three going over by more than 10 percent and another three going over by more than 20 percent.

In fact, emissions for all EU countries went up on average 2.1 percent between 2000 and 2004. Compare this with the United States where currently no such regulatory regime exists and yet emissions went up only 1.3 percent during the same time period. Nonetheless, President Obama has announced an aggressive set of targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promising to “work expeditiously with key stakeholders and the Congress to develop an economy-wide emissions reduction program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions approximately 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and approximately 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.”

4. It will cost Americans jobs:
This calculation is a pretty simple one. For U.S. industry to comply with a cap and trade scheme, they have to reduce their carbon emissions. There are two ways to do this:

(1) produce less – this obviously hurts jobs as companies would seek to streamline their workforce to compensate for a drop in production, or

(2) buy carbon allowances in order to keep production up – this, too, would threaten jobs as companies would be forced to devote more internal resources to allowances, negatively effecting their bottom lines and potentially putting workers on the chopping block.

In either case, the rising costs of energy under a cap and trade system, as mentioned earlier, only add to the problem. An analysis conducted by Charles River Associates in 2007 estimated anywhere from 1.2 million to 2.3 million jobs would be lost under a cap and trade scheme.

VoteVets Is Dishonest and Despicible

They have never endorsed a conservative candidate, veteran or otherwise.

From Wikki:
Initially composed of United States Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, the organization views defense policy as an American priority. The stated goal of the PAC is to put in Congress Afghanistan or Iraq war veterans who are critical of the execution of the war in Iraq.

They run this ad thanking Perriello for voting for the Wacky-Marxist Cap and Tax Bill. (I'm not cluttering up our site with a bunch of videos from these asshats)

Then, they have the audacity to run radio spots encouraging Sens Warner and Webb to support the Senate version of Cap and Tax and use the sacrifices of our nations' Warriors to justify what VoteVets calls a fight "against big oil and special interests".

If they had a true American agenda, they'd be working to insure this country had resources to help returning veterans, not working to reduce or eliminate jobs in domestic energy production here in Virginia and across the Nation.

Shabby and tasteless, especially when you consider this:

Now We Know Whose Side They Are On

No Oil for Blood
Thanks to three American senators, China will be pumping Iraqi oil
by Frederick W. Kagan 09/16/2008 3:15:00 PM

If they are so concerned about the sacrifices of their brothers in arms, why do they endorse candidates who divert critical funding for fuel and ammunition to pork barrel projects?

Why are they only endorsing candidates who are against the Global War on Terrorism?

This Ain't Hell (but you can see it from here), has some more background and current information on votevets.

Priorities

Suppose you work for a veterans service organization and you have $400,000 to spend on that service to veterans. What would you spend it on? Maybe lobbying to get the President to make a timely decision about supporting the troops engaged in Afghanistan?

Maybe an outreach program to veterans who suffer from traumatic brain injuries or PTSD? Perhaps use the money to influence Congress to exempt veterans who rely on the VA or other military health care from the impending penalty for having free healthcare?

Maybe something like a memorial to people who serve? An outward-bound program for disabled veterans?

Something to let those currently deployed know that we’re thinking of them?

Well, not if your organization is named VoteVets - you’d spend your $400,000 on RADIO spots for pushing a clean energy bill.

Yeah, they’re calling it an “ad blitz” but how hard is it to “blitz” a 19th century technology? And a “clean energy” ad buy? Of course, their strategy is to perpetuate the “war for oil” lie;

FreedomWorks 2 of 10 Reasons To Oppose Cap and Tax

Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly stated that Cap and Trade will be a priority for the 111th Congress. Embraced some years ago in Europe and a few other countries, cap and trade creates an artificial market for various industries to buy, sell, and trade allowances that permit a certain amount of carbon output. It has long been on the wish list for American liberals and extremist environmentalists.

And with Democrats now in control of Congress and the White House, pssage of this monstrosity is almost a certainy. In fact, in the 2010 White House budget, President Barack Obama calls for a sweeping cap and trade program that would raise $646 billion in new revenues.

Here are FreedomWorks’ Top 10 reasons why they shouldn’t…

1. It will raise energy costs: While different nuanced approaches continue to surface, any analysis of any cap and trade scheme comes to the same conclusion; energy costs will go up. The latest serious attempt to enact cap and trade in the United States, America’s Climate Security Act of 2007 sponsored by Sens.Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA), serves as a good example. An analysis of this legislation cited during a Senate hearing held by the Committee on Environment and Public Works estimated the costs to the average American household would be between $800 and $1,300 by 2015, and then increasing to $1,500 to $2,500 by 2050.

2. It doesn’t help the environment: If energy costs are going to go up for Americans, shouldn’t there be significant environmental benefit and progress towards reversing climate change?

You would think so. But even if the most aggressive of cap and trade schemes were properly adhered to, scientists that both advocate and oppose a cap and trade program widely agree that the maximum drop to the earth’s temperature would be no more than 0.07 degrees Celsius by the year 2050.

To give some sense of just how negligible this decrease would be, we cannot even estimate the absolute mean surface temperature of the earth within 0.07. What’s worse is that cap and trade actually provides incentives to emit more carbon, not less.

An article by the Christian Science Monitor explains: “By turning carbon emissions into commodities that can be bought and sold, cap-and-trade policies could remove the stigma from producing such emissions.”

In other words, if industries understand they are working within a legal framework when they output carbon, the public pressure for them to cut down is weakened.

Evidence of this can be seen in Europe where most countries have seen carbon emissions go up, even though the European Union has had a cap and trade regime in place since 2005.