Posts tagged ‘Waxman Markey’

October 3, 2009

What About Jobs Obama? Unblock The Jobs!

by lewwaters

Now that our new illustrious leader has returned from failing in Copenhagen, isn’t it about time he got down to tacks and did something worthwhile, like unblock job creation America?

With unemployment nearly double digits, his promises since acquiring office continue to fall short. In fact, all they seem to do is fall, all around us.

The massive porkulus package did not create jobs nor did the overly expensive cash for clunkers. So far about all we have seen is handful of government jobs filled with the private sector expected to keep ponying up with more taxes to cover every social program this mob in Washington D.C. can dream of.

MSNBC and the AP are telling us, Obama: Jobs linked to health care reform with Obama saying he is “exploring additional options to promote job creation.”

His “options?”

· extending enhanced unemployment-insurance benefits beyond Dec. 31, when they are set to expire;
· extending a tax credit for laid-off workers who buy health insurance through the COBRA program. That program allows workers to keep their company’s health insurance plan for 18 months after they leave their job, if they pay the premiums;
· and extending a tax credit for first-time home buyers. This credit also is set to expire soon.

I see no job creation in that and wonder how an unemployed worker would be able to even buy a home for the first time to take advantage of a first time homebuyer tax credit.

Obama claims his

“proposed health care overhaul would create jobs by making small business startups more affordable.”

With the boondoggles being discussed in Obamacare, with the very real possibility of facing stiff fines and possibly jail for not purchasing insurance, the only jobs I see would be for corrections officers to guard citizens.

Face it; health insurance cost is not stopping jobs from being created.

There is one area of our economy that has consistently offered thousands of jobs and remains blocked by Obama and the Democrats, energy exploration and drilling.

Oil Field

Massachusetts lanky egotistical senator John ‘F’in Kerry (who served in Viet Nam) has co-authored such a blocking and disastrous bill with California’s aging senator Barbara Boxer Of this latest effort at destroying the America we know and love, sKerry says,

“In this time of economic challenge, we have a unique opportunity to put Americans back to work and take charge of our security, our energy future and the fate of our planet.”

He also says,

“This bill takes a more comprehensive approach to the fundamental problems created by climate change and dwindling oil reserves than previous legislative measures.”

“Dwindling oil reserves?” With millions of acres of land known to hold oil in Alaska and off shore?

Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute has issued a statement in essence blowing the lid off of Kerry’s canard.

He says,

“If the Kerry-Boxer approach mimics the House bill, as early indications suggest, it will undermine our energy security by making American consumers more reliant on foreign sources of refined products, kill jobs and increase fuel costs,”

adding,

“The 9.2 million workers supported by the oil and natural gas industry have a hard time understanding how America’s economy will be better by threatening or eliminating their jobs and the jobs of those who depend on the energy they produce. And with America depending on fossil fuels for a substantial portion of its energy, many American consumers will wonder why their elected leaders in Washington are supporting policies that will likely raise energy costs and constrict supplies without delivering a realistic and measurable benefit to the environment.”

Those are real jobs he’s talking about, not makeshift jobs to make a politician look important to the community.

It also cannot be overlooked that there will be jobs created indirectly in support of those jobs, home creation, suppliers, mechanics maintaining vehicles and equipment, clothing suppliers, restaurants, you name it, the list goes on forever and is how America built her wealth and security over the decades.

All the Democrats are offering is more government dependency with less private sector jobs to pay taxes into the treasury to pay wages for those on government dependency.

It is self-defeating.

As Jane Van Ryan points out on the Energy Tomorrow blogsite, we need to Stop Delaying and Drill Now.

She tells us,

“the 30-year old ban on offshore drilling along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts expired, opening the opportunity for the United States to drill for more of its own oil and natural gas. What has happened since then to make America more energy self-sufficient? NOTHING!

And she’s right; we have sat back and watched as we drifted more and more into dependency on foreign oil sources, mostly from those who harbor ill will against us.

We’ve heard empty promises over and over and nothing changes.

Auto manufacturers have designed and built more efficient cars, but we have hardly any domestic sources for fueling them. We get pie in the sky promises of “alternative fuels,” often times sources that these politicians themselves block for construction in their back yards, as we saw just a few years ago with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. blocking wind farm construction in Nantucket Sound, joined by his infamous and recently deceased uncle, Ted Kennedy.

I might also add that the area of that proposed wind farm is a popular playground for Senator Kerry, mentioned above who would drive up our energy costs.

Alaska governor Sean Parnell disputes Kerry and letting us know,

“Alaska’s OCS contains an estimated 27 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 130 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. That’s more than twice the amount of oil that has been produced on Alaska’s North Slope since the Trans Alaska Pipeline System went online in 1977.”

These are real jobs, real security, and real energy sources, not down the road some day promises of hope.

We have ample sources of fuel currently to carry us over the years remaining to perfect a true alternative source that is cost effective. We have jobs waiting for hundreds of thousands of American workers.

But, we also have Barack Obama and his Democratic Party cartel standing in the way of a true recovery that will keep America free and prosperous.

“Drill Here, Drill Now” is not just a slogan; it is the way our freedom and prosperity will be maintained.

Oil Gusher Crew

June 27, 2009

Eight Republicans

by lewwaters

Friday, June 26, 2009, a disastrous piece of legislation narrowly was approved in the House of Representatives. HR 2454, also known as the Waxman Markey Bill, or more commonly known as Cap and Trade, was approved by a vote of 219 to 212.

Clark County Conservative outlined Representative Brain Baird’s YES vote on the bill here. However, much anger and dismay is being expressed towards 8 Republican Representatives from across America that crossed over to vote YES, giving the Democrats the needed votes to approve the measure.

Brent Boger, Vancouver, Washington Senior City Attorney and Republican State Committeeman for Clark County submitted the following analysis as to why the 8 may have voted as they did,

When I looked over the list of the 8 Republicans who voted for the cap and trade, cap and tax bill, my impression was that most of them had tough districts that could easily flip Democrat and they voted for their political survival. Spending a couple of hours researching this, my impression appears largely true.

We should not take issue with the eight just because they failed to vote the same as the 168 Republicans who voted against the bill. The calls should address why their reasons for voting for the bill are wrong. Their votes were not in the interest of: (1) sound public policy; (2) their political future; or (3) their constituents.

Most important of these reasons is the evident collapse in the global warming so-called scientific consensus. The overall vote was driven by dogma and a desire to raise revenue to support Obama’s reckless spending. See Friday’s editorial in the Wall Street Journal that discusses the signs of collapse in the international scientific consensus:

“The collapse of the ‘consensus’ has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html.

I am not a scientist. Nor are any of the eight congressmen scientists–and Al Gore’s journalism degree does not give him much in the way of credentials on this issue either. My own training has been in economics and the law. Perhaps my economics training is what makes me particularly note that absent from the discussion on climate change is any serious discussion of cost and benefits. Even if global warming is man-made, might it not be more cost-effective and might we all live better if we deal with its effects rather than pass legislation like King Canute decreed (who was thought to be so great he could command the tides).

There are other reasons besides the merits of the bill that might have driven the votes of the eight. My approach to political analysis is to understand political behavior. I mostly focus on the electorate’s behavior, but I also try to understand why elected officials vote as they do. I think I can explain their votes based on three factors.

1. They think the vote was better for them politically.

Obama carried seven of the eight districts and Kerry three of the eight over Bush. None of the districts are safe Republican seats. One district is represented by Obama’s nominee for Secretary of the Army. At least seven of the eight members of Congress could have reasonably concluded that their vote was to their political benefit.

No one likes a politician who abandons principle and cravenly votes solely on their political interests but certainly it is something that should be considered. Yet 27 Republican members of Congress who voted against the bill also represent districts Obama won. Most of these 27 members, however, represent districts that only barely went for Obama and can be expected to flip back our way in the next election. A Republican Congressman representing a district Obama won by 2% would be expected to look at their prospects for survival differently than one who represents a district Obama won by 14%, like Reichert. Three of the five represent districts Obama won by more than 10% (including Reichert). Three represent one of the six districts in the country won by John Kerry in 2004 currently represented by a Republican in the House: Reichert, Mike Castle of Delaware and Mark Kirk of Illinois. Castle and Kirk could take the Senate seats abandoned by our current President and Vice President next year.

If the Republican members voted based on political calculation, they should note the collapsing scientific and understand that what looks popular now may look foolish in the future.

There is another, less cynical way to look at their votes but related to political self-interest discussed next.

2. They are representing their districts, or they think they are.

Seven of the eight wayward Republicans represent suburban districts and seven of the eight had to run ahead of our national ticket to win. Generally suburban districts still favor Republicans and conservative positions on many issues. One general area suburban voters depart from general Republican views is on environmental issues (or perhaps better expressed as environmental dogma). Unfortunately, many suburban voters come to these positions not from any serious analysis but simply reacting to the relentless global-warming drumbeat emanating from the mainstream media and pseudo-scientists. As noted above, the dogma is starting to collapse, but word of that has not reached enough of their constituents yet.

The eight should have considered that what they think their constituents like now will change when prices go up to pay for the hidden tax, small business fail because of the legislation, and we get a couple of cold winters. (It is interesting to note that only Bono-Mack’s Palm Springs district has a more pleasant winter climate than Dave Reichert’s wintertime cold and rainy Washington district).

3. They really believed the bill was good public policy.

Five of the eight members had fairly high ratings from the League of Conservation Voters (a somewhat dogmatic, though not always, environmental political organization). Thus, their votes on this bill are not out-of-line with the positions they had had taken in the past. This could be because they really believe in these environmental issues or for the two reasons listed above. In particular, I would like to point out Chris Smith of New Jersey who initially was elected to Congress on a very pro-life platform but has otherwise taken pretty moderate positions. Some in the evangelical Christian community have also taken general positions justifiably protective of the environment but I am not sure they are embracing global warming dogma. Though I sharply disagree with Smith on his vote, I still have a great deal of respect for him as a politician who stands on principle.

I wonder whether the members understand that the scientific consensus is less of a consensus now than it was. Have they noted the trouble the Labour Party government has had in getting a global warming bill through the Australian Senate? Do they know many in Europe are growing skeptical about the validity of the science behind climate change-theory? Have they considered a cost-benefit analysis and that should be expected of all members of Congress, especially Republicans?

What about the high number of Democrats who voted against the bill? Lost in our focus on the eight Republicans are the 44 Democrats who voted against the bill. 28 of these Democrats represent districts won by John McCain and 36 represent 2004 Bush districts. Not surprisingly, we find among the remaining 8 Democrats those who voted against the bill because it didn’t go far enough like Dennis Kucinich (OH), Peter DeFazio (OR), and Fortney Stark (CA). The remaining Democrat “no” votes come from Democrat industrial along with a couple heavily-minority agricultural districts especially impacted by the bill. Do these Democrats see something coming that the eight Republicans do not?

We should also not get carried away in our criticism of the eight. Remember that the eight Republicans have been with us on important issues. For example all 8 voted against the Obama stimulus package. So unless we are willing to say that Dennis Kucinich is better than Dave Reichert because Kucinich voted right on this bill and Reichert did not, we probably ought to cut them some slack. I am pleased that Reichert is still in Congress and not the angry left’s Darcy Burner. From what I know of the Democrat challengers to the other seven districts, I would expect we are better off that the Republicans are there as well.

I conclude with the political situation each of the 8 Republicans find themselves in. While I understand their votes and would probably still support them, I am disappointed.

Reichert, WA.8

David Reichert represents a traditionally Republican suburban district that has trended noticeably to the Democrats over the last 10-15 years with both Obama and Kerry winning the district–Obama by 14%. The district is composed of eastern King and Pierce counties. Republicans have been largely wiped-out in legislative seats in the King County portion of the district–holding only the 5th, and two seats in the 31st. The district has an environmentalist tilt. According to the National Journal, Reichert has had a moderate voting record that is only a bit more conservative than average. He does have fairly high ratings from the League of Conservation voters.

2008: Reichert (R) 53%, Burner (D) 47%; Obama (D) 56%, McCain (R) 42%
2006: Reichert (R) 51%, Burner (D) 49%
2004: Reichert (R) 52%, Ross (D) 47%; Kerry (D) 51%, Bush (R) 48%

Bono-Mack, CA.45

Bono-Mack is Sonny Bono’s widow and was the only Republican to vote for cap and trade in committee. She represents a district that includes Palm Springs and fast-growing LA suburban areas in Riverside County’s Moreno Valley. I personally experienced the district’s environmentalist tilt during my time on the staff of California Governor George Deukmejian. The district voted strongly for Bush in 2004 but went to Obama in 2008. Bono-Mack has a moderate voting record but is clearly more right than left. Her ratings from the League of Conservation voters have not been high.

2008: Bono-Mack (R) 58%, Bornstein (D) 42%; Obama (D) 52%, McCain (R) 47%
2006: Bono (R) 61%, Roth (D) 39%
2004: Bono (R) 67%, Meyer (D) 33%; Bush (R) 56%, Kerry (D) 43%

Castle, DE-AL

Mike Castle is Delaware’s lone Congressman. Prior to being elected to Congress in 1992, he served as the state’s governor for eight years. He is being mentioned as a potential candidate for the US Senate against Joe Biden’s son, Beau, next year. Castle has been ahead in the polling. Delaware is a state dominated by New Castle County, which is effectively part of suburban Philadelphia. The state recently has been reliably Democratic giving comfortable margins to the Democrats for president since 1992. Castle’s record has been moderate and perhaps slightly more left than right. The League of Conservation voters gives Castle high ratings.

2008: Castle (R) 61%, Nagel (D) 38%; Obama 62%, McCain 37%
2006: Castle (R) 57%, Spivack (D) 39%
2004: Castle (R) 69%, Donnelly (D) 30%; Bush 46%, Kerry 53%

Kirk, IL.10

Mark Kirk represents a suburban Chicago district along the north shore of Lake Michigan. Kirk is likely to run for the US Senate next year and runs well in the polls in Obama’s home state. The north shore suburbs have been trending against the GOP since the 1990’s and both Kerry and Obama won Illinois 10–Obama in a home state blowout. The Chicago suburbs are not the same place they were in 1964 when the suburban “collar” counties stuck with Goldwater in the Johnson landslide–including local resident at the time and “Goldwater Girl” Hillary Rodham. According to the National Journal, Kirk’s voting record is middle-of-the-road: slightly right on economic issues and slightly left on social issues. He has high ratings from the League of Conservation voters.

2008: Kirk (R) 53%, Seals (D) 47%; Obama 61%, McCain 38%
2006: Kirk (R) 53%, Seals (D) 47%
2004: Kirk (R) 64%, Goodman (D) 36%; Kerry 53%, Bush 47%

McHugh, NY 23

Obama nominated New York Congressman John McHugh to be Secretary of the Army and he is awaiting Senate confirmation. McHugh has had a clearly right-of-center voting record but is generally considered a moderate. He has high ratings from the League of Conservation Voters. McHugh has had no problem at the polls even as his district was going for Obama. In a more normal political year, the district can be expected to go Republican at the presidential level. McHugh is the only congressman of the 8 defecting Republicans whose district is not suburban–it is rural and small city in the far north of upstate New York.

2008: McHugh (R) 65%, Oot (D) 35%; Obama (D-WF) 52%, McCain (R-C) 47%
2006: McHugh (R-Ind-C) 63%, Johnson (D-WF) 37%
2004: McHugh (R-Ind-C) 71%, Johnson (D) 29%; Bush (R-C) 51%, Kerry (D-WF) 47%

Lance, NJ.7

Leonard Lance was elected to Congress in 2008. He represents a suburban New Jersey district that runs across northern New Jersey from almost the Newark Airport on the east to just across the Delaware River from the Leigh Valley area of Pennsylvania on the west. The district was designed to be Republican, which explains its contorted boundaries. Even with these boundaries, former Congressman Mike Ferguson only barely held on to the district in 2006 and the district went narrowly for Obama in 2008. Against Ferguson’s 2006 opponent, Lance had an easier time, running well ahead of McCain. As a newly elected member of Congress, Lance has not yet established a record.

2008: Lance (R) 50%, Stender 42%; Obama (D) 50%, McCain (R) 49%
2006: Ferguson (R) 49%, Stender (D) 48%
2004: Ferguson (R) 57%, Brozak (D) 42%; Bush (R) 53%, Kerry (D) 47%

LoBiondo, NJ.2

Frank LoBiondo represents a south Jersey district that includes Atlantic City, exurban areas near Philadelphia, some small industrial cities and agricultural areas. The district went for Gore and Obama by about the same nearly 10% margin but Bush managed to eek out a win over Kerry in 2004. LoBiondo has had little trouble holding this marginal district. According to the National Journal, LoBiondo has had a generally moderate voting record more conservative on social issues than on economic issues. LoBiondo has high ratings from the League of Conservation voters.

2008: LoBiondo 59%, Kurkowski (D) 39%; Obama (D) 54%, McCain (R) 45%
2006: LoBiondo (R) 62%, Thomas-Hughes (D) 36%
2004: LoBiondo (R) 65%, Robb 33%; Bush (R) 50%, Kerry (D) 49%

Smith, NJ.4

Chris Smith is the only one of the eight who represents a district that John McCain won. Smith was elected to Congress in 1980 with prior experience as the Executive Director of New Jersey Right to Life. His record is generally moderate but more conservative on social issues. Smith has long had high ratings from the League of Conservation Voters. The district straddles the invisible line between north Jersey (which watches New York television) and south Jersey (which watches Philadelphia television). It is getting more distant suburban growth (exurban) from both Philadelphia and New York, which probably explains why it is, rare for the northeast, trending Republican.

2008: Smith (R) 66%, Zeitz (D) 33%, McCain (R) 52%, Obama (D) 47%
2006: Smith (R) 66%, Gay (D) 33%
2004: Smith (R) 67%, Vasquez (D) 32%, Bush (R) 56%, Kerry (D) 44%

(The information above comes from Congressional Quarterly and the Michael Barone’s Almanac of American Politics)

Brent Boger
Washougal, WA

I would like to add to Brent’s analysis that European countries that jumped headlong into such “Green” legislation years before we in the Unites States have are seeing the folly of their ways. An April 9, 2007 Washington Post article, Europe’s Problems Color U.S. Plans to Curb Carbon Gases outlines the negative affect such plans had on European Country’s.

A brochure has been assembled outlining the negative impact on Jobs such moves has had in Europe and is available in a pdf file HERE.

Our Representatives should have been aware of such economic affects before they voted for such a piece of legislation. I will be curious to see how, if at all, each justifies their YES vote on such a monstrous bill.

June 26, 2009

Baird Sells Out Constituents….. Again

by lewwaters

Brian Baird 1
Brian Baird, six term Representative from Washington States Third Congressional District and author of the infamous “72-Hour Rule” has once again cast a YES vote for a massive bill, without even reading it fully or studying it.

Baird says, “Our votes have consequences. My congressional colleagues and I owe it to both our constituents and to this institution to know what it is we are voting for.”

With his YES vote on the massive “Stimulus Bill” earlier and now voting YES on the Cap & Trade Bill, which received a 300 page amendment in the final hours, raising the number of pages in it to over 1200, why does he continue to vote against his own words?

By his own claims, if he has not had adequate time to study such a bill that will have dire consequences on America and his Washington State constituents, why in the hell does he continue to vote YES!

In selling us out, he explains it away as he gained concessions on use of dead and diseased trees to be used for energy in what is known as “bio-mass.”

Baird then says, “It’s not my way of approaching this problem if I was given the choice.”

What does he mean by “if I was given the choice?” Isn’t voting NO a choice and one that should be used?

He goes on to say, “With the Earth heating up and oceans becoming more acidic, ‘Inaction is not a starter.’”

With all due respect, Representative, BULLSHIT!

Why does he continue to tout this canard when there is ample evidence coming out every day that the earth is not warming up and is actually in a cooling stage?

We know we can no longer count on the state owned media to publish factual matters when it comes to Democrats selling America down the drain, so we often have to turn to publications such as the Wall Street Journal and foreign media to get some truth. The Wall Street Journal has been doing an excellent job covering such matters as The Climate Change Climate Change where Kimberly Strassel let’s us know, “The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.”

We also have the Investors Business Daily in what they refer to now as Carbongate informing us of the Environmental Protection Agency actually suppressing a report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute that shows how this heavy taxation on American Citizens will cause much damage and how the earths temperature has actually been cooling for the last decade.

Going back to the March 9, 2009 Wall Street Journal, we find an article Who Pays for Cap and Trade?

Who pays? How about the 95% that were promised a tax cut during the 2008 campaign by the current resident of the White House?

Supporters of this disastrous bill brag about how it will create jobs. But, where, China?

A report out of Spain, who jumped heavily into the “Green Jobs” canard years ago, tells us that 9 jobs are lost for every 4 created.

The report may be seen HERE.

House Republicans tried in vain to amend this largest tax increase in our history to suspend it should it prove as harmful as we know it will be, all denied by the Socialist Democrat Cabal in control of the House.

Previously, another House Democrat, Representative John Dingell of Michigan admitted to the nation, “Nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one.”

Is Brian Baird unaware of that too?

At a time that unemployment is reaching its highest in several decades and Baird’s constituents are hurting all over the Third Congressional District, and the rest of America, shouldn’t we have a Representative who actually places us first, over special interest deals made in smoke-filled back rooms?

Baird has proven himself to be no friend to Washingtonians once again.

We now have two really good candidates filing to unseat Baird, Jon Russell and David Castillo.

I fully expect to see more in the weeks and months ahead, but only time will tell.

What I do know is it is time for Baird to go. He has gotten too comfortable off of our backs and now that he has once again sold us out for special interests, we need a Representative that will actually represent us in Washington D.C.

A note to Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. We are watching and should you rubber stamp this massive tax increase, your seats in the Senate will become very precarious as well.

In closing, I’d like to bid goodbye to Washington State Representative for the Eighth District, Dave Reichert, who crossed the aisle and joined in with the Socialist Democrat cabal in rubber stamping this monstrosity of a tax increase.

I hope you enjoyed your time in the House.

Washington residents, it has come time to take the country back.