Rodney and Garrett stand apart
June 27, 2009 22 Comments
Reps Rodney P. Frelinghuysen and Scott Garrett were the only two members of Congress from New Jersey to oppose Friday’s bill to put caps on emissions from a variety of industrial plants. This became known as Cap and Trade, because harmful emissions would be capped, but those involved could buy, in effect, a permit to pollute.
Garrett’s opposition is understandable and consistent wth his view that government should do little. But Frelinghuysen has had a pro-environmental record in the past. His opposition, which is out of step with the majority of House Republicans in his own party, is strange.
Anywho, the congessman will help us — and you — understand his views in a column he’s writing. It should run in the Daily Record next week.
About fsnowflack
Morris County Politics 
Fred, saying merely that Cap and Tax is about limiting industrial emissions is like saying that anti-tobacco legislation is about reducing cigarette butt litter.
The legislation will kill off more US jobs while enormously better, private sector solutions to carbon based fuels
are available at dramatically less cost.
Kudos to Rodney for recognizing what a terrible bill this is and for voting against it.
Kudos to the NJ Congressional delegation — minus Rodney and Garrett — who recognized that we have to start ending our addiction to foreign oil and cut global warming.
Economists report that a global warming reduction program actually would help revive the economy. Emission limits beginning in 2011 “would have no immediate effect on prices … It would give businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities even in the face of excess capacity. And given the current state of the economy, that’s just what the doctor ordered.”
We are in the current economic mess because we depended solely on “private sector” solutions to all of our problems during the past eight years! Let’s step out of the box and try new approaches.
Jimmy,
Gov’t could, for one, simply step up incentives to encourage homes and businesses to install solar panels. We put them on an office building and on the weekends the meter actually returns power to the grid!
Installed on a home this spring the $400 monthly electric bill was reduced to $40. The payback period is under 4 years.
Encouraging through tax policy the widespread adoption of solar panels, along with http://www.BetterPlace.com nearly eliminating oil as a motor vehicle fuel, would provide so much more benefit than the Draconian cap & tax.
Other ideas: Eliminate the sales tax on hybrid automobiles (while http://www.BetterPlace.com is being implemented) and make them cost competitive with conventional vehicles.
Condition stimulus money to GM and Chrysler on producing hybrids.
Challenge the massive brainpower of US universities and laboratories into a 2009 equivalent of the Manhattan Project to dramatically improve battery storage technology.
These things are job creators. If you search the http://www.BetterPlace.com website you’ll see that the Chinese are making massive investments in battery technology (see http://tinyurl.com/4dtnx4). We should be doing it too, in the closed auto factories and to replace the jobs lost in coal states.
Bottom line is that there are so many better and smarter alternatives to Cap and Tax.
Lets add the environment to those things Rodney is hurting. Most surprising are Rodney’s votes against veterans’ interests, but then he had to follow in lock-step with the GOP leadership.
In 2006 Rodney voted “NO” to cutting costs for veteran’s health care. He voted “NO” to giving veterans an affordable college education. This year he said “NO” to support our troops with the funding they need to fight for us in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Rodney voted “NO” to a bill that gives new mothers the right to take extended maternity leave from their jobs. He voted “NO” to the Lilly Ledbetter act which ensured that a woman has the right to the same pay as a man for the same job.
Great Job Rodney!!
Fred – Why don’t you suspend the sarcasm until you’ve had time to read the bill. After you unearth all the give-aways, special deals, and other goodies that we JAMMED through the House in the name of the environment. Then, you can come back and pass judgment on the legislators who voted yea and nay. Until then, just shilling for the environmental Nazis (see ALGORE) is just a sad abdication of your responsibility as a newsman.
In his weekly email news, Rodney called cap and trade a “National Energy Tax.” I fully accept that it is a “tax,” but one that I am willing to pay to breathe cleaner air and live in a more sustainable world with a stronger America without a dependence on foreign oil.
I do not accept that it is a “Job-Killing Energy Tax.” An objective of this tax is American economic renewal, as well as combatting global warming. It’s a tax that is necessary to stimulate investments in clean technologies that would enable the U.S. to become an energy technology leader.
Hopefully, when Rodney presents his views in the column he’s writing for the Daily Record next week, he will back up his claims with some sources for his data other than the Heritage Foundation — something he did not do in his email.
BTW: According to the HF, “cap and trade works by raising the cost of energy high enough so that individuals and businesses are forced to use less of it.” Sounds good to me!
Fred, the oddest thing you said was that Rodney’s “opposition, which is out of step with the majority of House Republicans in his own party, is strange.”
Only 8 Republicans voted in favor of this bill, so how can you say that he is out of step with his party on this?
We all want a clean environment, but do not make the mistake of thinking that this particular approach would have any positive results. In order to escape these oppressive taxes, US buisnesses would be forced to move even more business overseas to places like China and India, where these environmental taxes are not employed. Pushing more business out of the US would have an enormously negative effect on our economy; not to mention that with production moving overseas, so do jobs.With our economy already in a downswing, we do not want to help it along further down a negative growth path. If we want more US energy we can drill, we can build more refineries (which we haven’t done since 1976), we can expand natural gas production, we can expand clean coal technologies, we can build more nuclear plants … there are many things we can do for the next 20 years to build our independence while we are developing alternative fuel sources like cellulosic Ethenol, wind, solar, tide, etc etc etc. Do not believe that by further taxing our businesses and citizens that our economy will end up in a better place. There are many other ways to approach this issue without this type of approach. This will end up doing nothing more than hurting every citizen through higher utility costs, hurting business through more regulation and taxes, and kill jobs by forcing businesses to shift production overseas so to remain competitive in a global marketplace.
ACCORDING TO THE WSJ:
“The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.
When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.”
http://ibdeditorials.com/CartoonPopUp.aspx?id=272659250197933
Nuclear power makes too much sense for liberals to understand.
There are reasons, I guess, why people are liberal or conservative. … No question about it, capping emissions and other environmental safeguards come up with a price . .. But in my mind, it’s an acceptable price to pay to maintain a clean environment.
Rodney was out of step with Republicans from New Jersey in that three of the five GOP House members supported the bill … And the reason should be obvious, An old industrial state like NJ certainly has had environmental problems … trying to prevent future problems should cross party.
Rodney tells us that ACES will not improve the environment because China and India will not follow suit. Is he suggesting that we should just sit idly by and do nothing instead of being the leaders on this critical issue?
I’ll try this again. The moderator must have missed this from June 27th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Other ideas:
Eliminate the sales tax on hybrid automobiles (while http://www.BetterPlace.com is being implemented) and make them cost competitive with conventional vehicles.
Condition stimulus money to GM and Chrysler on producing hybrids.
Challenge the massive brainpower of US universities and laboratories into a 2009 equivalent of the Manhattan Project to dramatically improve battery storage technology.
These things are job creators. If you search the http://www.BetterPlace.com website you’ll see that the Chinese are making massive investments in battery technology (see http://tinyurl.com/4dtnx4). We should be doing it too, in the closed auto factories and to replace the jobs lost in coal states.
Bottom line is that there are so many better and smarter alternatives to Cap and Tax.
Cap and trade is nothing more than a way for government to control one more element of our lives. All of you that are willing to pay this tax have to think about those that cannot pay anymore without giving up some other necessity. The government is hiding reports that debunk the global worming junk science. To cover up these reports by the EPA is a crime and this cap and tax bill will die in the Senate. I say to Rodney well done Sir you have once again voted to protect the rights of your constituents.
Re the “cover up” of climate reports:
I would not even attempt to respond with a paraphrase of this item from Paul Krugman in the NYT on Monday; he responds perfectly:
“Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate (on ACES), it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.”
Paul Krugman is a wacko and he does have one thing right there is a group of scientist that have ponied up reports and other information about global warming. They recently found that a satellite sensor was defective and that caused a piece of ice the size of California to be reported as melted. Over the last 11 years the climate has been cooling and the tread is expected to continue for several more years. Remember that you can have your own opinion but you cannot have your own facts.
. One of the attributes of the Obama Administration is a respect for science and for facts. You see that, for instance, with his support for stem cell research.
And you see it again here .. Efforts to stop harmful pollutants will be appreciated by future generations, despite what the naysayers of today say
Ed: Do you think you could try submitting to this blog without name calling or is that too limiting?
Good point Jimmy and the answer is no! Fred Name on thing that had developed from stem cell research just one thing. If there were anything there the private sector would be all over it. In a recent report by the UN agency that is responsible for Climate change over 600 scientist call global warming a over blown alarmist strategy to reduce carbon fuel consumption. The ice caps are not melting the Polar Bear population is not dwindling and for the past 11 years the climate has been cooling. Sorry if I offended you Jimmy, but you need thicker skin.
Of course, there has been nothing has been developed yet from stem cell research; that’s why you do the research … And the private sector is ”all over” it … Government support is money and support for research done in private arenas …
Hogwash: It has nothing to do with the thickness of my skin. It has to do with the ability to discuss topics without resorting to abusive names or insults for those with an opposing point of view. It’s called “civil discourse.” Have you ever heard of it?.
Yes I have, but Ed calling Paul a wacko is nothing compared to what you find on the Daily KO’s or the Huffington Post. The names that have been use in reference to Bush are also real bad so your complaint is somewhat disingenuous.
I just located your blog on Google and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to express except that I have enjoyed visiting it. Terrific site. I will continue popping by this web site whenever you have a new post.