Republicans boycott Senate meetings on climate control
For most of this year, it seems all I have written about has been the health care reform debate. Every time I turn around, there is something new to add to the discussion and even though I get tired of writing about the same old song and dance, it is news and that is what I want to cover on the blog. There are other stories in the news however, stories that should not be overlooked.
As President Obama and the Democratic Party continue to push their massive health care reform packages through the respective houses of Congress, we may have a tendency to forget about some of the other legislation they are working on. One such piece of legislation deals with climate control and how to combat global warming. I have already written an extensive article about this, dealing with some of President Obama’s proposals and how I believe they will raise energy prices for American families.
As the debate on the legislation is about to start in the Senate, it is worth noting that there is a very sharp chasm between the two political parties on this issue. The Republicans are up in arms about the legislation, saying it will dramatically raise the cost of electricity and other energy that is produced from fossil fuels. From the research I have done, I would tend to agree with them.
The Democrats on the other hand, have produced a study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that says the legislation would cost the average American family only $111 each year. That comes out to $9.25 per month. I will be the first to agree that if this study is correct and if the legislation will do what they say, then that is a minimal cost, even for families who are having it very rough financially. However, I am afraid they are overlooking or glossing over two major points.
First, the way the legislation is designed, it allows for a very confusing situation where companies can opt in or opt out of producing more or less greenhouse gas in this country or the next. Are you mixed up yet? I am not at all convinced the legislation will have any significant impact on the climate we all live in. Secondly, they plan to tax the utility companies to force them to reduce their emissions and to help fund “greener” energy source research and technology. Are they so naive that they really believe the utility companies will not pass that tax down to their customers?
As I said earlier, the Republicans are up in arms about this legislation. As the Senate readies itself to begin consideration of this legislation, under the leadership of Senator Barbara Boxer and her Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, they have declared they will boycott the meetings unless a more extensive study into the costs of the legislation is approved. As the Democrats outnumber them 12-7 on the committee, the Republicans do not have the votes to influence the legislation in the first place, so I am unclear of what they hope to gain from this move. Senator Boxer is well known for being very abrasive, so if they are trying to get on her bad side, this a good way to start.
While I am not certain how this tactic will work, I am certain of how it will be played in the media.
The Republicans are bound to be portrayed as obstructionists and as not wanting to help save our planet from global warming. This is in spite of a growing number of scientists who are saying they are not certain global warming even exists. Once again, they will be made out to be the bad guys and I am not convinced that is the case. While I may not agree with the tactic, they may be wondering what is the use of attending the meetings if they can not influence the outcome.
As this legislation begins it’s march through Congress, it will be interesting to see how the battle between the Democrats and the Republicans plays out. If today’s elections turn out in favor of the Republicans, they may come out with a little more leverage. We’ll have to wait and see.
I need to revisit the issue but meanwhile I think the appropriate response for Barbara Boxer and the Democrats is to threaten to hold their breaths unless the Republicans come back to the table. Come on kids, let’s play nicely with the evil enemy.
Darn it, Mike! That’s almost the same thing I was going to say.
My actual response was going to be, “In response to this, the Senate should make the Republicans stand in the corner for half an hour.”
If the Republicans want to make a statement against the legislation, then the appropriate way to do it is to MAKE A STATEMENT, not stage a stupid stunt and go do something other than their jobs.
Wickle´s last blog ..Information v. Abortion
The $9 per month doesn’t sound too bad, but I think that figure just covers the cost of utilities on the home owner. When rates are raised across the board then the cost of absolutely everything we buy goes up groceries, autos, all manufactured items, etc. So that $9 figure quickly inflats to something yet to be determined. And all of this to prevent something that may or may not exist. This is a measure aimed at helping certain special interest and not in the interest of the general public. All in all a very flawed plan.
Ron Russell´s last blog ..Election Fraud Today?
I think that what the Republicans are trying to gain by this boycott is to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that they opposed this legislation, they want to let the Democrats stand alone and take the hit. Democrats will still pass this bill without the Republicans and if the legislation is as bad as I fear it could be the Democrats’ undoing.
You are absolutely right about how the media will portray the Republicans, but hos can they technically be obstructionists when they don’t have enough votes to obstruct? Any undoing of this bill will have to include Democrats.
Mr Pink Eyes´s last blog ..Orrin Hatch questions the constitutionality of healthcare mandates
Although I think I understand why the Republicans are boycotting the meetings, I do not necessarily agree with them. They need to at least be engaged in the process. Staying away does not accomplish that.