Red Dot in a Red State's Blog

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry A. Waxman, plans on having two hearings per week until he completes a comprehensive revamping of the country’s environmental policy. This according to a Politico article published today (link). In the process he is ruffling a few feathers, most notably that of Charlie B. “Why don’t you mind your g*damned business” Rangel (D-NY) of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Turf battles are commonplace on Capitol Hill, especially over major legislation, but this one — should it shape up — could have a distinct impact on the substance of the legislation Congress enacts, on an issue that could divide Democrats more than any other in President Barack Obama’s agenda.

The basic goal is an overall reduction in carbon emissions, with rebates to help households pay for higher energy costs. But how to achieve that goal is the rub, and there are differences between the Waxman approach and those being offered by members of Rangel’s panel.

Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) both prefer a cap-and-trade measure — the president included hundreds of billions in revenue from this program in his first budget blueprint — giving Waxman an advantage at this early stage in the debate. Ways and Means members are considering a more direct tax on carbon emissions, with rebates on utility bills passed back to consumers.

“I think we are going to end up with a cap-and-trade bill,” Waxman told reporters last week, before reiterating his willingness to work with other committees of jurisdiction as Congress and the White House lurch toward a comprehensive climate policy.

Waxman, who was responsible for major changes to the 1990 Clean Air Act has now turned his attention to climate change. Initial CBO estimates for his cap-and-trade system show it generating between $50 and $300 billion during the first year of trading. This money would go to technology research, mitigating global warming, and providing offsets for consumer’s higher energy bills.

First, there is alot of room between $50 and $300 billion. I’ve written business plans before…who are the nitwits who came up with these numbers? That’s like some small business going into a bank, claiming first year sales between $50,000 and $3 million dollars! Second, all of it is a hidden tax. Everything that uses energy will increase in price to cover this money. Food will increase, gasoline will increase, heck, movie tickets will increase!

Getting to the destination for your increased taxes, technology research I can understand, but why does technology research require government funding? If it was any good, the private sector would be dumping money into it. Just research what happened to my previous field, fusion energy, when the government got involved (small tangent…thanks Al Gore…thanks alot…creep).

Mitigating global warming…mitigating global warming…hmm…assuming that global warming is a) happening, and b) controllable, does anyone have the slightest idea how to do that? [insert sound of chirping crickets]. Giant mirrors in the Sahara? Millions of snowmachines? Growing an Audrey-II?

Then the kicker, compensating people for rising energy prices. Huh? If all of our energy prices go up, and the government is taxing energy, and they are going to compensate us for our rising energy prices – then all we’re looking at is another money laundering scheme. The real question is who are they going to compensate. I’m positive it will not be you or me.

People in Waxman’s 30th District who still have their sanity: Write this nit-wit. Blow up his phone, fax, and email server. Fight this kookyness before someone loses an eye.