What Are They Hiding?

While Barack Obama is talking terrorism today, Democrat congressional leaders are huddling in secluded suites on Capitol Hill. Why? They are hammering out their differences on a socialized medicine scheme in secret, rather than in the usual conference committee process, which is held in public. Reports broke late yesterday that the liberals would try to bypass the normal legislative process and shut down further debate. Democrats said they didn’t want to give Republicans any more opportunities to slow down or stop the process.

Here’s the truth: Republicans voted unanimously in opposition to this bill, but Democrats control 60 votes – enough to shut down GOP filibusters, which is exactly what the Democrats did. This is entirely their bill. Every significant Republican amendment was defeated. Every GOP attempt to block the bill was shut down. The problem is not conservative opposition, but division within the Left.

So they are once again going behind closed doors as they attempt to socialize nearly 20% of our economy, pass massive new tax hikes, dramatically expand the government (including the IRS) and take away more of our freedom. It is disgusting and outrageous.

It’s also a blatant violation of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 2006 pledge that her party would “lead the most honest, most open and most ethical congress in history.” And it also breaks candidate Obama’s promise that the legislation would not be negotiated behind closed doors but broadcast on C-SPAN. To its credit, C-SPAN is demanding that President Obama and congressional Democrats keep their word and “allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American.”

It does make one wonder: If passing this bill would be such a success, why all the secrecy? What are they hiding?

Why It Matters

Earlier this week, the Obama Administration announced that it would unilaterally regulate carbon emissions unless Congress adopted a cap and trade scheme. I’ve devoted a lot of space in this report to explaining the tremendous implications of cap and trade, but you could summarize it this way: a cap on our prosperity that trades our liberty for a radical ideology. Tuesday, the White House made clear what that ideology is – Soviet-style socialism.

Responding to the EPA’s announcement that it would begin regulating carbon, a top White House official issued a blunt threat to our elected representatives: “If you [Congress] don’t pass this legislation [cap and trade], then … the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area. And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”

That statement is a declaration of war against working families and America’s free-market economy. The White House is telling Congress to pick its poison – cap and trade or command-and-control. That’s extortion, but that’s the “Chicago way,” isn’t it? And when did White House officials start using phrases like “command-and-control”? I thought command-and-control economies died with the Soviet Union.

This threat gives you some idea of just how devastating cap and trade is for the economy. The White House is unintentionally admitting, “We know cap and trade is bad. But the EPA regulations would be really, really bad.” The administration is playing a game of chicken with the economy in the middle of a severe recession.

There is a way out of this – rein in the bureaucracy and reduce the size and scope of government. Congress can amend the Clean Air Act to strip the EPA of authority over carbon emissions. That would be the most logical thing to do. Sadly, many liberal politicians are ideologically biased against common sense and fundamental economics. (If you needed any more evidence of the radical ideology behind climate change, a leader of the Chinese delegation in Copenhagen just announced that population control “fits right into the picture.”)

So, what’s the alternative? Clint Eastwood’s famous line comes to mind: “Go ahead, make my day.” Pollster Scott Rasmussen found that just 24% of American adults felt the EPA should act unilaterally to regulate carbon emissions. Conservatives ought to call Obama’s bluff: They should fight cap and trade tooth and nail, and dare Obama to destroy the economy with his command-and-control ideology. Ulysses S. Grant said, “I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.” Perhaps it’s time to test that method.

S.O.S. – Stop Obama’s Spending!

I could write ten pages today on the errors of President Obama’s economic address yesterday at the liberal Brookings Institution. But I know your time is valuable, so I’ll limit myself to just two points.

First, the president attacked the Bush Administration yet again. To borrow a phrase from the Left, it’s time to move on. You’re in charge now – the buck stops with you, Mr. President. But it was also very odd to watch President Obama attack a program he voted for (TARP) and in doing so condemn many of the officials in his administration who were responsible for that program.

His Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, was president of the New York Federal Reserve and played a key role in the formulation of TARP, as did Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who Obama just nominated for a second term. If Obama thinks so poorly of the program, how much sense does it make to keep these guys around?

Second, his policies aren’t helping. The stimulus spending has been a failure – at least in meeting Obama’s stated goals to create millions of jobs and keep unemployment at 8%. Undaunted, Obama is doubling down on that bad bet – using TARP money to finance another stimulus spending bill.

There is some logic to a government’s deficit spending in bad economic times. But that assumes the government will rein in spending when things improve. This administration shows no sign of reining things in. In fact, Obama said yesterday that his plan is to “spend our way out of this recession.” And he’s hitting the accelerator.

New debt figures were released yesterday. During Obama’s first year in office, the United States government ran a $1.4 trillion deficit. At the rate things are going now, our annual deficit in Obama’s second year could exceed $1.7 trillion. This level of spending is unsustainable, and it’s just not possible to raise taxes high enough to support it. But that won’t stop the liberals from trying, and their planned tax hikes will destroy the economy.

According to Emily Douglas, editor of The Nation, a leftwing magazine, Americans need to reduce consumption to save the planet, and the way to do that is to make things more expensive. Douglas toldCNSNews.com, “Yeah, I think things should be more expensive… If goods are more expensive, it stands to reason that Americans will buy less of them.”

To any rational person, Douglas’ idea is economic insanity. What she fails to appreciate is that there are jobs and families attached to the goods and services that people buy. But to many liberals, what is bad for the economy and your job is good for the environment. Unbelievably, her “logic” has become mainstream thinking in Washington.

According to the Heritage Foundation, in introducing his cap and trade bill in the Senate, John Kerry (D-MA) made this astounding statement: “The United States has already this year alone achieved a six percent reduction in emissions simply because of the downturn in the economy, so we are effectively saying we need to go another 14 percent.”

Kerry is conceding that a strong economy means increased carbon emissions. But, remember, consumption (economic activity) is bad. So, to meet the goal of his cap and trade bill – a 20% reduction in carbon emissions – we should make the recession three times as bad. How can government raise prices to stop consumption? Tax energy.

America’s struggling economy does not need one more tax, but that’s exactly what cap and trade is. You can read more about cap and trade in my weekly Human Events column.

Today’s announcement that the unemployment rate has hit a 26-year high is crushing news to millions of Americans desperately in need of employment and to those hoping that “change” was on the way. The administration promised us that the stimulus plan would hold the line on unemployment. In fact, we were told that if lawmakers didn’t waste time trying to read the bill and just voted “yes,” unemployment would go no higher than 8%. Today it stands at 9.5%, and even Obama now concedes it will hit double digits.

Twenty-six years ago, the nation was mired in a deep recession, much worse than the one we are facing today. How did we get out of it? Back then President Ronald Reagan slashed taxes and did his best to reduce spending. The world marveled at the Reagan Recovery. Today, Barack Obama is spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need. He’s also promising to raise taxes through the roof to create new programs we can’t afford. In short, he’s doing the exact opposite of what worked for Ronald Reagan, and putting America on the fast track to the “Barack Bankruptcy.”

Friday evening, when most of you probably were just beginning to relax after a long week, your elected representatives in Washington were hard at work. I’d like to report that they were working hard for the good of the country, but I can’t say that. In fact, I believe very strongly that what the House did is very detrimental to the well-being of our nation.

Just after 7:15pm Friday, the House voted 219-to-212 to pass Barack Obama’s “cap and trade” bill. Cap and trade is another attempt by Big Government to manipulate the free market. Liberal politicians think that they know better than consumers and business owners, and they intend to force you to use products (alternative sources of energy) that are not economically viable. It’s another example of government picking winners and losers.

The losers under this bill are fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas. The winners are solar, wind and other alternative fuels, which you will end up subsidizing under this bill. To give you an idea of how inefficient and expensive the alternatives are, consider this analysis from the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Energy Policy and the Environment:

“There’s an unavoidable problem with renewable-energy technologies: From an economic standpoint, they’re big losers. …The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in early 2008 that the government subsidizes solar energy at $24.34 per megawatt-hour (MWh) and wind power at $23.37 per MWh. Yet even with decades of these massive handouts, as well as numerous state-level mandates for utilities to use green power, wind and solar energy contribute less than 1% of our nation’s electricity.

“Compare the subsidies to renewables with those extended to natural gas (25 cents per MWh in subsidies), coal (44 cents), hydroelectricity (67 cents), and nuclear power ($1.59). These are the energy sources (along with oil, which undergirds transportation) that do the heavy lifting in our energy economy.

“The alternative technologies at the heart of Mr. Obama’s plan, relying on mandates and far greater handouts, will inevitably raise energy prices — and high power prices are job killers.”
Cap and trade has been described by Michigan Democrat John Dingell, who voted for the bill, as “a great big tax.” Billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who opposes cap and trade, called it “a huge tax … and a fairly regressive one.” So, supporters and opponents agree: It is a big tax and likely one of the largest in American history since it will tax energy – the lifeblood of our economy.

For the record, 96% of the votes to pass this “great big,” “huge and regressive” energy tax came from Democrats, while 94% of Republicans voted against it. The debate now shifts to the Senate, where Democrats will have to come up with 60 votes to prevent a likely filibuster.

On the merits alone, the bill is a disaster. For example: America is the Saudi Arabia of coal, from which half of the nation’s electricity is produced. But 96% of House Democrats just voted to tax coal, making it costlier to use. That makes no sense in the middle of a deep recession and with the president is predicting double digit unemployment. But, then again, this is the same logic that would not let us drill for our own oil when gas was $4.00 a gallon.

But far worse was the abuse of power liberals used to ram through one of the largest tax increases in history. Every politician who voted for this bill is guilty of gross malfeasance because not one of them read it. Not only was the bill over 1,200 pages when the debate began, but a 300-page amendment was mysteriously added just hours before the vote. For that reason alone, every member of the House would have been justified in voting no, and more of them should have.

If conservatives had done that while trying to pass the largest tax cut in history, the media would have howled about dictatorial tactics and the demise of democracy. But, so far, the media have been silent on this abuse of power, and that is a scandal of its own.

Obama’s Energy Tax

Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced yesterday that the House of Representatives will be voting on “cap and trade” legislation this week. A recent Rasmussen poll found that only 24% of likely voters correctly understand the term, and I’d be willing to bet that an even smaller share of Congress has read the 1,200 page bill. Representative John Dingell, a Democrat from Michigan, summarized it best when he said, “Nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one!”

Writing in the Washington Post several weeks ago, Robert Samuelson put it this way: “The centerpiece of Obama’s agenda is a ‘cap and trade’ program. This would be, in effect, a tax on fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas). The idea is to raise their prices so that households and businesses would use less or switch to costlier ‘alternative’ energy sources, such as solar. In general, we would spend more on energy and get less of it.”

Spend more and get less. That sounds like Obama’s rationed healthcare proposal too! That concept is antithetical to economic progress and rising standards of living. But it’s generally the outcome of socialism and leftwing thinking.

According to an analysis by the Heritage Foundation, the “cap and trade” bill before the House will result in a “58 percent increase in gas prices, 90 percent for electricity, and 55 percent for natural gas. Cumulative higher energy costs for a household of four from 2012-2035 would reach nearly $20,000.” The Heritage Foundation also predicts more than one million job losses as a direct result of higher energy costs.

Just think about that for a moment. Here we are in the middle of a deep recession, with the president predicting double-digit unemployment, and this White House and the liberal politicians on Capitol Hill are scheming to impose one of the biggest tax increases in history. It will affect every American who turns on a light switch, drives to work or consumes products, since just about every economic activity involves the use of fossil fuels.