Congress could vote on one of the largest tax increases in US history.

[H8tank]

[Perchoutofwater]

The 341 page amendment that was introduced at 3:00AM the morning the bill was voted on apparently has some real humdingers in it. Like all houses in the US will have to be built to California's codes. All new buildings will have to have receptacles for electric cars. I wonder if those receptacles come with coin slots or if the buildings owners are expected to pay for the electricity. This bill is truly disgusting.

[H8tank]

Some fluff:

 

• It creates hundreds of new bureaucracies that benefit Obama's contributors; for example, it creates a "Development Corporation for Renewable Power Borrowing Authority" that issues "Community Building Code Administration Grants" under a "Low Income Community Sustainable Development Capacity Grant Program". This scam serves two purposes: it rewards failed housing programs like those run by Presidential Adviser Valerie Jarrett; it also provides yet another spigot of funds -- in blocks of $1,000,000 -- for groups like ACORN.

 

• It creates and regulates every building code in the country and will purposefully overrule any "city, county, parish, city and county authority, or city and parish authority having local authority to enforce building codes and regulations and to collect fees for building permits."

 

• It reaches into every neighborhood by eradicating "any private covenant, contract provision, lease provision, homeowners' association rule or bylaw, or similar restriction" to force localities to accept "green technologies" whether it fits in the neighorhood or not.

 

• It touches every aspect of water and sewer systems by regulating every "residential water efficient product or service"; ensuring those offerings are rated and forcing state government, local or county government, tribal government, wastewater or sewerage utility, municipal water authority, energy utility, water utility, or nonprofit organization to comply.

 

• It creates revolving loan facilities for "Certified manufacturing clean energy facilities", which provide $500 million blocks of taxpayer dough to promote green manufacturing. Of course, it does so using wages dictated by the Secretary of Labor under the Davis-Bacon Act, a New Deal-era payoff to the unions.

 

• It funds propaganda to ensure that generations of students are brainwashed to believe that carbon dioxide is a toxin. It directs the Secretary of Energy to issue grants to colleges and universities to "study consumer actions to conserve energy", rate effectiveness of consumer education, determine how best to regulate consumers, etc.

 

• It impacts civil aviation with new restrictions and regulations.

 

• It controls construction of all buildings, residential and non-residential alike, ensuring that every structure "complies with... energy efficiency requirements, standards, checklists or ratings systems..."

 

• It mandates "Energy audits" to ensure that a "Green Gestapo" checks to ensure that homeowners and businesses aren't bypassing regulations.

 

• Somehow, it also provides grants (welfare) for tenants in multi-family buildings.

 

• It defines "energy-efficient mortgages" (with our favorite GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so what could possibly go wrong?) that artificially boosts the income of the borrower based upon how much "green technology" is employed. In other words, the Democrats are socially engineering mortgage underwriting standards again, just as they did in the nineties, which will lead to yet another financial disaster.

 

• It also artificially raises maximum mortgage loan amounts based upon green improvements and can reduce down payment requirements.

 

• It will fund "tree planting organizations" (can't you just smell the ACORN-scented fraud?), landscapers and others with taxpayer funds.

 

• It creates new real estate appraisal processes, new training mandates for appraisers and, through an "Appraisal Subcommittee", describes new standards for all real estate valuations based upon green considerations.

 

• It creates an "Alternative Energy Sources State Loan Fund", controlled by another presidential appointee (HUD), to loan money to states for alternative energy projects. Each state or Indian tribe is eligible to receive up to $500,000,000 of taxpayer dough.

 

• It creates "Green Banking Centers", which mandates federal financial agencies and regulatory bodies to provide "green housing information" to anyone seeking a mortgage, a home improvement loan, a home equity loan, or similar products. A new, federal job role called "energy rater" will exist; and will be used to provide guidance and ensure compliance around energy efficiency.

 

• It will also require reporting by the GAO on "affordable mortgages".

 

• It creates a "secondary market for residential renewable energy lease instruments" that will "encourage private investment in the green economy." HUD will determine the residual value all "all renewable energy assets" in order to facilitate a secondary market.

 

• HUD will also "guarantee" the "green portion" of all mortgages issued under the guidelines, which will consist of as much as 10% of each mortgage.

 

• It empowers the Secretary of Agriculture to interfere with farming markets and processes to promote "green technologies".

 

• It defines trading systems of carbon offset credits, term offset credits, emission allowances, compensatory allowances, and similar "currencies" operated by new government-sponsored entities. These "carbon derivative markets" will support the taxation and monetization of all entities required to conform to the new rules.

 

• It affects every industry in America using "tonnage of production" measures; requiring each industry to calculate its "trade intensity" and "greenhouse gas intensity". The administrators of the program will compare other countries emissions by industry (how those numbers are achieved aren't spelled out) to U.S. industries in order to punish or reward companies on an industry basis.

 

• It will guide all treaty law with other countries, using measures such as "competitive imbalances that lead to carbon leakage" as trade levers.

 

• It will create -- with the U.S. Customs Department -- an "International Reserve Allowance Program" (IRAP) that will facilitate the trade, sale, purchase, exchange, transfer and banking of international reserve allowances. All material leaving and entering the country will engage with IRAP to ensure the equitable international balance of carbon leakage.

 

• It will create a "USDA Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction and Sequestration Advisory Committee" to oversee new regulation of farmlands.

 

• It will spend $150,000,000 on an "Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Worker Training Fund", which will involve the Secretaries of Education, Housing and Labor, and appears to be a funnel of money flowing directly to union bosses.

 

• It will spend millions on a "Green Construction Careers Demonstration Project", a boondoggle of the first order and another payoff to union bosses.

 

• It modifies the Earned Income Credit portion of the tax code, providing massive new welfare payments to the poor; and which adjusts for inflation.

 

• It moves these billions in new expenses into programs that govern every aspect of human life including, but not limited to, farming; fertilizers; animal husbandry and animal diets; feedstock; soil; land use (forested, cleared, wetlands, etc); "manure management"; and creates gigantic new government bureaucracies (unionized, of course) to regulate, monitor and control American citizens.

[Perchoutofwater]

Dennis Miller on global warming.

[Front Row]

Leave 'em alone Perch. We've got more important things going on. Don't you know that Michael"the pedophile" Jackson just died?

Boo fricken Hoo. Fixed.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Front Row

[Front Row]

Sorry bout that MJ distraction.

As far as the original topic.

After we cripple our economy for this " crisis" , does anyone think China and India follow suit?

[Clubfoothead]

About time.

 

I know it's not as sexy as invading, occupying and rebuilding the wrong country to the tune of a trillion US taxpayer dollars but at least there is some logic to it. This plan probably won't get 4,200 American soldiers killed either.

 

Love it or leave it.

[H8tank]

Well clubfootdead, you have rendered yourself irrelevant.

[Clubfoothead]

Well clubfootdead, you have rendered yourself irrelevant.

 

 

I'm sorry but I will need you to give me a bull$hit link for proof.

[Perchoutofwater]

About time.

 

I know it's not as sexy as invading, occupying and rebuilding the wrong country to the tune of a trillion US taxpayer dollars but at least there is some logic to it. This plan probably won't get 4,200 American soldiers killed either.

 

Love it or leave it.

 

Do you really support this bill as written? I know you feel something needs to be done for the environment, but this bill does very little for the environment. It is more of a tax and an expansion of government. It is also taking power away from state and local governments and putting it in the hands of Washington. I've really not heard anyone truly support this bill for what it does for the environment. I've heard a few socialist that like it because of the expansion of government it will cause and the taxation that one can assume will be redistributed at some point, but nobody has heralded it as a great environmental achievement.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Do you really support this bill as written? I know you feel something needs to be done for the environment, but this bill does very little for the environment. It is more of a tax and an expansion of government. It is also taking power away from state and local governments and putting it in the hands of Washington. I've really not heard anyone truly support this bill for what it does for the environment. I've heard a few socialist that like it because of the expansion of government it will cause and the taxation that one can assume will be redistributed at some point, but nobody has heralded it as a great environmental achievement.

 

No comment on the specifics of the bill, especially since it's not even in its final form yet. I will say that if you are serious about a bill that focuses on actual environmental goals, you have to do it at a federal level. It does no good if a handful of states go green while the rest so screw it. I know, the same case can be made for the US versus China, India, etc. but that's another issue.

Edited July 1, 2009 by CaP'N GRuNGe

[Perchoutofwater]

No comment on the specifics of the bill, especially since it's not even in its final form yet. I will say that if you are serious about a bill that focuses on actual environmental goals, you have to do it at a federal level. It does no good if a handful of states go green while the rest so screw it. I know, the same case can be made for the US versus China, India, etc. but that's another issue.

 

I agree with your assertion that anything that anything that is done will need to be done federally from an air quality and water quality issue. I do not think imposing building codes in a one size fits all form is good, which the current bill (amendment) does. If anything it could be argued that it does more to harm the environment than it does to improve it, in causing over engineering in structures. One size fits all rarely actually fit well. I'd also point out again this bill does very little to reduce greenhouse gasses (assuming you believe they are problem) which is what this bill was sold on. It is simply a revenue generator (tax) and a expansion of federal power (power grab).

 

You also bring up a good point about China and India. Our GDP is roughly 3.25 times greater than that of China but it is estimated China produces 114,940,000 metric tons more CO2 than the US. Our GDP is roughly 11.8 times greater than that of China, but only produce 4 times as much C02. Both of these countries are growing significantly and are increasing their manufacturing abilities and are improving their quality of life, both of which would tend to increase CO2 production. So not only does this bill do nothing to address worse offenders than us, but it really does nothing to address our offenses (if they truly are offenses). It only makes production in this country cost more, which increase production in India and China which already produce significantly more CO2 than we do as a percentage of GDP.

 

ETA: You say you haven't paid any attention to the bill as it isn't final, but doesn't it make more sense to pay attention before it is final so that if it isn't to your liking you can contact your senator and voice your objections? If you wait until it is final and signed into law, there really isn't much to say about it.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Perchoutofwater

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I agree with your assertion that anything that anything that is done will need to be done federally from an air quality and water quality issue. I do not think imposing building codes in a one size fits all form is good, which the current bill (amendment) does. If anything it could be argued that it does more to harm the environment than it does to improve it, in causing over engineering in structures. One size fits all rarely actually fit well. I'd also point out again this bill does very little to reduce greenhouse gasses (assuming you believe they are problem) which is what this bill was sold on. It is simply a revenue generator (tax) and a expansion of federal power (power grab).

 

You also bring up a good point about China and India. Our GDP is roughly 3.25 times greater than that of China but it is estimated China produces 114,940,000 metric tons more CO2 than the US. Our GDP is roughly 11.8 times greater than that of China, but only produce 4 times as much C02. Both of these countries are growing significantly and are increasing their manufacturing abilities and are improving their quality of life, both of which would tend to increase CO2 production. So not only does this bill do nothing to address worse offenders than us, but it really does nothing to address our offenses (if they truly are offenses). It only makes production in this country cost more, which increase production in India and China which already produce significantly more CO2 than we do as a percentage of GDP.

 

ETA: You say you haven't paid any attention to the bill as it isn't final, but doesn't it make more sense to pay attention before it is final so that if it isn't to your liking you can contact your senator and voice your objections? If you wait until it is final and signed into law, there really isn't much to say about it.

 

My congressmen vote no on everything so it doesn't matter what i tell them. (McCain, Kyle, Jeff Flake)

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Thomas Friedman - Just Do It

[H8tank]

Proverbs 24:21-22 (King James Version)

 

21My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change:

 

22For their calamity shall rise suddenly; and who knoweth the ruin of them both?

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Ok, who gave moneymakers H8's password.

[Perchoutofwater]

Thomas Friedman - Just Do It

 

See, it is that kind of thinking over the last 3 or 4 decades that has gotten us into the mess we are in today. Well, we like the intentions of the bill, even if it has some stuff in it we can't stand. Let's stop looking at intentions, and stop settling for crap.

[Azazello1313]

interesting article on the costs of the cap and trade bill

 

The United States emits about 9 billion tons of CO2 per year. Therefore, at a rate of $15/ton fee for emission indulgences, the bill would impose a tax of $135 billion per year on the nation. Divided by the U.S. population of 300 million, that works out to a cost of $450 per year levied on every American man, woman or child, or $1,800 for a family of four.

 

Burning one ton of coal produces about three tons of CO2. So a tax of $15 per ton of CO2 emitted is equivalent to a tax of $45/ton on coal. The price of Eastern anthracite coal runs in the neighborhood of $45/ton, so under the proposed system, such coal would be taxed at a rate of about 100 percent. The price of Western bituminous coal is currently about $12/ton. This coal would therefore be taxed at a rate of almost 400 percent. Coal provides half of America’s electricity, so such extraordinary imposts could easily double the electric bills paid by consumers and businesses across half the nation.

 

A gallon of petroleum-derived liquid fuel produces about 20 pounds, or 1 percent of a ton, of CO2 when burned. But it takes about 1.5 gallons of oil to produce one gallon of refined liquid fuel. So a $15/ton tax on CO2 emissions will also cause an increase in the price of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel on the order of $0.22/gallon. This will not only hit consumers’ pockets, but increase transport costs throughout the economy, thereby disabling businesses and increasing unemployment levels still more.

 

and of course, those who spend a higher percentage of their mincome on gas, food, and utilities will be disproportionately hit, making this, interestingly enough, an enormously regressive new tax. but hey, at least they're raising some revenue with it.

[H8tank]

When House Democratic leaders were rounding up votes Friday for the massive climate-change bill, they paid special attention to their colleagues from Ohio who remained stubbornly undecided.

 

They finally secured the vote of one Ohioan, veteran Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Toledo, the old-fashioned way. They gave her what she wanted - a new federal power authority, similar to Washington state's Bonneville Power Administration, stocked with up to $3.5 billion in taxpayer money available for lending to renewable energy and economic development projects in Ohio and other Midwestern states.

 

Sure like this new tone in washington.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/j...e-climate-bill/

[bushwacked]

Here is a link to a comprehensive study by the non-partisan Pew center on that examines some of the potential economic impacts from the cap and trade bill: http://www.eenews.net/public/25/10808/feat...ument_cw_01.pdf

 

Climate legislation similar to what is currently being considered in the House would not cause energy-intensive companies to move overseas en masse or lose major market share to foreign competitors operating in countries without global-warming regulations, the study from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change finds.

 

The greater financial hit for such businesses would come from consumers switching to lower-emission products, but that cost could be cushioned through policies such as direct rebates to heavy industries, according to the study.

 

“It is clear from this analysis that fear of competitive harm should not stand as an obstacle to strong climate change policy," said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center.

 

Are any of us really surprised a nonpartisan detailed study has concluded that a lot of the ring wing Have to agree here'ing towards the bill is due to unfounded and misleading fear tactics?

[H8tank]

Really? So coal powered electricity isn't going to become more expensive? Explain that one.

[dmarc117]

Here is a link to a comprehensive study by the non-partisan Pew center on that examines some of the potential economic impacts from the cap and trade bill: http://www.eenews.net/public/25/10808/feat...ument_cw_01.pdf

 

 

 

Are any of us really surprised a nonpartisan detailed study has concluded that a lot of the ring wing Have to agree here'ing towards the bill is due to unfounded and misleading fear tactics?

 

 

whats worse.....

 

claiming the world is going end in a fireball or a bill that will probably raise prices for all of us?

 

its a tough one.

[Perchoutofwater]

Here is a link to a comprehensive study by the non-partisan Pew center on that examines some of the potential economic impacts from the cap and trade bill: http://www.eenews.net/public/25/10808/feat...ument_cw_01.pdf

 

 

 

Are any of us really surprised a nonpartisan detailed study has concluded that a lot of the ring wing Have to agree here'ing towards the bill is due to unfounded and misleading fear tactics?

 

I'm sorry , but I just don't buy that. If you increase the cost of electricity, you increase the cost of manufacturing. Add to that and CO2 that might be produced in operations other than the generation of power that a manufacturer might have, and you have just made manufacturing items in the US much harder. Unless we make the same mistakes we have in the past and go towards protectionism, I don't see any way this doesn't kill what is left of US manufacturing.

[bushwacked]

CBO predicts that the actual cost of bill will cost a family about a postage stamp a day.

 

Waxman and Markey are relying on a June 19 Congressional Budget Office analysis of their bill. The CBO is a well-respected, independent arm of Congress, but we have found its findings are occasionally mischaracterized by members of Congress. So we wanted to check whether Waxman is correctly summarizing the CBO's findings......He was close — off by just 4 cents — and he indicated it was an approximation because he said "about a postage stamp a day." So we find the statement True.

 

I found this interesting also:

 

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, says that cap-and-trade could raise the average family's annual energy bill by $1,241. House Republicans have said that cap-and-trade could cost consumers up to $3,100, a figure they say came from a Massachusetts Institute of Technology report. But the writers of that report admonished the GOP for incorrectly interpreting their work; intially, the authors predicted it would cost consumers about $340 annually, and have since updated that estimate to $800.

 

Wow, interesting; why would the GOP and their right wing henchmen pass forth such false exaggerations as truths?

[bpwallace49]

CBO predicts that the actual cost of bill will cost a family about a postage stamp a day.

 

 

 

I found this interesting also:

 

 

 

Wow, interesting; why would the GOP and their right wing henchmen pass forth such false exaggerations as truths?