What happened to the days of our elected officials actually writing the bills? We have a few members of Congress who actually know what is in the bills they submit as they have actually written a good portion of the bill. Unfortunately we have way too many who don't bother to read a bill they submit. Some never bother to read bills before they vote but rely on people to tell them how to vote. That is no way to run Government at any level. Those elected officials who vote without reading or submit bills they didn't write, are abdicating their responsibilities as our elected officials and need defeated.
Speaker Pelosi on the Obamacare bill advocated voting for it so they could learn what was in the bill. What? The Speaker openly admitted they should vote without reading which the House has been doing a lot of this year, but she actually said it this time in public. Pelosi brings a bill to the floor, little debate, and it is passed because the Republicans are in too few of number to make a difference. Chances of Pelosi being back as Speaker are slim to none between the number of seats the Republicans will pick up in the House and the dislike many Democrat House Members now have for Pelosi and her dictatorial reign as Speaker.
With so many articles being written on the pending vote healthcare, we are once again focusing on Energy and the Green movement especially with Green Jobs and Wind Energy. This debate that took place included Van Jones, the Obama Green Czar who resigned because of his connections to radical groups and his comments. It is obvious from the debate he is still considered an experty on energy and green jobs by the Progressives.
The interesting arguments in this debate reflect the strong idiology of the two debators even when they agree on what needs to be done -- Van Jones is all about the Government control of creating green jobs while Prof Morris is about the private sector creating and sustaining the jobs. It is a debate that needs heard over and over because it pits Big Government supporters against the private sector. Entrepreneurs do not come from the Government but from private sector individuals who have the ideas for a 'better mousetrap.'
Green jobsWe found this debate a perfect example of the Progressive's agenda where they (liberals) think the Government is better equipped to be in charge rather than the private sector. One thing America has always been noted for is "Yankee Ingenuity" and that doesn't come from the Government -- in fact many times the Government is a roadblock and a hindrance not a help to entrepreneurs. We believe that the Government already asserts too much control over the Energy sector by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and their rulings which in many instances are never voted on by Congress. It is time for that to change so that no regulatory agency can make rules that are not approved byMembers of Congress.
This house believes that creating green jobs is a sensible aspiration for governments.
Rebuttal statements
Defending the Motion
Van Jones
Author, "The Green-Collar Economy"
In a world of precarious energy supplies, mounting climate concerns and a global race for clean-energy jobs, Andy Morriss suggests that Americans should sit back and leave our energy security solely to the magic of the marketplace.
Against the motion
Andrew P. Morriss
H. Ross and Helen Workman Prof. of Law and Prof. of Business, University of Illinois College of Law
Political frailties dictate that we disclaim the power Van Jones seeks to mobilise and instead build institutions resistant to the disease of self-interest. Dictating our energy future from Washington, DC flunks that test.
The moderator's rebuttal remarks
Mar 12th 2010 Oliver Morton
The two sides are clearly agreed on the fact that the private sector will be responsible for actually producing jobs, green or otherwise. What they differ on is the extent to which government should, by means of policies intended to provide environmental benefit, seek to shape the decisions that surround that job creation. In the helpful metaphor introduced by Robert Stavins, those who want to hit two birds with one stone need to show that the birds are close together, and that their stone throwing skills are up to the task. (Demonstrating that there are no nearby glasshouses at risk might also be a help …)
Van Jones makes the undeniable point that within the energy sector there is no question of green jobs policy distorting an otherwise free market; the market starts off hugely influenced, perhaps compromised, by legacy subsidies and other interventions of all sorts. He also points to studies saying that investment in various green technologies and industries produces more employment than investment in those subsidised hydrocarbons, though it is not obviously the case that investment would come at the expense only of fossil-fuel investment. (On this issue of opportunity costs, if either side would care to look a little further at the study of Spanish green jobs by researchers at King Juan Carlos University, it seems to me that many of the commenters would be grateful.)
Mr Jones might give further attention, though, to the implicit message of the existing distorting subsidies, a message brought up by commenter Kenavi: they show how long such incentives can outlive their useful purpose, if they ever had one, and warn that green job policies may do the same. Both Andy Morriss and Mr Jones agree that jobs created by American ethanol policy are not very green. It seems to me that Mr Jones needs to address the question of how future green jobs interventions that prove un-green might be dealt with, in the face of the political truth that the green failures of ethanol policy have not been.
The proposer's rebuttal remarks
Mar 12th 2010, Van Jones
In a world of precarious energy supplies, mounting climate concerns and a global race for clean-energy jobs, Andy Morriss suggests that Americans should sit back and leave our energy security solely to the magic of the marketplace.
I share Mr Morriss's preference for market-based solutions, but in this case his prescription is not rooted in the reality of today's distorted and dysfunctional energy markets. He claims that the marketplace is best at pricing energy and picking technologies, but that is simply not so when the market is so heavily tilted in favour of fossil fuels.
Nor do today's energy markets allow us to respond effectively to the critical challenge of our time: global warming. Our energy troubles arise from a whole series of government policy failures and staggering market failures. We simply cannot rely solely on the market to fix our problems without first taking steps to repair our markets.
The markets for new energy sources are being strangled by government support for old energy sources. For instance, the true costs of burning dirty energy are not properly accounted for. Governments spend billions of dollars subsidising Big Oil companies and other polluters. And power grids were designed to service huge, centralised power plants, not to link multiple points of distributed, intermittent renewable sources of energy
We need deft government action to address these challenges and create the conditions for a multibillion-dollar clean-tech energy boom.
The opposition's rebuttal remarks
Mar 12th 2010 Andrew P. Morriss
Van Jones and I agree that "the private sector, not the government, can and must be the main driver in creating green jobs". We agree that government subsidies for coal, oil and nuclear power are a serious problem. We interpret that agreed baseline in quite different ways, however.
Mr Jones sees subsidies as inevitable: it is a "truth" that "all forms of energy are heavily regulated and subsidised". Rather than get rid of wasteful subsidies that transfer money from consumers to special interests in fossil fuels, his solution is to give others their chance at the trough. And that has what has happened. Far from levelling the playing field, these new subsidies dwarf the old ones: solar and wind receive subsidies of over $23/Mwh compared with the $0.44/Mwh for conventional coal and $0.25/Mwh for natural gas.
He may be right about the politics—Republicans and Democrats quickly lose their zeal for ending the special interest subsidies and tax breaks they campaigned against once they get elected—but he couldn't be more wrong on the merits. That the [name your villain] industry was successful at getting subsidies in the past does not mean we should give subsidies to others today, it means we should stop all the subsidies.
Public choice theory identified a key insight about government in the 1960s and subsequent work has repeatedly demonstrated its truth. Concentrated, organised interest groups (oil companies, solar power companies, etc get benefits from governments at the expense of diverse, dispersed groups (the general public). Special interests have the advantage because the benefits received are concentrated and valuable enough to make hiring lawyers and lobbyists to manipulate the legislative and regulatory processes worthwhile. The general public, on the other hand, loses too little on each subsidy to motive a lobbying trip to Washington. As I noted in my opening, we see this in Mr Jones' field of alternative energy: the wasteful, environmentally damaging corn-based ethanol programme now deeply entrenched in our regulatory system is the result of the 1990s versions of the arguments for green energy Mr Jones makes now.
Mr Jones and I agree that the key to our energy future is innovation. We disagree about the role of the government in fostering innovation. Ironically, Mr Jones's examples of successful federal spurs to innovation involve considerable environmental degradation. For example, he points to the interstate highway system, which is usually classified as a subsidy to the oil industry by alternative energy proponents since it facilitated the dramatic growth of the car industry after the second world war and helped Americans move from cities to the suburbs green advocates routinely criticise. Even more amazingly, he cites the Tennessee Valley Authority, one of the most environmentally damaging federal programmes ever created and one repeatedly charged with violating the environmental justice norms for which Mr Jones is famous.
Except: Read more of the Debate at Economist.com
If you live in area with ozone problems (BTW, EPA keeps dropping the allowable limit), then you are paying extra for reformulated gasoline every summer which some experts don't believe helps the environment at all, but it costs 10 cents a gallon more and some vehicles people claim do not run well on the gas. Ethanol was the brainchild of the corn industry but does it work? Many thing it is hype. You cannot trust the EPA to give the facts as they spin as much as any agency of Government. All we know is when we go to Dallas in the summer, we gas up before hitting the Metroplex and don't fill up again until we are outside the reformulated area of the Metroplex.
EPA is one organization that most Americans are well aware of as they are extremely intrusive in our every day lives in many cases with no justification. They have way too much power and a large percentage of liberals who believe the Government is the answer to all problems work for the EPA and their associated 'think tanks.' The Progressive Think Tanks are no more then Government funded liberals aka progressives of the 60's who want to impose their will on all of us. How the 60's hippies became the energy experts of today in the Government and in think tanks is beyond us. Maybe that is why some of the energy policy is so screwed up -- hippies of the 60's are in charge today!
The day we see the members of this Pelosi Congress listen to the Governors is the day a holiday should be declared. This group of Democrats is not interested in anything that remotely sounds like Common Sense or would lessen their power in any agency. They should be listening to some of the Governors but like everything else Pelosi and her Progressives know what is best for everyone. (sarcasm) We are so looking forward to November 2nd and getting rid of the elitist attitude that Government knows what is best for our everyday lives.
Friday March 12, 2010We wish we could say we were shocked by these headlines of Democrats not permitting Oversight Hearings but since Sen Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is the Chair we are not surprised or shocked. One very important thing to remember is that Boxer is up for reelection on November 2nd. We know it will be hard to defeat her but defeating Boxer would be the icing on the cake after Senator Scott Brown won the seat long held by Senator Kennedy in Massachusetts. Scott Brown showed it can be done and come January 2011, we hope to see Boxer permanently retired to Northern California with the rest of the Progressives that live there.
Congress should listen to states on the EPA
Governors point out 'very real potential for economic harm'
THE governors of 18 states and two territories - including Democrats Joe Manchin and Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear - have called on Congress to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency.
The governors, in a letter to congressional leaders, cited the failure of the administration to weigh the economic fallout of EPA's intention to regulate greenhouse gases.
"As governors, we have the responsibility to protect jobs, promote economic growth and mitigate any threats to financial stability in our states," said the statement. "We oppose EPA regulation of greenhouse gases that fails to account for these responsibilities."
The agency "is not equipped to consider the very real potential for economic harm when regulating emissions," the governors said. "Without that consideration, regulation will place heavy administrative burdens on state environmental quality agencies, will be costly to consumers and could be devastating to the economy and jobs."
In addition, the letter said:
"A simple delay of EPA action will do nothing to provide relief to Americans looking for jobs or for businesses looking to make new investments in our states. Furthermore, such delay of EPA action only creates more uncertainty in a difficult fiscal environment."
The idea that a small group of federal bureaucrats
in the nation's capital can - without any input from the representatives of the public - make such huge decisions so cavalierly is exactly why the 13 colonies rebelled some 235 years ago.
The slogan then was no taxation without representation. Today, the cry should be no regulation without representation.
Excerpt: Read More at Daily Mail.com
It is a travesty to not hold Oversight Hearings, but then all the Democrats and Obama seem focused on is takeover of 1/6th of our economy by socializing healthcare. They can call it by any name they want but the bottom line is socialized medicine now matter how they dress it up. Now it seems they want to nationalize our "Energy" as their next target. Can you say 'Chavez' the Venezuelan President who nationalized the oil industry in Venezuela? Think about it -- isn't this what Obama and the Democrats want to do our our Oil and Gas Industry?
No oversight hearings mean no facts come out!
Senator Barrasso: Why Won’t Congressional Democrats Permit Science Oversight Hearings? (PJM Exclusive)Last Friday, we wrote about DOE Emails to Wind Energy Lobbyists and how the AWPA was part of the attack on the Spanish study that showed the high cost of green jobs along with causing the loss of other jobs. Recognizing that the new head of AWPA, Denise Bode, came to AWPA from lobbying for Natural Gas still has us shaking our head especially when she praised the Obama stimulus after taking over as head in January 2009 -- same month Obama was sworn in as President. With Boone Pickens involvement along with George Soros who knows where this will lead.
Senator John Barrasso M.D., in an exclusive interview with Pajamas Media, discusses science oversight — or the lack of it — in the Democratic Congress.
Senator John Barrasso M.D. (R-WY), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, recently released a report [PDF]on the subcommittee’s work in the first year of the Obama Administration. The report has less to it than might be imagined — in the first year, the subcommittee has failed to meet or to hold a single hearing of its own. “There were exactly two hearings in 2009,” Barrasso said, “a joint hearing with the full committee on June 9th, and a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife on July 8th.”
The subcommittee was chartered by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, to perform oversight on the science involved with environmental issues. “Senator Boxer wanted the subcommittee to perform oversight on the Bush Administration, not the current administration,” Senator Barrasso said. “We have made repeated requests to the chairman of the subcommittee [Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)] to hold hearings [in the past year] but no hearings have been held. It has been a lost year for science oversight in the Senate.”
“There have been plenty of reasons to hold hearings,” Barrasso said. “For example, in April 2009, Shawne McGibbon, a career attorney with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), wrote part of a memo saying the EPA had not considered the economic consequences of an Endangerment Finding for carbon dioxide.” When the memo became known, McGibbons was “smeared as a ‘Bush holdover’” even though she was hired during the Clinton Administration. Later, McGibbons was replaced by President Obama.
In another incident, Dr. Alan Carlin, a 39-year veteran of the EPA, prepared a report skeptical of the real human impact on the climate. Carlin (who has since written several articles for Pajamas Media) was instructed not to disseminate the report and, as Kim Strassel reported in the Wall Street Journal, was denounced by “unnamed EPA officials” as a “climate change denier.” Dr. Carlin eventually left the EPA.
Excerpt: Read more at Pajamas Media
We are happy to say that IBD has followed up on the cover-up we are learning about from the emails.
The Big Wind-Power Cover-Up
Posted 03/12/2010 07:12 PM ET
Scandal: Spain exposed the boondoggle of wind power in 2009, discrediting an idea touted by the Obama administration. In response, U.S. officials banded with trade lobbyists to hide the facts.
It was a cold day at the Energy Department when researchers at King Juan Carlos University in Spain released a study showing that every "green job" created by the wind industry killed off 4.27 other jobs elsewhere in the Spanish economy.
Research director Gabriel Calzada Alvarez didn't object to wind power itself, but found that when a government artificially props up this industry with subsidies, higher electrical costs (31%), tax hikes (5%) and government debt follow. Fact is, these subsidies have the same "Cuisinart" effect on jobs as wind-generating propeller blades have on birds. Every green job costs $800,000 to create and 90% of them are temporary, he found.
Alvarez made no bones about the lessons of Spain for the Obama administration, which has big plans for "green jobs." His report warned of "considerable employment consequences" from "self-inflicted economic wounds." It forecast that the U.S. could lose 6.6 million jobs if it followed Spain, and it "should certainly expect its results to follow such a tendency."
A few months later, Danish researchers at the Center for Politiske Studier came to the same conclusion about subsidized wind power from their own country's experience.
"It is fair to assess that no wind energy to speak of would exist if it had to compete on market terms," their report said.
Straightforward experience, facts and the logical conclusions about policy failure in Europe should be de rigueur in science, and the reports coming from nations with long experience in wind power ought to be taken seriously.
But they had no place in the Obama administration, which had declared a "green jobs" agenda with $2.3 billion in tax credits to create 17,000 "high-quality green jobs."
"Building a robust clean energy sector is how we will create the jobs of the future," said President Obama.
So at the release of the reports — as well as publication of a critical column by the Washington Post's George Will — bureaucrats at the Energy Department went into defensive mode. Instead of doing like John Maynard Keynes (who changed his conclusions when the facts changed), they "huddled" with left-wing activists and trade lobbyists to hide the facts and smear the truth-tellers from Europe. They cooked up their own "memo" to discredit the foreign academics, effectively making the Energy Department a taxpayer-subsidized arm of green activists.
Excerpt: Read More at IBD
Raw Story 
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment