Garden State Patriot

Seth Grossman of Shore News Today has an interesting piece on the c(r)ap and trade bill passed by the House last Friday. According to Seth, this damaging legislation is nothing more than a slush fund for Obama and his cronies. Nice.

Last week the House of Representatives approved HR 2454, the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” by a vote of 219 to 212. If the Senate agrees, this proposed new law will create a huge slush fund of billions of dollars by jacking up every gas and electric bill in America. The money would then be “redistributed” to selected businesses, unions and other groups who are “friends” of Obama and the Democrats.

The House almost rejected the bill when 45 Democrats with principle voted no. The bill passed only because eight unprincipled Republican Congressmen sold out to vote yes.

Three of those “traitors within the gates” are from New Jersey – Frank LoBiondo (Salem, Cumberland, Cape May Gloucester, and Atlantic counties), Chris Smith (Mercer, Burlington, Monmouth and Ocean counties), and Leonard Lance (Hunterdon, Middlesex, Somerset and Union counties). All three were strong backers of Chris Christie for governor over Steve Lonegan during last month’s primary election.

Left-wing Democrat Henry Waxman of California introduced the bill as a 1,200-page proposed law just six weeks before it was brought to a vote. Hundreds of pages with special “earmarks” were later added to buy enough congressmen to win passage. One amendment of more than 300 pages was added at 3 a.m. the morning of the vote. Nobody knows exactly what is in it.

(more…)

Well, it seems Congressman Steve Rothman is doing his best to boost the sales of Government Motors. The latest little gimmick is a bill called ‘Cash for Clunkers.’ The bill gives vouchers of up to $4500 to people who trade in their gas-guzzlers for more fuel efficient vehicles.

Congressman Steve Rothman (D-NJ) voted in favor of the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act, H.R. 2751, also known as the “cash-for-clunkers” bill. Consumers may trade in their old, gas-guzzling vehicles and receive vouchers worth up to $4,500 to help pay for new, more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. The program will provide for approximately one million new car or truck purchases. The Act passed the U.S. House 298-119. It now must make it through the Senate.

“By supporting new, fuel-efficient car and truck purchases, Congress today passed common sense legislation to spur car sales at a time when auto companies and dealers are suffering in this tough economy,” said Rothman. “At the same time we are providing a boost to our clean energy economy and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I hope New Jerseyans, who tend to spend a lot of time in their cars, take advantage of this new incentive.”

The cash-for-clunkers plan will run for one year, offering vouchers to people who trade in vehicles with average city/highway fuel economy of less than 18 miles a gallon to buy a more-efficient new car or light truck. The proposed program would offer the maximum $4,500 voucher for people to use to buy a car that gets at least 10 more mpg or a truck that is at least five mpg more efficient.

Now, I am by no means on expert on this but a few questions come to mind. Where’s this money coming from? How many people out there are actually driving passenger cars that get less than 18mpg? Even if every eligible car/truck owner turns in their vehicle, how much will this actually do to make us less dependent on foreign oil?

Yes, call me cynical but I have my doubts that this bill would do anything in the way of seriously helping the environment or lessening our dependence on foreign oil.

However, I have a better version of a ‘Cash for Clunkers’ bill that is certainly no gimmick. In my version, it’s quite simple. We immediately force all Democrats to resign their offices and replace them with Republicans who will actually cut our taxes. Now THAT’S a bill that most assuredly is no lemon.

Cross-posted at Red County and Conservatives with Attitude!

It just gets more comical every day. We have a Treasury Secretary that cares more about global warming than economic prosperity. 

WASHINGTON, March 4 (Reuters) – U.S. oil and natural gas producing companies should not receive federal subsidies in the form of tax breaks because their businesses contribute to global warming, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress on Wednesday.

It was one of the sharpest attacks yet on the oil and gas industry by a top Obama administration official, reinforcing the White House stance that new U.S. energy policy will focus on promoting renewable energy sources like wind and solar power and rely less on traditional fossil fuels like oil as America tackles climate change.

“We don’t believe it makes sense to significantly subsidize the production and use of sources of energy (like oil and gas) that are dramatically going to add to our climate change (problem). We don’t think that’s good economic policy and we think changing those incentives is good for the country,” Geithner told the Senate Finance Committee at a hearing on the White House’s proposed budget for the 2010 spending year.

Perhaps if people like Mr. Geithner paid his taxes he wouldn’t have to promote taxing our energy and gas companies up the wazoo.

Seriously, I don’t even know what to say anymore except, “We are in heap big trouble.”

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

Governor Corzine appears to be doing one thing right. Via the Energy Master Plan, the Governor recognizes the need for increasing the state’s supply of energy resources to meet future demand (which is expected to increase some 30% by 2030). As such, the Governor has green-lighted 3 natural gas projects off New Jersey’s coast which will be implemented by Liberty Natural Gas (LNG).

Unfortunately, this common sense step for addressing our energy needs has been met with criticism from the environmentalist group Clean Ocean Action (COA). COA opposes the project on every level. In essence, there is no acceptance of a balance between environmental concerns and the need to produce the energy we need for our economy and our quality of life. Moreover, there is no acceptance that we need short-term answers (such as harvesting natural gas and oil off our shores) until long-term solutions (such as solar energy) become more feasible. This closed-mindedness is what renders environmental groups like COA extreme (not to mention somehow being to the left of the quite liberal Corzine).

COA’s primary criticisms of the project include claims of:

• Safety concerns
• Harm of the environment (the group claims we’d witness an increase in our carbon footprint of 40%)
• Significant damage to marine ecosystems
• Being a potential threat to coastal economies
• Increased dependence on foreign energy
• Increased energy costs through global price wars

However, in looking at the LNG website – as well as researching the Pickens Plan website – I find these criticisms to be either overstated, if not altogether inaccurate. For example:

• Safety is a top priority for LNG and all energy companies are subject to strict regulations in this area. The industry has a record of safety with no major accidents for some 45 years.
• LNG contends that impact on the ecosystem is minimal.
• Natural gas will gradually be replacing oil for our transportation energy needs and is a cleaner alternative to oil and coal. The Pickens Plan points out that the “Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach recently announced that 16,800 old diesel trucks will be replaced, and half of the new vehicles will run on alternatives such as natural gas.” Thus, turning to natural gas, and away from oil, actually is better for the environment.

With respect to COA’s economic arguments, their logic defies the laws of supply and demand. Earlier this year, when oil prices were skyrocketing and the push for drilling was intense, liberals and environmentalists also claimed that increasing supply would have little impact on price. However, these claims were debunked by numerous economists, including Harvard Professor Martin Feldstein and Kevin Hasset, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

Additionally, one would expect if America began harvesting more of its natural gas resources, not only would it steer us in the direction of energy independence, but it likely would allow us to potentially export this product and benefit our economy. Not to mention the project will also create jobs.

In sum, this shows just how the extreme environmentalist movement is harming America. The green movement eschews all common sense interim approaches to supplying the nation with its energy needs. Environmental concerns entirely trump economic concerns that affect the quality of life for all Americans.

For more on this, check out both the LNG and Pickens Plan websites.