May 2009

Chrysler Confronts Grim Future, Despite Billions in Taxpayer Subsidies

by Hans Bader on May 22, 2009

in Blog

The federal government poured billions of dollars into Chrysler, which then went bankrupt and merged with Fiat. But Chrysler may never revive, thanks to absurdly generous compensation for the company’s union employees. The Obama Administration has refused to cut union wages substantially, though it had no compunction about ripping off the pension funds and other lenders who loaned money to Chrysler to try to keep it afloat. Even union members seem surprised by how little they were asked to sacrifice.

Moderate Democrat Mickey Kaus, who reluctantly voted for Obama, notes that the federal bailout may yet fail:

“Before the deal, Chrysler’s UAW workers made $28 an hour. After the deal, they’ll make $28 an hour. They gave up a scheduled increase in wages, plus a couple of scheduled bonuses. That explains why Chrysler’s Belvidere, Illinois workers told TV station WIFR that ‘the plan is not nearly as drastic as they expected.’ …

“As for Chrysler’s ‘chance for long-term success,’ it appears vanishingly small. Italian manufacturer FIAT is supposed to save Chrysler with new products, but according to a recent Automotive News article, ‘four of the six new vehicles from Fiat will enter the small-car segment,’ which is highly competitive but ‘covers only 14 percent of the entire U.S. light-vehicle market.’ ‘The volumes need to be big for Chrysler to survive,’ [market analyst Tracy Handler] said. ‘Will they be? I have doubts about that.’

“See also this BBC article (”it’s madness”). Pathetically, Chrysler hopes that even if they don’t save the company the new small cars will ‘[b]urnish the environmental image of Chrysler brands,” says Automotive News. Unfortunately, the pipeline for those brands’ other, larger, products–burnished or not–is pretty much empty.

“If Chrysler workers were paid, say, not $28 an hour instead of $24–still not bad–the firm might actually have a ‘chance for long term success’ through charging lower prices. But that wasn’t a sacrifice Obama was ready to ask (even if Belvidere workers were apparently willing).”

While saddling Chrysler with excessive compensation costs and union ownership, the Obama Administration has inflicted a body blow to its ability to sell its traditional lines of large vehicles by radically ratcheting up federal CAFE fuel-economy standards, which harm the Detroit automakers more than their foreign competitors. 50,000 jobs could be destroyed as a result. Meanwhile, the global-warming regulations backed by the Administration will destroy millions of jobs and “decrease average household purchasing power,” thus cutting auto sales and further hurting automakers like Chrysler.

One of Obama’s own advisers now says that “the barrage of tax increases proposed in President Barack Obama’s budget could, if enacted by Congress, kill any chance of an early and sustained recovery.” He compares Obama’s tax increases to those that deepened the Great Depression.

In the Depression, President Hoover imposed regressive excise taxes that burdened consumers. Obama is now doing the same thing through his proposed $2 trillion cap-and-trade carbon tax. Obama privately admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle (which didn’t report it) that under his “plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” As Obama admitted, that cost would be directly passed “on to consumers” — just the way Herbert Hoover’s 1932 excise tax increase was. Although the tax’s supporters claim it will cut greenhouse gas emissions, it may perversely increase them and also result in dirtier air. It is also chock full of corporate welfare, regional favoritism, political pay-offs, and give-aways to special interests.

NBCC/CRA study estimates Waxman-Markey would reduce employment by 2.3 million jobs in 2015

by Marlo Lewis on May 21, 2009

The National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) today released a study by Charles River Associates (CRA) on the economic impacts of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA), the regulatory climate bill sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA).

The results aren’t pretty, and they generally get worse over time as the Act’s emission caps tighten. Relative to baseline levels, ACESA would:

  • Reduce employment by 2.3 million jobs in 2015, 2.7 million jobs in 2020, 2.5 million jobs in 2030, and 3 million jobs in 2050;
  • Lower average annual wages by $170 in 2015, $270 in 2020, $400 in 2030, and $960 in 2050; and,
  • Decrease average household purchasing power by $730 in 2015, $800 in 2020, $830 in 2030, and $940 in 2050.

More valuable than any of these estimates, which depend on many variables that can change unpredictably, is the report’s clear economic logic and common sense.

The report specifically debunks two myths propagated by ACESA proponents. One is that there would be virtually no cost to consumers because (a) utilities would receive lots of free emission allowances, avoiding costs they would otherwise pass on to ratepayers, and (b) revenues from auctioned allowances would be returned as dividends to low-income households.

What this myth overlooks is that emission caps inescapably–and by design–increase the cost of producing and consuming energy. The “cap” in cap-and-trade “works”–that is, reduces emissions–by creating an artificial scarcity in the right to produce and use fossil (carbon-emitting) energy. This drives up the price of coal, oil, and natural gas. It also increases reliance on higher-cost non-fossil energy. 

About 85% of our total energy is carbon-emitting, and about 99% of all transport sector energy is carbon-emitting. Since energy is used to produce and move everything from autos to food to houses to bytes of electronic information, ACESA’s impacts would cascade through the economy. In the report’s words:

This analysis reveals that businesses and consumers would face higher energy and transportation costs under ACESA, which would lead to increased costs of other goods and services throughout the economy. As the costs of goods and services rise, household disposable income and household consumption would fall. Wages and returns on investment would also fall, resulting in lower productivity growth and reduce employment opportunities. 

Although free allocations and revenue recycling can ameliorate the impacts of cap-and-trade on some industries, communities, or income groups, “the cost of bringing emissions down to the levels required by the caps cannot be avoided.”

Proponents also claim ACESA can revive the economy by creating millions of “green jobs.” The CRA study agrees that ACESA would lead to “increases in spending on energy efficiency and renewable energy, and as a result that significant numbers of people would be employed in ‘green jobs’ that would not exist in a no carbon policy world.” However, proponents ignore both the fossil energy-related jobs ACESA would destroy and other job losses due to rising energy costs and lower productivity:

This study finds that even after accounting for green jobs, there is a substantial and long-term net reduction in total labor earnings and employment. This is the unintended but predictable consequence of investing to create a “green energy future.”

Several other findings are noteworthy:

  • Declines in employment are heavier in the Mountain West (-3.5%), Great Plains (-1.4%), Oklahoma and Texas (-1.8%), Missiippie Valley (-1.5%), Mid-Atlantic (-1.3%), Southeast (-1.1%), and Midwest (-0.6%)  than in California (-0.4%) and Northeast (-0.3%). ”The Northeast and California fare better than other regions because of their initial economic circumstances. Namely, these regions’ industries are less energy-intensive, as is hte overall composition of industry.” By sheer coincidence (not), the bill’s co-sponsors, Henry Waxman and Ed Markey hail from California and the Northeast.
  • The bill’s renewable electricity and energy efficiency mandates  make neither economic nor environmental sense even if we assume that global warming is a “planetary emergency.”  The rationale for cap-and-trade is that it allows the market to find the least-cost methods of reducing emissions. By superimposing a system of renewable electricity and energy efficiency mandates on that system, ACESA would dictate the means as well as the goals. There are two possibilities. If, by coincidence, the cap itself motivated all of the actions required to comply with those mandates, then the mandates “would waste resources on needless monitoring, measuring, enforcement and compliance.” If, as is more likely, the mandates compel industry to buy more renewable energy or invest more in efficiency upgrades than it otherwise would to comply with the cap, the total emissions reduced would not change but industry’s (hence consumers’) costs would be higher. The renewable electricity and energy efficiency mandates “can only substitute more costly GHG cuts for those that could have been made at lower cost.”
  • The economic impacts estimated in the report are conservative because they make a very favorable assumption in favor of ACESA, namely, that domestic industries would be able to exceed the cap by about 30% during 2012-2050 by purchasing international offsets (e.g. payments to preserve forests in development countries). Access to international offsets are especially important to cost-containment in ACESA’s early phase, totalling 83% of the required emission “reductions” in 2015. “However, in light of the difficulties in measuring, verifying, and ensuring the permanence of these offsets, international negotiations have stressed domestic sources of emission reductions over international offsets.” The Kyoto II treaty that will be negotiated in Copenhagen “might allow far fewer” offsets than ACESA would provide. ”This would drive up costs substantially.” 

California here we come?

by Myron Ebell on May 21, 2009

in Blog

California’s voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a series of tax increases that Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Democratic-controlled state legislature claimed were necessary to save the State from bankruptcy.  The voters have it right, as do the conservative Republicans in the legislature.  State Senate Republicans were so determined to oppose the tax increases that they kicked out their leader when he caved to pressure from the Governor and elected stalwart conservative Dennis Hollingsworth as their new leader.

California is in economic freefall largely as a result of spendthrift government spending, crushing taxes, and heavy-handed regulations that have raised the cost of energy and of doing business in California.   The whole sorry story is explained clearly and analyzed acutely in an op-ed in today’s Washington Times by Tom McClintock, a freshman Republican Member of the House of Representatives and a long-time Member of the California state legislature.  Rep. McClintock said in January that in his judgment it was inevitable that California would default on its debt.  Unless the state legislature suddenly reverses course, McClintock will soon be proved right.  California is facing bankruptcy.

There is an alternative: Governor Schwarzenegger comes to Washington and appears at a congressional hearing.  On one side of the Republican Governor will be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and on the other side Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).  Schwarzenegger testifies that California is too important to fail and therefore must be bailed out.  After all, California is the model for the nation, especially in its energy and global warming policies (see a CEI paper by Tom Tanton on this subject).  That’s what Schwarzenegger, Pelosi, President Obama, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), and Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) have been telling the country.  As McClintock writes,  “Congress is well under way toward imposing the same policies on the rest of the nation. California is just a little further down that road.”  Actually it’s not a road, it’s a cliff, and California has already jumped.

Insightful commentary by Keith Hennessey on Obama’s fuel economy rules

by Marlo Lewis on May 20, 2009

in Blog

 

In this insightful, informative post, Keith Hennessey, formerly the senior economic advisor to President G.W. Bush, cautions that Obama’s new fuel economy rules could destroy 50,000 auto industry jobs. Yet the rules would have no detectable impact on projected global temperatures or sea level rise–all pain for no gain.

In addition, Hennessey notes that Obama’s action “will accelerate EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources.” He continues: “While Congress is futzing around on a climate change bill, EPA is getting ready to bring their “PSD” monster to your community soon.” He concludes:

In effect, EPA could insert itself (or your State environmental agency) into most local planning and zoning processes.  I will write more about this in the future.  It terrifies me.

Well, it worries me too. Politically, however, there may be a silver lining in this dark cloud. Concerning which, I posted the following comment on Keith’s blog.

Excellent analysis, Keith. Yes, the PSD monster is a big part of this story, which most media coverage has missed. It will spring to life the moment EPA finalizes the new GHG/Fuel Economy standards by making carbon dioxide a Clean Air Act-regulated “air pollutant.” In addition, the endangerment finding that underpins the standards will substantively satisfy the test, in Section 108 of the Act, that initiates a NAAQS rulemaking. The Center for Biological Diversity and many other warmists argue that NAAQS for CO2 should be set at 350 parts per million. Even outright de-industrialization of the United States probably would not suffice to attain such a standard.

The looming prospect of an era of litigation-driven Clean Air Act regulation is an important subtext of the debate over the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. Proponents are pursuing a legislative extortion strategy. Their not-so-subtle message: Support the bill (which precludes greenhouse gas regulation under the PSD, NAAQS, Title V, and HAP programs, although not under NSPS and Title II), or we’ll sic EPA and the eco-litigation lobby on the economy.

My big fear is that Republicans will panic and provide Obama-Waxman-Markey bipartisan cover for cap-and-trade. Republicans need to clear their minds and realize that, with a modicum of courage and discipline, they can turn this threat into an opportunity. Although intended as a legislative hammer, it more nearly resembles a political suicide note.

In effect, Team Obama and Waxman are saying, “You had better provide us with bipartisan cover to raise gasoline prices and destroy jobs, or we’ll sic EPA on the economy, and won’t you be in trouble with your voters then when EPA raises their energy prices and destroy their jobs!” Cap-and-trade Democrats are setting the stage for a political backlash that Republicans can later exploit. All Republicans need to do now is keep opposing cap-and-trade as an energy tax, and keep saying that Congress never intended for the Clean Air Act to morph into Kyoto on steroids.

Once moderate Democrats realize how the extortion strategy could backfire, many may jump off the cap-and-trade bandwagon. Some may even support separate legislation to preclude greenhouse gas regulation under PSD, NAAQS, etc. 

Obama officials are already trying to hide behind Mass v. EPA, claiming ‘the Court made us do it.’  This excuse won’t wash. President Obama can protect consumers, jobs, and the economy from EPA regulatory excess any time he wants just by introducing stand-alone legislation to exclude carbon dioxide from regulation under PSD, NAAQS, etc.

Obama has not done so, because he is unwilling to let Waxman-Markey succeed or fail on its own merits. He wants the prospect of regulatory chaos to herd Republicans into the cap-and-trade corral. But Republicans can turn this weapon against those brandishing it just by refusing to share responsibility for policies they oppose. 

Irony of ironies, Mass v. EPA unexpectedly gives Republicans an opportunity to clarify party differences and hold Democrats accountable for the economic fallout from either cap-and-trade or Clean Air Act regulation.

On Page 781

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on May 20, 2009

in Blog

Sometimes it takes a while to read pending legislation, which our pals at the American Energy Alliance have been doing with the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Energy-Tax Bill. With only 165 pages to go, they discovered this nugget (from their press release):

On Page 781 of Waxman Cap-and-Tax Bill, a Response Guide for Mass Unemployment
Beneficiaries to receive 3 years of salary, health insurance, job training, and relocation package as a result of this job-killing measure

Washington, DC – With 946 pages of legislative text, it comes as no surprise that as the days pass by, interesting new provisions buried deep in the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax bill are revealed. Today we expose section 426.

“While the authors of this bill continue to insist that cap-and-tax will be a clear economic winner, several provisions buried deep in the text confirm their true belief that it will massively stimulate the unemployment rolls,” said Thomas J. Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance.

Pyle is referring to Title IV, Subtitle B, Part 2, Section 426, of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which states; An eligible worker (specifically, workers who lose their jobs as a result of this measure) may receive a climate change adjustment allowance under this subsection for a period of not longer than 156 weeks…80 percent of the monthly premium of any health insurance coverage…up to a maximum payment of $1,500 in relocation allowance…and job search expenses not exceed[ing] $1,500.

“America is supposed to be a land of opportunity and prosperity – not a land where political elites work behind closed doors to ship jobs offshore,” continued Pyle. “And with only 24 percent of the American people even knowing what cap-and-trade is, I am convinced that when the public learns that the leaders of this government are indeed, purposely and knowingly outsourcing American jobs in the name of global warming, they will demand answers and hold them accountable.”

Hat tip: Bridget Wagner at Heritage.

Blue Dog Dem Getting Fed Up

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on May 19, 2009

Arkansas Democratic Rep. Mike Ross is one of three middlin’ congressmen on the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment who was targeted by the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund in a media campaign to support Waxman-Markey. Ross, one of 50 or so in the Blue Dog Coalition, told Arkansas syndicated columnist David Sanders last week he’s getting mighty miffed about Democrat leadership leaving his group out of the negotiation and writing of important cap-and-trade and health care reform legislation. On the energy bill:

Ross explained that it became obvious to him that the Democratic leadership’s strategy on cap-and-trade included blowing past the Blue Dogs on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Moderates on the committee responded by slowing down what was, in their estimation, a very bad bill.

“We were never brought in,” he pointed out. “We put the brakes on and tried to make it a better bill.”

But after nearly two weeks of work by the moderates on the committee, only modest changes were made.

“This bill is to the left of Barack Obama,” Ross said, adding that it could get worse during the final mark up.

That said, he predicts the controversial legislation will clear the committee and pass the full House, although without his support. And then he believes the legislation will go to the U.S. Senate and die.

Not a good way for Pelosi, Waxman and Reid to keep everybody in their big tent happy and cooperative.

The Center for Political Cover

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on May 19, 2009

in Blog

With some Democrats threatening to kill Waxman-Markey before it gets out of subcommittee this week, the Center for American Progress Action Fund (the activism arm of the Soros-CAP) is doing its best to provide cover for them as they reluctantly support the bill. CAPAF calls these five swing voting congressmen “moderates,” and the media (even the Washington Times) almost unanimously follows suit. This is cloaking the dirty secret that even liberals are having trouble voting for this huge, regressive tax.

And who are these so-called CAPAF “moderates?” One is North Carolina’s G.K. Butterfield, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who is a reliable vote for liberal causes and redistribution of wealth. His view about Waxman-Markey from just a couple of weeks ago: “What do I tell a single mom making eight dollars an hour?”

Another is that renowned Democrat moderate, Bobby Rush. After visiting Fidel Castro in Cuba with the CBC last month, Rush told Politico, “It was almost like listening to an old friend.” Meanwhile the House Republican Whip’s office has compiled a long list of Democrats, both moderate and liberal, who are troubled by the economic and political ramifications from Waxman’s American Clean Energy and Security Act.

CAPAF is trying to make their “moderates” feel better about supporting the bill. They just sent a press release to the Tar Heel media saying, “Rep. Butterfield’s Vote on Clean Energy Legislation Could Mean Thousands of New Jobs for North Carolina.” The release promotes findings from an analysis paid for by its sister organization, the Center for American Progress, pushing the fantasy that trillions in new energy taxes will create 62,015 new green jobs in NC and that state taxpayers are currently paying $730 million to subsidize big oil and gas companies (egads!). They probably sent something similar to Illinois media on Rush’s behalf as well.

The Left is clearly terrified that their global warming con is sinking fast. Every new poll that’s come out this year on global warming and raising energy taxes shows more skepticism from Americans than the previous one. Environmental socialism, indeed.

Meanwhile Americans for American Energy (and Senator Kit Bond) is outing the truth behind that CAP green jobs analysis:

The Bond report is sobering to say the least. Two high profile environmental group programs, the New Apollo Program, promoted by the Apollo Alliance, and the Green Recovery Program, by the Center for American Progress, would, at a cost of $500 billion and $100 billion respectively, create 5 million and 2 million jobs. That works out to a program (read taxpayer) cost of $100,000 and $50,000 per job, respectively.


But what kind of jobs do Americans get with highly subsidized “green jobs?” Some of the richest incentives documented resulted in lower wage jobs than the green marketing campaigns would suggest. For instance, the Bond report outlines three troubling examples:

  • Solaicx, Portland, Oregon – manufactures silicon ingots and wafers for photovoltaic applications and, after receiving $21.5 million in state and local subsidies to expand its plant and create 66 new jobs ($325,758 per job subsidy), workers are paid only $13.00 per hour.
  • United Solar Ovonic, Battle Creek, Michigan – makes thin film flexible photovoltaic laminates used in the solar industry. According to the report, the company got $96.9 million in subsidies (the company press release said $120 million) at a subsidy of $276,857 per job. Worker pay: $14.00 per hour.
  • Suniva, Norcross, Georgia – a manufacturer of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells for the solar industry garnered $10 million in incentives to create an estimated 100 jobs when fully operational. That’s $100,000 per job. No word about worker pay rates at Sunvia, but you get the picture.

I don’t see any answers there for Butterfield to give that single mom earning $8 per hour.

New fuel economy rules will make cars more costly, less safe, trigger regulatory cascade

by Marlo Lewis on May 19, 2009

in Blog

 

At some point today, the EPA and the Department of Transportation (DOT) will propose a first-ever joint regulation to establish first-ever greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for new motor vehicles. The new standards, covering model years 2012-2016, will raise federal fuel economy standards to 35.5 mpg in 2016.

This is considerably more stringent than the standard Congress adopted in the December 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), which would boost average fuel economy to 35 mpg by 2020.

This is bad news for three reasons.

New cars will be less safe. The proposed standards will require the average car and light truck to be 40% more fuel efficient by 2016. That’s a very aggressive schedule. To meet it, automakers will have to deploy advanced technologies (such as hybrid engines), but that won’t be enough. They’ll also have to reduce average vehicle size and weight. That, in turn, will at a minimum make the average car less safe than it would otherwise be.

Why? It’s a matter of physics. Heavier cars provide more mass to absorb collision forces, and larger cars provide more space between the occupant and the point of impact. Make a car smaller and lighter, and it will go farther on a gallon of gas (and emit fewer pounds of carbon dioxide per mile), but it will also provide less protection in collisions. The National Research Council estimates that the pre-EISA (27.5 mpg) fuel economy standard contributed to about 2,000 additional fatalities per year.

New cars will be more costly. As an unnamed senior administration official said yesterday in an embargoed press briefing, the EISA fuel economy standard will add $700 to the cost of a new car in 2016. The revised standards will add another $600 to the average sticker price. Yet the anonymous official claimed the new rules will help revive the prostrate auto industry. Yep, increase the average cost of a new car by $1,300, and more people will buy them! 

As my colleague Sam Kazman comments, the federal fuel economy program “kills consumers by reducing vehicle size, and now it may well kill car companies by forcing them to produce cars that consumers don’t want.” 

The GHG standards will start a regulatory chain reaction with potentially devastating economic impacts. The new standards are the regulatory complement to the endangerment proposal EPA issued on April 17. As explained here and here, once EPA and DOT finalize the Fuel economy/GHG emission standards, an estimated 1.2 million previously unregulated buildings and facilities will qualify as ”major stationary sources” of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program. Thousands of small- to mid-size firms could be compelled to obtain PSD permits in order to build or modify such “major stationary sources” as office buildings, enclosed malls, big box stores, and commercial restaurants.

The PSD  permitting process is costly and time consuming. In 2003, the average permit cost $125,120 and 866 hours  for regulated entities to obtain (not included any technology investments regulated entities had to make). No small business could operate under the PSD administrative burden. A more potent Anti-Stimulus would be hard to imagine.

In the News

by William Yeatman on May 19, 2009

in Blog

Cap-and-Trade Is a License to Cheat-and-Steal
Bill O’ Keefe, DC Examiner, 19 May 2009

One of James Bond’s first movies captured attention with the title “License to Kill.” Today, Washington, D.C., is setting the stage to compete with Hollywood in the sensational headlines market. Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee are in the process of scripting climate change legislation worthy of being titled “License to Cheat and Steal.”

Green Jobs Lead to Pink Slips
William Yeatman, Detroit News, 19 May 2009

Repower America, a green energy advocacy organization founded by Former Vice President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore, is running television advertisements in northern Michigan to pressure U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) into supporting the American Clean Energy and Security Act, a major climate bill working through Congress.

Uncle Sam Will Give You and Energy Allowance
Chris Horner, Human Events, 18 May 2009

On Friday, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) released the closely-held details of his bill rationing energy use in the name of global warming, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES).

Is Wind the Next Ethanol?
Ben Lieberman, Heritage.org, 11 May 2009

Repeating past mistakes has long been a part of Washington’s energy policy, but Congress used to wait a while before making the same blunder again. Not anymore. New legislation requiring wind energy closely resembles the ethanol mandate that sparked a backlash just last year.

Waxman-Markey Markup: Day 2

by William Yeatman on May 19, 2009

in Politics

The House Energy and Commerce Committee just began (at 10:00 AM eastern) the second day of marathon markups for the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act. In a “markup,” the Committee reads through the bill (or at least the titles and sections) and members have the opportunity to offer amendments.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act is an awful piece of legislation designed to tax energy. In order to win over Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), a co-author of the bill, had to buy them off by promising to redistribute the proceeds of the energy tax-which the Obama administration says will cost as much as $2 trillion through 2020-to industries in their districts.

The only highlight from day one was the opening statement of Rep. John Barrow (D-Georgia), which seemed to indicate that he will oppose this expensive energy bill. He becomes the first Democrat on the Committee to do so. Hopefully, he is not the last. Reps. Eliot Engel (D-New York) and Charlie Melancon (D-Lousiana) seemed to hedge. They are likely holding out for more booty from Waxman.

Today, the Republicans on the Committee, led by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), plan on introducing 450 amendments to the bill. Democrats will offer far fewer amendments.

As I write, Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan) is proposing an amendment to create a clean energy bank, despite the fact that the Department of Energy already administers a $40 billion clean energy bank. That bank, however, isn’t good enough for Dingell because it doesn’t transfer enough taxpayer money to auto companies in his district.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →