Urgent Project: Call Blue Dogs about “Cap-and-Trade”
I received the following message from a good friend of mine earlier, and felt it was important to pass it along. Please redistribute generously – link here, repost, copy and paste to email, hang it up at the grocery store – this is a great idea, and needs to be spread far and wide.
Incidentally, my congressman – Walt Minnick – is one of the Blue Dogs, so I started my work on this effort by calling his DC office today. I plan to make more calls tomorrow.
Patriots,
We’ve got a country to save. We wont be able to fight everything and win, but we can’t let what happened with the $787 Billion stimulus pork ‘n waste package happen again. But unless we mobilize now, it will.
The Markey-Waxman “Cap-and-trade” Energy Tax bill, in the current form being considered by the House Energy and Commerce committee, would, according to the Heritage Foundation, have the following catastrophic effects by 2035:
1. Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.6 trillion annually;
2. Destroy 1,105,000 American jobs per year on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs;
3. Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;
4. Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent;
5. Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent;
6. Raise an average family’s annual energy bill by $1,500 annually; and
7. Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 26 percent, or $29,150 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants the U.S. House to vote at the end of this week on the Waxman-Markey National Energy Tax (House Bill 2454). We must kill the bill there, in the House of Representatives, before it reaches the Senate where it could passes with near certainty before being signed into law by the President.
We can’t settle for calling our own representatives–especially if where you live, your Congressional Representative is a far-Left Liberal. We can’t hope it’ll be good enough if every single Republican in the House of Representatives votes against Waxman-Markey because Democrats have the majority.
We must target Democrats in order to stop this thing, but not just Any Democrats. Democrats that are moderate-to-moderately Conservative. Fortunately, they already identified themselves by forming the Blue Dog Coalition.
According to Wikipedia, their ideology (largely born out of the necessity to get votes in conservative regions like Texas and other southern states, and states in the heartland like Indiana), “the Blue Dog Coalition is often involved in finding a compromise between liberal and conservative positions. The Blue Dogs are viewed by some as a continuation of the socially conservative wing of the Democratic party prominent during the presidency of Harry S Truman.[citation needed] However, the only stated policy position of the Blue Dogs is fiscal conservatism…
“Despite the Blue Dogs’ differing degrees of economic and social conservatism, they generally work to promote positions within the House of Representatives that bridge the gap between center-right and left-wing politics. Blue Dogs are an important swing vote on spending bills and as a result have gained influence in Congress out of proportion to their numbers. They are frequently sought after to broker compromises between the Democratic and Republican leadership, generally lending a more conservative character to US politics.”
Here is a complete list of those sitting Representatives in the House, and their telephone numbers. We need to call ‘em up, ASAP, and tell them to vote NO on H.R. 2454.
All numbers, area code 202:
* Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration
225-2801
* Baron Hill (IN-9), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy
225-5315
* Charlie Melancon (LA-3), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications
225-4031
* Heath Shuler (NC-11), Blue Dog Whip
225-6401* Jason Altmire (PA-4), 225-2565
* Mike Arcuri (NY-24), 225-3665
* John Barrow (GA-12), 225-2823
* Marion Berry (AR-1), 225-4076
* Sanford Bishop (GA-2), 225-3631
* Dan Boren (OK-2), 225-2701
* Leonard Boswell (IA-3), 225-3806
* Allen Boyd (FL-2), 225-5235
* Bobby Bright (AL-2), 225-2901
* Christopher Carney (PA-10), 225-3731
* Ben Chandler (KY-6), 225-4706
* Travis Childers (MS-1), 225-4306
* Jim Cooper (TN-5), 225-4311
* Henry Cuellar (TX-28), 225-1640
* Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3), 225-5406
* Lincoln Davis (TN-4), 225-6831
* Joe Donnelly (IN-2), 225-3915
* Brad Ellsworth (IN-8), 225-4636
* Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8), 225-2542
* Bart Gordon (TN-6), 225-4231
* Parker Griffith (AL-5), 225-4801
* Tim Holden (PA-17), 225-5546
* Frank Kratovil (MD-1), 225-5311
* Jim Marshall (GA-8), 225-6531
* Jim Matheson (UT-2), 225-3011
* Mike McIntyre (NC-7), 225-2731
* Mike Michaud (ME-2), 225-6306
* Walt Minnick (ID-1), 225-6611
* Harry Mitchell (AZ-5), 225-2190
* Dennis Moore (KS-3), 225-2865
* Patrick Murphy (PA-8), 225-4276
* Glenn Nye (VA-2), 225-4215
* Collin Peterson (MN-7), 225-2165
* Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL), 225-2611
* Mike Ross (AR-4), 225-3772
* John Salazar (CO-3), 225-4761
* Loretta Sanchez (CA-47), 225-2965
* David Scott (GA-13), 225-2939
* Zack Space (OH-18), 225-6265
* John Tanner (TN-8), 225-4714
* Gene Taylor (MS-4), 225-5772
* Charlie Wilson (OH-6), 225-5705
* Melissa Bean (IL-8), 225-3711
* Mike Thompson (CA-1), 225-3311
* Dennis Cardoza (CA-18), 225-6131
* Jim Costa (CA-20), 225-3341
* Adam Schiff (CA-29), 225-4176
* Jane Harman (CA-36), 225-8220
* Joe Baca (CA-43), 225-2823It would take a little over three hours to call of these numbers straight through, so feel free to break it up. Just be sure to call as many as you can as soon as you can, especially the numbers at the top!
Feel free to modify this script to suit what feels comfortable to you. It runs about a minute and 42 seconds.
“Good morning,
My name is <NAME> and I’m calling about the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade bill that the Speaker of the House is urging a vote on as soon as possible, an issue that affects all Americans and not just those in your district. Like those Americans, I care deeply about the environment and being responsible as we try to re-grow our prosperity in this country, but I strongly feel this bill is the wrong way to do it.
According to credible economists and their peer-reviewed academic research, this piece of legislation will kick our economy while it’s down. At a time when we should be doing everything we can to make this the best place in the world for people to come and start a business, and create jobs, we’re going to make energy so incredibly expensive that they can’t afford to hire anyone. And for families already struggling–whether by having to string together two-part time jobs or get by on unemployment–they will see their gasoline, heating and electricity bills shoot through the roof.
I know the sponsors of this bill have said otherwise, but I am telling you, I know other wise. And I am also telling Representative <NAME> to vote against this legislation. There aren’t too many issues more important than this one, and I’m afraid that how each Representative votes on this bill will matter to me and everyone that I know when it’s time for us to vote during the mid-term elections next November, 2010.
Thank you for your time.”
And for good measure, give Republican House minotiry leader John Boehner’s office at a call at (202) 225-6205 to reinforce, and remind his staffer that we’re out here, watching, and that we wont tolerate any give from the party in the House on this bill. Remind his staffer that his and their re-election counts on standing strong against this bill.
I truly hope that you’ll join me in my mission to stop this madness, and tell everyone you know to help you too.
Thank you for your time.
- Dairenn Lombard
Los Angeles
Dairenn, I really appreciate your work in putting this together. You are a friend of liberty… now MOVE OUT OF CALIFORNIA! :)
Of course the Heritage Foundation can scare up some apocalyptic-looking numbers for an arbitrary piece of legislation they don’t like. I’m growing increasingly tired of partisan think tanks, even the ones like Cato which I tend to agree with. But this one in particular smells fishy. For instance, by 2035 why would we even still be *using* natural gas and gasoline in any real quantity, especially if there are incentives not to use those energy sources?
Combining a complete lack of honest analysis with a call to action like this demonstrates all the worst flaws of democracy all in one place.
Uhh… completely ignoring your apparently ass-backward stance on cap-and-trade (I prefer my incentives without a side of government enforcement, kthx) could you please explain to me how raising concerns with elected representatives has a gee-golly-damn thing to do with democracy?
‘Cause last I checked, that was kind of the definition of a republic.
If you have some sort of philosophical issue with the government involving itself in the economy, then argue that issue. It’s intellectually dishonest to give a biased cost-benefit analysis of the issue and then switch arguments once someone points out just how bullshit that cost-benefit analysis is. (Likewise, I don’t believe I’ve *expressed* a stance on cap-and-trade. Just because you hold an opinion doesn’t mean you have to accept every fallacious argument for it, Laurel.)
Likewise, I’m sick of these “it’s a republic, not a democracy” arguments because at their basis they’re meaningless, semantic arguments. “Republic” has more to do with a country having a purely representative government to the exclusion of a monarchy. “Democracy” has more to do with a country being governed largely by the people. The contemporary United States happens to be both. Ancient Rome was a republic but not a democracy (because a lot of people couldn’t vote). Even America wasn’t a democracy at first (since women, slaves, and renters couldn’t vote). Likewise, Britain is a democracy but not a republic (because it is a constitutional monarchy).
But setting aside Poli-Sci 101 for a second, the fact that people can spread false propaganda and use it to incite the mob into pressuring the elected government is a downside of our system of government, regardless of what you want to call it. If you have objections to cap-and-trade, then discuss your rationale honestly. Don’t use made up numbers from biased sources and pretend you’re engaging in anything but propaganda and rabble-rousing.
There are honest arguments to be made for most conservative positions, conservatives have just forgotten how to make an honest argument. And [i]that[/i] is the true problem facing our republic.
Which is not to say that conservatives are the threat to our republic. Their inability to honestly and effectively engage in public discourse is.
I don’t believe I’ve switched any arguments. I think government intervention in the market is a bad idea. Full stop. The above numbers are just icing on the what-I-know-to-be-true cake.
And not to call you out, but: Where’s your evidence to the contrary? It’s a sincere question. I’m not even arguing the Heritage numbers aren’t somewhat inflated – I’m not an economist, I didn’t run the study, I’m taking their numbers at face value but also with a grain of salt. Obviously they have an agenda. But before you go calling bullshit, I’d really like to see the info you have to back up that charge.
On the topic of republicanism/democracy – I don’t think it’s a meaningless semantic argument. Prop 8 was a good example of democracy – you know, two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. The majority imposing their views on a minority, like it or not. I, frankly, dislike democracy. I dislike the fact that the mob rules. I dislike the fact that we’ve implemented universal suffrage, and thus even people who do nothing but drain the system get to vote.
(Aside: I don’t know how it was presented to you, but when I was growing up the whole issue of limited suffrage was presented in school as a racist, sexist issue. It was never even mentioned that the “landholding white males” had voting power at least in part because they were the ones running the economy. While there were obviously unjust systems in place preventing women and minorities from participating, focusing on those systems while completely ignoring the economic aspect of limited suffrage is flat-out indoctrination. Reason #235108 AW won’t be going to public school.)
Anyway – I’m picking a nit over republicanism/democracy because I definitely see the negatives to both, but see them as distinct issues that shouldn’t be lumped together less the severity of the problems lose potency.
“I don’t believe I’ve switched any arguments. I think government intervention in the market is a bad idea. Full stop. The above numbers are just icing on the what-I-know-to-be-true cake.”
Laurel, you need to be able to evaluate arguments more critically than just asking yourself “do I agree with the conclusion or not?”. If your reasons for opposing cap-and-trade are philosophical, then say so. If your reasons are based on a cost-benefit analysis, share your analysis. But don’t share a highly dubious cost-benefit analysis just because it leads to the same conclusion that you reach on ideological grounds.
I tend to be against government intervention in the market, but there are some exceptions. For instance, I’m more than willing to see the government prosecute people for fraud, or provide legal venues for lawsuits, or to enforce property rights. I think these “interventions” are vital for the market to even exist. Anarcho-capitalism is not workable: market economies require government intervention.
Other interventions, such as building and maintaining interstate highway systems in order to federally subsidize the development of suburbs, were in retrospect gravely mistaken. Propping up automobile producers rather than letting them collapse is another mistaken intervention. So is waging wars overseas in order to ensure a continued supply of petroleum.
“And not to call you out, but: Where’s your evidence to the contrary? It’s a sincere question. I’m not even arguing the Heritage numbers aren’t somewhat inflated – I’m not an economist, I didn’t run the study, I’m taking their numbers at face value but also with a grain of salt. Obviously they have an agenda. But before you go calling bullshit, I’d really like to see the info you have to back up that charge.”
It’s obvious that any of these think tanks come up with the conclusion first and the reasoning afterwards. The burden of proof is on them, and on you.
In particular, they seem to assume that nothing about Americans’ energy usage would change after cap-and-trade was put into place. I’m sure energy prices would rise in the short term, but this would simply push the market towards phasing out fossil fuels more quickly. Picking a far out number like 2035 and assuming that fossil fuel prices will still make that much of a difference to us by then is the main flaw. It’s impossible to project what kind of energy technologies we’ll have by then, or how our patterns of energy usage will change.
With or without cap-and-trade, there’s no long-term way that personal automobiles are going to remain an affordable means of transportation unless we can somehow keep the rest of the world too poor to buy them. When 1 billion people drive cars that’s one thing, but when that demand rises to six billion people? By 2035, gas prices are going to be catastrophically high either way, but they will have been that high for so long that the infrastructure will have to change.
Finally, I think it’s dishonest to analyze the costs of cap-and-trade without comparing them to the costs of uncontrolled climate change. The “cost-benefit analysis” I’ve been alluding to? I’d actually like to see one. The Heritage study only analyzes one side of the balance sheet. And on a philosophical level, I am grudgingly willing to allow for government intervention when the purpose of that intervention is to combat negative externalities such as climate change, so long as that intervention works with the market rather than against it. Cap-and-trade is already a proven method that we already use to control levels of hazardous pollutants such as sulphur dioxide.
“On the topic of republicanism/democracy – I don’t think it’s a meaningless semantic argument.”
We do, as a matter of fact, have democracy in this country. And that democracy does allow people to act and agitate before they think. Simple fact. Debating the merits of limited suffrage is something you should take up with Andrew Jackson the next time you go time traveling :)
Phil, you’re pretty much the entire reason I kept repeating “Not that Republicans are any better…” every time I’d talk about Democrats during election season.
I shouldn’t have to outline my entire philosophy on a subject every time I post about it. I’m sorry I didn’t preface this post with a big, bold “BTW I OPPOSE THIS ON PHILOSOPHICAL GROUNDS” but I thought that kind of went without saying, at this point. Especially for somebody who has been reading my blog a while, like you have.
Let me give an alternate example: I oppose property taxes because I believe they are theft, and create a situation in which we are renting our property and personal items from the government. So, philosophically, I’m against them. I don’t think that means I should never post an economic analysis with numbers demonstrating property taxes are a negative incentive, or that they harm certain social subsets worse than others, or WHATEVER.
One of the problems with Libertarians is their tendency to be sure they’re right JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE. It’s all philosophical. And while I tend to agree with the philosophies, not everybody is immediately convinced by the LIBERTARIAN HAMMER OF TRUTH. And just because I believe something is fundamentally right or wrong on a moral/immoral level doesn’t mean it’s improper to back up what I believe with evidence of economic repercussions.
On a more practical note, I also didn’t delve into my philosophical objections with cap-and-trade in this particular post because I was reposting Dairenn’s piece in its entirety, and it was already rather lengthy.
—
Um, yes, I recognize that we have democracy – hence me giving an example, Prop 8 – and I also recognize that taking up issues with elected representatives isn’t democracy. IT’S REPUBLICANISM. If I was “agitating” people to vote my way on a ballot initiative, THAT would be democracy.
—
You’re making a lot of assumptions about the assumptions made by Heritage. Here you go:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/tst062309a.cfm
—
And last but not least, I find it the height of irony that you’re accusing me of propagandizing and agitating while trotting out the climate change line. For crying out loud, the climate change contingent (what ever happened to global warming, anyway?) is made up of the best propagandists I’ve ever seen. The more I look into the numbers on that subject, and the more I see dissenting voices in the scientific movement shunned and marginalized for not toeing the party line, the more skeptical I become.
This isn’t to say I don’t believe in environmental responsibility – I do. I just don’t think government mandates are the most effective way to make it happen. And, hog-tying the US while China races full-steam ahead (emitting all the way) certainly isn’t going to put us in a position to have the resources or innovative progress to lead the way on anything.
“And just because I believe something is fundamentally right or wrong on a moral/immoral level doesn’t mean it’s improper to back up what I believe with evidence of economic repercussions.”
Quite right. What I am arguing is that it is *always* improper to back up what you believe with biased, manufactured evidence of economic repercussions.
“I also recognize that taking up issues with elected representatives isn’t democracy. IT’S REPUBLICANISM.”
You seem to be under the misconception that a republic and a democracy are diametrically opposed things. But I’m tired of teaching political science to you. My point has always been that it’s a drawback of our system that ignorant people have just as much influence as people who know what they’re talking about.
“And last but not least, I find it the height of irony that you’re accusing me of propagandizing and agitating while trotting out the climate change line. For crying out loud, the climate change contingent (what ever happened to global warming, anyway?) is made up of the best propagandists I’ve ever seen.”
The term “global warming” is misleading because ultimately, some of the world will get warmer and some of the world will get colder. On average it is a warming effect, but climate is a little more complicated than that.
I can’t comment on the quality of propaganda on either side of this because that’s not a mental space I care to inhabit much of the time. I can say that from the evidence that I understand, there’s a significant, actionable risk of climate change. I can furthermore say that most of the “critics” of climate change quite frankly remind me of young-earth creationists.
“This isn’t to say I don’t believe in environmental responsibility – I do. I just don’t think government mandates are the most effective way to make it happen.”
OK, fine. How would you deal with sulphur dioxide emissions, and why would that approach be better than cap-and-trade (the system we’ve been using since the early 90’s)?
“You seem to be under the misconception that a republic and a democracy are diametrically opposed things. But I’m tired of teaching political science to you. My point has always been that it’s a drawback of our system that ignorant people have just as much influence as people who know what they’re talking about.”
You seem to assume too much. Leftists (not saying that you’re one) are very much in love with the concept of democracy, likely because it’s easy to win the mob with bread and circuses. Therefore it is important to keep the concepts seperate. I got no impression that in finding democracy distasteful Laurel implied that republicanism and democracy were on opposite sides. If you think you’re schooling anyone on political science you’re only fooling yourself. You come across as a smart guy Phil, but a cocky asshole. This will not serve you well in future debates.
“The term “global warming” is misleading because ultimately, some of the world will get warmer and some of the world will get colder. On average it is a warming effect, but climate is a little more complicated than that.
I can’t comment on the quality of propaganda on either side of this because that’s not a mental space I care to inhabit much of the time. I can say that from the evidence that I understand, there’s a significant, actionable risk of climate change. I can furthermore say that most of the “critics” of climate change quite frankly remind me of young-earth creationists.”
The only reason that critics of climate change look loopy is precisely because of well orchestrated propaganda. If you make your opponent look like he’s crazy, it’s easy to disregard him. Unfortunately, due to dishonesty on both sides it’s difficult to trust anyone’s sources. For any reliable source you can bring up to support global warming, another equally credible source can refute it. There’s too much to gain or lose in this so men who seek power flock to it. To assert conclusively any position is folly.
Of course I’m not a leftist. I rather loathe democracy. But agitating common people to contact their representatives? That’s democracy. If were were simply a republic but *not* a democracy, the representatives wouldn’t give a shit about a letter-writing campaign of this size and no one would feel empowered to really try, aside from the aristocracy.
I’ve endeavored to understand the science myself as best I can, and it’s pretty clear to me that mainstream science is right about it. From my understanding of *people*, all these talking points–wild conspiracy theories about critics being “silenced” by the establishment, seemingly credible sources that really aren’t upon closer examination, so on and so forth–are just recycled creationist talking points. Reasonable conservatives like Newt Gingrich already accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change, even if they disagree about the means used to combat it.
“Of course I’m not a leftist. I rather loathe democracy. But agitating common people to contact their representatives? That’s democracy. If were were simply a republic but *not* a democracy, the representatives wouldn’t give a shit about a letter-writing campaign of this size and no one would feel empowered to really try, aside from the aristocracy.”
I understand what you’re saying and I agree for the most part. That said, it’s the system we’re stuck with for the moment; don’t you think you should try to wield it for good if you can?
“I’ve endeavored to understand the science myself as best I can, and it’s pretty clear to me that mainstream science is right about it. From my understanding of *people*, all these talking points–wild conspiracy theories about critics being “silenced” by the establishment, seemingly credible sources that really aren’t upon closer examination, so on and so forth–are just recycled creationist talking points. Reasonable conservatives like Newt Gingrich already accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change, even if they disagree about the means used to combat it.”
Either that or Newt is a political opportunist like John McCain. Today’s Republican politician is convinced that the people want to hear what the dems are selling. They think that if they say the same thing, but wrap themselves better in the flag and also hate gays then they will succeed. Barring that, they again will agree with the dems, but try to put a conservative spin on it.
I’m harldy a flat earther, but I don’t buy global warming as anything other than fear mongering in order to continue to centralize power. Is it that hard to believe such a thing?
The idea that “climate change” isn’t really happening, or isn’t really caused by industrialization, and that it’s being used as a power grab is a conspiracy theory, pure and simple. It’s a decidedly implausible conspiracy theory because the scientific establishment has no real political power. Furthermore, it’s a recycled conspiracy theory from the creationists, with the notable exception that, rather than religion, “free enterprise” (i.e. the government-subisidized trade of fossil fuels) is the sacred cow perceived to be under attack.
Newt has always kept up with science and technology, and he’s always had an environmentalist bent, even though he’s a political conservative. I’m willing to trust his sincerity on this. He’s been on the outside looking in for ten years, so I don’t buy a political expediency argument.
I’m not jumping into this other than to say that conservatives hardly have a monopoly on the inability to honestly and effectively engage in public discourse…
YA RLY
Also: The MacBook is at AppleCare (finally) so I’m doing a bit of a computer shuffle. May be offline for a few days. Don’t pull anchor without bidding me adieu, eh? Call if nothing else.
Nowhere in this analysis is any thought to what the cost of inaction will be if we don’t take steps now to reign in carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases. Our generation (and I’m 33) and the generation just ahead of us has been getting essentially a free ride for far too long brought on by “the government” intervening to encourage car usage, sprawling land usage and artificially low energy costs. Yes, we will have to pay a little more for the kinds of energy that we’ve been used to using. Yes, it might hurt a little bit in the short term. But in the long run, our children and grandchildren will be spared the HUGE (possibly insurmountable) economic and social costs of not doing something to improve the climate. I’m perfectly willing to pay now and will be calling up those same Blue Dogs and asking them to vote green. (And asking everyone I know to do the same.)
Please also be aware that Members of Congress primarily speak for their constituencies and may not “count” you when evaluating their vote, simply because you have your own representative.