• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Blue Dog Democrats Urge Caution on Cap and Trade, More Spending

    Congress is rumored to be considering passing a cap-and-trade plan through budget reconciliation, which is a process that is only completed if there are special instructions passed in the budget resolution and requires a simple majority, rather than a 2/3rds vote to pass the Senate.

    Unfortunately, this action sets a very low bar for a high-cost, big-government bill such as cap-and-trade, but fortunately the Blue Dogs, a group of fifty-one fiscally conservative House Democrats, have warned that the reconciliation strategy is a bad idea.

    The budget reconciliation “is utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution.”

    While the Blue Dogs support Obama’s agenda,

    One concern surrounds cap and trade, which the Blue Dogs contend pits regions of the country that have plentiful renewable resources against regions that produce traditional energy resources, such as coal. He said Blue Dogs oppose using reconciliation for cap-and-trade to ensure fairness. House and Senate Democratic leaders and the White House this week said it remains an option.

    Blue Dogs also do not want a resolution that assumes cap-and-trade revenues are dedicated to any specific policy, the document said. Rather, it should encourage responsible and efficient energy production and reasonable tax policy while providing affordable energy.”

    In the Environmental Protection Agency’s section of the budget blueprint, President Obama lays out a “Comprehensive Approach to Transform Our Energy Supply and Slow Global Warming.” To support their budget, the administration is hoping that Congress passes a cap-and-trade bill that would reduce carbon emissions 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and approximately 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

    Heritage Senior Policy Analyst Ben Lieberman emphasizes that a cap-and-trade program is nothing more than a regressive tax that will raise prices on energy and cost Americans jobs – all for little, if any, environmental gain.

    Furthermore, encouraging responsible and efficient energy production does not mean taxing proven, reliable energy prices so the government can fund the unsuccessful ones. Efficient energy production has and will always come from the private sector and any cap-and-tax plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is far from reasonable tax policy.

    The Blue Dog Democrats should be commended for speaking up and signaling they want to take budget discipline seriously. With large deficits already, a big entitlement problem, and unprecedented amount of spending in the first three months of the year (with no end in sight), it’s imperative to stick to budget principles and not spend so lavishly.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to Blue Dog Democrats Urge Caution on Cap and Trade, More Spending

    1. Franklin's Lock says:

      I have noticed that the moderate Democrats have been splitting from the leadership. They have their own careers to think about. Their constituents have to be hounding them. The moderates are not happy about the assault weapons ban, cap and trade, and healthcare reform.

      I can’t believe I am saying this, but Conservatives have found allies in the Democratic Party with these moderate at least momentarily. The only was to stop these insane policies is with the help of these moderates.

      Good for them to be brave and stand up for the principles.

      http://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/

    2. larrydalooza, illino says:

      This is because CO2 is our friend and these guys don't want to get caught with their pants down when everyone realizes that "scientists" are demonizing the foundation of life.

    3. Spiritof76, New Hamp says:

      I agree with larrydalooza's view of CO2 being essential for life on Earth. We exhale CO2 and the plants use them to synthesize solar energy for their growth. By pronouncing the CO2 as a pollutant, this administration is condemning life itself!

    4. drvck70,Arkansas says:

      Their constituents are assaulting them to be sure, (D)Mike Ross sent a letter to Eric Holder expressing his, along with 65 other Democrats, expressing their opposition to a new AWB, two Montana senators, Baucus/Tester sent a similar letter expressing the same concerns. Unfortunately though some appear to be walking lock-step with Obama's reckless spending programs. The truth is the Blue Dogs are really our only buffer to prevent the left from running completely roughshod over us.

    5. Ima Ngineer, Colorad says:

      32,000 American Engineers and Scientists (9,000 PhDs) have signed this petition…

      http://www.oism.org/pproject/

      "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

      There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

      Also, the British High Court just ruled that nine key points of the Gore Film.. "An inconvenient truth" are mostly hysterical conclusions which are based on junk science.

    6. CHARLES R. GUIDOTT says:

      Coal gasifcation plant coal mine planned at Taylorville,Il…Environuts(hug a tree then go have a abortion idiots)are up in arms especially the fuking sierra club c.s from frisco

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×