|
| Posted by: Boldwin
- [25282121] Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 20:04
Provisions packed into economy killing major bills recently passed:
Around 9AM the day the energy bill was voted on, three hundred pages of language that will kill your future was added to the bill...obviously not read by all but the authors of those provision.
One lawmaker took a stab at understanding some of them.
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | 5 | sarge33rd
ID: 565142919
Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 20:14
|
300 pages which will kill our future....
in the opinion of whom? rightwing-nuts who admire the free-enterprise spirit of Madoff possibly?
|
|
| | | 6 | Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 20:23
|
Correction: those 300 pages were inserted into the bill at 3:09 AM of the day it was passed.
|
|
| | | 7 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 20:40
|
so, share Baldwin.
do tell me how my future was killed. i don't want to hear John Boehner take a stab at understanding some of them.
you are telling me that added to the energy bill was three hundred pages of language that will kill (my) future.
since you're making such a broad-based claim, i'd like you to tell me just how my future has been killed.
|
|
| | | 8 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 20:44
|
The gist of the bill was available for weeks. Boehner never met a bill introduced by a Democrat that he couldn't demonize. Attacking this bill with brightly colored flow charts and no alternative is just the kind of thing the GOP has been reduced to these days. Lots of vacuous hand waving and doom and gloom warnings.
|
|
| | |
| | | 10 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 21:05
|
well, not just the GOP, but also Baldwin, who never met an alarmist generalization he didn't love to make.
|
|
| | | 11 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 21:08
|
The gist of the bill was available for weeks
LOL - They may be as close as anyone comes to defending the process that this bill followed to passage by the house.
Thank God it has next to no chance in the Senate. I don't even want to know what all got added to the "gist" that no one has read yet.
|
|
| | | 12 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 21:41
|
It is a framework to start to fix the problem. Cap and trade is, by far, the most market-oriented solution being offered.
|
|
| | | 13 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 21:46
|
OMG PD, honestly wtf is wrong with you? Naturally you would see a tax in itself as a solution.
|
|
| | | 14 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 21:49
|
Uh, seriously--do you even know what you are objecting to anymore, except it was a Democratic idea? Have you read even an overview of the bill? Any cost estimates?
I look forward to your original analysis of the differing plans being offered, Baldwin. But I've got a life to live in the meantime.
|
|
| | | 15 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 22:32
|
i made the same challenge in post 7. maybe he'll respond to yours.
|
|
| | | 16 | Frick
ID: 4945458
Tue, Jun 30, 2009, 13:49
|
I have a friend who (works for a midwest power company) made the following comments about the law.
Unlike the SO2 program and acid rain program that was very successful in reducing SO2 emissions by 75% across the US, this act is giving credits to those utilities that don't need them. Under the Clean Air Act specific areas of the county were targeted (Midwest) and those utilities were given credits that continued to reduce over time. Those companies that complied early sold credits to those that didn't. Not a wealth transfer as much as an efficinency program to reduce at least cost.
The proposed bill will have a ratchet, but the purchase will not come from those that complied early, it will come from those allocated credits above what they need, ie. those with no plans to change their operation. This is the very definition of a wealth transfer.
The bill seeks to reduce Carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. To accomplish this and when considering electric consumption growth since 1990 it would take one of the following.
1. To do this with wind would require land space 20x the land area of Kansas.
2. To do this with Nuclear would require 14x the nuclear generation that now exists in the US
3. To do this with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (continuing to run fossil fuel burning plants) would require putting 7x the flow of oil out of the earth Earth, back in as CO2 in the USA.
The point being this is a Herculean effort and will cost billions and is only achievable using multiple technologies. Some of which do not exist as industrial technologies today.
Is he correct that it is a wealth transfer from the midwest to the coasts?
I personally would prefer the prior method of putting penalties on those under a certain level and not rewarding companies that haven't or won't change.
|
|
| | | 17 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Jun 30, 2009, 13:57
|
Is he correct that it is a wealth transfer from the midwest to the coasts? this true if allocated more credits above and beyond what they need on the coasts than they do in the mid west and/or bring down the limits faster in the mid west. I dont know if the law is structured in such a way.
|
|
| | | 18 | Building 7
ID: 471052128
Tue, Jun 30, 2009, 16:51
|
Voting on stuff they haven't read again. Pathetic. Now, they don't even pretend to have read it. Just a cesspool in Washington. Others can vote for representatives who vote on major legislation that they have not read. I never will. And it's not an R vs D thing. It's just pathetic. You people get what you vote for. Quit voting for these losers. Or else they will never change.
|
|
| | | 19 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Tue, Jun 30, 2009, 19:04
|
I agree in principle, B7. I particularly dislike the midnight stuffings where no one has a chance to read it even if they wanted to.
That said, in each session of Congress there are around a thousand bills that see floor action. Some are over a 1000 pages long.
Reading every bill is impossible. You have to delegate to aides. I wouldn't want me elected representative to waste their time attempting, in vain, to read each and every bill in it's entirety. I would hope they have the ability to delegate authority and trust those they delegate to.
|
|
| | | 20 | Seattle Zen
ID: 445123018
Tue, Jun 30, 2009, 19:13
|
Voting on stuff they haven't read again. Pathetic. Now, they don't even pretend to have read it. Just a cesspool in Washington. Others can vote for representatives who vote on major legislation that they have not read. I never will. And it's not an R vs D thing. It's just pathetic. You people get what you vote for. Quit voting for these losers. Or else they will never change.
This charge is starting to make y'all look like children. What are you proposing, all legislation must be no more than 6 pages, written in crayon and there can be no negotiations for two weeks so the legislators can wake up from their naps and read it? Things are added on to proposed legislation at the end because they are negotiating the language until the very end. Do you think that the CEO's and Board members of multinational corporations read the language of a merger contract before they sign it? Of course not, their attorneys give them a synopsis.
If this "sneaking language in at 2am" problem is so awful, why have we not seen a "... and we must pull all of the troops out of Iraq by Tuesday." clause in some unimportant bill? Or a "... oh, not only are gays allowed to serve openly in the military, but the new Army uniforms must be pink." Fifteen minutes after the Prez signs it, all the snickering Democrats are jumping up and down... Why has this not happened? Because the "they don't have time to read it" old canard is the ultimate red herring usually used by those who hate all government.
|
|
| | | 21 | Building 7
ID: 471052128
Wed, Jul 01, 2009, 09:27
|
I like that 6 page idea. Not sure why they would want to use a crayon. They pass too many laws, and too complicated laws. They should get rid of some laws. Over 1000 pages for this one. 1000 pages of our freedoms being eliminated. And you're right, I am anti-government. Anti-federal government. I prefer they don't do anything they don't have to. How about they provide ample time for those who want to read it. Those whose vote has already been bought and paid for, do not have to read it. What's the hurry anyways? Let constituents read it on the internet so they can contact their representative with their concerns,
I have heard them say "I didn't know that was in there"
Things are added on to proposed legislation at the end because they are negotiating the language until the very end.
Good, negotiate the language and then give people three days to read it. I think the 300 page amendment was a little more than just "negotiating language" though.
|
|
| | | 22 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Wed, Jul 01, 2009, 10:57
|
How about they provide ample time for those who want to read it.
There really is no point in them not having to wait a day or two before they can vote on a bill. What are they so scared of?
|
|
| | | 23 | Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Wed, Jul 01, 2009, 12:03
|
Obama himself made it a big selling point that he would wait five days before signing bills to allow public reaction and input as to whether he should sign the bills. Anyone seen any of that? He has them signed before this board even reacts, let alone the general public.
|
|
|
|