Cap and Trade

Admittedly, I am not a fan of Senator Bayh. However he did the right thing in signing the letter below. I am not real clear on Senate rules, but normally it would require 60 votes to pass a bill such as the Cap and Trade Bill. There is a procedure where a bill can pass as part of a reconciliation process with only 50 votes. This letter opposes using that process for the Cap and Trade bill. Senator Bayh deserves credit for signing this letter. Please don't forget he signed TARP and the Stimulus Package. His overall grade is still low in my grade book.

For those of you unfamiliar with Cap and Trade, it is a system where government will set a cap on carbon emissions and then issue "carbon credits". These carbon credits could be bought and sold in the open market. The cap is the issue. By setting a low cap, the government will increase the price of carbon based energy. Obama as made it very clear why he wants to do this. The goal is to make alternative energy sources competitive with fossil fuels by drivng up the price of fossil fuels.

Think back to last summer when gas was $4 or more per gallon. The impact on the economy was significant. If the price of fossil fuel generated electricity is doubled by cap and trade, the impact will be the same. Maybe worse.

In Indiana we have enough coal to last over a 1000 years. This provides a lot of local jobs for miners and provides us with the lowest electricity prices in the country. It would be foolish for a Senator from Indiana to vote to create a tax that forces us into more expensive energy sources. Cap and Trade is a very bad piece of legislation.

But I regress:

Here is the letter Senator Bayh signed:
______
March 12, 2009

Dear Chairman Conrad and Ranking Member Gregg:

We oppose using the budget reconciliation process to expedite passage of climate legislation.

Enactment of a cap-and-trade regime is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy. Legislation so far‐reaching should be fully vetted and given appropriate time for debate, something the budget reconciliation process does not allow. Using this procedure would circumvent normal Senate practice and would be inconsistent with the Administration’s stated goals of bipartisanship, cooperation, and openness.

We commend you for holding the recent hearing, entitled “Procedures for Consideration of the Budget Resolution/Reconciliation,” which discussed important recommendations for the upcoming budget debate. Maintaining integrity in the budget process is critical to safeguarding the fiscal health of the United States in these challenging times.

Democrats - 8
Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.)
Evan Bayh (D-Ind.)
Robert Casey (D-Pa.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Carl Levin (D-Mich.)
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)
Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)

Republicans - 25
Mike Johanns (R-Neb.)
Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)
John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)
Kit Bond (R-Mo.)
Sam Brownback (R-Kan.)
Jim Bunning (R-Ky.)
Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)
Thad Cochran (R-Miss.)
Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
Michael Crapo (R-Idaho)
John Ensign (R-Nev.)
Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.)
Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)
Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.)
John McCain (R-Ariz.)
Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Jim Risch (R-Idaho)
Pat Roberts (R-Kan.)
David Vitter (R-La.)
George Voinovich (R-Ohio)
Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)