Entries in Carbon Tax (85)
Hi all -- in case you missed it, the below article came out today on Gary Lambert's history of "progressive" energy policies and his involvement in Building America’s Future, "an organization dedicated to a larger government that invests taxpayer dollars in infrastructure."
Does New Hampshire Second (NH02) US House Candidate Gary Lambert Even Know What He Stands For?
As a candidate for the US House, former state senator Gary Lambert fails to offer the voters of the New Hampshire Second a clear and concise message about where he stands on many issues; most notably cap-and-trade and reducing the size of government.
In 2011, the New Hampshire Journal interviewed Lambert, who was elected in 2010, and asked him what he was enjoying most about being a state senator; he replied:
Watch the video of the Lambert’s entire response.
Lambert voted like a progressive on energy and natural resources
Let’s examine Lambert’s “passion for energy and natural resources”, by looking at his voting record to see how it squares with his commitment to smaller government, and the interests of the people of the Granite State.
First, Lambert voted against HB 519, which would have repealed New Hampshire’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) cap-and-trade program. This vote clearly favored bigger government and special interests, and ignored the negative consequence of skyrocketing energy costs for New Hampshire residents.
Then, when presented with an opportunity to reevaluate his position on RGGI, he doubled down on his original position in dramatic fashion. Republicans needed just one more vote to override the governor’s veto and repeal the RGGI, but Senator Lambert cast the deciding vote on SB 154 to uphold the veto and leave the onerous RGGI in place.
So despite a high-profile opportunity to acknowledge that his position had evolved, or that he’d had a change of heart, or that he’d been presented with irrefutable evidence of the damaging impact of the RGGI, Gary Lambert stood his ground, which just happened to be the same territory occupied by progressives.
The other thing Lambert enjoyed early in his term was joining Michael Bloomberg, Ed Rendell and a host of others in Building America’s Future, an organization dedicated to a larger government that invests taxpayer dollars in infrastructure.
Lambert remains a member to this day, where the co-chairs are now Bloomberg, Rendell and Barack Obama’s former Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood.
You can sum up the Building America’s Future message with this quote from AFL-CIO president, Richard Trumpka:
Of course by “investment” they really mean “spending,” so clearly this is an organization dedicated to increasing the size of government, and Lambert didn’t just join, he worked hard to help Building America’s Future achieve that mission by voting for big government spending multiple times.
He voted against HB 218, which would have repealed the New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority. The NHRTA was established in 2007 to study and oversee the development of a commuter and passenger rail in New Hampshire. It is estimated that developing a rail system in New Hampshire would cost over $300 million initially, and between $8 million and $10 million a year to maintain. The bill to repeal the NHRTA was passed by both the Senate and the House but vetoed by the Governor. It then fell short of the votes necessary for a veto override.
By voting against repeal, Lambert ignored common sense and his stated commitment to trim excess spending, and instead actively supported government expansion.
He also voted against HB 540, which would have required vehicle inspections every two years, instead of annually. Supporters of the bill maintained that it would save the people of New Hampshire $11 million per year and would eliminate unnecessary government waste. They also claimed that annual inspections have been ineffective and unnecessary because they have no positive impact on auto safety. Finally, they pointed out that 30 other states don’t even mandate auto inspection.
But despite supporters’ best efforts, the bill passed in the House, but was deemed inexpedient to the legislature in the Senate, again thanks in part to Lambert’s vote.
Lambert then went on to vote against HB 629, which would have repealed the uninsured health care database. In doing so, he voted to protect an intrusive, costly, and dangerous system that placed an unnecessary burden on hospitals, and captured the social security numbers of patients in a government database without their knowledge or approval. He once again ignored patient interests and privacy rights while simultaneously showing his true colors as a defender of big government spending.
Are these votes consistent with the motto, “Live Free or Die?” We think not.
In fact, these votes are far more aligned with a progressive agenda that embraces, even extols, increasing spending at taxpayer expense (ostensibly for their own good, of course).
Five votes, five chances to demonstrate clearly that he stood with conservatives, and Granite Staters, and he failed miserably. On the contrary, his voting record made an irrefutable statement that his “passion” is for opposing the very ideals and New Hampshire constituents he claims to champion.
Today, just three years later, Lambert is a candidate for the GOP nomination in the Second Congressional District desperate to make up for his votes with hollow words and actions. In what appears to be a very hastily completed form, Lambert has signed a pledge from Americans for Prosperity denouncing support for climate change legislation like RGGI and cap-and-trade.
Following that, his campaign whisked out a press release with the following statement:
We notice a couple of problems with all this: first, Lambert himself created those restrictions in production and increases in costs when he cast his aforementioned votes; second, AFP has not pushed this pledge at all in this election cycle.
In fact, AFP State Director, Greg Moore, said:
Furthermore, Gary Lambert has not renounced his membership in Building America’s Future and his association with the likes of Michael Bloomberg, Ed Rendell and Ray LaHood.
Does the Lambert campaign really believe this obvious attempt to obfuscate his record will resonate with voters? The voters may not have spoken yet, but one of New Hampshire’s largest newspapers has weighed in, and they seem to see through the ruse.
The Union Leader recently opined:
We would add that actions speak far louder than words; that Lambert’s recent actions are political posturing, at best, and a poor attempt to deceive the voters, at worst. Even if we were to write it off to a confused or mixed message, his voting record carries more weight than a defunct pledge and a press release.
New Hampshire voters can’t risk their futures on a candidate like Gary Lambert. He is far too willing to say whatever he must to get elected, and that is hazardous, even potentially devastating, to their best interests. For a case in point, look no further than Annie Kuster’s first-term in the US House.
Follow Marilinda on Facebook or Twitter!
June 19, 2014
Good afternoon -
The Senate Majority has provided a perfect case study to completely undermine Senator Jeanne Shaheen's claim that she is pro-American energy development while still supporting and empowering Harry Reid. It turns out that both statements cannot be true.
Roll Call reported that, "Late Wednesday, the Appropriations Committee decided not to move forward as scheduled with Thursday’s markup of the bill that funds the Energy Department, as well as water development projects. The move avoids a potentially problematic vote for Senate Democrats and the Obama administration that could have stopped the Environmental Protection Agency’s bid to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants — regulations that have the affect of targeting pollution from coal." In other words, Democrats yesterday delayed the hearing to avoid being forced to vote on an amendment to protect Granite Staters from electricity price hikes and job losses caused by the new EPA regulations. Why? Because Harry Reid runs the Senate thanks to Jeanne Shaheen.
“Jeanne Shaheen’s mere presence in the Senate allows Barack Obama and Harry Reid to execute an extreme, anti-energy agenda that hurts New Hampshire,” said NRSC Press Secretary Brook Hougesen. “Jeanne Shaheen cannot be both pro-energy development and pro-Harry Reid; one claim undermines the other. Shaheen's failure to fight against these harmful EPA regulations proves that instead of fighting to help New Hampshire, Shaheen again has prioritized the liberal Obama agenda."
WHAT THEY ARE SAYING ABOUT SHAHEEN'S/DEMOCRATS' PRO-ENERGY AMENDMENT DODGE
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: "Apparently fearing that the top Senate Republican might score a political win, Democrats for the second time in a week cancelled a preliminary vote on a major spending bill. At issue was an amendment by Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell that would have allowed the Kentucky Republican and Appropriations panel member to successfully go to bat for his state's coal industry as the spending panel was to consider on Thursday a measure funding the Energy Department and other agencies." (AP, "Senate Democrats scuttle a vote on spending bill," 06/18/14)
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: "McConnell's amendment appeared on track to prevail. It is aimed at blocking any new government rules on carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. He's made his opposition to what he calls the Obama administration's "war on coal" a centerpiece in his own re-election bid. Mikulski's decision to call off the vote on the underlying energy and water appropriations measure came a week after she cancelled debate on a huge measure that would also have forced endangered Democrats to vote on politically poisonous amendments regarding the implementation of President Barack Obama's health care law." (AP, "Senate Democrats scuttle a vote on spending bill," 06/18/14)
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: "More interesting was the decision to block a panel vote on McConnell's pro-coal amendment. The Appropriations panel is stocked with Democratic red state supporters of the energy industry like Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Begich of Alaska, both of whom face difficult elections this fall." (AP, "Senate Democrats scuttle a vote on spending bill," 06/18/14)
ROLL CALL: Headline: "Democrats Ducking Vote on ‘War on Coal’ Amendment — for Now." (Roll Call, "Democrats Ducking Vote on ‘War on Coal’ Amendment — for Now," 06/18/14)
ROLL CALL: "The war over the “war on coal” has been postponed after Democrats pushed off a second fiscal 2015 spending bill in the Senate... The move avoids a potentially problematic vote for Senate Democrats and the Obama administration that could have stopped the Environmental Protection Agency’s bid to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants — regulations that have the affect of targeting pollution from coal. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., crafted an amendment on the subject that he intended to offer to the Energy-Water appropriations bill. As noted previously, the breakdown of Democratic caucus members on the committee is such that he would have had a real chance to prevail." (Roll Call, "Democrats Ducking Vote on ‘War on Coal’ Amendment — for Now," 06/18/14)
THE HILL: "Senate Democrats canceled a scheduled Thursday Appropriations Committee markup that could have opened the door to an amendment to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) latest climate rules...The amendment was part of an effort against what Republicans are calling Obama’s “war on coal.” (The Hill, "Senate Dems cancel spending bill vote amid GOP threat on EPA rules," 06/19/14)
E&E NEWS: "The Senate Appropriations Committee last night suddenly abandoned plans to advance a $34 billion energy and water spending bill this morning. Republicans had been plotting to use the markup to force tough votes on controversial issues including the Obama administration's climate change and clean water regulations. The cancelation was announced around 8 p.m. last night, and an Appropriations Committee aide offered no explanation for the deviation." (E&E News, "Amid escalating political tension, Senate panel drops energy, water bill from markup agenda," 6/19/14)
@AriNatter: Senate Dems postpone planned Energy and Water Approps bill markup...comes as McConnell planned amendment to block EPA CO2 regs.
@DarrenGoode: Top Senate Approps Republican Richard Shelby criticizes delay of energy-water spending bill. "Regular order means ... taking tough votes."
@Ben_Geman: 1/2 The white-hot politics of the EPA climate and Clean Water Act rules are singeing the appropriations process in the Senate. #EPA
@Ben_Geman: 2/2 Energy & Water approps markup canceled in face of GOP amendments that would tempt conservative Dems, Qs remain on minibus floor amdts
Shaheen And King Both Outspoken Advocates of Cap-and-Trade
Concord - The New Hampshire Republican State Committee released the following statement today on Senator Jeanne Shaheen accepting the endorsement of fellow cap-and-trade advocate Senator Angus King:
"Its not surprising that Senator Shaheen is being endorsed by a fellow supporter of President Obama's disastrous energy tax that will hurt New Hampshire families and small businesses. The Obama-Shaheen energy tax could kill as many as 10,000 jobs in the Granite State, increase the price of gas by 20 cents per gallon and raise the cost of electricity for New Hampshire families by 18 percent," said NHGOP Chairman Jennifer Horn. "Senators Shaheen and King's unreasonable support of this harmful energy tax reminds Granite Staters that we need to change course by electing a responsible Republican senator in November."
Shaheen Voted In Favor Of Establishing A Tax On Carbon
Shaheen Voted In Favor Of Establishing A New Tax On Carbon. "Whitehouse, D-R.I., amendment no. 646 that would establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation that would provide for a fee on carbon pollution and use revenues collected to reduce the deficit." (S. Con. Res. 8, CQ Vote #58: Rejected 41-58: R 0-45; D 39-13; I 2-0, 3/22/13, Shaheen VotedYea)
In 2008, Senator King Campaigned For Obama's Energy Plan
In 2008, King Said Obama Would "Put America On The Path To Energy Independence." "Independent Angus King, who served two terms ending in 2003, endorsed Obama on Friday. King, who is in the wind power business,said Obama would 'put America on the path to energy independence and provide immediate relief for families hard hit by the high cost of gas and home heating oil.'" ("Former Gov. King, Others Endorse Obama Candidacy," Bangor Daily News, 9/13/08)
King Spoke "On Behalf Of . . . Barack Obama's Energy Plan." "More than 50 people showed up at the Lewiston Multi-Purpose Center on Wednesday night to hear popular former Gov. Angus King, an Independent, speak on behalf of Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama's energy plan." ("King Pitches Obama's Energy Plan, [Lewiston, ME] Sun Journal, 9/27/08)
Obama Included A Cap-And-Trade System In His 2008 Energy Plan
Obama Said "Under My Plan Of A Cap-And-Trade System, Electricity Rates Would Necessarily Skyrocket," Adding That Coal-Powered Plants And Other Plants Would "Have To Retrofit Their Operations. That Will Cost Money. They Will Pass That Money On To Consumers." ("Pence Claims That Obama Said Energy Costs Will Skyrocket With A Cap-And-Trade Plan," PolitiFact, 6/11/09)
A Carbon Tax Would Increase The Price Of Energy An Kill New Hampshire Jobs
A Carbon Tax Could Kill As Many As 10,000 Jobs In New Hampshire. "This tax would deal a blow to employment in New Hampshire, with a loss of worker income equivalent to 7,000 to 10,000 jobs in 2013 and 10,000 by 2023." (National Association Of Manufacturers, "Adverse Economic Impacts Of A Carbon Tax In New Hampshire," www.nam.org, Accessed 5/28/13)
A Carbon Tax Could Increase The Price Of Gas In New Hampshire By More Than 20Cents Per Gallon. "Prices at the pump would jump by more than 20 cents a gallon in 2013." (National Association Of Manufacturers, "Adverse Economic Impacts Of A Carbon Tax In New Hampshire," www.nam.org, Accessed 5/28/13)
A Carbon Tax Could Increase The Cost Of Electricity For New Hampshire Families By 18 Percent. "Households in New Hampshire would see a significant increase in their electricity rates, with an average increase of 18 percent in 2013." (National Association Of Manufacturers, "Adverse Economic Impacts Of A Carbon Tax In New Hampshire," www.nam.org, Accessed 5/28/13)
A Carbon Tax Could Increase The Cost Of Natural Gas By More Than 40 Percent. "The cost of using natural gas would increase by more than 40 percent in 2013, the first year of the carbon tax study, adding to household energy bills and increasing operation costs for many New Hampshire businesses." (National Association Of Manufacturers, "Adverse Economic Impacts Of A Carbon Tax In New Hampshire," www.nam.org, Accessed 5/28/13)