Tuesday, July 28, 2009

It Must Be Raining...

…Because Frank Kratovil is pissing on my leg.

I received a four-page letter (paid for on the taxpayer dime) from Kratovil’s office defending his vote for the American Clean Energy and Security Act better known as Waxman-Markey. The letter is not so much a reasoned defense as it is bag of rhetorical tricks, non-sequitors, straw men, and false insinuations regarding the bill’s opponents (I have been a vocal opponent).
Of course, this explanation is a carefully choreographed routine designed to dance around the truth and fool voters and reassure the green special interest groups, who provide campaign cash and volunteers.

Michael Swartz already responded at Monoblogue, but I’d like to add my own thoughts.

Kratovil states that he “thoroughly” reviewed the legislation—all 1,400 pages—including the place holders added just before the vote. This is simply a bald faced lie. I called Kratovil’s office several times during the week before the vote and twice the day of the vote. Staff at both his DC office and Centreville office told me mere hours before the vote that Kratovil had not finished reading the bill yet. If Kratovil or anyone at his office wish to dispute this, I’ll just point them to his party leadership Steny Hoyer and John Conyers, who scoff at the notion of reading bills before voting on them.

That Waxman-Markey would be ruinous for the economy is an undeniable fact. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, the gold standard for think tank analysis shows that Waxman-Markey would:

·Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.4 trillion;
·Destroy 1,145,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs;
·Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;
·Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 58 percent;
·Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent;
·Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,241; and
·Result in an increase of $28,728 in additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation

Only Kratovil would have you believe that those speaking this truth to the powers that be are liars. He claims that under Waxman-Markey, Maryland families would end up saving $8 per month. This is nonsense on stilts. Heritage analyzed Waxman-Markey’s effect on the states by congressional district. Here’s the economic bonanza it will reap for Maryland’s first congressional district

· -$255.08 million in GSP in 2012
· -$507.84 million average GSP 2012-2035
· -$510.48 million in personal income loss in 2012
· -$295.65 million in average personal income loss 2012-2035
· -3059 non-farm job loss in 2012
· -1723 average non-farm job loss 2012-2035

Kratovil writes that Waxman-Markey “does not increase taxes whatsoever.” While this is technically true, it is a classic case of distinction without a difference. What Waxman-Markey does is impose massive regulatory costs, which act like taxes—massive taxes.

Also, no where in the letter does Kratovil address the ostensible reason behind the bill--saving the planet from global warming. He does not address it because he knows as do the others who voted for this dog, that carbon emission reduction schemes don't work. They failed in Europe and they will fail here.

I could go on, but Martin O’Malley would find an electricity rate decrease before I could detail all of Kratovil’s deceptions in this letter.

To an extent I expect politicians to be less than honest with the facts. However, never before have I paid for a politician to lie to me and call me a liar all in the same letter.


James said...

I'm familiar with the popular quip being referenced in the title here, but this title is confusing to me. Is it also actually raining in this scenario?
Anyway, It's not fair to to support the claim that this bill will be "ruinous to the economy" with a list of worst case projections. Many projections, as you know, show clean energy initiatives creating lots of jobs and saving money. It will play out somewhere in between. We need to move toward energy independence. And yes, it may cost something in the short term. Then again, maybe not.

Mark Newgent said...


It is entirely fair to support the claim that it will be ruinous to the economy. Like it or not, the health of our economy depends on burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon dioxide. Clean energy (excluding nuclear as the greens despise it) even running at full capacity provides only a small fraction of the energy demand for our economic needs. Furthermore alternatives are much more expensive to generate and transmit versus coal or natural gas generated energy.

Green jobs are a canard as Spain--Obama's prime example of his vision--have lost 2 jobs for everyone green job created through its cap and trade.

Energy independence is fallacy, a rhetorical ruse for politicians. We will never be energy independent--at least not by relying on alternatives.

Yes it will cost a great deal in the short term--all for negligible future benefits.