Otter blames Pelosi's 'Democrat legions' for flawed cap-and-trade bill
Gov. Butch Otter has just sent out a guest opinion to Idaho newspapers, urging the Senate to reject the climate-change bill that passed the House on June 26.
And Otter echoes the partisan tone that has marked the climate-change debate, lambasting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "and her Democrat legions" for pushing "bad economic and environmental policy."
"While I fully support and advocate greater energy independence, energy efficiency and responsible environmental protection, it also is prudent to ask at what point proposed actions become cost-prohibitive and what tangible benefits there would be for American consumers already struggling through a deep recession," Otter wrote.
"Is this 'cap-and-trade' legislation — no matter how well intentioned — worth driving our utility bills higher?"
Idaho Reps. Mike Simpson, a Republican, and Walt Minnick, a Democrat, voted against the bill. Idaho Republican Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch have said they oppose the bill as well.
Here is the Otter guest opinion in full:
The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA) is a 1,201-page piece of legislation jammed through the U.S. House of Representatives recently in the name of addressing climate change. Unfortunately, all it actually would do is raise taxes and energy costs while eliminating jobs and slowing our economy.
Your help is needed to make sure the U.S. Senate doesn’t follow the lead of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat legions bent on making this bad economic and environmental policy into the law of the land.
In a recent letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, our Senator Mike Crapo and other members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee wrote that “some estimates place the total economic footprint of (climate) legislation in the trillions of dollars.” They also point out that those costs will affect “families, farmers, drivers, and workers” with “higher prices for power, gasoline, diesel, food, and other consumable goods.”
In other words, they will hit every one of us.
The senators’ letter and the concerns it details about the EPA’s economic analysis of ACESA raised my hackles too. While I fully support and advocate greater energy independence, energy efficiency and responsible environmental protection, it also is prudent to ask at what point proposed actions become cost-prohibitive and what tangible benefits there would be for American consumers already struggling through a deep recession.
Is this “cap-and-trade” legislation – no matter how well intentioned – worth driving our utility bills higher?
Beyond the direct costs, there also may be unintended consequences of ACESA, especially for our nation’s food supply. Such costs as farm machinery, fuel, electricity and agricultural chemicals certainly would increase under the bill, as would the cost of delivering food from the farm to the dinner table.
As our Congressman Mike Simpson said after the House vote on Friday, “This is a classic example of Congress rushing to fix a problem it doesn’t fully understand and implement a solution it hasn’t fully considered. In the end, this legislation represents the largest tax increase in American history and a devastating blow to the competitiveness of American agriculture and manufacturing.”
We owe it to our families, farmers, drivers and workers – indeed, to every American taxpayer and consumer – to carefully analyze the proposed changes in energy regulations so we know who exactly is being helped and who is being hurt. With a 1,201-page behemoth of a bill, that will take time, effort and critical thinking.
The EPA’s own assessment of the bill assumes a 150-percent increase in our nation’s nuclear power generating capacity by 2050. That would be great, and I for one hope we get there. But it might not be practical or realistic unless financial and waste management and disposal barriers are addressed by Congress first.
At least 224 amendments were offered to ACESA in the House. Yet House Democrat leadership allowed only one of those amendments to be considered, sweeping aside meaningful debate before rubber stamping the bill. That speaks profoundly to the complexity and level of concern surrounding this issue.
Our Idaho congressional delegation understands that. Others might not, so please join me in thanking our Congressmen Simpson and Minnick for their “No” votes and supporting Senators Crapo and Risch in their efforts to stop this bill. The impacts are far-reaching, and we all will have to pay the price.
Get Twitter updates on my blog and column and Statesman editorials.
Become a follower here. On Facebook, join the Idaho Statesman
Opinion Page Group for updates.
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo- Kevin Richert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
More politicking
Let's see. The entire Idaho delegation has voiced their opposition to the bill, yet Otter feels the need to write an opinion urging opposition to the bill they have already decided to vote against? Why?
Sounds like an excuse to say, "Your help is needed to make sure the U.S. Senate doesn’t follow the lead of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat legions..." Did Norm Semanko draft this? Looks like another GOP fundraising letter to me.
Who's got them old rat lesions ?
----------
There is no life in Idaho...it is a mirror site on god's server. You were dreaming but it is over. Go to your residence and await our commands and THEN we will restore control...
Is It Too Much To Ask?
Wouldn't it be nice to have a Governor who's actually fluent in the "official" English language? You know, the one where the correct adjectival form of "Democrat" is "Democratic"? Or is that just the way they talk in the Idaho "Republic" Party?
England is full of foreign foreigners. We talk okay mister?
----------
There is no life in Idaho...it is a mirror site on god's server. You were dreaming but it is over. Go to your residence and await our commands and THEN we will restore control...