Obama To Abandon Cap And Trade?

Politico reports that in Obama’s next State of the Union Address he will indicate that he will focus on cutting the federal deficit (now that he ran it up) and will pay less attention to other issues except job creation. The thought is that this will put Cap and Trade on hold.

What Obama wants to do is give Democrats cover for the 2010 election. Cap and Trade is unpopular and Obama does not want to have the record show that Democrats voted for this unpopular legislation though we already have the names of those in the House who voted for it.

The recent elections have driven home a few points, one of which is that Democrats could be vulnerable in 2010 because of the spending spree they have been on. This is a political move designed to lessen damage from the midterm election.

Make no mistake, Cap and Trade will be back if Obama maintains majorities in both chambers of Congress. He knows that if he puts the Democrats out there on this issue, whether it passes before the next election or not, he is likely to lose a lot of seats. If Cap and Trade has not passed and he loses the Senate, it never will and even if it does pass and he loses one chamber, his legislative agenda will be dead. He will also have a harder time being reelected.

This is a stalling tactic. Obama wants people to forget about the Cap and Trade issue so he can keep both chambers. If he is successful, Cap and Trade will be back and a number of other liberal/socialist items will be introduced.

Regardless of what he does next year we need to vote as many of them out of office as possible.

We saw what a mess was created when Republicans held all the power and now we are seeing it to an even greater degree with the Democrats.

We need to bring some sort of sanity back to DC and we can do that by shaking up the Congress.

Vote them all out in 2010.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

11 Responses to “Obama To Abandon Cap And Trade?”

  1. Adam says:

    What is your basis for stating Cap and Trade is unpopular? Does anybody even know what Cap and Trade means? Rasmussen for instance back in May of this year found less than 1 in 4 folks couldn’t even tell you it has to do with the environment. That makes it tricky to see how the public really feels about Cap and Trade.

    On the other hand, the problem with Cap and Trade is the same as the problem with Healthcare. Too many right-wingers are busy spreading misinformation and lies. In this case when you exclude right-wing language from the question that makes the participant believe Cap and Trade is going to cost them $10,000 a year extra instead of around $175 as the CBO estimates then you see really broad support.

    • Blake says:

      The CBO is wrong in their estimate, because they do not take many of the hidden costs into account.
      Costs like having to hire (by law) an “environmental” geek who will tell you if you have to retrofit your house before you can sell it- or you cannot sell it- period.
      There is also the costs that are attached to “joining” the “smart grid”, whether you want to or not- and if your power supply meets the criteria- if not, they will curtail your power until you get with the program, whether or not you can pay for whatever power you use.
      In addition, this is, once again, a government program, and there HAS NEVER BEEN A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM THAT WAS COST- EFFECTIVE. Ever.

      • Adam says:

        I guess it depends on how you define cost-effective. We face a serious, serious problem with energy consumption and climate change that conservatives, backed by oil-industry misinformation, keep their heads in the sand over.

        Nobody is saying Cap and Trade will be free but my point is simply that conservative estimates distort reality on the costs and polls based on the distortion are clearly affecting public opinion to the negative.

      • Darrel says:


        Of course there are no end of examples:

        All of our peer countries have more government involvement in health care and reap the benefits of MUCH lower costs (and better results). Single payer is obviously more cost effective and for reasons a child can understand (one payer instead of a thousand, no ads etc.).

        Many city governments, if not most of them, handle their sewage and sanitation in house (government) because they can better control costs (and thus be MORE cost effective).

        How “cost effective” has it been for our government to have built our interstate highway system? Very.

        As mentioned on “This Week” this morning, it is going to cost about $1,000,000 per soldier, per year, to station them in Afghanistan. This absurd amount is no doubt largely because so many military services have been out-sourced to expensive profit driven private contractors.

        This is obviously stupid and Obama is already working to change this in order to be “more cost effective,” observe:

        “The White House Office of Management and Budget is directing federal agencies to take a series of actions designed to reduce the government’s growing reliance on outside contractors.

        In memoranda scheduled for release Wednesday and in September, the OMB will outline steps the Obama administration hopes will help save $40 billion annually through improved acquisition practices….

        The employment of private tax collectors has been, for federal unions, a particularly egregious example of the misuse of contractors. In March, the Internal Revenue Service stopped using two private tax collection companies because, according to an agency statement, “IRS collection is more cost-effective than the contractors.”

        More at Wash. Post article


        “Frederick D. Barton, a senior adviser to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington,… also questioned whether using contractors was cost effective, saying that no one really knew whether having a force made up mainly of contractors whose salaries were often triple or quadruple those of a corresponding soldier or Marine was cheaper or more expensive for the American taxpayer.”


        Hmmm… is it more cost effective to pay four times the price for something? Probably not.

        The above examples show your claim is wrong, let me know if you would like more examples.


        • Blake says:

          And sure- keep those examples coming- I love to see you waste your time and energy.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “OK, I will amend my statement-“>>

          Poor Blake thinks he changed his statement, but he doesn’t understand English well enough to know that he didn’t.
          Both statements contain the claim “there HAS NEVER BEEN A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM THAT WAS COST EFFECTIVE,” and thus are refuted by the examples I already gave.

          But he’s right about one thing. Giving him examples and refuting his errors is a waste of time. He doesn’t learn from them. Perhaps others do. Sometimes I learn new things while teaching him these basic things.

          Fox News busted for lying again, this time for Palin.

        • Adam says:

          Exactly. If I thought I was changing minds here I’d be even more naive than these conservatives on this site think I am. It doesn’t matter if Blake notices he gets crushed by facts time and again, it’s all about gathering the information for future use against people who actually care about fact or logic.

  2. UNRR says:

    This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 11/14/2009, at The Unreligious Right

  3. BA says:

    Cap and trade won’t be dropped. They’ll just change the language. They’re going to focus on job creation, huh? Well, they’ve already started trying to sell this bill as a job creation bill. Don’t be fooled. Obama is intent on getting his “climate change” legislation through. Write Congress and let them know why they shouldn’t support this disastrous legislation at http://tiny.cc/wl9oU.

  4. George - Houston says:

    I don’t believe the administration will give up cap&trade. Whether its the public option, closing gitmo, pulling out of Iraq/Afganistan…they always return to their original course. As soon as they get bogged down, they throw it in reverse for a second so they can get momentum when they put it back in drive…

    And Adam, the reason that most people don’t realize C&T is about the environment is because it’s not. Money is the driving factor, not the spotted owl du’ jour. If you want to help the environment and spend more on your energy then go ahead, just don’t force me to pay for your beliefs.

    • Blake says:

      You are right, George- it is about power and control of a huge chunk of our freedoms- many of the goals of this “Cap and Rob” legislation could be accomplished without the taxes and caps in place.
      The good news is that it is looking like our bankers, (the Chinese) are trying to get us to abandon the healthcare issue as well as Cap & Rob, so perhaps we can escape this for awhile, and sanity will make a comeback in our lives.
      One may hope.