Rudy Poot Candy Ass Congressman Rodriguez

Talk about living down to the reputation of Democrats as cowards.

After all the arms had been twisted, only two four Democrats gave their leadership an unpleasant surprise at the end of the climate change vote -- and are firmly in Pelosi-Obama doghouse:

Texas Rep. Ciro Rodriguez and Rep. Alcee Hastings from Florida, according to House sources.

UPDATE: House leadership sources add two more who reportedly said "yes" and voted "no" -- Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.) and Solomon Ortiz (D-Tx.)

Rodriguez had told leadership that he was a likely yes -- but then cast a quick "no" vote and practically sprinted from the chamber, frustrating floor managers whose shouts of "Rodriguez!" rang through the House as the final anxious votes were cast.

At one point, New York Rep. Anthony Weiner bounced from a huddle of leadership members and began calling the rep's name, like a wayward toddler, as he scanned the Speaker's lobby and the adjacent balcony.

"He cast his no and then ran the hell out of there," said a member of the whipping team, still steaming after the vote. "We tried him at his office and they said he was gone."

Seriously, Cicero did you think hauling ass and hiding out is going to help you win reelection? Is that the kind of Representative you think your constituents want? Hell I am not really that pressed about the no vote, but at least be a man and stand up for your vote.

When he goes to pick up his check for being a member of Congress he ought to wear a mask, because he is stealing right now.

I also watched the vote live on CSPAN and right up until the last moment there were 220 votes to pass the bill. Then right as voting was about to close and after it was apparent the bill would pass, another courage challenged Democrat changed their yea vote to a nay vote.

I would just LOVE to know who that coward was.

I realize that there are a lot more seats in the House but damn, is that REALLY who we want as Democrats these days?!

Cap And Trade Climate Change Bill...

...just passed the House.

So for all you wingnut Republican Congressman who applaud climate change deniers,

SUCK. ON. THIS.

Talking Point DESTROYED!

Over the past few months the Republicans have repeatedly lied about the costs that the Waxman/Markey energy bill would pass along to the consumers. Well finally the CBO has come out with its analysis and it rips the GOP talking point to shreds!

Told, over and over again, that their talking point has no basis in reality, Republican officials nevertheless keep saying it. When the GOP isn't denying climate change science altogether, it's pushing the $3,128 claim.

OK, so we know the Republicans are lying, but what's the actual cost Americans can expect if a cap-and-trade system becomes law? The Congressional Budget Office, which has produced several reports of late that Republicans just love, reported on the expected costs of Waxman-Markey.

...CBO estimates that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion -- or about $175 per household. That figure includes the cost of restructuring the production and use of energy and of payments made to foreign entities under the program, but it does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the associated slowing of climate change.

Now the MSM, which has been flogging an erroneous CBO report all week about healthcare reform, needs to harshly push back the next time a Republican tries to repeat that bullshit line since they obviously find the CBO so credible. It is not the media's job to pass along blatant lies to the public no matter what David Gregory says.

Genius

By now you have probably heard the story about Congressman Henry Waxman hiring a speed reader in response to GOP efforts to slow down progress on a new cap and trade bill. Well check out this clip of how Waxman's idea made the GOP back down.

Cloture

Every since Arlen Specter crossed the aisle last week I have been trying to point out the advantages of the move for Democrats. The biggest plus as I saw it was that Specter would become a reliable vote to invoke cloture and overcome filibuster attempts by the GOP. I know that a lot of people on the left are pissed off by the things he have said since then but I steadily maintain that if Specter votes for cloture on big issues then him switching sides will be well worth it. Now I have also pointed out that Democrats in the Senate really didn't give up anything to have Specter cross the aisle and that if he doesn't get with the program he will probably get the brakes beat off him in a Democratic primary. But I digress.

The reason why I bring this up yet again is because of something Harry Reid said today on MSNBC. Check out the video.



Did you catch it? If not go back to about the 1:20 mark.

When speaking on Arlen Specter, Harry Reid made this statement.

“On procedural votes he will be with us all the time”

Do you know what "procedural vote" means? Cloture, thats what. Now considering the amount of weaksauce Harry Reid exhibits on a regular basis you of course have to take this with a grain of salt. Still Reid made the statement with a confidence that seems to belie a deal having been made. Arlen Specter is no doubt a weasel and he has taken saying one thing and doing another to an artform. Still I don't care if he votes against certain measures as long as he votes for cloture and then as long as they get passed with a simple majority. This shouldn't make people jump up and shout but it should temper at least some of the dissappointment expressed thus far by the lefty blogosphere.

Waxman Comes Off The Top Turnbuckle

First rule of fight club is use credible sources. When Newt Gingrich cites the Weekly Standard to start off you know this is about to go left. From the video you can tell that Henry Waxman was pretty much hoping that Newt brought the weaksauce today and he wasn't dissappointed. I bet Newt won't be running his ass to the Hill to testify again anytime soon.

Pants On Fire

You know that whole GOP attack line on the cap and trade policy included in President Obama's budget that they refer to as a "light switch tax"? Turns out its....wait for it.....wait for it....TOTAL BULLSHIT.

"It's just wrong," said John Reilly, an energy, environmental and agricultural economist at M.I.T. and one of the authors of the report. "It's wrong in so many ways it's hard to begin."

Not only is it wrong, but he told the House Republicans it was wrong when they asked him.

"Someone from the House Republicans had called me (March 20) and asked about this," Reilly said. "I had explained why the estimate they had was probably incorrect and what they should do to correct it, but I think this wrong number was already floating around by that time."

It continues to float.

That's just not how economists calculate the cost of a tax proposal, Reilly said. The tax might push the price of carbon-based fuels up a bit, but other results of a cap-and-trade program, such as increased conservation and more competition from other fuel sources, would put downward pressure on prices. Moreover, consumers would get some of the tax back from the government in some form.

The report did include an estimate of the net cost to individuals, called the "welfare" cost. It would be $30.89 per person in 2015, or $79 per family if you use the same average household size the Republicans used of 2.56 people.

The cost would grow over time as the program ramps up, but the average annual cost over time in today's dollars — that is, the "average annual net present value cost" — is still just $85 per person, Reilly said. That would be $215.05 per household.

A far cry from $3,128. And that isn't the only inaccuracy in the claim.

The Republican press release said the cap-and-trade program would pay for "nationalized health care."

But Obama's health care proposal is not for "nationalized health care." It does call for a "National Health Insurance Exchange" with private insurance options plus a new public plan based on the one currently available to members of Congress — but consumers could still keep their private insurance if they want, as Obama emphasized during his presidential campaign.

Even if it were true that Obama wants to nationalize health care, he does not envision paying for health care reform with the cap-and-trade program as the Republicans alleged. Rather, his $634 billion health care reserve fund is to come from efficiencies in Medicare and Medicaid and decreased deductions for some charitable contributions by upper-income taxpayers, according to Obama's proposed budget.

The House Republicans partially corrected this portion of the claim, changing their Web site and sending out an updated press release that says the cap-and-trade program would pay for "increased spending" rather than health care.

But it still calls cap-and-trade a "light switch tax" and claims the whole cost would come from consumers.

If the Republicans had simply misstated the results of the MIT study, the Truth-O-Meter would have been content giving this one a False. But for them to keep repeating the claim after the author of the study told them it was wrong means we have to set the meter ablaze. Pants on Fire.

Update: One of the authors of the study that the Republicans site to explain their lies has written them what is basically a cease and decist letter and ThinkProgress got a copy.

It has come to my attention that an analysis we conducted examining proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Report No., 146, Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals, has been misrepresented in recent press releases distributed by the National Republican Congressional Committee. The press release claims our report estimates an average cost per family of a carbon cap and trade program that would meet targets now being discussed in Congress to be over $3,000, but that is nearly 10 times the correct estimate which is approximately $340.