> 

Energy bill fails in Senate by one vote – Reid and his crowd to try one more time


Posted on by 1

As a political battle, it is great theatre. Harry Reid and Nancy Pellosi, respectively the Democratic leaders in the Senate and the House, are in the process of kissing George Bush’s feet. The only question is whether they curtsey or genuflect.
 
By a one vote margin, the Senate today refused to cut off debate on the energy bill – the one that raises fuel mileage standards for cars.
 
But, don’t cheer just yet.
 
It’s a war over the desire of the Democrats to raise taxes. They want to stick utilities and their customers with higher bills and the Republicans are refusing to go along. The White House has promised a veto if the bill does pass. 
 
But, it won’t. Reid is stripping the tax part out of the bill, just like he earlier stripped out the renewable energy provisions that would have raised utility rates in the Southeast. Pellosi – who pushed for both elements in the House – has promised to go along with the deal if the Senate passes the bill.
 
So, the bill as adopted by both the House and the Senate will be exactly what the President dictated.
 
Meanwhile, the Democrats will trumpet triumph because they achieved a 35 mpg fuel economy standard.
 
No, not because they figured out how it was to be achieved.
 
Because they said so.
 
And, the President will claim credit for it because it all started with his idea, in his State of the Union message, this past January.
 
The entire process is nothing but a disgrace to both parties. Together, between their posturing and their game-playing, they have ignored the concept of liberty and the selection of the market. They have elected to dictate for us what we will buy, and what we will pay for it.
 
The last time these solons did that, they restricted the use and sale of guns.
 
Well, not actually.
 
The last time they did this, they created McCain/Feingold to restrict free speech.
 
Currently pending before the Supreme Court is a case that raises one simple question: does the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” actually mean what the plain language says.
 
God knows how they’ll decide it. They’re lawyers.
 
But it’s a pity that we didn’t get an amendment to protect our right to keep and drive automobiles.



1 comments:

This is a misnomer. It is not an energy bill - it is a do with less energy bill and do with less efficient energy bill. We have no chance to have clean efficient and affordable energy sources so long as our government continues to muck around like the morons they have demonstrated they are.

*Registration is required to post in this forum

Back to top