Standing Firm Against A Really Bad Legislative Idea
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
From a newspaper that can’t sensationalize the imagined crisis of global warming enough, this account offers promising news of a legislative idea that may have some tough sledding in going forward. The expected action will be the Senate Committee led by Senator Barbara Boxer bringing forward their idea and working to find some weak members of the opposite party to fall for the compromise that will get them to go along with a bad legislative idea. I guess if you can get members of both parties to think that they are getting some from a terrible piece of legislation for the citizens they represent – then you have a bi-partisan bad idea.
For those who think that building more nuclear power plants is a worthwhile pursuit to go along with signing off on the Senate Climate Change bill – we would suggest that a worthwhile pursuit shouldn’t need a bad piece of legislation to move forward. The same can be said about the desired pursuit of alternative energy in all forms. Developing alternative energy should not require a punitive and extremely burdensome tax scheme for traditional sources of energy.
As American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman writes in this piece, the expenses associated with moving forward with the misguided notion of cap-and-trade is all about burdening Americans with an outcome that doesn’t accomplish anything more than higher expenses. He made the same points in his appearance in the Senate Committee session.
Senators from either political party who are wavering on standing firm against a really bad legislative idea need to hear from you, the persons they are supposed to represent. Tell them “Don’t Cap Our Future.”
From a newspaper that can’t sensationalize the imagined crisis of global warming enough, this account offers promising news of a legislative idea that may have some tough sledding in going forward. The expected action will be the Senate Committee led by Senator Barbara Boxer bringing forward their idea and working to find some weak members of the opposite party to fall for the compromise that will get them to go along with a bad legislative idea. I guess if you can get members of both parties to think that they are getting some from a terrible piece of legislation for the citizens they represent – then you have a bi-partisan bad idea.
For those who think that building more nuclear power plants is a worthwhile pursuit to go along with signing off on the Senate Climate Change bill – we would suggest that a worthwhile pursuit shouldn’t need a bad piece of legislation to move forward. The same can be said about the desired pursuit of alternative energy in all forms. Developing alternative energy should not require a punitive and extremely burdensome tax scheme for traditional sources of energy.
As American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman writes in this piece, the expenses associated with moving forward with the misguided notion of cap-and-trade is all about burdening Americans with an outcome that doesn’t accomplish anything more than higher expenses. He made the same points in his appearance in the Senate Committee session.
Senators from either political party who are wavering on standing firm against a really bad legislative idea need to hear from you, the persons they are supposed to represent. Tell them “Don’t Cap Our Future.”
Posted by Doug Busselman at 11/2/2009 6:52 AM 
Categories: Global Warming
Tags: Cap-And-Trade U.S. Senate Climate Change
Categories: Global Warming
Tags: Cap-And-Trade U.S. Senate Climate Change
Comments