Kaptur refuses to release info on calls for/against cap and tax bill

UPDATE: Maybe we'll start a trend...Kansas Meadowlark has also filed a FOIA request for similar information from his congressman, Rep. Dennis Moore.

And this isn't the first time.

This morning on WSPD, they read an email from Lisa who recounted her experience with Rep. Marcy Kaptur's office when she requested to know the number of for and against communications regarding the Waxman-Markey energy bill, more properly known as the cap and tax (not cap and trade) bill.

She was told, as they have informed others, that they don't keep that information. She had two polite conversations with individuals in the office, one of whom told her the majority of calls were in favor of the bill. How they knew that if they didn't keep count was not explained.

Then Steve Fought, Kaptur's communications director, got on the line. Lisa described his demeanor as 'rude.' He said they weren't required to give out that information. When Lisa asked about accountability, Fought explained that Kaptur is accountable to the Constitution.

Well, that's true. So where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority to require us to retrofit our homes according to some government-created standard?

But it's also true that as our representative, Kaptur is accountable to us, the people she's supposed to be representing. And if she refuses to tell us, on numerous occasions, what her constituents have instructed her to do, how do we hold her accountable?

Aye, there's the rub.

But the bigger problem is that this information is a public record. So today I used the 'contact me' form on her website and made a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request for anything that documents the communications from her constituents on this bill. I used the FOIA Letter Generator to help me word it properly and, because I'm a blogger, requested a waiver of fees, as allowed under the law.

The instructions of the public relating to this bill are critical to know, especially because she was reported to be undecided, saying it would "have an economic impact on the Midwest" and that she was "uncomfortable with the idea of trading carbon permits." But after her $3.5 billion pork project was included, she voted yes.

We need to know if she voted yes in because of her constituent instructions - or if the $3.5 billion was the cost to overcome the will of those she's supposed to represent.

I'll keep you posted on any response to my request.

Cap and Tax bill may mean retrofits for all homes

CNSNews is reporting the following:

The 1,400-page cap-and-trade legislation pushed through by House Democrats contains a new federal policy that residential, commercial, and government buildings be retrofitted to increase energy efficiency, leaving it up to the states to figure out exactly how to do that.

This means that homeowners, for example, could be required to retrofit their homes to meet federal “green” guidelines in order to sell their homes, if the cap-and-trade bill becomes law.

The bill, which now goes to the Senate, directs the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and implement a national policy for residential and commercial buildings. The purpose of such a strategy – known as the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) – would be to “facilitate” the retrofitting of existing buildings nationwide.

“The Administrator shall develop and implement, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy for single-family and multi-family residences,” the bill reads.

It continues: “The purpose of the REEP program is to facilitate the retrofitting of existing buildings across the United States.”

The bill leaves the definition of a retrofit and the details of the REEP program up to the EPA. However, states are responsible for ensuring that the government’s plans are carried out, whatever the final details may entail.

“States shall maintain responsibility for meeting the standards and requirements of the REEP program,” the bill says.

Here is the full text of H.R. 2454 as approved by the House. Title II, subtitle A:: Building Energy Efficiency Codes contains the specifics relating to this portion of the law. Section 202 details the Building Retrofit Program for residential homes.

The bill also establishes a national building code that states must enforce - and, of course, threatens a loss of federal funds for non-compliance. Can you say 'state sovereignty' and 'states rights'?

Maybe if they'd actually read the bill - and allowed all of us time to read it, we'd already know about these details that are going to cost us considerably....

Kaptur makes Drudge headline for pork in energy bill

Here's the Drudge Report with a link to a story on Rep. Marcy Kaptur's 'sweetener' for her vote in favor of the Waxman-Markey energy bill (bottom left column):


According to the story from the Washington Times (be sure to read the comments, too), Kaptur was undecided until this was added. Her spokesman said it was a factor in her decision.

But not everyone from Ohio liked the idea:

"Although the program would benefit his home state, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, also of Ohio, criticized the provision during a more-than-hourlong speech Friday evening. He said an Ohio-based power authority was unneeded because electricity already flows well through Ohio without a new federal power authority.

"We do it today," he said. "We are doing it already." "

My problem is with the logic of her request - the federal government is doing this sort of subsidizing elsewhere, so we should get money and the program, too.

I think that's part of what's wrong with government - everyone trying to get funding for their special interest because someone else got funding. Instead, legislators should be working to eliminate such federal spending on pet projects and return the money to the taxpayers, who wouldn't need such 'help' if the feds weren't taking so much of their own money to begin with. But that's just me...

However, in this case, we're going to be stuck paying a $3.5 billion bill for a pet project of a legislator in exchange for her vote on a law that will cost of dearly in terms of increased energy expenses on everything. What a bargain!

Quote of the Day

"Supporters of Waxman-Markey are now claiming it won't cost anything and have found official support for their claim. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office have estimated that it will cost each of us only pennies to reduce emissions drastically with Waxman-Markey. We can save the planet "for the cost of a postage stamp" a day--or even less.

If that were true, why did Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee defeat Republican amendments to suspend Waxman-Markey if gasoline reached five dollars a gallon or electric rates doubled or unemployment topped fifteen percent?" ~ Myron Ebell

'Cap and Tax' bill passes - Kaptur, Dingell vote yes

The final tally for the Waxman-Markey energy bill - known as 'cap and trade' but more accurately called 'cap and tax' - was 219-212 with eight Republicans voting yes and 44 Democrats voting no.

If the eight GOP members had voted with their party, the bill would have failed.

Our representative, Marcy Kaptur (who consistently rails against high energy bills in this region), voted in favor of the bill, despite the costs it will impose on all her constituents. Lisa Renee at Glass City Jungle has Kaptur's press release on the vote. Rep. Bob Latta voted no and his statement on the vote is here.

Also voting yes was Rep. John Dingell who'd previous said of this bill:

"Nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one."

Thanks Kaptur and Dingell for voting to raise our taxes!

(The eight Republicans who helped pass the bill: Mack-CA, Castle-DE, Kirk-IL, Lance-NJ, LoBiondo-NJ, McHugh-NY, Reichert-WA, and Smith-NJ.)