Treasury Dept. faces lawsuit for non-disclosure of cap-and-tax costs

This in via email:

Obama Treasury Dept Still Hiding Info on Global Warming ‘Cap-and-Tax’ Costs

Admissions of Job Losses & Hundreds of Billions in Cost Insufficient; CEI to Sue

Washington, D.C., September 29, 2009— The Competitive Enterprise Institute today notified the Treasury Department of CEI’s intent to sue for the administration’s inadequate disclosure of documents addressing its expectations of and intentions for a global warming “cap-and-trade” plan. CEI’s notice of intent to sue was contained in an appeal filed today with the agency.

The cost estimates running as high as $300 billion per year contained in the few documents released by Treasury two weeks ago set off a political firestorm. Such cost estimates were far above the government’s public estimates and previously hidden from the public. The higher figures and other expected impacts were revealed only after a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents request by CEI Senior Fellow Christopher Horner.

The agency responded to CEI’s requests, after months of delay, by producing a mere five documents. Initially, even those documents were released with politically embarrassing portions blacked out. Days later, the same documents were re-released without the blacked out portions, but still not in their entirety.

“Your response fails any reasonable test for compliance with FOIA and constitutes an effective denial of our request,” stated Horner, in the notice of appeal filed today.

Documents released by Treasury on September 18 revealed:

* Internal agency estimates of a crushing blow to manufacturing jobs and that a global warming cap-and-trade plan could hit $300 billion annually, while raising billions in revenue to fund various programs.

* Treasury estimates that “domestic policies to address climate change and the related issues of energy security and affordability will involve significant costs and potential revenues, possibly up to several percentage points of annual GDP (i.e. equal in size to the corporate income tax).”; and that

* Treasury believes that carbon regulation “may result in loss of domestic and international market shares for U.S. companies, and relocation of U.S. firms abroad, representing both a political problem and an environmental problem” singling out how “energy-intensive sectors, such as the steel, aluminum, paper, chemicals, and cement industries, where imports are ready substitutes and lower carbon technologies are not widely available, are clearly vulnerable.” (emphasis added)

Heeding President Obama’s call for such a scheme, a cap-and-trade plan already passed the House as part of the Waxman-Markey bill. Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass) plan to introduce their version this week. Both approaches require Americans to purchase energy use “allowances” and amount to a large tax on energy and the cost of all goods, given the energy required to produce and bring them to market. As a candidate, Obama expressed his intention to use cap-and-trade to cause Americans’ energy costs to “necessarily skyrocket.”

Treasury’s response to date and CEI’s Appeal and Notice of Intent to Sue reveal how the administration is still not being straight with Congress and the American people about this.

> Read more about CEI’s Appeal and Notice of Intent to Sue

Sunday round-up

* Do you blame companies for making decisions based upon politics? Or do you blame the politicians?

This column by Thomas J. Borelli, PhD., the editor of FreeEnterpriser.com, takes a look at two companies, Whole Foods and GE, that are, indeed, making politics a core component of their business decisions - with drastic results. The fact that such considerations are contemplated is part of the problem. If government and various elected officials didn't write laws to benefit or harm particular industries/groups, there'd be no need for political considerations in the first place.

I wonder what our Founding Fathers would think of this...

* Patrick Henry is known by most people for his 'Give me liberty or give me death' rallying cry. But do you know what got him so angry as to make such a statement? Samantha Hagan, Director of the Patrick Henry Legacy Program at the Patrick Henry Center, has the background in this column, "Liberty and Gunpowder."

You see, Lord Dunmore, the royal governor of Virginia, seized a town's community supply of gunpowder and ordered the disabling of weapons stored in the public magazine. He did so following his disbanding of what today we'd call a house of representatives and the rallying of the public to Henry as a result of his impassioned speech.

"Patrick Henry demanded the return of the gunpowder, or failing that, he called for compensation to replace the colony’s fleeced supply. Lord Dunmore feared Henry and his men, and from the security of the palace he threatened to destroy the town should any hostilities begin.

For days the standoff continued until a deal was finally brokered in which a sum that both sides agreed upon was paid from the royal account to replace the stolen gunpowder."

Property rights, a core basis of our free nation, were also at the heart of the Revolution.

* From CNSNews.com:

"A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) study says that all levels of government – federal, state, and local – will have to come up with a total of $16.6 billion in additional revenue to purchase carbon allowances, if cap-and-trade – to allegedly combat global warming -- is enacted into law. Experts say this could prompt increases in taxes.

This is the second government report to estimate that the proposed climate-change legislation, formally known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, will eventually cost consumers more.

A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study published on June 19 revealed that the House cap-and-trade bill, passed by a 219 to 212 vote on June 26, would cost an estimated $175 per household every year."

How much are you willing to pay in additional taxes to *potentially* lower the temperature by a fraction of a degree???

* Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, has this scary perspective on Eric Holder's Hidden Agenda. For a long time, I have been concerned about actions by those in the federal government and the courts that seem to indicate a willingness to subject our sovereign nation to the whims of others. While we have a global economy, we do not (yet) have a global government - and that's a good thing. For the same reason I support states rights, I support the ability of nations to govern themselves. If people in positions of authority in our nation's government are not willing to support our nation's laws over all others, they don't deserve their places in that government. You cannot uphold our Constitution if you're willing to place it below the rules and laws of others.

Again I wonder what our Founding Fathers would think. Would the word 'treason' enter their minds?

* This is sick! Melissa Lafsky, at The Huffington Post, speculates on what Mary Jo Kopechne might think about the life of Sen. Edward Kennedy. She writes:

"Who knows -- maybe she'd feel it was worth it."

I think there's something wrong with any individual who would make such a comment. Perhaps I've misunderstood the post, but I find it hard to believe that the Kopechne family would agree - and I'm sure they knew Mary Jo much better than Lafsky.

Kaptur: 'I'm not subject to FOIA'

Earlier this month I made a FOIA request of Rep. Marcy Kaptur to find out the numbers of calls for/against the cap and trade bill.

While I was aware that congressional reps claim constituent communications as confidential, I thought that the numbers of calls was a public record, since revealing the numbers, percentages or ratio does not, in any way whatsoever, reveal who contacted the rep nor their specific communications.

Several others across the nation have made this same request, including Earl who blogs at Kansas Meadowlark and Skip who blogs at GraniteGrok and has a radio show.

Our efforts have not been fruitful. Yesterday I received the type-written response to my request. I received an email copy of the letter over the weekend. The letter denies my request as 1) members of Congress are not subject to FOIA and 2) communications with constituents "are considered confidential and are generally not made public without the constituent's request." Accordingly, Rep. Kaptur "respectfully declines to the produce the information you have requested."

Unlike the other members of Congress who responded, Marcy did not answer my request. My answer came from the U.S. House of Representatives Office of the General Counsel:


So they 'generally' don't give out this information? No confidentiality between a constituent and their representative will be violated if Kaptur tells us how many calls or the percentage/ratio of 'for' and 'against' she got on this issue.

Why doesn't she want us to know?

Congress has again exempted themselves from the laws they impose on others, making FOIA apply to the executive branch of government but not the legislative. Furthermore, how can we hold them accountable to actually represent their district if we cannot ever find out how their district instructs them to vote on specific issues?

Are we just supposed to trust them when they tell us they're doing what we want?

This has to change!

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....

'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.)

Number of global warming 'skeptics' is growing

If you can, please read this Wall Street Journal article about the growing skepticism over human-caused global warming. (subscription may be required)

It starts with the story of Steve Fielding who recently asked the Obama administration to "reassure him" on the issue of global warming. When that didn't happen, he decided to vote against the pending legislation.

But he's an Australian senator and he's part of a growing group of individuals who are expressing their doubts about the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming.

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality.

The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the Waxman-Markey global warming bill today. If you haven't already done so, call your legislator and tell them to vote no. We cannot afford the huge increases in costs just to reduce the temperature a fraction of a degree - if that.

Americans for Prosperity has a nice web tool to enter your zip code and get your representative's contact information. They also have a listing of where various reps stand on the issue. Please call today.