KneeCap and Trade Vote Challenged by Constituents

kneecap definition ...knee·cap (-kap′)...transitive verb kneecapped -·capped′, kneecapping -·cap′·ping; to maim by shooting or drilling the kneecap, often as an act of terrorism
http://www.yourdictionary.com/kneecap

Well, the offsets hit the fan in Alamogordo Thursday, 7/2/09. See "Teague Opens Office" http://www.alamogordonews.com/ci_12745330 and the photo on page 6 http://alamogordonews.mycapture.com/mycapture/enlarge.asp?image=24510710&event=790137&CategoryID=19239 showing analysis of Cap and Trade's effects on Americans and the economy.

For documentation purposes, this ADN article did not report that there was a considerable dust up at the meeting. Congressman Teague gave a short welcome telling attendees of his new office in the Otero County Administration Building. He then left the commission chambers and a staffer told the assembled that Teague would take citizen questions privately in his office.

This ducking did not set well with some citizens who pointed out that the meeting was publically announced and they wanted their concerns heard by everyone there. After several "back and forths" by staffers to his new office, Teague relented, came back to the chambers and took some questions before taking the "private concerns".

Apparently, a similar fiasco occurred in Roswell the day before. If it didn't work in Roswell, why did Harry think it would work here?

NRCC hammers Teague over cap-and-trade vote Posted 7/02/2009 09:00:00 AM

"...It’s already getting a bit contentious. Democracy for New Mexico has the scoop on a group of people who showed up at a Teague event in Roswell and booed him when he said he thought most of his constituents also would have voted for the energy bill. And it degraded from there…"

http://haussamen.blogspot.com/

On Saturday, 7/04/2009 ADN published "Teague explains cap-and-trade vote" http://www.alamogordonews.com/ci_12750866 ADN also published am Editorial the same day:

Carbon bill unlikely to deliver promised jobs

"President Barack Obama is chiding critics of his carbon cap-and-trade proposal to combat global warming for being afraid of a future shaped by new energy technologies and thriving with so-called green jobs.

What those skeptics are really afraid of is a future locked to laws that institutionalize high unemployment, low growth and a lesser standard of living for Americans.

The administration and Democratic leaders in the House are banking passage of cap-and-trade legislation on the promise that the government's $100 billion investment in green technologies will spin off 5 million new jobs and hyper-boost the economy.

It's a tough sell, even to the administration's congressional supporters.

The House just narrowly passed the measure, with many nervous Democrats deserting their leaders to join Republicans in opposition. That spells trouble for the bill in the Senate, where bipartisan concerns about the impact on the economy are being raised.

Before the country commits to such a radical change, the promises made by supporters must be more carefully examined.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says her advocacy for cap-and-trade is all about "jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs." But there's no evidence that employment has grown anywhere in the world because of energy mandates such as cap-and-trade.

A study released in March by four professors hosted by the University of Illinois casts a great deal of doubt about green job creation.

The academics found claims of green jobs to be unsubstantiated or overstated, and that energy mandates will likely kill more jobs in other industries than they create.

The report also warns that strict government demands for renewable energy sources — the cap-and-trade bill requires 20 percent of energy production be from renewables — and bans on more plentiful and reliable sources such as coal will choke off growth and risk leaving the country in the dark.

There's also considerable disagreement about the cost of the cap-and-trade bill.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates it to be a mere $175 a household. But the conservative Heritage Foundation pegs it at $3,000 per household, which seems more realistic considering the impact on energy and fuel prices.

This is not a job creation bill and it won't revive the economy.

It's a bill, according to the professors, that would "lead to restructuring and possibly impoverishing our society." Senators should acknowledge that possibility before casting their vote.

Reprinted from The Detroit News and released through Creators Syndicate.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/daily-editorials/cap-and-trade-bill-unlikely-to-deliver-promised-jobs.html

Creators.com is a cool website chocked full of opinion and commentary.

Below in another post is a list of links about alleged corruption, charges made and high jinks of trading carbon units that has been in play for years. It is a wealth of information for those concerned with those pesky facts.

Stop and think about it. Where is the common sense? In an example used, your dog has flatulence. You feel guilty. You relieve your guilt by contributing $200 to Clean Dog Conservancy. Your dog will still have flatulence and the Clean Dog Conservancy will take your money and turn it into advertising and fund raising dollars to help support the campaigns of elected "representatives" who have agendas other than their constituents. Step off the merry-go-round and take a closer look. JW