Senators Force Open and Transparent Debate on Cap and Trade Tax

American Energy Alliance Alert

Senators Force Open and Transparent Debate on Cap and Trade Tax

28 Say No To Carol Browner’s Plans To Regulate the Means of Production Through Cap and Tax Proposal

The American Energy Alliance is pleased to report that attempts to bypass regular-order procedures and enact the largest (and most regressive) tax in American history by White House Climate Czar Carol Browner have been met with aggressive bipartisan resistance on the steps of Capitol Hill. Browner secretly sought commitments from key lawmakers that would have allowed the Obama Administration to slip its proposed cap and tax plan into the 2010 federal budget, without having to meet the normal 60 vote standard necessary to reshape and reorder the nation’s economy for decades to come. As the Washington Post describes the proposal in today’s newspaper, “Either way, climate legislation will aim to reduce emissions by putting a price on carbon, raising the cost of everything from gasoline to plastics to electricity.”

The bipartisan group of 28 senators, led by West Virginia’s Robert Byrd and Nebraska’s Mike Johanns, are saying no to this budgetary sleight of hand, and are to be commended for standing up for Americans who believe that affordable, reliable, and abundant supplies of energy must be central to any plan for economic growth and stability in the future.

Spring is coming, and hope springs eternal that this budding movement to resist Big Government and a weaker America will gather momentum. Americans must convey their growing concerns about the negative consequences of energy policies based upon faulty intelligence to their elected leaders. AEA posts the letter below:

March 12, 2009

Dear Chairman Conrad and Ranking Member Gregg:

We oppose using the budget reconciliation process to expedite passage of climate legislation. Enactment of a cap‐and‐trade regime is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy. Legislation so far‐reaching should be fully vetted and given appropriate time for debate, something the budget reconciliation process does not allow. Using this procedure would circumvent normal Senate practice and would be inconsistent with the Administration’s stated goals of bipartisanship, cooperation, and openness.

We commend you for holding the recent hearing, entitled “Procedures for Consideration of the Budget Resolution/Reconciliation,” which discussed important recommendations for the upcoming budget debate. Maintaining integrity in the budget process is critical to safeguarding the fiscal health of the United States in these challenging times.