[e-mail]

Obama Goes Full Court on Energy Legislation

When Congress balks at a radical initiative the media starts to break the country into constituencies - in this case the Southern states and farmers are not progressive enough to pay higher costs for energy under a very dubious assumption that this will have any effect on a still undefined global environment benchmark.

The other insinuation is that they have to be mindful of their voters and therefore are concerned about the cost to consumers along with an untimely depressive effect on the economy. Does this mean the other group proposing this is doing the opposite?

Did the congressman who are pushing for this penalty tax on carbon just not endorse a trillion dollar stimulus that included widening, paving and building new roads and bridges on a massive scale? Does anyone have any idea how much money has been spent on promoting cars over the last 30 years only to turn around and tax the individual user.

Are there not industries that have a financial stake in this carbon tax such as alternative energy, rail, nuclear, and nat gas? This is not highlighted in such articles since this is all purportedly for the common good.

I think singling out Southern districts is distracting -because together with the Republicans they are the majority - it is the minority representation presenting this bill that needs to have their constituencies brought up for discussion. But then again that might damage the argument even further since a Kyoto agreement was voted on by the Senate around 1998 and I don't think anyone voted for it. Has anything dramatically changed since then?