So why is Congressman Rick Boucher using it as his defense when his devastating vote on the potentially devastating anti-coal climate tax bill comes up in conversation?
Criminal? Or pathetic. You decide:
Boucher addresses Clean Energy and Security ActIn three short paragraphs we go from obfuscation and distortion to outright lie.
By Bill Archer, Bluefield Daily Telegraph
U.S. Rep. Frederick C. “Rick” Boucher, D-Va., serves on the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee and had a voice in shaping the American Clean Energy and Security Act that passed in the House of Representatives and will soon be considered in the U.S. Senate. The bill passed the House on June 26, and ignited a firestorm of controversy in the coalfields of southwestern Virginia and southern West Virginia. Boucher voted in favor of the bill, and explained his reasoning to a group of people gathered for a Labor Day celebration in Pocahontas, the unofficial capital of the Southwest Virginia coalfields.
Boucher said that “unfortunately,” the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases are pollutants. “I wish it were not so,” he said. “When that decision came down, we had no choice.” He explained that the single question that remained on the table was who would regulate greenhouse emissions — the federal Environmental Protection Agency or Congress. “My preference is we would not have addressed this,” Boucher said.
However, Boucher said the Supreme Court’s decision on the Clean Air Act served as the catalyst to engage in drafting a bill that would ease the impact on the coal industry, electricity generating business and electric utility customers. “We’re not going to see jobs lost,” Boucher said, pointing out that he was able to inject the House bill with amendments that will insulate the impact of the bill. [link]
"He explained that the single question that remained on the table was who would regulate greenhouse emissions — the federal Environmental Protection Agency or Congress." As I have mentioned before, the Supreme Court ruling specifically stated that CO2 needn't necessarily be regulated at all. The EPA was simply ordered to explain why it shouldn't be.
And there was no requirement of Congress to take up regulation before the EPA did. Congress could simply have passed legislation declaring to the EPA that carbon emissions be considered hands-off (the sensible approach) and Boucher could have led that effort. Instead he whines about being powerless before a mean Court and a potentially mean EPA.
There'll be no argument here. That's absolutely pathetic.
But that last paragraph takes the cake. “We’re not going to see jobs lost." That's a lie. And every expert on the subject agrees. Even Boucher now knows it (that's why he is now trying to weasel out of his vote).
See "Waxman-Markey Global Warming Tax Kills More Jobs and Kills the Economy."
See "Waxman-Markey: death knell for U.S. jobs, low-cost energy."
See "The Waxman-Markey Climate Legislation: Higher Energy Prices, Fewer Jobs, and More Government Intrusion."
See "Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade scheme will wreck U.S. economy."
And Boucher considers himself powerless to stop it.
Maybe we should find someone to represent us in Washington who has some backbone. Someone who isn't a complete wiener.
This guy needs to go.