Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Lol Bush

White House warns Democrats of energy bill veto

Posted by David Roberts at 2:37 PM on 21 Oct 2007

Read more about: politics | legislation | energy | climate

I mentioned that the Bush White House sent a letter to Congressional Democrats last week, regarding what it would find acceptable for an energy bill.

I've gotten a copy of the letter, from a top-secret source who risked his career, his family, even his life bringing this information to light. Thanks Adam!

Let me know what y'all think. I found it breathtakingly arrogant -- a vow to veto a bill that deviates in any way from the monstrous, malformed porkfest that was the 2005 energy bill. A spitball at the Democratic leadership. A petulant, foot-stomping, self-negating assertion of relevance. Kind of sad, really.

-----

October 15, 2007

Dear Madam Speaker:

I write you to reiterate the Administration's commitment to work with Congress to produce balanced energy legislation that improves the Nation's energy and economic security and protects the environment.

The Administration submitted "Twenty in Ten" legislation to Congress earlier this year. Passage of that legislation would result in a 20 percent decrease in U.S. gasoline consumption by 2017 and a significant reduction in projected greenhouse gas emissions. While we prefer that this legislation be passed by Congress, the Administration is concurrently developing regulations to implement these goals. In this context, we offer a basic framework for an energy bill that would not compel the President's senior advisors to recommend a veto. Such a bill would:

  • Contain an ambitious alternative fuel standard comparable to that proposed by the President in his 2007 State of the Union.
  • Reform and strengthen the fuel economy standard for cars, and maintain separate, attribute-based standards for cars and light trucks, based on sound science, safety, and cost-benefit analysis.
  • Not reduce but instead increase domestic energy production.
  • Not raise taxes nor use the tax code to single out specific industries.
  • Not contain provisions (such as the NOPEC provision) that encourage retaliation against American businesses abroad, discourage job-creating investment in the U.S. economy, and injure U.S. relations with other countries.
  • Not impose price controls that could bring back long gas station lines reminiscent of the 1970s.
  • Not expand the application of Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements.
  • Not contain a mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standard.

Statements of Administration Policy describe additional concerns with the energy legislation. The Administration would like to work with Congress to resolve these concerns. Two years ago, the President signed into law energy legislation that was crafted in a bipartisan manner. We hope for the opportunity to work with you in a similar fashion to move America toward a stronger, cleaner energy future.

Sincerely,

Allan B. Hubbard
Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and
Director, National Economic Council

lolbush

*sigh*

That's all I really have to say to that.

That, and give money to more hardcore environmentalist candidates in 2008, I guess.

My Energy Bill

The Bailo Energy Bill:

It is writ...take all monies henceforth depossitted into the Treasury for Mass Transit and return them to the Populace for buying Chevy Volts.  

150 mpg.  

Crisis Ended.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

While pretty crappy

While pretty crappy.

These were the two big ones.

  • Not contain a mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standard.
  • maintain separate, attribute-based standards for cars and light trucks


Interesting

"NOPEC", would make OPEC liable under the US AntiTrust law.

http://slate.com/id/2170040/

What a waste of time.

Why does the Bush administration waste their time and our money coming out with these long documents that thousands of hours of work went into to say "business as usual folks".  Your tax dollars at work.  Love it!

Hmmm Chevy Volts for all.  From an energy use standpoint it's got some merit.  One question.  Where do we get the $$$ to build the necessary infastructure to accomidate all the extra cars on the road that Chevy Volts for all would necessitate?  The roads, the parking lots and garages, ect?  What do we do with the existing mass transit system infastructure?  Also since you just destroyed the traditional auto industry( not a bad thing in and of itself) what are you going to do about the resulting unemployment and massive economic downturn?

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks