Bust a Cap on "Cap and Trade"

Congressman Henry Waxman has capped his non-efforts on the financial crisis and declining trade in this country with a “great idea” for increasing revenue and averting the financial crisis: “Cap and Trade.” As Yogi Bera once quipped: “This is déjà vu all over again.

In 2009, Waxman pushed this plan to curb carbon emissions on industrial polluters (which includes farmers and their ‘fertilizing’ livestock). Despite vote-trading, last minute 300-page amendments, and a close vote, Cap and Trade survived the House. It died in the Senate.

The last thing that this country needs is a “Cap on Trade”, which carbon trading will do. The same people who fomented the Dot.com and Housing bubbles cooked up the pollution credit scheme, one which has frustrated commerce and prosperity in Europe while forcing businesses out of California, who cannot afford the inflated price for carbon permits. These taxes on corporations eventually cost everyone who uses electricity, drives a car, or purchases food in a store.

Instead of decent policies to reduce the national debt and reform entitlements, Congressman Waxman has written letters about an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. He released a statement in support of religious minorities in Burma. He even pressed his Congressional colleagues to investigate the link between global warming and national security.

The exploding national debt is our biggest national security threat. Cap and Trade will make it worse. Congress should bust a cap on “Cap and Trade”, and Waxman needs to bust a move on deficit reduction.

Bush-Bashing, Global Warming, Ignoring the Fiscal Cliff

Congressman Henry Waxman is at it again, bringing up global warming as a major issue while the debate over the fiscal cliff is heating up. Waxman spearheaded the charge on this issue before the Democrats took the White House, and even after the Republicans won and retained the majority in the House, “cap and trade” to cap global warming is resurfacing in Congress' trade for managing our nation's debt and revenue.

In timely fashion, MSNBC released a past interview with the former Chairman of the House Reform and Government Oversight Committee. As he did during his run for the 33rd Congressional district, Waxman engaged in the same "Bush-Bashing" which has shored up the liberal base while ignoring the looming crises precipitated by the Democratic Party's insistence on health insurance mandates and trillion-dollar deficit spending.

During the Bush Administration, according to Waxman, the scientists who worked for the government provided information that was "censored, muted, or altered". Then Waxman wrote letters to the Council on Environmental Quality for more information on the matter. Still, Waxman conceded that his staff were viewing the documents on global warming. Scientists have presented their information on global warming. He went after steroid abuse, global warming. Nothing for our veterans then, and now very little to stop the spending and reduce the national debt eating this country from the inside out.

To ward off the fiscal cliff, the "Cap and Trade" Carbon tax has resurfaced as a measure to cover the expanding revenue problems for this country. Even moderate Republicans have voiced their support for the tax, proposing that a $20 charge per ton of carbon would help offset the national debt.
Annie Leonard, an environmental activist and creator of "The Story of Stuff", discredited Cap and Trade in the midst of a number of specious arguments with factually inaccurate data. She begins with the corporate machinations (including Goldman Sachs) which created the Dot.com and the Housing bubbles. They concocted Cap and Trade as another wealth market: carbon emission trading. Every nation would implement a cap and then trade credits for pollution.

"The devil is in the details", Leonard then explains: The program starts out with free permits for industrial polluters. The greater their pollution output, the more free permits that they receive. When Europeans enacted Cap and Trade , the cost of permits bounced around, fuel prices went up, and the pollution actually increased. The benefiting companies cashed in billions with the carbon credits, but the taxpayers were left paying for it.

Cap and Trade is a Ponzi scheme, according to one economist. Another argument hammers home the extensive nature of the Cap and Trade tax on every level of production. Congressman Ron Paul commented on the vote-trading which helped pass the Waxman-Markey bill in 2009,, much of which cast a cloud of corruption and collusion on an already suspect bull. Warren Buffet commented that if Congress insists on placing a tax on carbon emissions ,utility customers will end up paying the cost for the tax which belongs to corporations and to polluters. Even while endorsing the tax, Presidential Candidate Barack Obama admitted that his "Cap and Trade" plan would cause electricity rates to go up for consumers.

Environmentalists, billionaires, and the President have given reasons to oppose "Cap and Trade." Waxman shows no common sense in proposing his "Cap and Trade agenda once again .
Instead of alleviating the fiscal cliff crisis, Congressman Waxman has pursued in the last month the following issues:

Leading Committee Democrats Request Briefing on Recent Gulf of Mexico Oil Rig Explosion (Nov 26, 2012)

Waxman wants to investigate the explosion of Black Elk Energy's oil production platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. This country has an exploding national debt, leaking red ink that is polluting our future.

Leading Energy & Commerce Democrats Call for Hearing on Reliability of Communications Services in Aftermath of Superstorm Sandy (Nov 19, 2012)

Waxman was concerned about communications services during “Superstorm” Sandy. It's time that he started communicating with his colleagues about ending the deficit spending.

Rep. Waxman Urges Continued U.S. Support for Protecting Religious and Ethnic
Minority Groups in Burma (Nov 15, 2012)

Protecting the religious rights of minority groups in Burma? Seriously?

Rep. Waxman Statement on the BP Settlement on the Deepwater Horizon Disaster (Nov 15, 2012)

Waxman applauds the BP settlement with the United States. Now, how about settling the debt crisis and defusing entitlement bomb?

Ranking Members Waxman and Rush Call for Hearing on Relationship Between Climate Change and National Security (Nov 14, 2012)

The United States' greatest security threat is the debt. Instead of outlining a plan for energy independence, Waxman goes after oil rigs. Instead of protecting the fiscal future of this country, Waxman champions the religious rights of ethnic minorities.

From Bush-Bashing to Global Warming, Congressman Waxman keeps ignoring the fiscal cliff and the ongoing fiscal crises afflicting this country.

Please contact Congressman Waxman and tell him to get serious about ending this country’s spending problem and resolve our debt. Global warming can wait.

"We Don't Want Them to Know About Your Blog!"

It wasn't Rabbi Yossi who said this.

It wasn't even Henry Waxman the Taxman.

It was Heather Peters, the political director who shouted this at me.

For a brief stint, I was a door-knocker for the Bloomfield campaign.

I had my speech, or rather speeches, all prepared.

I met a number of high-class residents in Manhattan Beach and South Torrance.

The steps were just murder. Rich people live in big houses on big lots of land. How they go from house to garage every day just escapes me.

I told them that Waxman voted against tax cuts for working class and middle income Americans. I told them about his rude behavior with colleagues.

I spoke with twenty-two residents in one day, and many of them were all power forward for Bloomfield.

I got a stunningly different reception back at the office.

First, they were elated about all the people whom I had convinced.

Then they wanted to know what I had been telling them.

I told them about the tax increases, I told them about his rude behavior. Since I had their party affiliation listed next to their address, I would appeal to them as Republicans or Democrats.

Heather let loose.

"You're telling them what? You need to read from our script!"

"What's the big deal? Everything that I tell them is public record. It's even on  my blog. . ."

Heather then cut me off.

"We don't want them to know about your blog!"

"What difference does it make? I'm just "Joe Blow".

"No you're not 'Joe Blow!' You work for us. And if you don't do what you're told, then you won't be working for us for long!"

I really pushed it at that point.

"Why are you not telling people everything that Waxman has been doing? People need to know about this stuff!"

I admit it: I was pushing way too hard. I still had some things to learn about taking direction.

Heather did her best to compose herself, then explained:

"Look, Arthur, I love ya, but with all due respect, we don't have to tell you."

She then acknowledged that the team had not informed her, or any of the door-knockers, about the need for a script.

Then she explained to me that the consults were relying on different means for connecting with voters: through press, Internet, advertisements, door-knockers, calls, emails. This theory of multiple media for reaching voters smacks all too much of the "Galbraith fallacy." In Kenneth Galbraith's book The Affluent Society, the Canadian born economist argued that media advertising would influence peoples' habits and interests, enough that they would purchase something or do something, whether they wanted to or not.

Galbraith's thesis has been discredited, yet the political consultants for the Bloomfield campaign insisted on banking his election chances on this concept.

I learned a lot about campaigning, I learned a great deal about the capacities of individuals to withstand pressure and strain in their lives,  I also realized that reaching voters requires more than frequently informing them about yourself.

Still, Bloomfield did remarkably well against Waxman, and the Congressman is more scared than anything else.

Heather was a class act. A supervisor who recognized my spirit, but had to address the letter of things. I hope that I get to work with more people like her.

Still, the lack of punch and fire in the campaign alarmed me enough to get fired up and sound the alarm on the weak-tea proposals to get out there and make something of all that was going wrong.

"I Want That!"

While I was campaigning informally throughout the 33rd Congressional District, I remember running into all sorts of people. Young people loved hearing about Bloomfield. Three younger people told me outright that no one should be in office for more than three terms.

Henry Waxman has been in office for 38 years, and he has now entered his twentieth term. Peter Stark lost his seat, granted, but the college of California Congressmen still has two from the class of '74: George Miller and Henry Waxman.

Seniority in office is a two-edged sword.

One gentleman I met in Torrance, a businessman who was nearing retirement, told me that he was an independent.

He asked me a number of penetrating questions about Bloomfield. Did he support TARP? How does he feel about green technology?

When he asked about the social issues, I told him that he was pro-choice and pro gay marriage. He approved of the liberal social views.

Some of his questions I could not answer. Like a growing number of concerned voters, candidates talk about cutting spending and eliminating loopholes, but they never offer anything specific. He resented the lack of information on this matter.

Then the topic switched to healthcare. Instead of a question, he fired off a demand:

"What kind of healthcare plans does he support? I want the same plan as Congressmen in Washington."

He sounded like a big baby that time. The government is not Santa Claus. This independent reminded me of the socialist I spoke with in Santa Monica during the summer. "I love Waxman! I get free health care." There is no such thing as a free lunch, but this older gentleman refused to count the cost beyond the stipend that the received from the state.

These two men, both in retirement age, sounded like little children depending on the state, or who at least expected the state to have its hand out.

"I want that!" should not be in the a citizen's vocabulary toward the government. The federal government is not Santa Claus, Mommy, the Nanny State, or any other dynamic beyond an institution instituted to protect the rights of men.

What more could anyone want?

Waxman Was Worried (Abbreviated Account)

In some ways, I am a confrontational person. I have often been the type who wants to strike before stricken. The 2012 election gave me the opportunity to confront Henry Waxman, the former chairman of the Oversight Committee, one of the must pugnacious Congressman.

 My love-hate relationship with the recently reelected Congressman began in Palos Verdes. He looked so tall on the YouTube clips, fumbling over basic details while marking up legislation that even a tax attorney would find too taxing to take in. Actually, he was the shortest guy in the room.

 By then, I had long set up my first political blog “Waxman Watch”, which got some decent traffic, considering the season. I had also been informing voters throughout the district to “End the Reign of Waxman the Taxman”. After I gave him a slip with his menacing mug next to his record of inconsistent leadership, Waxman grimaced. He was going to meet his match in this election.

 Later, I attended my first LA-area Neighborhood Council, in Venice. Interesting, to say the least. With thirteen seats up for reelection, fifty-four people lined up to make their pitch. I was waiting for Waxman, who found me first. “My blogger”, he quipped, shaking my hand. I had his attention.

 

The next week, I attended an advertised “Open Forum,” at the Jewish Community Center of the Beach Cities.

At the outset of the open question-and-answer forum, the two candidates outlined their platforms and proposals in two 10-minute speeches. Waxman was watching me the whole time while his opponent was speaking.

 Shortly after they started takikng questions from the audience, the moderator called on me. Mr. Waxman interrupted.

"This is a Republican blogger who has been writing nasty attacks about me," he said, quivering.

With that, the Rabbi in charge told me to sit down since I was not a member of the community.

I protested that as a voter and a constituent in the district, I had every right to participate. I could not believe what was happening.


At the back of the synagogue, I confronted the rabbi again, who was apparently protecting his preferred candidate. I was upset and confused. I told him the meeting was for members of the community. He said we would talk about it later.

Sitting down, I was passed over twice more. One constituent tapped me on the shoulder: “So they’re not going to let you speak?”

That was the impression that I received. I addressed Mr. Waxman before the entire audience:

“I thought this was an open forum? What are you afraid of, Mr. Waxman? That your record will come out? This is disgraceful."


As I was leaving, the rabbi approached me. He informed me that he had seen my blog. He was worried about personal attacks. I responded that everything I have shared is from public records and research.

The rabbi kept telling me to “calm down.” He charged me with “you're being hostile”, then told me to leave.

 

I felt so at peace, but still I was surprised that free speech really wasn’t so free. I knew that voters were learning about the Congressman's record.

Slightly shaken for being thrown out of a synagogue, I called my father to tell him what happened. Nonchalantly, he replied: “Why, that’s a feather in your cap. Now you have something else that you can write about for your blog.”

 

Waxman’s challenger informed me that whenever someone “googled” “Henry Waxman”, they would find my blog.

Waxman should have let me speak. His interruption exposed more than any interrogation.

 

I scared a Congressman, and I liked it!

The Proud Democrat Joins "No Labels"

I supported Bill Bloomfield not just because he was not Waxman, although in many ways that was reason enough. Bloomfield's support for Prop 32, for electoral reform, for refusing any campaign donations, all resonated with me. One of his ideas that was dead on arrival for me, though, was his co-founded interest group: "No Labels".

"No Labels" as a concept and a movement is essentially flawed. According to the "No Labels" convocation, because our politicians are so resolutely locked into not getting anything done, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's pledge to make President Obama a "one-term" President, they are not ever going to get anything done. One caucus has signed pledges refusing to raise taxes. The opposing caucus refuses to touch entitlements. So begins the gridlock.

I propose that if Congress gets busy ending the spending spree and cutting the tax rates and the size of the federal government, all of us would be better off, even the environmental lobbies, who can get more respect from their state legislatures than the federal government, in my view.

"No Labels" claims that the pary structure is forcing members of Congress not to work together at all, and thus a third party alternative must emerge, one which is committed to getting Congress back to work, refusing to take sides and thus get every side to advance. The very moniker invites mockery, as "No Labels" is in itself a label. This frustrated sent-up reminds me of the rock band "The Lone Rangers" -- none of whom were alone. An organization or an interest group which invites questions and concerns from the first mention of its name should incite further introspection among its members.

"No Labels" wants to end "the gridlock". Like many limited government types, I love gridlock. Congress not even showing up much of the time might be better, but when the legislators get together and do nothing, our pocket books and our livelihood remain safe. The movement also claims that procedural reforms must be enacted. The gridlock in this country has nothing to do with the political process, with the Constitution of the United States. The problem lies with the people themselves, in that individual voters and constituencies are voicing their opinions and casting their votes, which in turn generates the gridlock.

This is not due to some failing in the voting public, but in the inherent tensions of representative democracy. In one sense, we send our representatives to govern us; in another sense, we send them to Congress to do what we want them to. A true statesman will make choices that will sometimes inevitably offend the sense and sensibility of his constituents. For this reason, the Framers authorized the legislatures, not the citizens themselves, to elect the Senators; the Electoral College selected the President, not the popular vote. Popular sentiment finds its voice in the House of Representatives, and only there.

Another concern with "No Labels" falls on this issue of representation. The organization claims "People First" as its motto. The exact meaning and purpose of this pledge invites more scrutiny instead of certainty. The Constitution was enacted in order to form a "more perfect union", not please the interests of the "people". "Establishing justice", tranquility, the blessings of liberty, often entails constraining the power of all interests, the special and the general, the elite and the popular. Besides, our leaders take an oath to defend the Constitution, not to represent the "people." Too many of our youth, and a growing number of the current electorate, are not receiving from our politicians or our educational institutions the proper role of government: to protect our rights. Governments are instituted to protect our rights, not provide for our material wants. "People first" makes as much sense as "No Labels" functions as a label, except while the first phrase is too vague, the second is just plain contradictory.

After heavy campaigning and threats from voters and the press, Henry Waxman found that he had to reach out of his old politicking shell. He joined "No Labels", yet in another show of inconsistency, he went all over the district claiming to be a proud Democrat". How does the Congressman reconcile his new membership with his long-standing boast throughout the campaign? 38 years of marching in line with his party, which should be commend on strict standards of loyalty, does not translate too well into a new term with gridlock at an all time high. The level of compromise needed to get anything done -- including the menacing “fiscal cliff” -- remains unprecedented for old and new entering Congress.

Henry Waxman, the "proud Democrat" enters Congress with a commitment to serve the people. Did he do that for the past thirty-eight years? Ask the veterans still waiting for adequate housing. Ask the postal workers and residents in Venice and Santa Monica who fear that they will have no neighborly facility to drop their mail. Ask the residents of West LA, who are still waiting for a better route to the sea besides the seventeen mile bump-and-grind of Wilshire Blvd.

Veterans Affairs, Immigration, and Transportation Need Attention

 "We have no interest in making baseball the central focus of this committee's agenda." -- Congressman Henry Waxman

MSNBC released a hearing from Waxman's Chairmanship on the Oversight Committee. At the time, he was investigating steroid abuse in baseball, a subject which he should be more inclined to sweep under the rug, since he betrayed so unacceptable an ignorance on the subject in the documentary "Bigger, Faster, Stronger".

The MSNBC clip indicts "Inconsistencies with Mr. Clemens," referring to Roger Clemens pretended perjury before the Oversight Committee. The real inconsistency from this hearing stems from the abuse of the Oversight Committee to pursue an issue that has nothing to do with the role or the scope of the federal government.

 Our veterans were striving, barely surviving, even dying on the streets of Los Angeles at that time, yet the Brentwood VA remained a rental property for private proprietors, including washing machines and merry-go-rounds. Mr. Waxman was investigating the inconsistencies between a trainer who claimed to administer growth hormone and steroids to Roger Clemens.

 Even if Congressman Waxman won the 33rd Congressional District, he still has a lot of explaining to do for his unconscionable lack of oversight on key issues, such as the proper use of our wetlands in the Santa Monica Bay, or the improper use of federal funding for a bullet train which will transport people very quickly from Bakersfield to Tulare. He changed his mind rather suddenly on the Subway to the Sea. One wonders if Waxman will kill that project now that he is back in office, or like Congresswoman Janice Hahn, he will support a subway of some kind, but he will demur and stall on specific proposals indefinitely.

 Recently reelected, Waxman is writing more letters once again, not to protect our veterans, not to get our troops out of Afghanistan, but to protest the closure of the Fifth Street Post Office in Santa Monica. I do not understand what drives this legislator to focus on such picayune issues such as keeping a post office open, when the Brentwood VA remains closed to the very public it was intended to serve: our veterans. Granted, the inconvenience of not being able to deliver mail at a closer facility will unnerve certain people, and the Fifth Street Post Office is a prized piece of "New Deal" Americana. Yet our troops, the looming fiscal crises, and the ongoing foreign policy failures in the Middle East deserve more attention.

Let's not forget the well-being of our immigrant population throughout the Santa Monica Bay. Congressman Waxman has proposed nothing to alleviate the second-tier status of immigrant youth whose parents brought them to this country without naturalization status. Waxman ought to right letters diminishing the welfare state so that this country can open the borders and permit any able-bodied individual to find work. I do not endorse amnesty, and neither should Congressman Waxman. A compromise emphasizing border control and state authority in the limited and diminished disbursement of benefits will encourage legal immigration. One writer shared with me that Congressman Waxman was influential in assisting a Russian engineer. He expedited the processing of her naturalization paperwork. Certainly, the Congressman can step up his focus on the immigration issues in his district, California, and the rest of the country.

38 years of mixed priorities and lost time does not excuse letting him off the hook. Congressman Waxman then and now has a record of doing too much on issues of no importance and "not enough" on the issues that matter. If he takes the interests of the voters in the 33rd Congressional district serious, then he must relinquish his heavy focus on post offices and baseball, and advance restoration of the Brentwood VA and the recuperation of our veterans; advocate for comprehensive immigration reform; and investigate the waste and fraud in bad transportation projects (Browns' Boondoggle) and support the Subway to the Sea.