All three WILL indeed face Primary challengers and hopefully all three will be picked off.

It is not just in New Jersey that the anger is being felt. Conservative organizations that make it their business to target and BEAT RINO's in primaries have their radar turned on to the 8 Cap & Tr8itor's.

These 8 can't spin this enough to wiggle out of it.

But Lance is right about one thing, he did say was going to support this bill. During the debate with Stender he said Global Warming was man's fault.

He will also side with Nancy Pelosi and the Liberals when Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants rears it's ugly head again.

All three need to be challenged and defeated. He can't get much worse having a Democrat in their, at least they have the D next to their name.

I live in Lance's District in Middlesex County, and nothing would make me happier then challenging Lance, but I have other aspirations for Middlesex County GOP politics.

"I live in Lance's District in Middlesex County, and nothing would make me happier then challenging Lance, but I have other aspirations for Middlesex County GOP politics."

Do you really think that anyone cares what your plans are?

with more democrats voting against this bill than republicans, I want to hear one logical argument from the "NJ Lancers" and the Golf outing wing of the Republican Party, why they should not all be challenged next year.?

This is one of the most boneheaded ideas I have heard come out of the extreme right in the GOP. You will never see a far right congressman from any of these three Centrist districts. Instead we see three unique and capable congressmen holding their own and voting with their constituents. While I don't care much for the cap and trade bill, we live in state with high environmental consciousness.

Think of it this way: This is about as sensible as the urban Marxist who challenged Andrews last year in the primary on the Dem side.

Trying to challenge Smith would be a complete waste of resources, and idiotic.

A conservative attack on LoBiondo will be perfect......FOR VAN DREW!! Lonegans crazy crowd has already assured that this years 3rd Legislative District will go overwhelmingly Democrat and allow more money to be spent on the 1st to defend Albano and Milam. It would be great if a conservative beat LoBiondo or at least made it a tough race so that Van Drew can get the seat he deserves in Congress. AS a moderate Democrat can someone tell me where I can send money to the Lonegan wing .

knows the issues. A little history lesson- cap and trade was actually a Bush 41 and Bush 43 idea. Take some business, economics, and poli sci classes, or maybe get a degree like some of us did, and learn about these subjects.

Right now, we fail to take into account the "social cost" of energy. Yes, that is a real economics term. This bill does a better job of taking that into account. Energy prices will increase, as they should over time. But, maybe people will use less energy as a result (a novel concept).

was it the 40 pieces of silver,
or the 40 piece golf set. Yet again was it th 40 piece legal contract or the 4o pieces of Gov cheese for your district ?

The flock are asking what is next ? what other core values are you willing to trade when the 40 pieces are gone ?????
Keep looking in the mirror as the Republican
flock will turn you out of office.

while the Chinese and Indians and beating our economic brains out.

The left have been involved in feel good political masturbation while they kill off the American dream for the rest of us.

We need to build new Nuke plants, oil refineries, now or we will be left to rot on the marxist vine and our children and grandchildren will be slaves.

What a bunch of mutton headed morons. The social cost of building wooden windmills while China builds its economic empire will be more than our grandchildren can pay

This will hurt manufacturing, fuel hyper-inflation, kill jobs, and push production overseas at an alarming rate. This is not about the environment, this is about the economy.

Do not be fooled by the rhetoric, this is social engineering, a power grad, and an assaul on liberty and free markets.

Even moderate conservatives like Rodney Frelinghuysen saw past the stupidity of this bill. Even he, as a pro-enviromental Republican, understood that this bill will hurt an economy that is already teetering and being assaulted by the spending of historic levels being implemented by the Obama administration. This is about drawing a line between idiological differences and economic suicide.

"Shaftan has decided to harness what he described as a conservative groundswell"

Is this the same groundswell that drove Lonegan to victory in the primary?

Shaftan's just looking for another meal ticket. It's amazing that wingnuts who complain they can't afford to pay taxes are always able to piss money away on these stupid campaigns. I'd really like to know if there are any whackjobs out there who admit they haven't got enough money to pay their taxes but can afford to pay the money they say they haven't got to some idiotic campaign to defeat Chris Smith in a GOP primary.

"A little history lesson- cap and trade was actually a Bush 41 and Bush 43 idea."

The idea of companies exchanging pollution credits for cash has been around for a long time. It was intended as an alternative to putting a hard cap on emissions. Just like baseball and football. The latter has a hard cap while the former has a soft cap whereby teams above the cap have to share revenues with teams below the cap.

Lots of Republicans have supported this concept for a long time. When I lived in Pennsylvania there was a GOP congressman in my district who was pushing for it in lieu of a hard cap. And I may be mistaken, but I recall reading Milton Friedman's book "Free To Choose" where he came up with the same idea.

All this nonsense about cap and trade is just another fundraising opportunity for the usual rightwing advocacy groups. And for parasites like Rick Shaftan to recruit candidates he can feed off of for another election cycle.

As stated before, and out of respect to The Great Communicator, recorded clips of Ronald Reagan's quotes should be removed from the wait time on calls made to State GOP headquarters until a majority of Republicans vote as Republicans in Jersey. Reagan would roll over in his grave to know his speeches were being used to mask the liberal voting records of key Republicans here. For now, maybe Michael Jackson's "Man in the Mirror" applies instead. Jersey taxpayers will continue to suffer washed out dreams until GOP leaders make a change and make it right.

"recorded clips of Ronald Reagan's quotes should be removed from the wait time on calls made to State GOP headquarters until a majority of Republicans vote as Republicans in Jersey."

I agree about removing Reagan's quotes but for different reasons. Reagan is dead. He isn't coming back. It's time for Republicans to stop hanging on to Reagan like vines clinging to a crumbling building. Republicans need to live in the present and plan for the future. It's time to come up with new ideas, quotes and slogans instead of the same tired old shtick about Reagan.

and defied his party. He votes with Republicans about 81% of the time, the average Republican Congressman stays with the party about 89% of the time. Considering he's from blue NJ that's not so bad. So what Republican has the WORST record in the house for voting against his own Party Line? None other than conservative icon and Loneganite idol Ron Paul who bucks the party over 30% of the time. I don't like Lobo's vote either but answer me this. How come when Dr. Paul does it he's a 'maverick' and when Lobo does it he's a RINO?

Where was the NJRTL? They would not endorse on principle but wanted to wait to see who would win. Chris Smith was a liberal but got legitimized as a conservative by NJRTL. LoBiondi and Lance also got phony conservative credentials from NJRTL.

Same thing for all the single issue groups who say to hell with the other conservative issues. What sorry useless so called conservatives. 2nd amendment advocates don't care about abortion. Right to life don't care about gun rights. Neither care about property rights or taxes.

They just don't get it and because they don't, they should fold up their tents and move on.   We are all interdependent but the narrow mined NJRTL, ANJRPC, Tax Payer Union, Family Council, etc. cant see the forest through the trees. They all can claim credit for the three idiots.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."   Thomas Jefferson

This issue transends LONEGAN. Wealth and Prosperity and the American Dream are as AMERICAN as you can get. Even some 40 DEMOCRATS UNDERSTOOD THAT.

God forbid these guys vote for something such as this. How dare they not snap when the GOP whip is cracked. Obviously, the GOP cut these guys loose on this anyway. Lobiondo (now from Ventnor, not Vineland) calls himself an environmentalist because so much of his district is dependant on a clean environment. Thus, when he needs to claim bi-partisanship he can on the environment. It crazy how much the GOP is whaling against the Obama Admin for not being bipartisan, when that is all the guy seems to be doing. Now when these three vote moderately they get killed by their party. If Lonegan puts up challengers to these guys, they will be killed...killed.

That is the chance anyone has running against Smith and LoBiondo in the primary. Zero chance. Lance is another story. Someone with money and connections could mount a primary bid to the right of Lance and win. The general then becomes another issue as the national GOP would sit it out or use limited resources. And SJBlue - calling apiece of legislation supported by 8 members of a group of 178 is hardly bipartisan especially when the Republicans were shut out of the crafting of the bill from the start through the committee process.

"Climate Bill not Science-Based"

That little blurb came right from Greenpeace's website.  Yeah, a real right-wing group there!  Even the most extreme left-wing environmental group in the world realizes this bill is literally crap.

Cap-and-Tax, SCHIP, big government, card check, burdensome regulations, anti-gun votes - Congressman Smith, being pro-life is no longer enough.  I didn't think I'd reach this point, but I don't think I can support you anymore.  This is the straw that has broken the camel's back.

Lance - how can you possibly profess to be a 'fiscal conservative' and vote for the biggest wealth transfer in American history?  What the h*ll is your definition of conservative?

What some of these left-wing posters - the legitimate ones and the ones who claim to be Republicans - don't understand is that conservatives don't care about the Republican party in and of itself.  We are Americans first, then what would be considered a Constitutionalist, then Republicans insofar as they behave according to the conservative principles of the American Constitution.  When representatives stray from the Constitution - like these Elite-8 have - and FAR away from the Constitution in this case - we're going to let them know about it, and if we feel strongly enough about it, deny them our votes.  That's what a Constitutional Republic is all about.

Who are these "left wing posters" you are discussing? And please don't speak for all conservatives when you state they do not care about the Republican party. That is total BS. You are not the spokesperson for the conservative movement.

On this posting, mainly Clifford and SJB are tilted left-of-center, though SJB doesn't pretend to be a Republican at least.  Other postings are filled with those who pretend to proclaim what is good for Republicans, speaking, of course, from the opposing side.  Ok, MOST conservatives anymore are so fed up with being betrayed by Republicans, that they've come to the realization that at least most Democrats are intellectually honest in their advancement of Socialism.  Your later comment proves it all - IF someone were to pose a challenge from the right in the primary and win, the national party would hang them out to dry in the general.  It's only conservatives who have to 'make nice' after a primary.  Then, the RNC will keep sending me nonsense about how hard they are fighting the liberals and how important it is for me to send them money.  As long as we keep getting Socialism-lite from those such as these eight Reps, and pure Socialism from Bush 43 "the sky is falling" we need to shred capitalism to save it with hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare, the continued response should be "Take a Hike" (and not in Argentina, speaking of our latest betrayee). 

creating a market for items (including pollution) has been around well before the 1990's.  I just used Bush 41 and 43 as examples of former presidents who supported cap-and-trade.  When folks start talking about "socialism" and "the left wing agenda" its important to put into context some of the folks who supported these ideas. 

As for the social cost and China/India "beating us" - like it or not, we are a post-industrial society and we better start acting like one.    That means making wholesale changes in the way we do business.  Stop clamoring for the past and start looking to the future.

Leonard Lance has been a disgrace to the NJ GOP for a long time. This man drove the GOP senate into the ground with his failed leadership. His rise to Congress was an "up and thank God he's out" measure. Who thought he could achieve negative national attention of this magnitude for NJ's GOP. How can this man sleep at night with what he has done.

He's poison to the GOP.

The national GOP not getting involved in a post primary where an incumbant has lost has nothing to do with ideology. It has to do with limited resources and too many potential races where the are already invested around the country. An incumbant Member of Congress has the ability or potential to raise more money than a non-incumbant who just knocked off a sitting member in a primary. If the NRCC were to get involved, it would have to essentially take over the fundraising arm of the campaign to make it competitive thus hurting other campaigns. They don't have to go all in on an incumbant who can raise money. That is why I also stated that a wealthy conservative would have the best chance. Someone who could self finance would be needed to spend 600k to 1 million on a primary and then another 2-3 million on a general. All you have to do is look at PA's Senate race. The national GOP has begun to back Toomey financially and he is a staunch conservative. So it is not ideology - it is financial.

No Republican in his/her right mind would challenge Smith or LoBiondo, they are both locks in their districts and it would be a waste of time, money and effort. Lance will be a good Congressman just give him some time before anyone jumps to conclusions.

Regarding the bill, cap and trade has been an economic tool used for many years and has proven effective. We need to keep in mind that the US in not a manufacturing country anymore and therefore we need to act like one. China and India will run into the same problems we did but they will be hurt more than we ever were.

"Social Cost" is not some liberal made up term either, it is an economic term who's use is growing more and more as CEOS and companies begin to understand what effects their products/services are having in the long run that contribute to their long term growth or decline.

http://lwschoolhouse.blogspot.com/

The home of Arlen 'Single Bullet' Specter.  How much $$ did Republicans waste on his sorry behind?  They deserved what they got for putting up with his bullcrap for so long.  Let's see how the Dems like him!  I hope the Nat'l Repubs do bankroll Toomey.  The NJ Repubs won't need the Nat'l money - I'm sure the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters will come to their defense - AGAIN!  Isn't it ironic how China and India are implementing our previous economic policies and we are implementing the past economic policies of the old USSR and present-day Venezuela, with the spending policies of the old Weimar Republic and present-day Zimbabwe?

of the decline of our institutions for higher learning.

The Waxman-Markey ("Clean Energy") bill is not a job-killer by any means. You right-wingers who are saying that (and using terms like "wealth transfer," "hyperinflation," and "cap-and-tax") are simply repeating the partisan rhetoric of John Boehner & company. Why don't you actually read up on the actual provisions of the bill and the projected effects that have been determined by people whose job it is to do so and not to spew partisan rhetoric?

First of all, this is not creating a new tax. The small increase in people's power bills will go to the power companies, not to the federal government, and will go towards purchasing electricity from cleaner sources. This is paying for itself; it is not sending more of your money towards the government, nor is it increasing government spending much. Independent analyses have indicated that the bill would cut spending on utilities, as well as have minimal overall costs to the average household – somewhere between 22 to 48 cents a day (the latter of which is the high estimate by the nonpartisan CBO). As a result of all this, the warnings of hyperinflation and wealth transfer neither make sense nor hold any water.

And secondly, the Waxman-Markey bill is not a job-killer, nor will it exterminate our maunfacturing industry. Studies show that the combination of the Clean Energy Act and the "stimulus" from earlier this year can potentially generate up to $150 billion per year in new clean-energy investments in the United States by 2020. What's more, this $150 billion in spending would be dominated not by the government but by the private sector, and would generate a net increase of 1.7 billion jobs. Even if investment in fossil fuels were to decline by the same amount that investment in clean energy increased, only 800,000 jobs would be lost in the fossil fuels sector, which would be supplanted by about 2.5 million jobs in the clean energy sector, and a net increase in job opportunities in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. In New Jersey we would see a net increase of 48,000 jobs and a net increase of $4.6 billion in investment revenue. And the Republican warnings that this bill will destroy the manufacturing industry is also a fiction. The studies I've read indicate that a majority of the new jobs that will be created will be in the manufacturing and construction industries.

So the decision is yours. Either listen to the baseless partisan rhetoric of a slimy politician who is seeking votes, or listen to the experts who are dealing in facts and real numbers.

I agree with those who commend Lance for voting intelligently and basing his opinions on facts, not on trying to appease party bosses and political hacks. He, LoBiondo, and Smith will all win re-election, and here's hoping the party establishment realizes that any of those seats would go for a Democrat before it goes for a Lonegan-ite archconservative.

"The small increase in people's power bills will go to the power companies, not to the federal government, and will go towards purchasing electricity from cleaner sources."

Uh, my NJ PSE&G bill is already massive and growing under Corzine. You throw a lotta numbers around why not talk some more about that "small" monthly increase on low and middle income earners? Fact is it's a massive tax increase, and the little guy gets hurt the most.

Lance and the rest of those twerps got campaign contributions from eco- nuts. They don't give a crap about their constituency.

A small increase in the energy bill of the average taxpayer? Are you kidding? The Congressional Budget Office used phony gimmicks to come up with the $175 increase in the year 2020 that the proponents of this bill are pushing. It did not take into account the 77 cent increase of gas which is in the CBO report. Doing simple math, one can see that a family that fills up their car - say 20 gallons a week which would be consistent for a family with 2 young kids in a mini van - would see their gas bill go up $800 in a year. Additionally, CBO claims that the tax burden for those families will be off set by an emissions allowance. The problem is that emissions allowance would go to businesses and governments, not families. The American Petroleum Institute has stated that the average energy bill will rise $3,300 and spike after the 2020 emissions cap is ratcheted up. So much for a small increase..

Other than CBO whose math is off by a wide margin, which "experts" are you citing? You are spouting off of the DCCC talking points so it would make you a pathetic partisan.

"The American Petroleum Institute has stated that the average energy bill will rise $3,300 and spike after the 2020 emissions cap is ratcheted up. So much for a small increase.."

Yeah, right. The American Petroleum Institute? The propaganda ministry for big oil companies? They have as much credibility as the Tobacco Institute citing statistics which show the health benefits of tobacco. GMAB.

Alan Steinberg has a fair critique of this bill, primarily because it does not allow for nuclear power, but he also points out, as I have in other comments, that the concept of cap and trade originated with Republicans as an economically viable alternative to a hard cap on emissions.

I think Len Lance has shown tremendous political courage, especially as a first-term congressman, in supporting this legislation despite that it may not be perfect. I commend him for independent thinking and I heartily endorse his re-election. I will do everything I can to help Len Lance win re-election next year.

You, sir, are not an independent. You are a liberal who is reluctant to say so for fear of being labeled for what you truly are. Facts are stubborn things. Here are the facts:

PDF charts on Lance’s own web site demonstrate that C&T will place a heavy burden on a majority of the states which, in turn, will redound negatively New Jersey. At the bottom of the first chart is the incriminating fine print:

“Estimate of 2012 Statewide Cost to Electricity Consumers under H.R. 2454 (6/22 Version) – Consumers Will Face Additional Costs for Gasoline, Diesel, Food, & Goods Based on Emissions and Sales Data from EIA per House Agriculture Committee Majority Request and Carbon Allowance Price of $16 per ton from CBO, 6/5/09.”

This is further reinforced by the second link to a PDF appropriately titled “Most States Lose Under H.R. 2454.”

The chart points out that “Consumers in red colored states will pay more for electricity to make up for the shortfall in allowances. Based on the allowance allocation formula in H.R. 2454 for electricity consumers, the red states will not have enough allowances to cover their emissions from electricity generation. The shortfall in allowances to the red states will lead to higher electricity costs for consumers, the total of which will roughly correlate with the dollar losses noted on the map. For example, Texas electricity consumers will see electricity costs go up by roughly $1 billion. To make up the shortfall, red states will have to seek high-cost, non-CO2 emitting electricity sources, reduce electricity production and consumption, or purchase allowances from the green states, or purchase domestic and international offsets, likely a combination of the three.”

The greatly increased cost of energy to all of these other states will have a downstream effect of increasing the cost of production and transportation, which will be passed on to goods sold through interstate commerce. Perhaps New Jerseyans will not see an actual increase in their energy costs. I say perhaps, because I trust very little in the way of information that comes out of Congress or the federal government these days. But the fact remains that other costs will increase as the price of consumer goods and any energy we purchase from these states skyrockets. This includes petroleum-based fuels, chemicals and other manufactured items.

According to the Heritage Foundation:

For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.

But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600.

Beyond the cost impact on individuals and households, Waxman-Markey also affects employment, and especially employment in the manufacturing sector. We estimate job losses averaging 1,145,000 at any given time from 2012-2035. And note that those are net job losses, after the much-hyped green jobs are taken into account. Some of the lost jobs will be destroyed entirely, while others will be outsourced to nations like China and India that have repeatedly stated that they’ll never hamper their own economic growth with energy-cost boosting global warming measures like Waxman-Markey.

Since farming is energy intensive, that sector will be particularly hard-hit. Higher gasoline and diesel fuel costs, higher electricity costs, and higher natural gas-derived fertilizer costs all erode farm profits, which are expected to drop by 28 percent in 2012 and average 57 percent lower through 2035. As with American manufacturers, Waxman-Markey also puts American farmers at a global disadvantage, as other food-exporting nations would have no comparable energy-price raising measures in place.

Overall, Waxman-Markey reduces gross domestic product by an average of $393 billion annually between 2012 and 2035, and cumulatively by $9.4 trillion. In other words, the nation will be $9.4 trillion poorer with Waxman-Markey than without it.

Worse yet, if this bill becomes the law of the land, our dependency on foreign oil will actually INCREASE:

On June 26 Bloomberg.com reported that America’s biggest oil companies will probably cope with U.S. carbon legislation by closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports.

Under the Waxman-Markey climate bill that may be voted on today by the U.S. House, refiners would have to buy allowances for carbon dioxide spewed from their plants and from vehicles when motorists burn their fuel. Imports would need permits only for the latter, which ConocoPhillips Chief Executive Officer Jim Mulva said would create a competitive imbalance.
“It will lead to the opportunity for foreign sources to bring in transportation fuels at a lower cost, which will have an adverse impact to our industry, potential shutdown of refineries and investment and, ultimately, employment,” Mulva said in a June 16 interview in Detroit. Houston-based ConocoPhillips has the second-largest U.S. refining capacity.

The same amount of gasoline that would have $1 in carbon costs imposed if it were domestic would have 10 cents less added if it were imported, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie in Houston. Contrary to President Barack Obama’s goal of reducing dependence on overseas energy suppliers, the bill would incent U.S. refiners to import more fuel, said Clayton Mahaffey, an analyst at RedChip Cos. in Maitland, Florida.

“They’ll be searching the globe for refined products that don’t carry the same level of carbon costs,” said Mahaffey, a former Exxon Corp. refinery manager.

I can certainly understand the support PSE&G has for the bill: roughly 85 percent of the allowances have been promised for free. The biggest winners are the electric utilities, which get 35 percent of the allowances. Some energy-intensive manufacturers also made out well. So only 15 percent of the allowances will be auctioned, at least in the initial phase of the bill, and even that may get promised away as the bill moves forward.

And all those “green jobs?” According to a March 27 story at Bloomberg.com:

Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one created if Spain’s experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide.

For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2010 budget proposal contains about $20 billion in tax incentives for clean-energy programs. In Spain, where wind turbines provided 11 percent of power demand last year, generators earn rates as much as 11 times more for renewable energy compared with burning fossil fuels.

The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power - - which are charged to consumers in their bills — translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.

“The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he said in an interview.

Spain’s Acerinox SA, the nation’s largest stainless-steel producer, blamed domestic energy costs for deciding to expand in South Africa and the U.S., according to the study.

“Microsoft and Google moved their servers up to the Canadian border because they benefited from cheaper energy there,” said the professor of applied environmental economics.

The Congressional Budget Office figures are incorrect as they are based on a false cost analysis:

1. CBO underestimates that the bill would cost households $175 in 2020. They assume that the carbon tax isn’t a tax if the government spends the money. When have Americans ever seen all of a tax returned to them? It’s like suggesting your tax rebate will be as large as the amount taken from your paycheck every year.

2. The CBO’s allowance cost numbers don’t add up. They say the allowance price will be $28. Since there are 5.056 billion tons of CO2 equivalent in the cap that year, that implies a $141 billion gross cost. They list $91.4 billion. In the CBO’s June 5 analysis, they projected allowance revenues of $119.7 billion, $129.7 billion, $136 billion, $145.6 billion and $152.9 billion for the years 2015-2019. It’s hard to believe that the next number in that series would be $91.4 billion.

3. The CBO doesn’t include the decrease in GDP as a result of the bill. The GDP hit in 2020 would be $161 billion (in 2009 dollars) according to our analysis. For a family of four, that is $1,870 that they ignore.

For that matter, the EPA’s estimates are also bogus:

1. The EPA underestimates that the bill would cost households an additional $140 a year.

2. The EPA’s numbers are based on consumption changes, which are typically less than income changes, as families respond to income losses by saving less.

3. Discounting is a reasonable approach for comparing costs and benefits that occur at widely different times. However, costs of climate change rarely use a discounted rate this high. Without discounting, the impact per household is $1,288 in 2050. Adjusting household size to reflect a family of four raises this cost to over $1,900.

4. The EPA assumes all the allowance proceeds will be rebated directly to consumers. This clearly isn’t the case, since most of the allowances have been promised to industry.

5.The loss that the EPA calculates doesn’t include the cost of the energy tax to consumers, since the EPA assumes that all of the money is rebated. The cost of the energy tax is actually $4,600 per family of four in 2035.

Simply stated, Cap and Trade is wrong for New Jersey and wrong for America:

• It’s a massive energy tax - John Dingell himself admitted as much

• It will not make a substantive impact on the environment

• It will kill jobs both in New Jersey and throughout the United States

• It will cause utility rates to go up: in January of 2008 Barack Obama himself admitted that ”electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” under his cap-and-trade program

• It will cost American families nearly $3,000 per year and force lower-income Americans to choose between energy and other expenses

• It will be a magnet for fraud and corruption

There is no reason for C&T because there is no reason to cap carbon emissions - they have nothing to do with climate change.

Sorry you don't like it Cliff. But the facts speak for themselves. It is simple math really. CBO did not use all of the data, only selected data to show what one year would look like. And they didn't bother to use their own internal numbers. API while they have an agenda, has provided facts to bakc up their arguments whether you like it or not.

for why this is extremely bad legislation regardless of the spin its proponents try hoist upon an un-informed public.

Irrespective of the cost, this bill is bad becuase it gives powers to the government that it should not have to fix a problem that does not exist.

"You, sir, are not an independent. You are a liberal who is reluctant to say so for fear of being labeled for what you truly are. Facts are stubborn things. Here are the facts:"

Nonsense. Here are the facts:

This is a nonstory in the mainstream media which nobody outside a few political junkies and whackjobs in the wingnut blogosphere pays any attention to.

Len Lance will cruise to an easy primary victory over any crackpot conservative and will likely win re-election next November.

Even you must agree that what you wrote are opinions and not facts.

PanamaJack: On the contrary, this bill is not a massive tax increase and it will not be on the backs of the poor. According to the CBO report, the lowest quintile of American households in terms of American households would be $40 less in their energy bills by 2020 if Waxman-Markey is passed. And the second-lowest quintile of households would only be paying $40 more. None of the income quintiles would see their energy bills go up by one dollar per day in 2020 -- a truly miniscule amount. But the CBO report does not take into account any economic benefits of the provisions of the Waxman-Markey bill. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy estimates that consumer savings will be about $170 per household, which is not far off from the CBO's estimated cost-per-household. Like I've said -- this bill pays for itself.

The OC: Are you kidding me? Are you really saying that the CBO, whose job is to figure out these things in a factual and nonpartisan way, is less trustworthy than the American Petroleum Institute, which is essentially the oil companies' propaganda machine? Give me a break. Anyway, the API's estimate that gasoline prices will rise 77 cents by 2020 is false and does not use the actual figures in the CBO report. In order for gas prices to rise 77 cents, the price of greenhouse gas allowances would have to hit $85 per ton of carbon dioxide in 2020. But the CBO report says the allowances will only cost $26 per ton in actual dollars. So gas prices, using the figures the CBO actually came up with, will rise 20 cents by 2020. That's not much, especially considering the fact that our addiction to foreign oil will no doubt drive up the price considerably more in that time. Also, I'll have you know that I am citing exactly zero figures from the DCCC website. These figures have come from nonpartisan and reliable sources including the U.S. Department of Energy, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Center for American Progress -- none of which are on Big Oil's payrolls, incidentally. CliffordCase: Thank you, sir, for seeing the folly in The OC's arguments and noting the fact that cap-and-trade is a Republican idea. This bill is by no means an extremely liberal piece of legislation -- well, maybe it seems that way to the far-right-wingers on this site, but they hardly represent the average Republican.

ManlyRash: First of all, I don't appreciate the fact that you've pigeonholed me as a liberal based on this one issue alone. I take liberal positions on some issues, conservative positions on others, and moderate ones on still others. Sorry I don't conform to your standards of ideological purism. As for your assessment of Waxman-Markey's economic impact, I note with some dismay that many of your figures come from the Heritage Foundation. Heritage is hardly a reliable source, as it is notorious for seeking to further the conservative Republican agenda and for taking extensive funding from corporations whose interests it then promotes. In fact, many oil companies have supplied considerable funding to Heritage as of late, including ExxonMobil. And now the Heritage is issuing reports that oppose the Waxman-Markey bill, which coincidentally Big Oil also opposes. What a coincidence! Allow me to explain why the Heritage Foundation's "study" is deeply flawed. Firstly, the study does not take into account the renewable energy standard, the new energy efficiency standards, and the financial assistance for energy consumers during the transition. Heritage thus underestimates the projected growth in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and the use of more efficient natural gas instead of coal. In short, they are focusing solely on cap-and-trade and not the rest of Waxman-Markey, which is a flawed way of considering the bill. By conveniently ignoring the provisions in the bill that would create jobs, result in economic growth, and cause the cost of the bill to the average consumer to be fairly low, Heritage is portraying the Waxman-Markey bill inaccurately -- as a job-killer, which it is not, and as a bill that will drive jobs overseas, which is also a half-truth. By the way, I concede that farmers would be disparately harmed by this bill. That's why part of the compromise in this compromise bill included considerable capitulation to the demands of the farm lobby. Anyway, citing statistics about the Spanish energy economy isn't exactly a great way of considering how the American energy economy would be impacted by a transition to a renewable-energy-based economy. That's Spain, this is America. Apples and oranges. So let's look at a complete and thorough study of Waxman-Markey's economic impact created by someone not on Big Oil's payroll...let's see...how about the Center for American Progress? Their study of the bill indicates that the Waxman-Markey bill and the stimulus package from earlier this year can potentially generate up to $150 billion per year in new clean-energy investments in the United States by 2020, dominated by the private sector, and would generate a NET INCREASE of 1.7 billion jobs. Even if investment in fossil fuels were to decline by the same amount that investment in clean energy increased, only 800,000 jobs would be lost in the fossil fuels sector, which would be supplanted by about 2.5 million jobs in the clean energy sector, and a net increase in job opportunities in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. So much for your attempt to discredit the idea of green jobs by comparing America's economy to Spain's. I find it particularly amusing that you even drop the middleman that is the Heritage Foundation and actually cite Big Oil as a reliable source in your arguments against Waxman-Markey. Big Oil is trying to use scare tactics to get people to oppose this bill. What a shock. Altogether, you have certainly not "made an excellent case," as DiMarco wrote. Rather, you have used a series of figures from flawed and biased sources to further your position as a conservative. Nice work. DiMarco: I almost laughed out loud when I read this sentence you wrote: "Irrespective of the cost, this bill is bad becuase it gives powers to the government that it should not have to fix a problem that does not exist." I understand that you disagree with the bill, but by implying that global warming is a hoax you make your side even less credible. Although perhaps you have even less credibility thanks to your assertion that this bill exceeds Congress's powers. It's call the Commerce Clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution, buddy. In National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could regulate commerce within states as long as the things being regulated had "such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce" that their regulation by Congress was necessary. Then in Wickard v. Filburn the Court ruled "even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'" So the Waxman-Markey bill clearly falls under Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.

It is clearly evident to anyone with an ounce of commonsense that the CBO numbers are useless. They pick ONE year - the year before the the cap skyrockets under the legislation - to do their math. They DO NOT use from any other year or combine years together. Have you even read the CBO product? Additionally, the 77 cents figure was FROM CBO AND NOT API. Get a clue and get the facts before spouting off next time.

Fine, if you want to ignore the CBO that doesn't bother me. But don't start spouting off blatantly false numbers from the API, the Heritage Foundation, and other biased, Big-Oil-funded organizations. You know as well as I do that they aren't reliable.

And the 77 cents figure is from the API. The API claims that the CBO got that figure but the reality is, if you read the CBO report, the figure is about 20 cents per gallon. In order for it to hit 77 cents per gallon, the price of greenhouse gas allowances would have to hit $85 per ton of carbon dioxide in 2020, and that's obviously not what it says in the CBO report.

 Next time you want to accuse me of not reading the CBO report, why don't you read the CBO report yourself instead of reading what the API says the CBO reported?

I did not get that figure from API, so please get a clue. It's called ssimple math. You cannot dispute the fact so you run around it to try to make yourself look knowledgable. Did you even read the cover letter from the Director? It clearly states for anyone who can read that they DID NOT take into account the impact of the bill after 2020 when the cap racthets up and Americans will be forced to pay even higher energy costs. Keep living in La-La land UCI. It is obvious you have the DCCC and DNC talking points down perfectly. The CBO report clearly states that businesses will not bear the burden of this bill - it will be the consumer "The cost of the allowances. The cost of acquiring allowances would become a cost of doing business. In most cases, the firms required to hold the allowances would not bear that cost; rather, they would pass it onto their customers in the form of higher prices." CBO also stated: "According to CBO’s estimates, the gross cost of complying with the GHG cap and-trade program delineated in H.R. 2454 would be about $110 billion in 2020 (measured in terms of 2010 levels of consumption and income), or about $890 per household." The CBO also assumes that the COnsumer Price Index will increase and that the Federal Reserve will do nothing or little to alter its increase and that beneficiaries will see increases in payments like Social Security. Nice rosey optimism. Furhtermore, "CBO did not allocate to households in various income categories $7.2 billion of net costs incurred by federal, state, and local governments and $5.5 billion of the value of allowances allocated to businesses because there is no clear basis for identifying which households would either bear those costs or benefit from the value of those allowances. With those items excluded, the gross cost would come to approximately $770 per household, compared with the total gross cost of $890 per household." Lastly, the CBO is non-partisan? Please grow up. Any "non-partisan" group can skew data to achieve an end. The Sierra Club is "non-partisan". Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director, was a Clinton appointee on the Council of Economic Advisors and at the Treasury Department. Yeah - so much for non-partisan.

Let me pick your comment apart bit by bit.

 First off, your claim that "simple math" proves me wrong, but you fail to show that math. Let me explain why I'm correct. The assumption is that every $50 per metric ton of carbon corresponds to a 12.5 cent gasoline price increase. Using that figure, simple math shows us that when the allowance price hits $26 per ton by 2020 (as the CBO table clearly reads). The ratio of tonnes:tons is 100:90.72. $26 per ton in 2020 is about $22 in 2008. So through simple math we can see that 20 cents per gallon of gasoline will be the price increase -- not 77 cents.

Second, I certainly am aware that the CBO did not take into account the ratcheting-up of the cap. That's not what they were commissioned to determine.

Third, if you don't trust the CBO, then who do you trust for non-partisan factual reports? The API? The Heritage Foundation? Big Oil? The RNC? Get real. And you seem to be alternating between criticizing the CBO for a flawed study and using its calculations to back up your arguments. Pick a side.

Fourth, your claims that CBO found that an outrageously high cost to the average household are, again, a half-truth, neglecting to take into account the economic benefits of the bill.

Fifth, let me just point out to you that cap-and-trade itself is a conservative idea that Republicans have supported in the past, and is a worthy alternative to an outright carbon tax. The bonus value of cap-and-trade is that companies tend to think that the cost of meeting the targets — and hence the cost of the permits — will be much higher than they actually turn out to be. So they do more than they need to do, especially once they find out how easy it is to cut emissions. And to make a long story short, that's why in previous cap-and-trade programs like sulfur dioxide the targets were achieved much faster and cheaper than anybody expected. Industry-funded economic models show very high permit prices, which is why industry ends up acting as if the permit price is going to be high. To sum all this up, fears of exorbitantly high permit prices are propaganda being churned out by Big Business and, ironically, will ultimately help the cap-and-trade program reach its goal. And the whole cap-and-trade system is a conservative idea, although a truly conservative system would auction off 100%, not 15%, of the permits to start off. But capitulation to Big Business is apparently more important to the far right than actually using free-market principles.

Lastly, I concede that this is not a perfect bill and that Americans will see their energy bills go up as a result. But wouldn't you agree that (a) imperfect action is better than inaction when it comes to trying to break free from our addiction to foreign oil? and that (b) Waxman-Markey won't affect the wallets of American taxpayers nearly as much as the public healthcare bill, which is a far bigger threat to Republican interests?

a) Inactiion would be far better than this bill. Global warming is a hoax as many scientists have pointed out. Anyone that studies geology can see that the climate change as fluctuated continuously. It has extremely little to do with the activities of man. If you really want to break free from our addiction to foreign oil, then allow private enterprise and the marketplace to develop solutions here. Our dependency on the resources of other nations are a result of the restrictions place by our government officials.

b) I DID laugh out loud when I read this one. To say it another way....you believe we should be in favor of being shot with a .22 because being shot with a shotgun would cause us to bleed faster. I must respond with a question myself. How about NOT getting shot at all? Both bills must be defeated along with the people that support them.

It obvious that you are totally clueless. The CBO is not in the business of projecting future economic forcasts? Are you serious? You are obviously talking out of your posterior to make yourself look important. But the reality is that you have no idea what you are discussing. I gave you specific quotes from the CBO and you make claims that it is from Heritage Foundation or the RNC. Great work. Obviously, you did not read a thing. Keep up the BS - maybe someone will believe you.

You know, although I lean to the left on some issues, I always enjoy a thoughtful debate about those or any issues in the sphere of public policy. But when one debater's words degenerate into insults, it's easy to tell that that individual is both a poor debater and the one on the losing end of the debate. Believe me, I'm not under the illusion that Waxman-Markey is a perfect bill, nor am I under the illusion that Americans' energy bills won't go up. I'm merely contending that the bill is an important step in the right direction and that those energy bills won't go up anywhere near as much as you are contending. I have a friend in Pensacola, Florida, who is very, very conservative. I really enjoy having thoughtful debates with him on various issues, and I think one of the reasons why those debates are so valuable is the driving force behind them is intelligence and not insults.

I wish I had the same respect for you, The OC, as I do for my friend in Pensacola. But since you've decided to abandon real, thoughtful debate of Waxman-Markey in favor of insulting me repeatedly, my opinion of you has been greatly diminished. I never wrote, nor have I ever thought, that "the CBO is not in the business of projecting future economic forcasts," and you know it. Looking back at what I really wrote, I really can't see how you construed it to mean what you said it meant. My previous words speak for themselves without further explanation.

Also, you never quoted from the CBO report, and the 77 cent figure is not in there. You still haven't revealed the "simple math" that supposedly supports that figure. And furthermore, I never wrote that you got your figures from the RNC. I asked you whether you trust them more than the CBO. I guess you do. And finally, I think that my above comments show that I'm not making things up and that I have read a considerable amount on this subject.

As for you, Di Marco, your endless supply of nastiness is never a welcome addition to the debate. Nevertheless, I will counter your "answers." First off, I reject your argument that inaction would be better than this bill. I've backed up my position that this bill is a step in the right direction, but you haven't backed up your position that inaction would be better. Second, I would like to point out that your arrogant attitude towards my belief that global warming is a major problem is sorely misplaced. My position, not yours, is the one accepted by most scientists and every major scientific foundation. "Many scientists" do not think global warming is a hoax, as you contend. Furthermore, your theory that private enterprise will solve the energy independence problem is easily refuted. Surely you've noticed that in the decades since the first OPEC embargo, free enterprise has failed to bring about energy independence in the United States. I'm all for free enterprise, but it's not getting the job done.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion that both bills should be defeated. Waxman-Markey largely pays for itself and will ultimately result in economic growth driven by the private sector. The healthcare bill, on the other hand, is deeply flawed and unsustainably expensive. It ought to be either dramatically modified or defeated.

Poor baby. You call me a liar and then whine like a little girl when it is thrown back at you. Typical leftie. Cry some more for me. And for the record, I could care less if you had respect for me. I ceratinly have none for you. As to your claim that they were not projected to the future economic forecast - you claimed they wer enot commissioned to do so. THAT IS THEIR JOB. They chose to pick one year from which to provide a number. That is the whole problem with their forecast. Can you not remember what you wrote? You made the claim that I am getting my information from the RNC, Heritage, API, and Big Oil - and then told me to "get real." You get a clue and re-read what you wrote. You are not very good at spin. so stop trying to spin your words as if you were not actually saying what you wrote. I am the only one who provide actual quotes from the CBO report. You have not provided any. Someone give this man a tissue, please!!!!

Again, I did not say that you got your information from the RNC or Heritage Foundation. I asked you whether you trusted their figures over those of the nonpartisan CBO. And I only accused you of getting the 77 cent figure from the API because, well, you did. There is no such figure in the CBO report. If you disagree with that, I challenge you to point to the exact spot in the report where they wrote that gasoline prices will rise by 77 cents.

True, you have quoted from the CBO report, but for the most part you've been using their quotes to disparage their report. I continue to be perplexed by your simultaneous citation of the CBO report to back up your arguments and smearing of their methodology. Again, I call upon you to pick a side once and for all.

You continue to erroneously claim that I said it's not the CBO's job to make economic forecasts. Again, I never said any such thing. I said the CBO report covers what they were commissioned by Congress to cover, and not the additional figures you would have liked them to have included.

And to be perfectly clear, I have not once called you a "liar," as you claim, but you have repeatedly personally insulted me. I could care less if you call me a baby and a whiner, because that says a lot more about you than it does about me. And since that deplorable name-calling is clearly not germane to this thread, I will reiterate what I said before: That when one side of the debate resorts to insults and name-calling, it's clear they're desperately on the losing side of the argument.

Reading is obviously not fundamental. What is more perplexing is that YOU wrote it. You claimed I was passing along false information - in other words lying to make my point. So in essence you stating I was lying about the facts. So let's be trhuthful. And thanks for redefining what the CBO's mission is. You claimed it was not their mission to provide for economic forecast down the road - it is not what they were comissioned to do I believe is how you put it. However, it IS their mission to provide for the total impact of the bill - and all legislation - down the road. They stopped at one point, refusing to continue when we all know that after their one year numbers, those numbers will skyrocket costing all Americans more money in electric cost, as well as foods and services. You must be very naive to think that it is not their mission to provide for projections down the road. Otherwise, you are the one who is not being truthful.

I did not redefine what the CBO's mission is. These were my exact words: "I certainly am aware that the CBO did not take into account the ratcheting-up of the cap. That's not what they were commissioned to determine." The CBO was commissioned to determine the general economic impact and the likely costs and benefits of this bill. It was not commissioned to make wildly unreliable guesses about what the economy would look like decades from now. It seems to me that you would prefer if the CBO strayed into more subjective territory so you could support your case better. Because they seek to remain objective and nonpartisan, they've aggravated you and you condemn their report, only citing their figures when they're useful to you.

And before you keep accusing me of being untruthful, please keep in mind that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You're the one who's predicting that electricity prices will skyrocket decades from now without taking into account any of the economic benefits of a transition towards a clean energy economy, which will result from the new regulations in Waxman-Markey together with the spending on energy in the stimulus. After all, unless you've got a crystal ball you haven't mentioned yet, you don't know what the economy is going to be like decades from now. We could be in another recession, or we could be in boom times. Increased energy prices, if they occur, could be a drop in the bucket for an average middle-class family in the United States if we're in economic boom times. Keep in mind, please, that the recession that we're in now, with the average family surely dealing with financial problems, won't last forever. You can't predict the future's economy decades beforehand, nor can you predict future technological advances, future trade conditions, or future scientific discoveries.

So let's talk about basic economic principles we already know. Spending money in any area of the U.S. economy will create jobs since people are needed to produce any good or service that the economy supplies. This is true regardless of whether the spending is done by private businesses, households, or a government entity. I'm sure you can agree with that, at least.

Investment in clean energy and energy efficiency will have a much larger positive impact on jobs than spending in many other areas, especially fossil fuels. Studies have affirmed that, at a bare minimum, investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency has directly created jobs at 2.5 times the rate of fossil fuels. Taking into account both jobs created directly (i.e. building wind turbines) and indirectly (i.e. steelmaking) by clean energy investment, as well as induced job creation resulting from increased consumer spending by those who gain work in these new jobs -- it may be determined that 16.7 new jobs are created in clean energy for every $1 million invested. Compare that to only 5.3 jobs per $1 million invested in the fossil fuel industry. In my opinion, the key factor behind that is the fact that, considering direct plus indirect spending, clean energy relies much more on economic activities taking place within the United States, like the retrofitting of homes, and less on imports than spending within the fossil fuel sector. According to the Center for American Progress:

There are major differences by energy sector in terms of their degree of domestic content. Oil and gas have the lowest relative domestic content, at around 83 percent of total value generated in producing this energy type. The domestic content of crude oil production, at about 50 percent of total crude oil sold in the United States, is much lower than for all other subsectors within the oil industry. These other subsectors include the full range of administration, transportation, and marketing of crude and refined oil as well as natural gas—all activities that would be readily transferrable into a growing clean-energy sector. ...The three renewable energy sources operate with levels of domestic content roughly in line with the oil and coal sectors, with solar at 85 percent, wind at 88 percent, and biomass at 94 percent. The smart grid is also in the same range, at around 84 percent. These are all areas where innovation in manufacturing clean-energy products and services will be central to raising domestic content. The significant difference in domestic content occurs with retrofits, mass transit, and freight rail. In these cases, the level of domestic content is around 97 percent.

So let's be truthful, as you said. The clean energy sector is by its very nature more closely tied to the United States than the fossil fuel sector. You and others have claimed that jobs will be driven overseas as a result of Waxman-Markey, and you're right -- fossil fuels jobs will, because they're not as inherently tied to America. Meanwhile, jobs will be created in clean energy due to investment primarily by the private sector, ultimately resulting in a net increase in American jobs -- with many of those jobs unable to be transferred overseas by their very nature. And that's the honest truth.