Wednesday, May 27, 2009

New Ad Targets Blunt on Cap & Trade Bill

video
A new ad targeting Roy Blunt in his home district for his "NO" vote on the Democratic energy bill is obviously political -- but is it fair?
"Americans are coming together . . . supporting a new clean, energy future . . .
". . . But Roy Blunt said no," booms the new 30-second spot paid for by the League of Conservation Voters.
And Republicans aren't the lone targets -- an Arkansas Dem is also on their radar
And HERE is why the League has teamed up with Vote Vets & Builders for the ad
WATCH THE KY3 NEWS @ 10 REPORT HERE
The ad, not surprisingly, fails to point out the reason Blunt voted no on the bill in committee. The reason is because of the "cap and trade" plan. Under the proposal, energy companies would need to buy permits to emit carbon dioxide. The bill would make a fixed number of permits available. If a company emits less than expected, they could sell the permits to others for profit. (The Economist has a thorough write-up of the details HERE.)
The goal: to encourage companies to reduce emissions -- and in the long-run reduce costs. (The Marginal Revolution does some cost-benefit calculations.)
Raising energy costs is a non-starter for Congressman Blunt --- who points to a Energy Policy Group study, now being touted by the Missouri Public Utility Alliance, showing that the plan could raise utility rates by 40 percent in Missouri by 2015.
BLUNT CAMPAIGN STATEMENT:
"We know that Roy Blunt is being targeted for early attack because he is the Republican most feared by Robin Carnahan who has spent her entire campaign hiding from Blunt, the news media and voters," said spokesman Rich Chrismer. "The ad says wrongly that Roy opposes things that he supports. Roy Blunt says 'yes' to cleaner, more affordable American energy and more production here at home, and 'yes' to more renewables and more conservation," he added.
"Roy Blunt opposes this backdoor energy tax, and even offered amendments to suspend it if rates were to increase by 10 or 20 percent, in addition to suspending the tax if rates increased by 100 percent. The Democrats were nearly unanimously opposed to these amendments," Chrismer went on.
Also notable is that Blunt's potential Democratic opponent for U.S. Senate hasn't explicitly endorsed the proposal either:
"Robin hopes that the Congress will get this finished and get it right this year," said Tony Wyche, spokesman for Robin Carnahan's campaign. "She hopes they can work together to find a bipartisan solution to help decrease dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, and curb pollution - without sticking consumers with the bill."

1 comment:

mike said...

The same groups said the amendments to the Clean Air Act in the 90's would raise costs about the same amount, but from 1990-2006, MO rates actually fell 5%.

I don't trust a word they say. The MPUA is more interested in exercising their political muscle than making real policy.