In House Roll Call Vote 476, Parker Griffith had a choice. He could vote for the Cap & Trade Energy Tax Increase or he could vote for a substitute bill offered by Republican Congressman Forbes of Virginia (legislation to promote energy independence for America via more nuclear, more drilling in USA, and viable alternative energy sources – but no tax increase).

Adoption of the Forbes’ substitute would have killed the Cap & Trade Energy Tax Increase.

Parker preferred and voted for the Cap & Trade Energy Tax Increase. The Forbes’ substitute was defeated.

Immediately after Parker supported the Cap & Trade Energy Tax Increase with his vote in Vote 476, Parker voted against the Cap and Trade Energy Tax Increase on final passage in Vote 477.

Of course, Parker was quick to publicize the second vote and never mentions his first vote that helped rescue the Cap and Trade Energy Tax Increase from defeat.

These votes can be found at either the Washington Post’s political web site or at Roll Call.

The Forbes substitute is entitled H. R. 513, “To ensure the energy independence of the United States by promoting research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of technologies through a system of grants and prizes on the scale of the original Manhattan Project.”

I hope you will share this information will all of those who care about the Cap and Trade Energy Tax Increase issue.

Sincerely,

Mo Brooks

Thanks, but as I went back to reread the “insight” I have provided here, I came up on the following sentence in my first post:

“…school quality for those who done the hard work necessary to earn these things.”

I have no idea how that slipped through my proofing filter, but there was supposed to be a “have” in between “who” and “done”. Sheesh. Obviously, I need to knock off for the day.

Thanks much for your insight in the various comments you have written. They inspire follow-up research and thought.

Mo

This report (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124650399438184235.html) on Congressional travel perks notes that Cramer took a two-week trip to Europe at the end of last year “to conclude some issues I was working on” even though he was leaving office only two months later. He is now a registered lobbyist. I would really like to know what was so crucial that he had to spend thousands of dollars in taxpayer money on such a trip. Any bets on how much of that time was spend sightseeing and working on his new lobbying career?

The article also mentions trips by Richard Shelby and Bob Riley, by the way (and even has a picture of them together in Paris).

Is Nancy Pelosi calling for full-blown socialism immediately? No. But every political inclination she has is toward more state control, higher taxes, more regulation, more government intrusion into the private sector, more government power. If her entire agenda were adopted tomorrow, you can bet she would be back with a new tier of demands by next week. Whatever her current demands, her ideology points remorselessly toward full-blown socialism. Will she admit this? Of course not — she’s not stupid. But it is instructive to note that the Dems have embraced Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders with relish, even though he is a self-avowed Socialist.

I personally feel that Mo should tone down his rhetoric a bit simply to not sound quite so strident. But from a factual standpoint, he is absolutely on the money regarding the Dems’ (and much of the GOP’s) direction.

Thank you for the well-thought and reasoned reply. My source for 61% of self-described Democrats saying they prefer socialism over free enterprise a/k/a capitalism (or don’t know enough to have a preference) is the source you cite.

While there are varying degrees of socialism, one thing is certain with all of them. The more socialist you are, the less vibrant your economy. The more socialist America becomes, the less capable our economy becomes of providing us with the good standards of living we enjoy, with adequate domestic spending for our less fortunate, and the national defense that is needed to protect America and promote peace in the world.

No socialist economy in the history of the world has ever generated enough wealth for the central government to both provide for adequate domestic needs and strong national defense (except, of course, where those countries rely on someone else’s defense capabilities).

Mo

One main problem I have with President Obama is his unwillingness to draw back from the multi-party mess that has been created by our religious devotion to international “free trade.” Even in the climate change bill just passed by the House, President Obama insisted that a provision be taken out that allowed for tariffs on imports by countries that don’t have carbon restrictions. Surely, this can be taken too far, and I don’t advocate isolationism, but to some degree we need to make sure that our workers have a fair shot a competing with other countries.

As far as the poll goes, I would very much like a link so that I could look at the results. If it is the poll whose results were released in April, then it is very suspect. People have different ideas about what socialism is. Is it the Soviet model or some other? The poll was just a blanket question without any reference as to what Rasmussen meant by socialism or capitalism. Right or wrong, some people simply identify socialized medicine as pure socialism, which it most assuredly is not. At least some qualifier is needed when taking such a poll and none was given.

I’ll add one more example of socialism to your list: Providing luxury apartments with swimming pool, internet, and cable television to people who either cannot or will not support themselves, thereby undermining the property values, neighborhood safety, and school quality for those who done the hard work necessary to earn these things.