|
|
|
AdvertisementDupedBefore skipping town for the July 4th holiday, the House of Representatives quickly wrapped up their work on a climate change/global warming bill. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (San Francisco) and Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (Los Angeles) convinced 219 members to vote in favor of what some are calling the largest expansion of federal regulatory power in history. With so many criticisms of this bill, many are wondering how they pulled it off. Most of us have heard the old saying that making legislation is a lot like making sausage. You just don't want to know what all is involved. For example, there has been a lot of talk in the press about House Agriculture Committee Chairman Colin Peterson's work to make the bill more farmer-friendly. Peterson reportedly battled it out with Pelosi and Waxman about USDA having jurisdiction over the carbon credits for farmers and for changes in the "indirect land use calculation" for ethanol and biodiesel. After a few weeks of public squabbles, an agreement was reached. Several farm groups publically endorsed what was being called the Peterson ag amendment, even though no one had seen an actual copy. At 3 a.m. on the day of the final vote, this 300-page amendment was made available to congressional staff a mere 16 hours before elected officials voted on the measure. That means each congressional member and their staff could study each page for only 192 seconds. That's 192 seconds to read, research and consider the consequences of the new policies included on each page of the Peterson amendment. Doesn't that inspire confidence in your government? Keep in mind that the entire bill is 1,400 pages long. When you break down the House votes, a glaring trend becomes obvious. First, the bill passed by a slim four-vote majority. Eight Republicans voted "yea" and 44 Democrats voted "no." The delegations of New England, New Jersey, New York, California, Oregon and Washington approved the bill 100 to 30. Delegations outside of this area dramatically rejected this bill 119 to 182. What's painfully obvious is that the left-leaning members driving this debate found a way to pass a major bill that imposes more costs on the Midwest than on either coast. How they pulled this off would be an interesting case study for political science students. By agreeing to a few specific agriculture demands, Pelosi and Waxman duped Peterson and others into thinking the overall bill was good for not only farmers and ranchers, but the rest of rural America. Yes, Peterson was able to secure some wins in his amendment, like payments to some farmers and landowners, to help offset the astronomical energy price increases. The problem is that while all farmers will have to pay more to plant, fertilize, harvest and transport their crops, only a few will receive these magical "carbon credits." Meanwhile, there's no help for the local grocery store, bank, manufacturer, school, hospital, mechanic and other rural businesses supporting that farmer. Doesn't seem like a win to me.
1
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2009. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com |
Market Snapshot Inside Futures |
57934