Primaries all over the state for the GOP

by: Jason Springer

Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 10:45:00 AM EST

I do not think Leonard Lance can be beaten in a Republican Primary. Even if David Larsen won, he would be cut out in redistricting in 2012."

Then in the seats held by Democrats, there are a few primary races to run against the Incumbent. There are numerous candidate running in the 3rd district and Justin Murphy could also get support from the tea partiers as he runs again this year. There is also the primary to run against Rush Holt as Mike Halfacre and Scott Sipprelle will face off in a right v. further right battle and there may be more candidates to jump in the race. Assemblywoman Mary Pat Angelini and others have expressed interest in challenging to run against Frank Pallone as well. The tea partiers are even saying they may put someone up against Scott Garrett from the right, if that's possible in comments to stories that are being written. The amount of candidate running in GOP primaries can be seen as an indication of the enthusiasm and also anger out there with the public right now, who only want to see 8% of incumbent re-elected right now.

By contrast, the Democrats in New Jersey don't seem to like primaries as much. The only primary challenge I've seen so far is one against John Adler, but his warchest will make that an uphill climb. I know inside political circles they tend to shy away from primaries, because it makes you spend resources you want to conserve for the general election battle and take stands you often don't want to defend. But sometimes primaries can better prepare candidates for the trial by fire that is a general election campaign. Even if the GOP candidates don't win their primary challenges, the incumbents will already be in campaign mode given the voter angst right now. The competitive primaries to challenge Democratic incumbents will season them for the rigors of a race. With the climate  and public opinion where it is, it's important that candidates don't wait to start their campaigns and these primaries insure that the GOP won't.

DNC takes on Leonard Lance & Frank LoBiondo

by: Rosi Efthim

Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 09:06:00 AM EST

DNC targets Lance and LoBiondo over opposition to healthcare

by: Jason Springer

Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 05:30:00 PM EST

Through this campaign, the DNC will send a message to Republicans who have reflexively said no to health insurance reform by urging them to do the right thing and support reform when it comes to the House again for a final vote.  The campaign will include press releases, Op-Eds and letters to the editor, local events and will leverage the energy and enthusiasm of the DNC's grassroots supporters and its email list in holding these members accountable for their vote.  The effort may also include paid advertising.  DNC National Press Secretary Hari Sevugan released the following statement on the effort:

"You would think a Member of Congress should think twice about voting against health insurance reform that their families and small businesses so desperately need and want.  But you have to think to vote against health insurance reform in a Congressional District won by President Obama just a year ago could be a political death knell at a time when Americans are clamoring for solutions to vexing issues like health care," said Sevugan.  "These members not only represent districts that voted for President Obama, but also where health insurance reform, as in the rest of the country, is badly needed and where passing it will be politically popular.  Some on the very far right wing would have people believe that voting for health insurance reform is a mistake politically - when the truth is that any Republican who votes against reform, especially those from districts won by the President, will undoubtedly place themselves in real political peril."

Asked about the DNC's targeting of LoBiondo, Galanes asked, "Are they targeting John Adler? ... Just curious."

Leonard Lance Goes Web .20 (no, not a typo)

by: vmars

Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 04:22:09 PM EST

Today, I delivered a copy of the proposed health care reform bill to the Mary Jacobs Memorial Library in Rocky Hill. It's my hope Seventh District residents will take the opportunity to read the 1,990 page measure prior to the expected vote in the House of Representatives this week.

Additionally, my office has also delivered copies of the 1,990 page health care legislation to several libraries throughout the Seventh Congressional District.

I don't understand why Lance would use e-mail to brag on dropping off paper copies at libraries via e-mail when the entire document is available online in multiple formats for anyone to read.

• Here's a copy you can print.
• Here's a copy in PDF format.(Warning, it's 1990 pages!)
• Here's the page with all the hyperlinks to different parts of the bill.

A more cynical person, and I'm pretty danged cynical, might think that Lance wants credit for distributing the bill while hoping people won't actually read the thing so the lies (death panels, anyone?) and misdirection (they'll destroy the economy!) from the right can continue to confuse and beffuddle the populace.

You know, someone cynical would think that.  I'm not saying I do, but you know ...

2010 Campaign Against Lance Begins

by: vmars

Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:46:21 PM EDT

And so it begins.  We got our first robocall of the 2010 election against Leonard Lance (NJ7) today.  I'm not sure, nor do I really care, who Accountable America is, but they left a voice mail for me or my boyfriend today and here it is in it's full glory.

Hello, this is a message from Accountable America.  Why is the recession and increased unemployment dragging on?  We need to ask our Congressman Leonard Lance.  He voted against spending money to put America back to work.  Congressman Lance voted against extending unemployment benefits and lowering taxes for 95 percent of working Americans.  However, Congressman Lance did vote for executive bonuses for the same Wall Street Firms who took taxpayer bailout money .Call Congressman Leonard Lance and tell him we need to create jobs and to end this recession.  Tell him to stop protecting bonuses for the Wall Street Executives who caused this mess.

It'd be more effective with a phone number, but I guess they're just trying to drive negatives at this point.

Ain't politics grand?

Quote of the Day: "I do not think we should be the party of no"

by: Jason Springer

Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:00:00 PM EDT

Parlaying a label that Democrats have sought to apply to the Republicans, Lance added, "I do not think we should be the party of 'no.' I think we should be the party of solutions."

Quote of the Day: Without substantive and substantial changes, I will not support it.

by: Jason Springer

Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:25:28 PM EDT

August gives us an opportunity to take a step back, re-examine and rethink the entire package, and spend the time to write legislation that keeps its focus on ensuring access for patients, protecting the doctor-patient relationship and promoting the results-oriented goal of healthy outcomes.

I believe the final bill should include provisions that make preventative care more accessible; eliminate restrictions on coverage for those with preexisting conditions; recruit and train more primary care physicians; and an increased investment in community health centers. And the bill must include real, critical reforms, such as medical malpractice reform, that would bring down the total cost of health care.

The current House bill is not that bill and, therefore, without substantive and substantial changes, I will not support it.

District breakdown of House Health Care Bill Impact

by: Jason Springer

Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 10:15:00 AM EDT

The Committee has prepared, for each member, a district-level analysis of the impact of the legislation. This analysis includes information on the impact of the legislation on small businesses, seniors in Medicare, health care providers, and the uninsured. It also includes an estimate of the impacts of the surtax that is used to pay for the legislation.

America's Affordable Health Choices Act would provide significant benefits in the 7th Congressional District of New Jersey: up to 18,200 small businesses could receive tax credits to provide coverage to their employees; 8,100 seniors would avoid the donut hole in Medicare Part D; 800 families could escape bankruptcy each year due to unaffordable health care costs; health care providers would receive payment for $30 million in uncompensated care each year; and 21,000 uninsured individuals would gain access to high-quality, affordable health insurance.

• Robert E. Andrews (NJ-1)
• Frank A. LoBiondo (NJ-2)
• John H. Adler (NJ-3)
• Christopher H. Smith (NJ-4)
• Scott Garrett (NJ-5)
• Frank Pallone Jr. (NJ-6)
• Leonard Lance (NJ-7)
• Bill Pascrell Jr. (NJ-8)
• Steven R. Rothman (NJ-9)
• Donald M. Payne (NJ-10)
• Rodney P. Frelinghuysen (NJ-11)
• Rush D. Holt (NJ-12)
• Albio Sires (NJ-13)

Which is the right way to go on healthcare?

by: NJCentrist

Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 07:20:38 PM EDT

I want to make something clear right off the bat:  I'm not here to try and argue against universal healthcare or a public option.  I am not opposed to that on principle.  I had the good fortune of listening to Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois) speak on this subject recently.  She said, "We are the only industrialized Western nation that regards healthcare as a privilege and not a right." That really struck me.  It's obvious to anyone that the current healthcare system is majorly screwed up, and damn the insurance companies, we need to make some major changes.  

We can all agree on that much, but we can't agree on how to go about it.  The easiest part, it seems to me, is to expand the options that people have when it comes to picking a health insurance company.  People should absolutely be able to buy health insurance across state lines, rather than being forced to pick one of two preposterously overpriced options in the state.  Any bill that is passed must include such a provision.  For that matter, why, in this day and age, are health insurance companies still exempt from anti-trust laws?  That needs to be changed.  

So that's the easy part.  The harder parts to pass are (a) the health insurance mandate, (b) the creation of a government-run health insurance option, and, hardest of all, (c) paying for it.  

Those are the parts I have a harder time supporting.  First of all, the mandate.  This whole idea really bothers me.  It's not a uniquely Democratic idea; Mitt Romney's plan also includes a national mandate.  But I feel very uneasy about it, to be honest.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that one of the differences between Obama and Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary season a year-and-a-half ago?  Unless I'm mistaken, he was against the mandate then and she was for it.  I guess he changed his mind.  I still haven't.  This isn't like driving a car, where the government can force you to get insurance to use their roads.  This is the government trying to force you to get insurance so long as you're alive.  I'm not saying it's a bad thing to have health insurance -- that'd be stupid.  But I really don't like the mandate idea.  

Then there's the public option.  Again, I'm not against the idea in theory.  As a matter of fact, I really do like the idea of having a public option compete with the private insurance companies to drive insurance prices down.  But the reality is less pretty than the theory, I fear.  Make no mistake, I loathe the health insurance companies.  But if and when private insurers decrease their prices to compete with a public plan, they most likely will hike premiums, hurting still more people -- just because they are that terrible.  

"So what?" some say. "Switch to the public option then."
There's where the biggest problem lies:  Paying for it.  The CBO's report from earlier this month said that if only 3 million people switch to the public plan over the course of a decade, it will enlarge the national debt by $1.042 trillion from 2010 to 2019, with the effect on the deficit increasing every year.  That's an incredible amount of money, and we're already facing record deficits.  I supported the stimulus package because of the unusual economic situation, but generally I am more conservative on fiscal issues. In particular I am a deficit hawk.  I strongly oppose spending on things we can't afford, except in certain circumstances, and this is not one of those circumstances.  Healthcare is a big problem, but it is not a national emergency or a war or economic crisis.  I'm all for reform, and I genuinely want major changes to our deeply flawed healthcare system.  But when it comes to unsustainable levels of spending that will eventually result in America failing to pay off the interest on the national debt...well, that's something I just can't get behind.  

I do want as many people as possible to afford health insurance, but the more people who sign on to the public plan, the closer we go towards fiscal ruin.  CBO's estimate of 3 million is almost certainly too small.  Small businesses with less than 10 employees employ 12.3 million Americans.  For these small businesses, together with numerous other slightly larger small businesses with payrolls of less than $250,000 ($500,000 under the Blue Dogs' compromise plan), the tax exemption will make it advantageous to switch to the public plan.  So right off the bat, that's way more than 3 million people switching, and that's not even counting people who simply want to switch their plan because it's cheaper. It will not make financial sense for any of these businesses to continue providing private health insurance to their employees under the mandate, so more and more businesses and people switch and more and more debt piles up on the backs of the taxpayers.  
And tax revenue still won't be able to keep up with the costs, again leading us to financial ruin.  

I don't want to look like I'm just taking this position to be obstinate; I'm not trolling here.  There are a lot of genuine problems with this healthcare reform proposal -- problems that the Blue Dogs' compromise does not alleviate.  And I'm just looking for someone to give me an honest explanation of how this is going to work.  

A couple of weeks ago, Reps. Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Leonard Lance (R-NJ) wrote dueling editorials in The Star-Ledger on this very subject.  

Rep. Holt wrote in favor of the liberal proposal, and while his editorial was certainly engaging, I felt that it glossed over the problems of the proposal (as might be expected in an op-ed).  Ultimately, I thought Rep. Holt made the case for major reforms to the healthcare system, but he did not really make the case for these changes specifically.  And that's not really an effective editorial, in my opinion...most everyone agrees that the current system is broken.  
You can see Rep. Holt's editorial here:  http://holt.house.gov/list/spe...

Rep. Lance, on the other hand, advocated the "Medical Rights and Reform Act," a centrist alternative to the Democratic proposal.  (An aside, if I may:  How refreshing to see an actual alternative being provided by the Party of No.)  Lance writes that this plan would not raise taxes, add to the federal debt, or jeopardize employer-provided insurance.  He describes the provisions of the bill as well.  
You can see Rep. Lance's editorial here:
http://lance.house.gov/index.c...

So here's what I want to see in the comments:
1.  Am I right or wrong to be worried about this proposal?  Won't it be unsustainably expensive for our federal government?  
2.  What do you think about the centrist alternative Rep. Lance was advocating in The Star-Ledger?
Talk to me.  

Lance prefers to have private insurance rationing

by: Jason Springer

Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:00:00 PM EDT

Lance opposes the public insurance option, among other aspects of the plan, and cited it as a reason he disagrees with President Obama that no one who currently is satisfied with his or her health plan would be forced to change.

"My concern is that it will not be an even playing field," Lance said. "And although initially no one will be forced into it, over time, many Americans will be forced into it, particularly Americans who work for small businesses."

He said there would be rationing of services under a public plan. Private insurers already make decisions that can limit procedures and other services to which their customers have access, but Lance said public health-care systems in Canada and Western Europe suggest rationing would be worse under a government plan.

While he says it would harm central Jersey, studies have shown that over 660,000 people in the state could gain insurance by 2013 and more than a million by 2019. Maybe none of those people live in Central Jersey? Then there is this from Lance:

Lance said he has a policy of relying on CBO findings. He was one of only eight Republicans in the House to vote in favor of an energy bill in June that included a cap-and-trade system for cutting carbon emissions. He said he made the decision based in part on an assessment by the CBO that nationally people could expect to see a $175 increase in annual energy costs by 2020.

NJ House GOP votes against Paying as you go

by: Jason Springer

Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 12:15:00 PM EDT

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009 YES NO Adler Andrews Holt Pascrell Payne Rothman Sires Frelinghuysen Garrett Lance LoBiondo Smith

Democrats are in blue, and Republicans are in red.

For too many years, reckless budgetary policies put our nation at risk and contributed to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Now, Congress has an opportunity to change the direction of our country's annual budgets by building strong statutory safeguards that limit the level of annual government spending.

The principle of "pay-as-you-go" is very smart and simple. Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere. Setting reasonable spending guidelines will guarantee a bright future for generations of Americans. Currently, our national debt stands at an unprecedented level of $11.2 trillion. This amount will keep rising each year we have an annual deficit. To eliminate our deficits we must spend within our means.

2nd Quarter House Fundraising

by: Jason Springer

Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 01:15:00 PM EDT

Congressman Adler raised the most money in the 2nd quarter with over $518K, followed by Congressman Pallone and then Garrett.

Congressman Pallone has the most Cash on Hand by far and away with over $3.7 million. He has twice as much as the next member, Congressman Rothman who is followed by Pascrell and then Lobiondo.

Congressman Adler raised the most form individuals at over $267K, followed by Pallone, Garrett and then Rothman.

Congressman Adler raised the most from PAC's at over 250K, followed by Pallone, Lance and Frelinghuysen.

The members of the NJ delegation that raised more from PAC's than individuals were Congressmen Andrews, Payne, LoBiondo, Frelinghuysen, Pallone and Lance.

Congressman Adler raised more than any Frontline Democrats across the country.

		Total Contrib	COH	Indiv	PAC
1.	Andrews	$151,500	$173,442	$66,050	$85,450
2.	LoBiondo	$95,025	$1,167,179	$33,725	$61,300
3.	Adler	$518,563	$869,275	$267,918	$250,448
4.	Smith	$66,658	$117,494	$35,708	$30,950
5.	Garrett	$252,211	$228,888	$134,211	$118,000
6.	Pallone	$379,381	$3,770,842	$159,331	$220,050
7.	Lance	$201,868	$263,807	$56,156	$145,712
8.	Pascrell	$209,725	$1,316,328	$106,625	$103,100
9.	Rothman	$175,650	$1,858,569	$128,150	$47,500
10.	Payne	$90,731	$1,148,992	$21,725	$68,006
11.	Frelinghuysen	$133,801	$484,226	$61,945	$133,801
12.	Holt	$116,360	$509,221	$64,660	$51,700
13.	Sires	$179,050	$263,494	$103,050	$76,000

Even Christie campaign co-chairs disagree with Christie on Corzine & Energy

by: Jason Springer

Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:00:00 PM EDT

In announcing his plan, Christie tried to attack Corzine saying he hadn't done enough, while also trying to hook himself to the Obama train. But statements by Republican members of Congress, in justifying their support for the Energy legislation, stood in square opposition to the argument that Corzine hasn't helped New jersey lead the way.  First Leonard Lance:

"The fact of the matter is New Jersey and the Northeast are well ahead of the curve on many of the key elements of the legislation before the House.

"Here at home, the state of New Jersey is already subject to limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the ten-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. And our state renewable portfolio standard is more aggressive than the federal program contained in the bill.

"New Jersey serves as a national model for its investments in new, clean energy technologies that have reduced greenhouse gas emissions and created thousands of jobs. I heard from a number of New Jersey's leading businesses that firmly believe today's legislation would strengthen our state economy through innovative and sustainable job creation. It is time for other states to follow New Jersey's leadership and do their share to set limits on greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate development of low-carbon energy sources and green jobs."

"This is by no means a perfect bill but, for New Jersey businesses and families, many of the federal standards that will be created are mirroring state standards long on the books. For the past decade, New Jersey has been forward-looking in its energy policy and sought to establish diverse, renewable alternative sources of energy to meet the state's needs. From the development of biofuels based on crop waste and planning for additional nuclear reactors, to building small and large-scale wind farms and countless solar panel projects, individuals and municipalities recognized opportunities and took action.

"In the process, new local businesses were founded and jobs were created in the emerging 'green industry' here in New Jersey. What must happen next is the growth of domestic manufacturing of the materials needed for alternative energy production, such as solar cells, wind turbines and environmentally-friendly buildings. This legislation rightly focuses on growing that manufacturing base, creating green jobs and finally establishing our energy independence. The positive effects will be felt nationally and here in South Jersey. These are objectives I have long believed and advocated for as part of a national energy policy."

CQ Politics releases 2009 Vote Study

by: Jason Springer

Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM EDT

Congressional Quarterly has analyzed the roll call voting patterns of members of Congress since 1953. The three principal studies involve:

The frequency with which lawmakers vote with the president when he clearly indicates his preferences (Presidential Support).

The frequency with which they vote with their party, on occasions when a majority of Republicans oppose a majority of Democrats (Party Unity).

And the frequency with which they show up and cast "yea" or "nay" votes (Voting Participation).

	Pres Support	Party Unity	Participation
John Adler	88	86	97
Rob Andrews	96	99	99
Rodney Frelinghuysen	58	80	99
Scott Garrett	15	98	97
Rush Holt	96	99	98
Leonard Lance	69	74	100
Frank Lobiondo	77	65	100
Frank Pallone	96	99	96
Donald Payne	88	99	96
Bill Pascrell	96	95	89
Steve Rothman	96	99	98
Albio Sires	96	97	97
Chris Smith	77	64	97

Frank Lautenberg	97	100	99
Bob Menendez	97	100	99

Cook Political Report: Adler/Lance early favorites for 2nd term

by: Jason Springer

Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 11:30:00 AM EDT

It's difficult to see how Republicans could deny Adler a second term without a dramatically better political environment. Republicans always dream of fielding popular state Sen. Diane Allen for this seat, but Adler's bank account is a big deterrent. In the first quarter of 2009, Adler raised $461,000, the best total in his freshman class. So far, Tabernacle Committeeman Justin Murphy, who took just 25 percent in the 2008 GOP primary, is the GOP's only announced candidate.

The 3rd CD's location in the southern part of the state makes it an unlikely candidate for elimination in 2012 redistricting, but if Adler survives 2010, he could possibly score a safer district if its Ocean County portions are divided between the neighboring districts of GOP Reps. Frank LoBiondo and Chris Smith.

Among the Republicans, Politico said freshman Lance held his vote until the very end.

His vote for the bill, along with those from LoBiondo and Smith, are indirectly providing a benefit to freshman Democratic Rep. John Adler of Cherry Hill.

Adler's district borders LoBiondo's and Smith's, and it's no coincidence that the National Republican Congressional Committee decided not to include Adler in the barrage of radio attack ads it put up almost immediately assailing freshman Democrats who voted for the bill.

Lance pops up on many Democrats' 2010 target lists because he stands out as one of a reduced herd of northeastern Republicans sitting in marginal districts. But politically, he is much stronger than he might appear on paper. Lance's recent vote in favor of the controversial Waxman-Markey "cap and trade" bill is just one example of how far apart he is from the "national Republican" brand. And Democrats continue to have a very weak bench in this district, which takes in country clubs in Somerset and Hunterdon counties and closer-in suburbs in Union and Middlesex counties.

At this point, Lance's most serious political threat may be 2012 redistricting, which will likely collapse the state's 13 districts into 12. This district, which touches plenty of others in the middle of the state, could be drastically altered.

This is just a snapshot of where they think things stand as of the July 4th weekend, over one year out from re-election. What do you think of their view?

In Support of the American Clean Energy and Security Act

by: NJCentrist

Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 08:41:42 PM EDT

First that individual must commit themselves to sound environmental protections and policies that unlike Cap-and-Trade are both reasonable and effective and they must also be a proponent of legislative restraint who believes in the enumerated powers of the constitution, adheres to the principles of our free market economy and understands that our nation's defense and security is an effort that requires proactive policies as opposed to reactive measures.

The above excerpt moved me to write in defense of the Clean Energy Act.  I hope those reading won't mind -- this is going to be long.

Okay.  Kempite calls for sound environmental protections that fall within Congress's enumerated powers under the Constitution.  First of all, he fails to explain what, exactly, about the American Clean Energy Act is not sound.  For that matter, he fails to explain how Congress is exceeding its Constitutional power with this bill.  Perhaps that's because the Act is clearly within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution.  This clause states that Congress has the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."  The actions ordered by Congress under the American Clean Energy Act clearly fall within the definition of regulating commerce among the several states that has been established my numerous Supreme Court cases.  In National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, the 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.'"  Even the limits placed on Congressional power more recently by United States v. Lopez do not apply here, as the regulations enacted by the Act obviously deal with the economy and commerce, unlike the handgun law struck down by that case.  So I'm calling Kempite out on that.  This bill is far from unconstitutional.  

He also calls for representatives that respect the free market economy.  Well, you know what?  I agree.  I respect the free market economy, and the bank bailouts made me tremendously uneasy.  But sometimes there are extraordinary circumstances that require extraordinary actions to be taken by the government.  He may not be aware of this, but Franklin D. Roosevelt was a fiscal conservative when he was elected.  He sought to balance the budget and ultimately opted to continue deficit spending with some inhibitions.  But Roosevelt recognized that in the midst of the biggest economic downturn in the history of the United States, there were extraordinary circumstances that required extraordinary actions to be taken by the government.  His New Deal policies were designed to save the nation from the woes of the Great Depression; where the free market failed catastrophically, our government of the people, by the people, and for the people stepped in.  We are facing some similarly extraordinary circumstances right now.  First off, we are in the middle of an economic crisis.  The free market has failed us.  Am I advocating bringing socialism to the United States?  Of course I'm not; I don't think the banks or car companies should be permanently nationalized, and I favor free enterprise in general.  But we are in such disastrous circumstances right now that it has become necessary for our government - of the people, by the people, and for the people - to step in and save us.  

Look, I'm not favoring an economy dominated by the state.  I'm simply saying that you people have to recognize that under certain circumstances the principle of "that government is best which governs least" falters.  In the current economic circumstances, it surely falters.  Furthermore, we are facing an equally pressing crisis in the form of climate change.  Maybe those far-right-wingers don't believe in the science of global warming, but on this issue I prefer to trust scientists who know what they're talking about over Bible-thumpers who know next to nothing about the science of our environment.  Scientists have determined that global warming is caused in large part by the voluminous emissions of greenhouse gases by our burning fossil fuels and releasing pollutants from our factories combined with deforestation.  The negative effects of global warming are alarming to say the least.  It's not just sea levels rising a few inches and some glaciers melting.  This will affect the economy plenty.  Studies show that agriculture will be severely harmed by global warming, right here in the United States and around the world.  For that matter, changes in precipitation patterns will dramatically alter the distribution of our water supply right here in the U.S.  This, of course, is in addition to the dismaying problems posed by the extinction of numerous animal and plant species, the depletion of the ozone layer, and the ongoing deforestation across the world.  

I find it somewhat interesting that Kempite and other right wing commenters are treating the American Clean Energy Act as though it is the most liberal piece of legislation ever passed by the House.  Perhaps they haven't been paying attention, but this bill is a compromise.  Reps. Waxman and Markey deserve a lot of credit for writing a bill that could be agreed upon by a majority of congressmen.  

Kempite claims that the bill is neither reasonable nor effective.  Of course, he or she completely fails to back this claim up once again.  I posit that the bill is both reasonable and effective.  John Boehner and other Republicans have greatly exaggerated the increase in energy costs that the average household would experience.  Why, exactly, should we trust Boehner's estimates over those made by the nonpartisan CBO or the EPA, who intensely studied the bill to determine the cost per household?  It's their job to do so, and I'm more inclined to believe their numbers than those submitted by a partisan politician like Boehner.  Boehner's numbers, of course, ignored the offsetting benefits of the legislation in an attempt to make the cost seem greater than it actually is.  He claims that the bill would drive jobs out of the United States.  Funny, he didn't have any qualms about voting for NAFTA, which has dramatically increased the national trade deficit and thus caused net job losses in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.  In any case, the most accurate number is probably that provided by the CBO, which estimates that the average household will pay $175 more per year in energy bills.  This, as Rep. Markey astutely noted, is about the same as the cost of buying a postage stamp every day.  

So the bill is reasonable.  But is it effective?  After reading about the bill extensively, I have decided that it certainly has the potential to be effective.  One of the bill's key components is an unprecedented hard cap on carbon emissions.  Needless to say, it's about time we started taking some action in this regard.  The cap will certainly have a dramatic effect; it requires that companies cut carbon emissions by 17% by 2020 and by 83% by 2050 (compared to 2005 levels).  This is an attainable goal, and more importantly, the bill will replace the vast majority of America's carbon emissions and fossil fuel consumption with clean and renewable energy in just four decades.  

Don't believe that these goals are attainable?  Analyses by the Energy Information Administration within the Department of Energy have determined that in most regions of the U.S. our generators are utilizing coal-fired capacity about seven-tenths of the time but are utilizing natural-gas-fired capacity only one-tenth of the time.  Switching from predominantly using coal-fired capacity to predominantly using more efficient natural-gas-fired capacity by 2020 would, when combined with gradual increases in the use of renewable energy sources, meet the 17% benchmark easily and cheaply.  And keep in mind that while we are switching to more energy-efficient sources like natural gas, the renewable energy sector will be gradually increasing.  Indeed, the bill would require electric companies to obtain 20% of their power from renewable sources by 2020.  Again, this is not a difficult benchmark to meet.  The EIA has already projected that, thanks to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ("stimulus package") passed earlier this year, renewable energy will be at 14% by 2012.  With the extra incentives provided by this bill, we can expect to meet the 20% benchmark easily, which, as I said before, will combine nicely with a switch to efficient natural gas to meet the mandated carbon emissions cap.  (And let's not forget that 17% is quite significant - that emissions reduction is equal to taking 500 million cars off the road.)  A gradual expansion of renewable energy, with the present investment by the federal government and the private investment spurred by the incentives in this bill, will transform our energy economy in four decades, and hopefully go a long way toward combating the crisis of climate change.  

And of course there's the "trade" part of the "cap-and-trade" program, in which companies may purchase a limited quantity of carbon offsets rather than reducing their emissions, and trade these offsets among themselves.  The most important point to consider here is that, first of all, the offsets that will be sold by the EPA will not gut the emissions reductions made by other companies, as they will be limited.  Also, scientists and analysts predict that by 2020 clean energies will be affordable as alternatives to purchasing offsets - in particular, efficient natural gas (as mentioned above) and biomass co-firing.  Democratic amendments to the bill have included the creation of a Clean Energy Bank and the creation of the Cash for Clunkers program.  

So, this bill will result in major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and increased investment in clean energy, while helping us kick our addiction to foreign oil.  So what's the downside?  A crippling cost passed on to the American people in their electric bills?  No, the nonpartisan CBO says the average household would pay about the cost of buying one postage stamp per day, and there are plenty of protections for lower-income Americans in the bill.  

Okay, but will the bill kill jobs, like the Republicans are warning us?  An exhaustively researched report by the Center for American Progress shows that those Republican claims are unfounded (or, in less genial terms, bulls***).  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, according to the report.  This new investment would generate a net increase of 1.7 billion jobs - that's right, a net increase.  Unlike NAFTA, which destroyed more American jobs than it created, the stimulus-Clean Energy Act tandem would create more jobs in clean energy than it would destroy in the fossil fuel sectors of the economy.  According to the report, even if investment in fossil fuels declined 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.  Now that's exciting.  Even more exciting, perhaps, is the data showing how there would be a net increase in job opportunities in all fifty states and the District of Columbia.  Where fossil fuel industries only generate 5.3 jobs for every $1 million in spending, clean energy industries generate 16.7 jobs for every $1 million in spending.  And according to the report, right here in New Jersey we would see a net increase of 48,000 jobs and a net increase of $4.6 billion in investment revenue.  

So:  Sorry, Republicans, but you're dead wrong.  And I'm with you on the general principle of free enterprise, but there are times when the government has to step in to solve a crisis where the free market has failed.  This climate change crisis is one of those times.  And, unfortunately for you, your arguments against this bill fall flat.  It's reasonable, setting attainable goals at low cost to taxpayers, and it's effective, greatly decreasing carbon emissions and transforming an economy based on inefficient fossil fuels into an economy based on clean, efficient, and renewable energy - all while causing net job growth in the private sector in all fifty states and the District of Columbia.  And it's certainly constitutional.  Voting for this bill should have been a no-brainer.  I can certainly see why a fiscal conservative would be concerned about how universal healthcare would inflate the budget - hell, I'm still on the fence on that - but this bill pays for itself.  

Kudos to Reps. Lance, Smith, and LoBiondo and everyone else who voted for this bill.  And thanks to the Center for American Progress, the Congressional Budget Office, the Energy Information Administration, Science Progress, ClimateProgress.org, and other sources for the information that I used in this diary.  

Rahm selling out New Jersey voters?

by: Hopeful

Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 04:51:09 PM EDT

We hear he's turning to vulnerable Republicans and telling them he can get the DCCC to "go easy" on them next year if they vote for the Supplemental tomorrow. And Eric Cantor's office is really pissed.

It's one thing if he makes a deal with Vern Buchanan in Florida or Chris Smith in New Jersey, but we're hearing that he's offering to protect Republicans who have been slated as major DCCC targets, like Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), Bill Young (R-FL), Leonard Lance R-NJ) and Charlie Dent (R-PA).

This is not a deal to get universal health care passed, which I could certainly forgive. This is a deal to vote for A. The Iraq War, B. Bailing out European banks via the IMF, and C. Covering up abuse photos.  There's not much reason any Democrat should vote for it, much less make a deal to protect Leonard Lance.

Let's hope the rumor is not true, or the DCCC has the guts to tell Rahm he's not their boss.

Protecting against predatory financing

by: Jason Springer

Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:29:13 PM EDT

It's called the Financial Product Safety Commission and is modeled after the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The new agency, endorsed by a long list of consumer organizations, could become a part of a new regulatory scheme almost certain to emerge from the country's experience with what's been called the Great Recession.

A bill establishing the agency has been introduced in the House and the Senate. It would "prevent and eliminate practices that lead consumers to incur unreasonable, inappropriate, or excessive debt, or make it difficult for consumers to repay existing debt, including practices or product features that are abusive, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, predatory, anti-competitive, or otherwise inconsistent with consumer protection."

"Failed regulation, government policies and inappropriate intrusion by the federal government into the market were in large part what caused the financial crisis," he says.

Garrett says he is "skeptical" about the ability of any new regulator to "promote stability in the marketplace or truly provide a service to the consumer."

"I am not in favor of creating new agencies simply to have new agencies," says Lance, "but I would be willing to work with the new administration to create more effective consumer protection."

NRCC considers Lance 1 of 10 most vulnerable

by: Jason Springer

Wed May 20, 2009 at 12:15:00 PM EDT

The NRCC plans to unveil the first 10 incumbents who qualify for their Patriot Program at a Tuesday briefing to political action committees. The list includes a mix of GOP members, including veterans facing serious challenges for the first time, freshmen in competitive districts and lawmakers representing Democratic-leaning seats.

Among those on the list are Reps. Dan Lungren, Ken Calvert and Brian Bilbray of California, Judy Biggert of Illinois, Anh "Joseph" Cao of Louisiana, Thad McCotter of Michigan, Erik Paulsen of Minnesota, Leonard Lance of New Jersey, Christopher Lee of New York and Dave Reichert of Washington.

The NRCC also intends to monitor the members? list of political consultants to make sure their resources are being spent effectively. All qualifying participants signed a contract laying out their fundraising goals and defining their campaign?s responsibilities. Republicans hope the new program will provide a level of accountability that committee officials believe was absent from vulnerable incumbent retention programs in previous election cycles.

Hypocrisy Watch: Lance Edition

by: bytheshore73

Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 07:27:32 AM EDT

The stop-and-go work of the borough's portion of the Green Brook Flood Control Project got a major boost Tuesday with the announcement that $13 million in federal stimulus money has been approved to finish the job.
Advertisement
www.somersetsavings.com

In making the announcement, Rep. Leonard Lance, R-Clinton Township, also said that an additional $20 million in stimulus money will go to the overall project, which spans 12 municipalities in three counties.

The $13 million will be used to finish the South Main Street Closure Gate Contract and the NJ Transit Closure Gate Contract.

For Lance, this isn't an unexpected move. Quite a few Republicans across the country shouted up and down that the stimulus bill was a trough of socialist pork, then turned around and took credit for the stimulus funding in their districts. Lance is just another hypocrite in this regard.

Shame on the Courier News for their selective amnesia about Lance's opposition to the stimulus.