« FRANKEN’S 60TH VOTE AMNESIA | Home | REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA STATEMENT ON FRANKEN SWEARING IN »
CHAIRMAN SUTTON: “WALZ VOTES FOR WHAT AMOUNTS TO AN ENERGY TAX”
By Ryan Flynn | July 7, 2009
“When Congressman Walz voted “yes†to levy the energy tax, he sent a blow to those who are already treading tough economic waters — farmers and working people. Hard-working Minnesotans will take the biggest hit, not only in individual tax increases but also in everyday consumption costs as businesses pass their increased costs onto consumers. Power plants forced to alter their current operations will mean Minnesota households will have higher electric bills each month.” Source: Albert Lea Tribune, July 7, 2009.
Click here to read the entire column.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 16 Comments »
16 Responses to “CHAIRMAN SUTTON: “WALZ VOTES FOR WHAT AMOUNTS TO AN ENERGY TAX””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:19 AM
I’m glad the party is talking about issues where Congressman Walz is concerned. But what is the party doing to find a credible candidate (which we did not have post-primary last time) to run against Walz? To my knowledge, nobody from the party has even gone so far as to ask all of the First District legislators if they are interested in running for the seat.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Fat Tony gets it wrong again.
Have you missed the Wind and Biofuel opportunities alone in the 1st CD?
Power companies threat to raise your bills is address with the consumer relief part of the bill. Within a couple of years they’ll have competition and as any true capitalist know, you don’t compete by raising your costs.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:23 PM
DJZ get it wrong again.
Have you missed the opporunities to produce food in the 1st CD?
As any true capitalist knows, at the input costs of a good or service go up, so does the price of that good or service.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:52 PM
DJZ,
In the words of Barack Obama, his energy plan will make the cost of energy “skyrocket”. Wind, solar and biofuel are good additives to our nation’s energy sources but they will never be able to provide the kind of output that coal, oil and nuclear energy do. The only way wind and solar energy will be able to provide enough electricity to run our country is if we revert back to a third world nation, which is what I suspect Democrats want when they complain that we are only five percent of the world’s population but use 25% of the world’s energy resources.
As for competition, you will never have competition between utilities because the government not only controls which utilities can provide services in a particular area, government also mandates to the utilities companies the manner in which they provide the service. There will never be X Company providing electricity from wind competing with Y Company providing electricity from coal.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:53 PM
P.S. DJZ,
I wouldn’t brag about that energy bill in the First District. It contained a provision to tax farts from cattle. I’m sure our farmers will appreciate writing checks back to the government every time one of their cows fart.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Methane is 20 times more dangerous to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Its also a renewable energy.
West Fargo enjoys extremely low property taxes thanks to energy produced from methane.
Keep proudly waving the flag of ignorance.
Nuclear is a better option than coal, but we need to figure how to dispose of the waste or blast it to Mars or out of the Milky Way. Earth first baby!
July 8th, 2009 at 3:34 PM
DJZ,
If ignorance were bliss, you’d be happy instead of the angry liberal you really are. If you want to put a diaper on my neighbor’s cows to catch the farts, go for it. But don’t tax my neighbor for having cows. I don’t care about Wells Fargo’s property taxes. What I care about is how much it costs to capture and recycle methane from cow manure.
As for nuclear, we don’t need to dispose of the waste or blast it to Mars. Since you’re such a European at heart, I’m surprised you don’t know how they deal with nucelar waste. All we have to do is what France and Germany does — re-process the spent fuel rods.
What really bothers me, however, is the notion that we have to do something about carbon dioxide in the first place. Carbon dioxide is one of the building blocks of life. Plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis which gives back oxygen. If you think the Earth is currently warming, look at the record low temps over the last 18 months.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:22 PM
chris is ignorant concerning green house gasses. Sad but true.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:55 PM
*sigh*
Chris, climate is not measured in months. Its years and decades of weather patterns that determine climate.
You’re harping on weather which, living in Minnesota, you should know change on a dime.
Just look up green house gases before you take a political position.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:28 PM
DJZ,
You’re right that climate is not measured in months. It’s not measured in years either. It should be measured in centuries. We’ve had ice ages (where do you think our lakes come from?) and periods of warming before carbon emissions. In the 70s, the talk was of global cooling. In the 90s, it was global warming again. Since 2000, we’ve been in another period of cooling. Frankly, it’s better if temperatures are warmer than colder. The sea levels have not risen and warmer temperatures create longer growing seasons for plants.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:50 PM
chris..
with all due respect, you are clueless.
The last sentence of post #10 is all the readers need to be convinced.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:53 AM
brone,
Really? Where’s the flooding??? Where is the drought and the desertification of the planet that has been predicted??? The temperature has been decreasing since 2000 and scientists are looking at an unusually long period of time with no solar activity as a reason for the cooling. Just as record solar activity was causing the planet to warm. It’s far more logical that radiation (or lack thereof) from the sun would cause the planet to warm and cool than it is to suggest that 384 parts per million of carbon dioxide is causing the warming. It’s like saying that the chicken baking in the oven is making it hot rather than turning the dial to 350 degrees.
Incidentally, a number of countries including France, Poland, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and others are backing away from cap and trade.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:54 AM
In case anyone is interested in the folly of cap and trade, here’s a great article from the American Spectator. It also talks about the folly of global warming in general.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/01/cap-and-trade-dementia
July 9th, 2009 at 7:03 PM
The American Spectator.
LOL ! ! !
July 10th, 2009 at 12:20 AM
damnbrone,
I apologize I couldn’t find a link to an article from the Weekly Reader. I do realize that the American Spectator is above your grade level for reading.
July 10th, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Chris, Liberal danbrome prefers links to mydd.com or Lavender.
:->