Corker: Cap-and-Trade Substitute Amendment is Far From Ready For Prime Time

Press Release from Tennessee Senator Bob Corker , May 22, 2008 , WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said today that the latest version of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill (Climate Security Act, S.2191) introduced this week is not ready for prime time.

“If a cap-and-trade bill becomes law, every single American will pay more for gasoline, more for electricity, more for food, more for everything they buy as a result,” said Corker. “We believe that any money generated from a cap-and-trade system should be returned to the American citizens burdened with these additional costs, and while we appreciate the step the bill sponsors have taken in this latest version–the bill is far from ready for prime time.

“This is a massive spending bill that uses non-discretionary spending—funded in essence by a tax on the American people—to spend trillions of dollars on new and existing government programs. Rather than using the revenue generated from this cap-and-trade system to fund new and existing government programs, would it not make more sense to return the revenue generated directly to the citizens who will be bearing the brunt of the costs associated with implementing this program?

Under the bill, credits would be freely allocated to entities, such as states, that don’t have to reduce emissions but are able to sell those credits and use that money to assist consumers through rebates or public programs.

“I believe we need to increase the amount of allowances that are auctioned, rather than giving them away for free to other entities who are supposed to use the value of those allowances to benefit the public. In my view, American citizens would be better served receiving relief directly rather than relying on middlemen to provide that relief through government programs.

“I also believe we should eliminate all international offsets as a way for emitters to comply with the U.S. carbon cap. There are serious questions about the integrity of many of these projects, and it is difficult to determine whether these projects would have occurred anyway. In addition, these offsets would have a distorting affect on the U.S. cap-and-trade market and would lead to even more American dollars being spent overseas in countries like China, instead of in America.

“If cap-and-trade legislation is done properly, we see an opportunity to marry the tremendous passion for the environment with the need to have energy security in our country, and we look forward to the debate on the floor and continuing to work constructively with the bill sponsors.”

Noting that climate change and cap-and-trade would be significant issues facing Congress, Corker has spent his first 16 months in office delving into the complexity of the policy. Last May 2007, he traveled to Europe with Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) to meet with European Union officials, carbon traders, representatives from the utility industry, and cement manufacturers. In July, Corker went to Greenland with Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to view the effects of climate change. He has also spent countless hours with Tennessee-based industry, conservation groups, and experts discussing the impacts of climate change legislation.

In April, Corker began making presentations to his colleagues outlining his concerns with the bill.

Commentary

Bob Corker is quickly emerging as one of the best informed U.S. Senators on the complex issue of energy policy and global warming. I am proud of the work he is doing in this regard. I wish however that Corker, or someone, would introduce a revenue-neutral Carbon Tax instead of relying on Cap and Trade. A Carbon Tax is much less subject to manipulation, and is more immediate and direct. While many pundits and economist have expressed support for a Carbon Tax as the best way to combat global warming, no elected official has stepped forward to propose it.

Cap and Trade is the next-best approach for addressing the issue of carbon emission and is much preferred to the approach of subsidizing favored technologies and attempts to regulate emission by mandating reductions. Both a Carbon Tax and a Cap and Trade rely on market forces to achieve results. Since a Cap and Trade Bill is what is before us and a Carbon Tax is not, I am reluctantly supporting Cap and Trade.

Cap and Trade can be very complex. If it is done wrong, it can put distortions in the economy and be ineffective. If done wrong, then it will take a while to discover it is not achieving the desired results and increased greenhouse emissions will, in the meantime, continue. Congress will probably be very reluctant to revisit a Cap and Trade bill once one is adopted so it is very important that they get it right the first time.

A workable, effective Cap and Trade policy is going to have two groups of enemies: Those who don't want to do anything, and those who are so passionate about the issue they will support anything, even if it is a poorly designed program. Those of us who believe the issue of combating global warming is important, must hope that Congress gets it right and passes a good Cap and Trade bill. Making sure Congress passes a good Cap and Trade bill must be the the goal; not just passing a Cap and Trade Bill.

Top Stories

Pigs at the Trough

How true. I lifted this from Vulcan's Hammer.

Top Stories

How They Voted on The Farm Bill

After a wink and a nod from the President, letting Republicans know it was OK to vote for the Farm Bill, it passed by a veto- proof margin in both houses of Congress. President Bush who was reluctant to veto any spending bill passed by a Republican Congress, apparently feels he needs to go though the motions of vetoing at least some excessive spending bill passed by a Democratic Congress. However, it is all a game and the President did not intend for his veto to be sustained. Apparently, he thinks we are so stupid, we will not see how the game is really played.

The farm bill was an absolutely terrible bill. It increased spending by 44% above last year’s level. It contains millions in non-farm pork spending, it subsidizes multimillionaire farmers, it increases food prices to the consumer, it makes corn syrup so cheap that it is added to products that don’t need corn syrup, it undermines American leadership on trade and puts farmers in undeveloped countries at a competitive disadvantage which keeps poor countries from developing a modern agricultural sector.

I have below a list of how each Senator voted. I have also listed the vote of the Tennessee Congressmen. To see how congressmen in your state voted, click here.

I did not expect better from the Democrats but I am deeply disappointed in a good many Republicans. You will note that some prominent Republicans, many who will brag about their conservative credentials and blast their opponents as "liberal", voted for this bill. I have highlighted a few of their names. While I am not going to turn against someone over one single vote, anyone who voted for this bill should not be taken very seriously if they rail against wasteful government spending.

In looking at the list below, I am very disappointed in my own two Senators, Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker. I have admired and respected both of these men. I have thought they were rational, moderate, responsible, fiscally conservative public servants. I have voted for them and made modest contributions to their campaigns. They disappoint me.

Pleased to see voting against the bill in defiance of his own party is my own representative, Congressman Jim Cooper. Representative Cooper is a Democrat. If the next time we have a senatorial election in Tennessee, Democrat Jim Cooper should challenge either of our Republican senators, I might just vote for Cooper. This disgruntled Republican might just become a conservative Democrat.

How the Senate Voted:

Alabama
Aye Sessions, Jefferson[R]
Aye Shelby, Richard [R]
Alaska
Aye Murkowski, Lisa [R]
Aye Stevens, Ted [R]
Arizona
Nay Kyl, Jon [R]
No Vote McCain, John [R]
Arkansas
Aye Lincoln, Blanche [D]
Aye Pryor, Mark [D]
California
Aye Feinstein, Dianne [D]
No Vote Boxer, Barbara [D]
Colorado
Aye Allard, Wayne [R]
Aye Salazar, Ken [D]
Connecticut
Aye Lieberman, Joseph [I]
No Vote Dodd, Christopher [D]
Delaware
Aye Carper, Thomas [D]
No Vote Biden, Joseph [D]
Florida
Aye Martinez, Mel [R]
No Vote Nelson, Bill [D]
Georgia
Aye Chambliss, C. [R]
Aye Isakson, John [R]
Hawaii
Aye Akaka, Daniel [D]
Aye Inouye, Daniel [D]
Idaho
Aye Craig, Larry [R]
Aye Crapo, Michael [R]
Illinois
Aye Durbin, Richard [D]
No Vote Obama, Barack [D]
Indiana
Aye Bayh, B. [D]
Nay Lugar, Richard [R]
Iowa
Aye Grassley, Charles [R]
Aye Harkin, Thomas [D]
Kansas
Aye Brownback, Samuel [R]
Aye Roberts, Pat [R]
Kentucky
Aye Bunning, Jim [R]
Aye McConnell, Mitch [R]
Louisiana
Aye Landrieu, Mary [D]
Aye Vitter, David [R]
Maine
Aye Snowe, Olympia [R]
Nay Collins, Susan [R]
Maryland
Aye Cardin, Benjamin [D]
Aye Mikulski, Barbara [D]
Massachusetts
Aye Kennedy, Edward [D]
Aye Kerry, John [D]
Michigan
Aye Levin, Carl [D]
Aye Stabenow, Debbie Ann [D]
Minnesota
Aye Coleman, Norm [R]
Aye Klobuchar, Amy [D]
Mississippi
Aye Cochran, Thad [R]
Aye Lott, Trent [R]
Missouri
Aye Bond, Christopher [R]
Aye McCaskill, Claire [D]
Montana
Aye Baucus, Max [D]
Aye Tester, Jon [D]
Nebraska
Aye Nelson, Ben [D]
Nay Hagel, Charles [R]
Nevada
Aye Reid, Harry [D]
Nay Ensign, John [R]
New Hampshire
Nay Gregg, Judd [R]
Nay Sununu, John [R]
New Jersey
Aye Menendez, Robert [D]
Nay Lautenberg, Frank [D]
New Mexico
Aye Bingaman, Jeff [D]
Aye Domenici, Pete [R]
New York
Aye Schumer, Charles [D]
No Vote Clinton, Hillary [D]
North Carolina
Aye Dole, Elizabeth [R]
Nay Burr, Richard [R]
North Dakota
Aye Conrad, Kent [D]
Aye Dorgan, Byron [D]
Ohio
Aye Brown, Sherrod [D]
Nay Voinovich, George [R]
Oklahoma
Aye Coburn, Thomas [R]
Aye Inhofe, James [R]
Oregon
Aye Smith, Gordon [R]
Aye Wyden, Ron [D]
Pennsylvania
Aye Casey, Robert [D]
Aye Specter, Arlen [R]
Rhode Island
Nay Reed, John [D]
Nay Whitehouse, Sheldon [D]
South Carolina
Aye Graham, Lindsey [R]
Nay DeMint, Jim [R]
South Dakota
Aye Johnson, Tim [D]
Aye Thune, John [R]
Tennessee
Aye Alexander, Lamar [R]
Aye Corker, Bob [R]
Texas
Aye Cornyn, John [R]
Aye Hutchison, Kay [R]
Utah
Aye Hatch, Orrin [R]
Nay Bennett, Robert [R]
Vermont
Aye Leahy, Patrick [D]
Aye Sanders, Bernard [I]
Virginia
Aye Warner, John [R]
Aye Webb, Jim [D]
Washington
Aye Cantwell, Maria [D]
Aye Murray, Patty [D]
West Virginia
Aye Byrd, Robert [D]
Aye Rockefeller, John [D]
Wisconsin
Aye Feingold, Russell [D]
Aye Kohl, Herbert [D]
Wyoming
Aye Barrasso, John [R]
Aye Enzi, Michael [R

How Tennessee’s Representatives Voted.
Aye TN-1 Davis, David [R]
Nay TN-2 Duncan, John [R]
Nay TN-3 Wamp, Zach [R]
Aye TN-4 Davis, Lincoln [D]
Nay TN-5 Cooper, Jim [D]
Aye TN-6 Gordon, Barton [D]
Nay TN-7 Blackburn, Marsha [R]
Aye TN-8 Tanner, John [D]
Aye TN-9 Cohen, Steve [D

Top Stories

All Republican leaders must resign

by Richard Viguerie

Republicans are doomed to wander in the political wilderness until this generation of weak-kneed, no-vision, inarticulate, afraid-of-the-liberal-media politicians are replaced mostly with principled conservatives in the mold of Bill Buckley, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

The result is that the party’s “brand” has become a negative, to an extent greater than in the Watergate era, perhaps worse than in the days of Herbert Hoover. The number of new Republican voters is flat while Democratic voter registration is skyrocketing. Contributions to GOP candidates and Republican parties are way off, while donations to Democrats are setting records.

In primaries, votes for Republican candidates at all levels are running far behind the Democrats. And in recent special elections, the party lost longheld congressional seats in Illinois, in Louisiana, and, yesterday, in Mississippi – all in districts carried overwhelmingly by President Bush. A single election can be a fluke, but when Republicans lose three seemingly safe seats in a row, disaster is looming.

The hard work of the last 50 years by millions of conservative campaign workers, donors, candidates, writers, intellectuals, and activists has been trashed. The conservative movement has been set back 10-20 years – possibly even permanently – by politicians consumed by power, including but certainly not limited to Denny Hastert, Tom DeLay, John Boehner, Roy Blunt, Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott, George W. Bush, Karl Rove, party chairman Mike Duncan, and their friends. Some deserve more of the blame than others, but they are all part of a party Establishment that has brought the party down.

For things to change, for conservatives to be justified in giving our contributions, our volunteer efforts, our energy, and votes to the GOP, the party must clean house. The party leadership should resign immediately. We must replace the Big Government/Big Business/Establishment Republicans with principled conservatives, most of them young. By “principled conservatives,” I mean leaders who will stand up to the liberals and fight for freedom and traditional values. Republicans are doomed to wander in the political wilderness until this generation of weak-kneed, no-vision, inarticulate, afraid-of-the-liberal-media politicians are replaced mostly with principled conservations in the mold of Bill Buckley, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

Voters almost always reject a pale imitation in favor of the real thing. The Democrats have firm principled beliefs. What motivates most Republican leaders? Nothing except a craving for power. What do Republicans offer voters? Nothing except “Elect us because we’re not Democrats.”

To Republican leaders, I say: You turned against the principles you once espoused – conservative principles – and, in turn, conservatives and the American people have turned against you. Things will not get better until you accept responsibility, and resign. You have stayed too long. For the future of the Republican Party, for America and the cause of freedom: Go!

Commentary:
I most certainly agree. The complicity and lack of leadership on the Farm bill was the most recent and most glaring example of what is wrong with the Republican party. The Republican Party is the Democrat Lite party. Republicans have proven they can pander and spend with the best of Democrats.

Richard Viguerie, for those who may not know him, has been a powerhouse in the Republican Party since the days of Goldwater. He has been called the "funding father" of the modern conservative movement. He is the man behind the mail order fund raising effort of most conservative causes for the last fifty years. He sounds like a disgruntled Republican.

I am posting a link to his web site on my blogroll. Visit Conservative hq to learn more of the views of this principled conservative.

Top Stories

How Black is Obama? Let the Hillary campaign show you.

Isn't the Hillary-Obama contest fun? I don't know the truth of this matter obviously, but it is alleged by the leftist kooks at Daily Kos that the Hillary campaign has doctored pictures of Obama to show him with a wider nose and darker complexion than he really has. Would Hillary really stoop that low to win the vote of "hard working white Americans?" Follow this link to see how they did it and read all about the controversy.

Top Stories

Obama Blames Fox News For Losing White Voters

Obama, maybe there are other reasons you lost the white vote in some recent primaries. Maybe your comment about frustrated people clinging to guns and religion offended some religious gun owners. Maybe your wife's comment about being proud of America for the first time in her life had something to do with turning off patriotic middle Americans who love their country. Maybe that picture that shows you as the lone candidate on the stage who does not have his hand over his heart during the playing of the National Anthem made some middle Americans think that you do not share their values. Despite your eventual disavowal of Reverend Wright, do you think that perhaps your former pastor, who referred to America as the U.S.K.K.K.A. and said AIDS was a government created illness designed to kill Black Americans and who said "God damn America" could have turned some people off? After all, prior to disavowing him, you did call him your spiritual advisor and you did sit in the pews of his church for 20 years and contributed over $27,000 to that church.

Maybe some white Americans would simply prefer to vote for a white American just as some Blacks prefer to vote for a Black American and some females would prefer to vote for a female. Maybe they are just not that into you. You have the Blacks and the college educated elites but maybe the white middle class are just not ready to vote for a Black man who is also rated as the most liberal person in the U. S. Senate. Maybe it is because you don't have as much testosterone as Hillary Clinton. You can't put back shots of liquor and mingle in the pool hall as good as Hillary. You don't love guns and you are not a hunter. You are just not the "good ole boy" that Hillary is. Hillary is just better at playing the redneck. Maybe Hillary just knows how to pander better than you do.

When Bill Clinton got caught in a scandal, Hillary blamed his problems on a "vast right-wing conspiracy". Back when there were a lot fewer media outlets and less diversity in News reporting, Republicans used to blame a lot of their losses on the "liberal media." Fox is only one network. You still have the fawning MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN plus the quasi-news comedy shows that love you. Surely you can do better than blame your recent losses on little old Fox news network.

Top Stories

The GOP at the Trough

By Robert D. Novak Monday, May 19, 2008; The Washington Post

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, 38 and having served less than five terms, did not leap over a dozen of his seniors to become the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee by bashing GOP leaders. But an angry Ryan delivered unscripted remarks on the House floor last Wednesday as the farm bill neared passage: "This bill is an absence of leadership. This bill shows we are not leading." (link)

Commentary: The story of Republican complicity and lack of leadership on the farm bill is reason for any conservative to be disgruntled and disgusted. The Farm bill is a bad bill. It raises spending by 44% above last year’s level. It contains non-farm pork spending, it subsidizing multimillionaire farmers, it increases food prices to the consumer, it undermines American leadership on trade, and puts farmers in undeveloped countries at a competitive disadvantage and keeps poor countries poor.

The Republican leadership has shown no leadership on this bill. According to Novak, President Bush has promised to veto the bill but let it be known that it would be OK if Republicans “voted their districts.” Apparently Republicans are not going to be pushed hard to sustain the veto.

In the Senate, Republican leader Mitch McConnell is not only supporting the bill but got a provision added to the bill giving special tax breaks to horse farms in his state of Kentucky. In the House, Minority Whip Roy Blunt voted for the bill. In the House, Republicans voted for the bill 100 to 91 and in the Senate, 35 Republicans voted for it and only 13 opposed it.

When Republicans vote like Democrats, why should one care if Republicans lose elections? Maybe it is time for Republicans to take a major beating, do some major soul searching, regroup, and rediscover why they are Republicans.

Top Stories

On Climate, Symbols Can Overshadow Substance

Lights-Out Event More Showy Than Practical
By Shankar Vedantam Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, May 17, 2008

In March of last year, the World Wildlife Fund in Australia teamed up with Leo Burnett, the multinational advertising agency that created the Marlboro Man, to come up with a new environmental campaign called Earth Hour. The idea was to get 2 million residents in Sydney to turn off all the lights in their homes for one hour. The campaign generated wide publicity, but the energy saved was small -- the equivalent of taking about five cars off the city's roads for a year.

Tension between substance and symbolism runs through the modern environmental movement. After years of conflict with climate-change deniers and a White House that has resisted mandatory efforts to address global warming, the movement has become a crusade that is partly moral statement and partly fashion statement. Earth Hour, Earth Day and the Miss Earth beauty pageant -- "saving the planet, one pageant at a time" -- generate lots of publicity, but they also tend to prompt people and companies to choose what looks good over what works. (link)

Comment: I could not have said it better. Modern environmentalism is about making a statement, not about making a difference. Consciousness has already been raised. We don’t need another Al Gore Earth Aid concert. We don’t need another self-indulgent celebrity showing us how much they care by flying their “green” car around the world so they can be seen driving “green.” We don’t need another company selling phony carbon offsets. Enough already of the “green washing.” Feel-good environmentalism and symbolism over substance brought us the ethanol mistake and the Energy Independence and Security Act 0f 2007. When are environmentalists going to get serious about supporting policies that really work instead of silly symbolic gestures?

Top Stories

Obama Speaks the Truth about Gas Prices

Top Stories

Paul McCartney’s Feel-good Environmentalism

From the Symbolism over Substance Department:

Former Beatle Paul McCartney has long been an outspoken advocate of environmental causes. He owns a high-end luxury, V-8 engine, top-speed-155MPH, “green” vehicle. The Lexus LS 600H is a hybrid vehicle that uses an electric motor at low speeds. McCartney recently had his environmentally friendly car flown to England from Japan on a cargo plane.
To read more click here.

Top Stories

Tell Congress to Stop Subsidizing Multimillionaires with Your Money

from the American Conservative Union

Vote "NO" on the Farm Bill

In 2002, when Congress passed the last farm bill, wheat was at $2.84 a bushel. The price of wheat has risen 256% since then to $10.10. What is Congress' response in the Farm Bill of 2008? Increase subsidies for wheat! Other commodities like rice, corn, and soybeans that have seen similar price increases will see their subsidies increase or stay at the same level as 2002. At a time of rising grocery bills and runaway government spending, H.R. 2419, dubbed the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007, will increase spending by $20 billion over 10 years, continue to give subsidies to multi-millionaire farmers, and include special interest earmarks for powerful committee chairmen.

TAKE ACTION NOW. ­FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW TO CONTACT YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND URGE A "NO" VOTE ON THE FARM BILL!
WELFARE FOR MILLIONAIRES

Supporters of the Farm Bill claim they have "reformed" the subsidy program. But this bill will still allow married couples who farm and have adjusted gross income of $1.5 million to get taxpayer subsidies. Individuals who do not even farm but own the land and have incomes of $500,000 will also qualify.

H.R. 2419 also fails to reform the sugar program and actually increases government intervention to drive up sugar prices and, of course, the price of goods with sugar ingredients. To make this program even worse than it is, any excess supply of sugar, which could be available for food production, would be owned by the government and auctioned to ethanol facilities at a huge loss.

TELL YOUR LOCAL MEMBER OF CONGRESS YOU ARE FED UP WITH OUR ANTI-CONSUMER FARM POLICY AND TO VOTE "NO" ON THE FARM BILL!
A BIPARTISAN OUTRAGE

The failure to fix our nation's outdated and bloated farm policy is bipartisan. Although the Bush administration has threatened to veto this bill, leading Republicans as well as Democrats have vowed to work hard to override the expected veto. Only if they hear from their constituents will it be possible to stop this special interest steamroller.

Not only is this bill terrible policy, it is once again being used as a slush fund for special interests through earmarks. One of the worst examples is a secret provision inserted by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT). It will allow the scandal-tarnished environmental group, the Nature Conservancy, to get $250 million in taxpayer money to purchase a track of land from the Plum Cree Timber Company in Montana. As is often the case with secret earmarks, this provision has nothing to do with farm policy but a way for some politicians to help some friends with your money.

YOU CAN TAKE ACTION NOW! LET CONGRESS KNOW YOU ARE WATCHING. TELL YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS TO VOTE"NO" ON THE FARM BILL!

Comment: I have posted on this before. I share the outrage of the American Conservative Union. Our agriculture policy is just crazy. We subsidize millionaire farmers, drive up food prices, and undermine agriculture in developing countries. Please click here . This will take you to the ACU site. Fill out the form to let your views be known, or better yet write your congressman a letter.

Top Stories

Hooray for High Gas Prices

What exhortations to love Mother Nature and change your evil ways couldn’t do, what feel-good environmentalist legislation couldn’t do, higher prices are doing. I know it is surprising to some folks but markets and prices really do work. Americans are conserving and substituting, new technologies are becoming more affordable, people are changing their energy habits, and smaller homes and smaller cars are becoming more desirable.

Just listen to what people around you are saying about rising gas prices or read your local paper and it is hard to escape the fact that high prices are causing beneficial results. Here is a sampling of recent news stories:

· Gas cost deflates prices on used SUVs, USA Today 5/9/08. The price of big used SUVs has dropped 17% from a year ago.

· Planes Fly more, emit less greenhouse gas, USA Today 5/9/2008. Airlines have taken many steps to curb fuel use, such as adding better navigational equipment, modifying wings for improved aerodynamics. From 2000 to 2006 fuel efficiency increased 22%.

· Gas cost squeezes daily life, USA Today 5/9/2008. People are changing their habits. They are combining errands. “February was the forth consecutive month in which miles driven in the USA declined, the first time since 1979 that that has occurred.”

· Developer bets that home buyers trade space for energy efficiency, The Tennessean 5/12/2008. Developer Randy Chastain has been a developer in the Nashville market for 30 years. Cheep materials, cheep land, and cheep gas led to bigger and bigger houses with little thought to energy efficiency, says Mr. Chastain. He believes higher energy costs are changing the market. Now, he is building homes that are 10% smaller than what he was building and considerably more energy efficient. He is building LEED certified homes.

· Demand for gas eases slightly as more carpool. The Tennessean 5/1/2008. This article notes that carpooling is increasing. It interviews several people who have started carpooling.

This is not to suggest that we are wining the war for energy independence or reducing global warming. We are not. But, for the first time, we are headed in the right direction. For a while, it seemed that the demand for energy was inelastic. However, it seems that just shy of the $4.00 per gallon mark is proving to be the price point at which people will conserve and change behavior.

Perhaps more important than the price of gas is the expectation that gas prices will stay high. According to the Gallup poll, in August 2003 only 33% of the public believed high fuel prices would last. The latest Gallup poll shows 78% believe high gas prices are here to stay. If people expect prices to stay high, it will influence where they live, how they work, and the car they drive.

Unfortunately, pandering politicians of both parties are promising the public they will do something about high gas prices. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have advocated removing the federal gas tax for the summer. Some smooth talking, lying politicians, such as Nancy Pelosi, have to gall to advocate lower gas prices and combating global warming in the same sentence.

We do not need to reverse the progress that is being made on the energy and global warming front. What needs to happen in order to break the American oil addiction is for there to be still higher gas prices and a reinforcement of the idea that high prices are here to stay. To expedite what the market is already doing, a revenue-neutral carbon tax could put us on the right track to begin winning the war for energy independence and reversing global warming.

Top Stories