Category Archives: Politics

XL Dirty Pipeline Voters

At a time of record-breaking temperatures and increasingly devastating extreme weather events, our leaders need to stand up against dirty and dangerous energy projects. With your voice today, we can hold the senators accountable who sided with Big Oil over their constituents interests.

On Twitter?

Find your senators in the list below and remind them that Americans don’t want the Keystone XL pipeline by tweeting them:

STATE U.S. SENATOR VOTE (Yes=supports pipeline) Sample Tweet
AK Mark Begich Yes .@SenatorBegich I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
AK Lisa Murkowski Yes .@lisamurkowski I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
AL Jeff Sessions Yes .@SenatorSessions I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
AL Richard Shelby Yes .@SenShelbyPress I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
AR John Boozman Yes .@JohnBoozman I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
AR Mark Pryor Yes .@SenMarkPryor I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
AZ Jeff Flake Yes .@JeffFlake I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
AZ John McCain Yes .@SenJohnMcCain I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
CA Barbara Boxer No .@SenatorBoxer Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
CA Diane Feinstein No .@SenFeinstein Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
CO Michael Bennet Yes .@SenBennetCO I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
CO Tom Udall No .@MarkUdall Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
CT Richard Blumenthal No .@SenBlumenthal Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
CT Chris Murphy No .@ChrisMurphyCT Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
DE Thomas Carper Yes .@SenatorCarper I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
DE Chris Coons Yes .@ChrisCoons I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
FL Bill Nelson Yes .@SenBillNelson I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
FL Marco Rubio Yes .@marcorubio I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
GA Saxby Chambliss Yes .@SaxbyChambliss I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
GA Johnny Isakson Yes .@SenatorIsakson I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
HI Mazie Hirono No .@maziehirono Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
HI Brian Schatz No .@brianschatz Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
IA Charles Grassley Yes .@ChuckGrassley I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
IA Tom Harkin No .@SenatorHarkin Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
ID Michael Crapo Yes .@MikeCrapo I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
ID Jim Risch Yes .@SenatorRisch I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
IL Richard Durbin No .@SenatorDurbin Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
IL Mark Kirk Yes .@SenatorKirk I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
IN Daniel Coats Yes .@SenDanCoats I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
IN Joe Donnelly Yes .@SenDonnelly I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
KS Jerry Moran Yes .@JerryMoran I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
KS Pat Roberts Yes .@SenPatRoberts I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
KY Mitch McConnell Yes .@McConnellPress I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
KY Rand Paul Yes .@SenRandPaul I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
LA Mary Landrieu Yes .@SenLandrieu I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
LA David Vitter Yes .@DavidVitter I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
MA Mo Cowan No .@mocowan Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
MA Elizabeth Warren No .@SenWarren Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
MD Benjamin Cardin No .@SenatorCardin Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
MD Barbara Mikulski No .@SenatorBarb Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
ME Susan Collins Yes .@SenatorCollins I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
ME Angus King No @SenAngusKing Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
MI Carl Levin No .@SenCarlLevin Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
MI Debbie Stabenow No .@StabenowPress Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
MN Al Franken No .@alfranken Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
MN Amy Klobuchar No .@amyklobuchar Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
MO Roy Blunt Yes .@RoyBlunt I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
MO Claire McCaskill Yes @clairecmc I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
MS Thad Cochran Yes .@SenThadCochran I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
MS Roger Wicker Yes .@SenatorWicker I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
MT Max Baucus Yes .@maxbaucus I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
MT Jon Tester Yes .@jontester I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
NC Richard Burr Yes .@SenatorBurr I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
NC Kay Hagan Yes .@SenatorHagan I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
ND Heidi Heitkamp Yes .@SenatorHeitkamp I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
ND John Hoeven Yes .@SenJohnHoeven I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
NE Deb Fischer Yes .@SenatorFischer I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
NE Mike Johanns Yes .@Mike_Johanns I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
NH Kelly Ayotte Yes .@KellyAyotte I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
NH Jeanne Shaheen No .@senatorshaheen Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
NJ Frank Lautenberg Did Not Vote
NJ Robert Menendez No .@SenatorMenendez Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
NM Martin Heinrich No .@MartinHeinrich Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
NM Tom Udall No .@SenatorTomUdall Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
NV Dean Heller Yes .@SenDeanHeller I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
NV Harry Reid No .@SenatorReid Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
NY Kirsten Gillibrand No .@SenGillibrand Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
NY Charles Schumer No .@ChuckSchumer Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
OH Sherrod Brown No .@SenSherrodBrown Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
OH Rob Portman Yes .@robportman I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
OK Tom Coburn Yes .@TomCoburn I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
OK James Inhofe Yes .@jiminhofe I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
OR Jeff Merkley No .@SenJeffMerkley Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
OR Ron Wyden No .@RonWyden Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLL Tweet it!
PA Bob Casey Yes .@SenBobCasey I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
PA Patrick Toomey Yes .@SenToomey I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
RI Jack Reed No .@SenJackReed Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
RI Sheldon Whitehouse No .@SenWhitehouse Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
SC Lindsey Graham Yes .@GrahamBlog I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
SC Tim Scott Yes .@SenatorTimScott I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
SD Tim Johnson Yes .@SenJohnsonSD I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
SD John Thune Yes .@SenJohnThune I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
TN Lamar Alexander Yes .@SenAlexander I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
TN Bob Corker Yes .@SenBobCorker I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
TX John Cornyn Yes .@JohnCornyn I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
TX Ted Cruz Yes .@SenTedCruz I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
UT Orrin Hatch Yes .@SenOrrinHatch I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
UT Mike Lee Yes .@SenMikeLee I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
VA Tim Kaine No .@timkaine Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
VA Mark Warner Yes .@MarkWarner I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
VT Patrick Leahy No .@SenatorLeahy Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
VT Bernard Sanders No .@SenatorSanders Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
WA Maria Cantwell No .@MariaCantwell Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
WA Patty Murray No .@PattyMurray Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
WI Tammy Baldwin No @senatorbaldwin Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
WI Ron Johnson Yes .@SenRonJohnson I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
WV Joe Manchin Yes .@Sen_JoeManchin I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
WV John Rockefeller No .@SenRockefeller Thank you for siding with your constituents over Big Oil by voting against #KeystoneXLTweet it!
WY John Barrasso Yes .@SenJohnBarrasso I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!
WY Mike Enzi Yes .@SenatorEnzi I’m extremely disappointed you sided with Big Oil over your constituents by voting to support #KeystoneXL Tweet it!

Congressional Democrats Launch Climate Change Task Force

EcoWatch

Building on President Obama’s  inaugural commitment to address climate change, key congressional leaders announced a new Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change that will be co-chaired by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). The goal is to provide a Congressional forum for discussions on solutions and actions to try to solve the climate crisis. The task force is expected to convene meetings of members from both chambers of Congress, and release reports and help circulate information on global warming and solutions to the problem.

“Congressman Waxman and Senator Whitehouse’s formation today of a Bicameral Climate Task Force adds more momentum behind the national call to turn the tide of dangerous climate change,” said Franz Matzner, associate director of government affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “President Obama rightly identified this threat to our children’s future as the moral challenge of our time. The long-standing leadership of Congressman Waxman and Senator Whitehouse will bring even more force to bear in taking decisive action.”

“We’re thrilled to see a new platform for global warming solutions being established, and that it’s being led by two legislators with such strong track records of leadership on this issue. From Superstorm Sandy to last year’s record drought, far too many Americans have been harmed by the early effects of global warming, and they’re hungry for leadership on this issue and solutions to the problem,” said Nathan Willcox, federal global warming program director for Environment America.

Congressional Democrats Launch Climate Change Task Force.

Join me to oppose:Res 37 Toxic Air Bill by Sen J.Inhofe

I am writing you today in vehement opposition to the toxic air bill offered by Senator James Inhofe, S.J. Res 37.

The Online Petition I signed via the Environment Defense Action Fund is listed to follow and emailed to Sen R.Blunt and Sen C.McCaskill.

  • My notes to Dirty Oil Roy Blunt are at the bottom of the Post.

This bill would use the obscure Congressional Review Act to block EPA’s new emission standards for hazardous mercury and other toxic air pollution from coal- and oil-fired power plants. If enacted, this bill would also forever prohibit the EPA from adopting substantially similar clean air standards in the future.

These standards, which the 1990 Clean Air Act specifically authorizes, have been in the works for more than two decades. They will prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths every year and protect our kids from dangerous exposure to toxic mercury pollution, which can cause brain damage in infants and young children.

They will also save the American economy tens of billions of dollars in avoided health costs while likely leading to the creation of 117,000 jobs installing pollution control technologies between now and 2015.

Last year, more than 800,000 Americans submitted public comments in support of this rule. But now, a few of America’s largest corporate utilities have launched an aggressive campaign to block these standards. And Sen. Inhofe’s toxic air bill would do just that.

Please stand up for the health and safety of our kids and communities and reject the Inhofe bill.

Please take action today. Help us stop the Inhofe toxic air bill, which would wipe the EPA’s life-saving Mercury and Air Toxics Standards off the books and punch a huge hole through our clean air protections.

My Notes:

Mr Blunt in an email I received yesterday from you. You wrote:

“Job creators in Missouri tell me that overreaching new regulations coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency are one of the biggest obstacles to getting our economy back on track. Regulations like these threaten to make the cost of electric power skyrocket for most Americans and will sack families and workers with new costs, reducing their disposal income and ultimately threatening their standard of living.”

I’d like to point out the simple fact that-

“All the jobs in the world won’t help when Pollution kills the world.”

As you know here in St Louis- Ameren UE (Union Electric) uses Coal for producing our Electricity. This pollution from Coal Fired Power Plants is a leading cause of Asthma and Cancer. WebMD just reported last week that St Louis is Number 7 on the list of leading cities with Asthma Problems.

“The study also points out that recent statistics indicate asthma causes more than 3,300 deaths annually in the U.S. and is a factor in another 7,000.”

It would seem to me the more healthy people there are working equals more people paying taxes- ie: Income for the US Government.

If you are serious about creating jobs consider this: Energy Efficiency and Renewable “Non Polluting” Energy.

Steve Kidwell, Ameren Missouri Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, said:

“If we went after the potential that we’ve seen in our own study, we wouldn’t have to build another power plant for 20 years, and we could retire Meramec, and we’d be OK. But we’d lose $30 million a year. And we just can’t do that. It’s that simple.”

(This was a St Louis Post Dispatch Article that talked about making homes energy-efficient through weatherization.)

On another note about Energy Efficiency and Nuclear Energy- I’d like to share this info:

“For 1/2 the cost of replacing one nuclear power plant, we can retrofit 1,600,000 homes for “Energy Efficiency” and create 220,000 new jobs- which is 90 times more jobs than you’d get from a power plant replacement.”

ie: how much taxes that are needed for the USA would come from the 220,000 employees?

So basically I’m asking you to do the right thing and leave the EPA alone as the USA is making strides to curb its energy use which reduces the Pollutants in the Air, Land, and Water.

English: Mike Metzer, from the Environmental P...
English: Mike Metzer, from the Environmental Protection Agency, checks one of the many air sampling locations set up around the World Trade Center site. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Through the various reporting agencies on Political Contributions. (1 & 2) I know you receive the bulk of your money from Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Business. In the future who will be left to buy their products if the population is killed off from Fossil Fuel Pollution. I’m not even going to mention the fact that we can reduce our reliance on Foreign Oil (which is the root cause of the ongoing wars in the Middle East. ie: if they don’t have any money they can’t fight us).

Thank you, looking forward to your Reply.

Sincerely,
Scotty

Please take action today.
Help us stop the Inhofe toxic air bill, which would wipe the EPA’s life-saving Mercury and Air Toxics Standards off the books and punch a huge hole through our clean air protections.

 

Twitter (314) 669-5598 Facebook
Web Site: http://stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scottscontracting
Job Site Photo Album
Green Blog

AMERICA FIRST-BEFORE POLITICS by Scotty

AMERICA FIRST BEFORE POLITICS


While listening to the Interview by FAREED ZAKARIA who was interviewing Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles.  I was pleasantly suprised that Simpson had the guts to put America First before Politics. (emphasis added by Scotty)

At the start of the Interview he got my full attention when he called himself a “R.I.N.O. …which means a Republican in name only because I guess of social views perhaps or common sense would be another one which seems to escape members of our party”. (Its a great lesson for all of the Republicans in Office).

I admired Mr Simpsons- frankness in why the Republicans and Democrats are causing the turmoil that is hampering the rebound of the US economy .  I especially appreciated his direct comment on Re-Election when he said:

” if (Re-Election)…” means more to you than your country when we need patriots to come out in a situation when we’re in extremity, you shouldn’t even be in Congress.

He continues on to discuss the economy and progress needed to ensure continued growth.

You can’t cut spending your way out of this hole. You can’t grow your way out of this hole and you can’t tax your way out of this hole “Put that in your pipe and smoke it,”

To  bring about the progress that is needed to fix our economy while lowering our US Debt all Parties must be involved in solutions and learn how compromise is not always a bad thing.

“if you want to be in politics, you learn to compromise and you learn to compromise an issue without compromising yourself.
Show me a guy who won’t compromise and I’ll show you a guy with rock for brains.”

Truelly pointing out that the lack of Partinanship is not helping the economy.

Mr Erskine Bowles then went on with the interview and pointed out his thoughts on where the economy was headed

If we have a negative effect of 2 percent of GDP, we’ll be right back in recession and you better believe that the people of America will be calling on these members of Congress to do something.


So we think something will happen in the lame duck session. We believe it’ll probably be a two-step process where we end up setting up a framework with a time-frame in order to get something done. ZAKARIA: Boy, that’s pretty optimistic.

 

Lame Duck Session? What are they talking about.  We need Compromises ASAP.  What happened to the American Way of:

Everybody pitching in to do their part for the benefit of all?


Granted we Americans are a tuff nut and can handle anything thrown our way.  But what in the hell is wrong with our Elected Officials when they have to go behind the scenes and enact legislation during “Lame Duck Sessions”.   


  • Do we really need to wait 6 blessed months for progress?



  • Further Example of how the GOP is truely “Out of Touch” with Mainstream America.

If you too are tired of the Politics of the USA.  


Join me in voting a Democratic Ticket in the upcoming election.


My Best to You and Yours,
Scotty 


Helpfull Web Links:

Article transcripts to follow- supplied by CNN from the following listed web sites.

Twitter         —-    Find Me   —         Facebook
http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/N7433.148119.BLOGGEREN/B6533657.237;sz=180×150;ord=timestamp?;lid=41000000026530730;pid=60768;usg=AFHzDLsyw5HDL8duArEmBN3-Zhq1mylq-w;adurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.abt.com%252Fproduct%252F60768%252FSamsung-GT-P3113TSYXAR.html;pubid=540661;price=%24249.97;title=Samsung+8GB+Galaxy+Tab…;merc=Abt+Electronics+%26+Appliances;imgsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.abt.com%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2Fproducts%2FBDP_Images%2Fbig_GTP3113TSYXAR.jpg;width=54;height=85

FAREED ZAKARIA GPSInterview with Alan Simpson, Erskine Bowles; Panel Discusses Presidential Politics
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2012.05.27.html http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1205/27/fzgps.01.htmlIn 2010, President Obama challenged the bipartisan duo to chair a commission to develop policies to bring America back to fiscal sustainability and they did. Many powerful Washingtonians on both sides of the fence applauded the proposal from the two chairs, but nobody ever did anything about it and this week, the dangerous carping over the debt limit began anew.

  1. Who better to talk about this than Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles who are joining me now from North Carolina?
  1. Thank you so much for joining me, folks.
  1. ALAN SIMPSON, FORMER WYOMING SENATOR: It’s a pleasure.
  1. ERSKINE BOWLES, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Great to be here.
  1. Senator Simpson, you’ve seen what’s been going on these last few months. The House actually voted on the Simpson-Bowles proposal and it went down decisively.
  1. Paul Ryan, the leader of the House on fiscal issues, I suppose, said that Simpson-Bowles was the wrong way to go because there weren’t enough spending cuts and there were too many tax increases.
  1. What was your reaction? That’s your party.
  1. SIMPSON: Well, I think my party and I have different views on a lot of things. I guess I’m known as a “

rhino” now, which means a Republican in name only because I guess of social views perhaps or common sense would be another one which seems to escape members of our party.

  1. Abortion is a horrible thing, but, for heaven’s sakes, a deeply intimate and personal decision and men legislators shouldn’t even vote on it. Gay-lesbian issues, we’re all human beings. We’re all God’s children. What is that?
  1. And for heaven’s sakes, you have Grover Norquist wandering the Earth in his white robes saying that if you raise taxes one penny, he’ll defeat you. He can’t murder you, he can’t burn your house, the only thing he can do to you, as an elected official, is defeat you for reelection.
  1. And

if that means more to you than your country when we need patriots to come out in a situation when we’re in extremity, you shouldn’t even be in Congress.

  1. ZAKARIA: But talk about Ryan particularly, because what I’m struck by is the Simpson-Bowles plan calls for an awful lot of spending cuts and, yet, those weren’t enough.
  1. SIMPSON: Well, Erskine can tell you we don’t call for –

You can’t cut spending your way out of this hole. You can’t grow your way out of this hole and you can’t tax your way out of this hole “Put that in your pipe and smoke it,” we tell these people.

  1. This is madness. If you want to be a purest, go somewhere on a mountain top and praise the east or something, but

if you want to be in politics, you learn to compromise and you learn to compromise an issue without compromising yourself. Show me a guy who won’t compromise and I’ll show you a guy with rock for brains.

  1. ZAKARIA: Erskine, you’re hopeful. You think that some of the ideas gaining fraction and, you know, there’s a kind of inevitability if you’re going to do this, there has to be some approach that’s pretty close to what you’re describing.
  1. BOWLES: Fareed, I believe the markets will force us to. I’ve spent my life in the markets, as you know, and look at what’s happening at the end of the year.
  1. We have about $7 trillion worth of economic events that are happening. We have expiration of the Bush tax cuts, we have the patch that’s been placed on the alternative minimum tax that’ll affect so many middle-class taxpayers, we have the payroll tax deduction that’s expiring.
  1. We have these senseless, mindless, across-the-board cuts that come from the sequester that comes as a result of a failed super committee. You know, all of those are hitting at once and the economic effect of those just next year, about 2 percent of GDP.
  1. If we have a negative effect of 2 percent of GDP, we’ll be right back in recession and you better believe that the people of America will be calling on these members of Congress to do something.
  1. So

we think something will happen in the lame duck session. We believe it’ll probably be a two-step process where we end up setting up a framework with a time-frame in order to get something done.

  1. ZAKARIA: Boy,

that’s pretty optimistic.

  1. BOWLES: And don’t forget it doesn’t have to be exactly what the Simpson-Bowles plan has, but it’s got to be a balanced plan. You’ve got to have some small amount of revenue that comes from reforming the tax code and there’s broad agreement that the tax code needs to be reformed.
  1. So I believe that you will find — if, in fact, we can get the right kind of momentum going, I think I’ll find strong support. We’ve been working with 47 members of the Senate, an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, the same kind of group in the House of Representatives.
  1. And I believe these — this group will come together during the lame duck to put forward a plan like this. Now, I don’t think the plan itself will be implemented during the lame duck, but I think there will be an agreement that we have to do some kind of balanced plan.
  1. If we don’t, then I think you will see the markets really take a really adverse look at the country and I think you’ll see us lose another downgrade in our credit and I think you’ll see interest rates pop up and, before long, you’ll see the availability of credit lessen. So I think we could have a real problem if we don’t do something and do something relatively quick.
  1. SIMPSON: And you know who will get hurt the worst in that process when interest rates go up and inflation kicks in, the little guy, the one that everybody on their hind legs talks about, “We’re doing this for the little guy, the most vulnerable, the unfortunate.” Well, Merry Christmas, those guys are going to get eaten when interest rates and inflation kicks in.
  1. ZAKARIA: Gentlemen, stay with us. When we come back, we’re going to ask Senator Simpson and Erskine Bowles what they think of President Obama’s leadership on this issue, what they think of Mitt Romney and there’ll be a few other things as well.
  1. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
  1. ZAKARIA: And we are back with Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the authors of the Simpson-Bowles plan for a rare opportunity to have a conversation.
  1. Senator Simpson, I want to ask you — I want to ask both of you, but I want to ask you what you think of President Obama’s embrace of your plan or lack thereof.
  1. And I’m going to start by asking you — just bear with me because I talked to him in January, mostly about foreign policy, but I did ask him about Simpson-Bowles. And he probably got — this got him more agitated than at any point in our conversation.
  1. This is what he said. He said, “I’ve got to tell you most of the people who say it if you ask them, “What’s in Simpson-Bowles,” they couldn’t tell you. First of all, I did embrace Simpson-Bowles. I’m the one who created the commission. If I hadn’t pushed it wouldn’t have happened because the Congressional sponsors, including a whole bunch of Republicans, walked away.”
  1. “The basic premise of Simpson-Bowles was we have to take balanced approach in which we have spending cuts and we have revenue increases. And although I did not agree with every particular thing that was in it, what I did do is take the framework and present a balanced plan of entitlement changes, discretionary cuts, went ready to make a deal.”
  1. “I presented this plan three times to Congress. The core of Simpson-Bowles, the idea of a balanced deficit reduction plan, I have consistently argued for, presented to the American people, presented to Congress.”
  1. Is that fair?
  1. SIMPSON: Well, he does get a little testy and we all get a little testy, but the president — I wouldn’t have done this if I didn’t regard him as our president. I accept that. He’s my president, too. And it’s ugly stuff out there.
  1. There’s a lot of hatred in the world, hatred toward politicians, hatred toward the president, hatred toward Democrats, hatred toward Republicans, but I can tell you this. If he had embraced our plan, he would have been ripped to shreds.
  1. Erskine can tell you a little more. He visited with him personally alone for an hour-and-a-half, but he would have been ripped by the Democrats saying, “Why you rotten — you’re digging into the precious, precious Medicare.”
  1. And the Republicans would have rejected — if he’d embraced the Republicans, en mass, in the House would have rejected it. So, either way he’s going to get hammered so he’s playing the waiting game.
  1. ZAKARIA: Erskine, a lot of economic experts say, look, the right solution for the United States right now is obvious, which is you need some stimulus now, particularly given the very low interest rates, the very high levels of unemployment in the construction sector.
  1. The government should spend some money repairing and rebuilding the infrastructure, but that would only be viable and particularly something the markets would celebrate if it was tied to a long-term deficit reduction plan like Simpson-Bowles.
  1. Do you buy that basic idea that if your plan were adopted as a ten-year plan, it actually gives the U.S. government some leeway to make some necessary investments now?
  1. BOWLES: Yes, I truly believe that the only thing standing between the U.S. and sustainable growth is having a sensible, responsible, long-term fiscal plan. I believe if the world believed that we were going to put our fiscal house in order that you would see substantial economic growth in the future.
  1. But, again, I got back to what’s happening at the end of this year. We have $7 trillion worth of economic events that are going to hit the fan in December.
  1. And if we don’t set up to them — if we don’t stand up for them and we don’t do the right thing, if Congress doesn’t act, it doesn’t put this partisanship aside and doesn’t make some compromise, you’ll have a negative impact on GDP next year of at least 2 percent. That doesn’t make any sense.
  1. ZAKARIA: Alan, what do you make of Mitt Romney? Romney’s first ads are out and when he says, on day one what is he going to do and he says he’s going to approve the Keystone Pipeline, fine. But then he says and, then, we’re going to have tax cuts.
  1. This has, of course, been the, you know, kind of a Republican strategy for a while. Do you think — given what you’re describing, I can’t imagine you think day one what a Republican president should do is propose tax cuts?
  1. SIMPSON: Well, I wouldn’t have voted for him if I’d have been in Congress. How could you vote for a tax cut when you were doing two wars on the cheap? You had two wars you were fighting. You had things that were — the government — all the income from the government was only taking care of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and you do a tax cut.
  1. Every time there was a surplus and the last time was when this fine gentleman was doing it in ’96, you can’t get there. But you don’t have to do a tax cut, get that out of your gourd. You go into the tax expenditures and start knocking that stuff off and that’s where you get your revenue.
  1. BOWLES: Fareed, we have the most inefficient, ineffective, globally anti-competitive tax code that man could dream up and what we need to do is broaden the base, simplify the code, use — get rid of this spending in the tax code and use about 90 percent of the money to reduce income tax rates for everybody and use about 10 percent of the money to reduce this deficit.
  1. You know if you think about the debt today and the interest on the debt, it’s kind of — you know and put it in relationship to something else, we spend about $230, $240 billion a year on interest on the debt today even at these current low rates.
  1. Fareed, that is more than we’re spending today at the Department of Commerce, Energy, Education, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice and State combined. And if we don’t do anything, if we just, you know, put our heads in the sand and hope things will get better, we’ll be spending over a trillion dollars on interest by the year 2020.
  1. That’s a trillion dollars we can’t spend on this country on education or infrastructure or high valued-added research. And worst of all, it’s a trillion dollars we will be spending principally in Asia to educate their kids and to build their infrastructure and to do high value-added research over there so that the next new thing is created there and the jobs of the future are there not here. That’s crazy.
  1. ZAKARIA: All right, final question. Erskine, there are rumors in Washington that President Obama has asked you whether you would be interested in being the Secretary of Treasury. Do you have a comment?
  1. BOWLES: He hasn’t asked me to be Secretary of Treasury for sure.
  1. ZAKARIA: If he were to ask you, would you accept?
  1. BOWLES: No, I’m living in North Carolina and that’s where I want to live. I’m the happiest in my whole life, Fareed.
  1. ZAKARIA: Gentlemen, pleasure to have you.
  1. SIMPSON: I would just say we — all we do, Erskine and I, is math. We don’t do Power Points. We don’t know charts. We do math, but we don’t do BS or mush so join us.
  1. ZAKARIA: Maybe what we should try and get — and do is for the first time in the history of the republic, have co-Secretaries of the Treasury, one Republican and one Democrat. SIMPSON: Boy, if we could get our hands on that script.
  1. BOWLES: I don’t want a job, thank you.
  1. ZAKARIA: Thank you very much, gentlemen.
  1. SIMPSON: Thank you.
  1. BOWLES: Thank you

America First before Politics

America First before Politics


While listening to the Interview by FAREED ZAKARIA who was interviewing Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles.  I was pleasantly suprised that Simpson had the guts to put America First before Politics. (emphasis added by Scotty)

At the start of the Interview he got my full attention when he called himself a “R.I.N.O. …which means a Republican in name only because I guess of social views perhaps or common sense would be another one which seems to escape members of our party”. (Its a great lesson for all of the Republicans in Office).

I admired Mr Simpsons- frankness in why the Republicans and Democrats are causing the turmoil that is hampering the rebound of the US economy .  I especially appreciated his direct comment on Re-Election when he said:

if (Re-Election)…” means more to you than your country when we need patriots to come out in a situation when we’re in extremity, you shouldn’t even be in Congress.


He continues on to discuss the economy and progress needed to ensure continued growth.  

You can’t cut spending your way out of this hole. You can’t grow your way out of this hole and you can’t tax your way out of this hole “Put that in your pipe and smoke it,”

To  bring about the progress that is needed to fix our economy while lowering our US Debt all Parties must be involved in solutions and learn how compromise is not always a bad thing.

“if you want to be in politics, you learn to compromise and you learn to compromise an issue without compromising yourself.

Show me a guy who won’t compromise and I’ll show you a guy with rock for brains.”

Truelly pointing out that the lack of Partinanship is not helping the economy.

Mr Erskine Bowles then went on with the interview and pointed out his thoughts on where the economy was headed

If we have a negative effect of 2 percent of GDP, we’ll be right back in recession and you better believe that the people of America will be calling on these members of Congress to do something.

So we think something will happen in the lame duck session. We believe it’ll probably be a two-step process where we end up setting up a framework with a time-frame in order to get something done. ZAKARIA: Boy, that’s pretty optimistic.

Lame Duck Session? What are they talking about.  We need Compromises ASAP.  What happened to the American Way of:

Everybody pitching in to do their part for the benefit of all?


Granted we Americans are a tuff nut and can handle anything thrown our way.  But what in the hell is wrong with our Elected Officials when they have to go behind the scenes and enact legislation during “Lame Duck Sessions“.   


  • Do we really need to wait 6 blessed months for progress?   




  • Further Example of how the GOP is truely “Out of Touch” with Mainstream America.

If you too are tired of the Politics of the USA.  


Join me in voting a Democratic Ticket in the upcoming election.


My Best to You and Yours,
Scotty 


Helpfull Web Links:


Article transcripts to follow- supplied by CNN from the following listed web sites.


Twitter         —-    Find Me   —         Facebook

FAREED ZAKARIA GPSInterview with Alan Simpson, Erskine Bowles; Panel Discusses Presidential Politics
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2012.05.27.html http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1205/27/fzgps.01.htmlIn 2010, President Obama challenged the bipartisan duo to chair a commission to develop policies to bring America back to fiscal sustainability and they did. Many powerful Washingtonians on both sides of the fence applauded the proposal from the two chairs, but nobody ever did anything about it and this week, the dangerous carping over the debt limit began anew.

  1. Who better to talk about this than Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles who are joining me now from North Carolina?
  1. Thank you so much for joining me, folks.
  1. ALAN SIMPSON, FORMER WYOMING SENATOR: It’s a pleasure.
  1. ERSKINE BOWLES, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Great to be here.
  1. Senator Simpson, you’ve seen what’s been going on these last few months. The House actually voted on the Simpson-Bowles proposal and it went down decisively.
  1. Paul Ryan, the leader of the House on fiscal issues, I suppose, said that Simpson-Bowles was the wrong way to go because there weren’t enough spending cuts and there were too many tax increases.
  1. What was your reaction? That’s your party.
  1. SIMPSON: Well, I think my party and I have different views on a lot of things. I guess I’m known as a “
  2. rhino” now, which means a Republican in name only because I guess of social views perhaps or common sense would be another one which seems to escape members of our party.

  1. Abortion is a horrible thing, but, for heaven’s sakes, a deeply intimate and personal decision and men legislators shouldn’t even vote on it. Gay-lesbian issues, we’re all human beings. We’re all God’s children. What is that?
  1. And for heaven’s sakes, you have Grover Norquist wandering the Earth in his white robes saying that if you raise taxes one penny, he’ll defeat you. He can’t murder you, he can’t burn your house, the only thing he can do to you, as an elected official, is defeat you for reelection.
  1. And
  2. if that means more to you than your country when we need patriots to come out in a situation when we’re in extremity, you shouldn’t even be in Congress.

  1. ZAKARIA: But talk about Ryan particularly, because what I’m struck by is the Simpson-Bowles plan calls for an awful lot of spending cuts and, yet, those weren’t enough.
  1. SIMPSON: Well, Erskine can tell you we don’t call for —
  2. You can’t cut spending your way out of this hole. You can’t grow your way out of this hole and you can’t tax your way out of this hole “Put that in your pipe and smoke it,” we tell these people.

  1. This is madness. If you want to be a purest, go somewhere on a mountain top and praise the east or something, but
  2. if you want to be in politics, you learn to compromise and you learn to compromise an issue without compromising yourself. Show me a guy who won’t compromise and I’ll show you a guy with rock for brains.

  1. ZAKARIA: Erskine, you’re hopeful. You think that some of the ideas gaining fraction and, you know, there’s a kind of inevitability if you’re going to do this, there has to be some approach that’s pretty close to what you’re describing.
  1. BOWLES: Fareed, I believe the markets will force us to. I’ve spent my life in the markets, as you know, and look at what’s happening at the end of the year.
  1. We have about $7 trillion worth of economic events that are happening. We have expiration of the Bush tax cuts, we have the patch that’s been placed on the alternative minimum tax that’ll affect so many middle-class taxpayers, we have the payroll tax deduction that’s expiring.
  1. We have these senseless, mindless, across-the-board cuts that come from the sequester that comes as a result of a failed super committee. You know, all of those are hitting at once and the economic effect of those just next year, about 2 percent of GDP.
  1. If we have a negative effect of 2 percent of GDP, we’ll be right back in recession and you better believe that the people of America will be calling on these members of Congress to do something.
  1. So
  2. we think something will happen in the lame duck session. We believe it’ll probably be a two-step process where we end up setting up a framework with a time-frame in order to get something done.

  1. ZAKARIA: Boy,
  2. that’s pretty optimistic.

  1. BOWLES: And don’t forget it doesn’t have to be exactly what the Simpson-Bowles plan has, but it’s got to be a balanced plan. You’ve got to have some small amount of revenue that comes from reforming the tax code and there’s broad agreement that the tax code needs to be reformed.
  1. So I believe that you will find — if, in fact, we can get the right kind of momentum going, I think I’ll find strong support. We’ve been working with 47 members of the Senate, an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, the same kind of group in the House of Representatives.
  1. And I believe these — this group will come together during the lame duck to put forward a plan like this. Now, I don’t think the plan itself will be implemented during the lame duck, but I think there will be an agreement that we have to do some kind of balanced plan.
  1. If we don’t, then I think you will see the markets really take a really adverse look at the country and I think you’ll see us lose another downgrade in our credit and I think you’ll see interest rates pop up and, before long, you’ll see the availability of credit lessen. So I think we could have a real problem if we don’t do something and do something relatively quick.
  1. SIMPSON: And you know who will get hurt the worst in that process when interest rates go up and inflation kicks in, the little guy, the one that everybody on their hind legs talks about, “We’re doing this for the little guy, the most vulnerable, the unfortunate.” Well, Merry Christmas, those guys are going to get eaten when interest rates and inflation kicks in.
  1. ZAKARIA: Gentlemen, stay with us. When we come back, we’re going to ask Senator Simpson and Erskine Bowles what they think of President Obama’s leadership on this issue, what they think of Mitt Romney and there’ll be a few other things as well.
  1. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
  1. ZAKARIA: And we are back with Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the authors of the Simpson-Bowles plan for a rare opportunity to have a conversation.
  1. Senator Simpson, I want to ask you — I want to ask both of you, but I want to ask you what you think of President Obama’s embrace of your plan or lack thereof.
  1. And I’m going to start by asking you — just bear with me because I talked to him in January, mostly about foreign policy, but I did ask him about Simpson-Bowles. And he probably got — this got him more agitated than at any point in our conversation.
  1. This is what he said. He said, “I’ve got to tell you most of the people who say it if you ask them, “What’s in Simpson-Bowles,” they couldn’t tell you. First of all, I did embrace Simpson-Bowles. I’m the one who created the commission. If I hadn’t pushed it wouldn’t have happened because the Congressional sponsors, including a whole bunch of Republicans, walked away.”
  1. “The basic premise of Simpson-Bowles was we have to take balanced approach in which we have spending cuts and we have revenue increases. And although I did not agree with every particular thing that was in it, what I did do is take the framework and present a balanced plan of entitlement changes, discretionary cuts, went ready to make a deal.”
  1. “I presented this plan three times to Congress. The core of Simpson-Bowles, the idea of a balanced deficit reduction plan, I have consistently argued for, presented to the American people, presented to Congress.”
  1. Is that fair?
  1. SIMPSON: Well, he does get a little testy and we all get a little testy, but the president — I wouldn’t have done this if I didn’t regard him as our president. I accept that. He’s my president, too. And it’s ugly stuff out there.
  1. There’s a lot of hatred in the world, hatred toward politicians, hatred toward the president, hatred toward Democrats, hatred toward Republicans, but I can tell you this. If he had embraced our plan, he would have been ripped to shreds.
  1. Erskine can tell you a little more. He visited with him personally alone for an hour-and-a-half, but he would have been ripped by the Democrats saying, “Why you rotten — you’re digging into the precious, precious Medicare.”
  1. And the Republicans would have rejected — if he’d embraced the Republicans, en mass, in the House would have rejected it. So, either way he’s going to get hammered so he’s playing the waiting game.
  1. ZAKARIA: Erskine, a lot of economic experts say, look, the right solution for the United States right now is obvious, which is you need some stimulus now, particularly given the very low interest rates, the very high levels of unemployment in the construction sector.
  1. The government should spend some money repairing and rebuilding the infrastructure, but that would only be viable and particularly something the markets would celebrate if it was tied to a long-term deficit reduction plan like Simpson-Bowles.
  1. Do you buy that basic idea that if your plan were adopted as a ten-year plan, it actually gives the U.S. government some leeway to make some necessary investments now?
  1. BOWLES: Yes, I truly believe that the only thing standing between the U.S. and sustainable growth is having a sensible, responsible, long-term fiscal plan. I believe if the world believed that we were going to put our fiscal house in order that you would see substantial economic growth in the future.
  1. But, again, I got back to what’s happening at the end of this year. We have $7 trillion worth of economic events that are going to hit the fan in December.
  1. And if we don’t set up to them — if we don’t stand up for them and we don’t do the right thing, if Congress doesn’t act, it doesn’t put this partisanship aside and doesn’t make some compromise, you’ll have a negative impact on GDP next year of at least 2 percent. That doesn’t make any sense.
  1. ZAKARIA: Alan, what do you make of Mitt Romney? Romney’s first ads are out and when he says, on day one what is he going to do and he says he’s going to approve the Keystone Pipeline, fine. But then he says and, then, we’re going to have tax cuts.
  1. This has, of course, been the, you know, kind of a Republican strategy for a while. Do you think — given what you’re describing, I can’t imagine you think day one what a Republican president should do is propose tax cuts?
  1. SIMPSON: Well, I wouldn’t have voted for him if I’d have been in Congress. How could you vote for a tax cut when you were doing two wars on the cheap? You had two wars you were fighting. You had things that were — the government — all the income from the government was only taking care of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and you do a tax cut.
  1. Every time there was a surplus and the last time was when this fine gentleman was doing it in ’96, you can’t get there. But you don’t have to do a tax cut, get that out of your gourd. You go into the tax expenditures and start knocking that stuff off and that’s where you get your revenue.
  1. BOWLES: Fareed, we have the most inefficient, ineffective, globally anti-competitive tax code that man could dream up and what we need to do is broaden the base, simplify the code, use — get rid of this spending in the tax code and use about 90 percent of the money to reduce income tax rates for everybody and use about 10 percent of the money to reduce this deficit.
  1. You know if you think about the debt today and the interest on the debt, it’s kind of — you know and put it in relationship to something else, we spend about $230, $240 billion a year on interest on the debt today even at these current low rates.
  1. Fareed, that is more than we’re spending today at the Department of Commerce, Energy, Education, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice and State combined. And if we don’t do anything, if we just, you know, put our heads in the sand and hope things will get better, we’ll be spending over a trillion dollars on interest by the year 2020.
  1. That’s a trillion dollars we can’t spend on this country on education or infrastructure or high valued-added research. And worst of all, it’s a trillion dollars we will be spending principally in Asia to educate their kids and to build their infrastructure and to do high value-added research over there so that the next new thing is created there and the jobs of the future are there not here. That’s crazy.
  1. ZAKARIA: All right, final question. Erskine, there are rumors in Washington that President Obama has asked you whether you would be interested in being the Secretary of Treasury. Do you have a comment?
  1. BOWLES: He hasn’t asked me to be Secretary of Treasury for sure.
  1. ZAKARIA: If he were to ask you, would you accept?
  1. BOWLES: No, I’m living in North Carolina and that’s where I want to live. I’m the happiest in my whole life, Fareed.
  1. ZAKARIA: Gentlemen, pleasure to have you.
  1. SIMPSON: I would just say we — all we do, Erskine and I, is math. We don’t do Power Points. We don’t know charts. We do math, but we don’t do BS or mush so join us.
  1. ZAKARIA: Maybe what we should try and get — and do is for the first time in the history of the republic, have co-Secretaries of the Treasury, one Republican and one Democrat. SIMPSON: Boy, if we could get our hands on that script.
  1. BOWLES: I don’t want a job, thank you.
  1. ZAKARIA: Thank you very much, gentlemen.
  1. SIMPSON: Thank you.
  1. BOWLES: Thank you
  2. .

Tell EPA to step in to ensure Keystone XL southern segment has thorough review

In less than 45 days, Canadian oil giant TransCanada could receive the rubber stamp it needs to build the southern leg of the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline from Oklahoma through Texas to the Gulf Coast — unless we convince the Environmental Protection Agency to intervene.

 

News broke last week that,in addition to submitting its re-application to the State Department for the transboundary, northern half of its pipeline,TransCanada has also submitted its application for the only federal permit it needs to start building the southern half — a water permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of Engineers, which has an abysmal environmental track record, has a maximum of 45 days to approve or reject TransCanada’s application. Or, if they do nothing it will be approved by default.

 

The EPA regional office already objected to this fast-tracked approval process — and pressure from you will help convince EPA headquarters to stop it.

 

Please sign the letter to tell EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to prevent the rubber-stamping of the Keystone XL pipeline through Oklahoma and Texas here:  salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/455/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=10407&tag=epataf

 

Tell EPA to step in to ensure Keystone XL southern segment has thorough review.

Ameren Meeting-HCR 35 Hearing-3 environmental shareholder resolutions included

Per capita anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissi...
Per capita anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by country for the year 2000 including land-use change. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The 3 environmental shareholder resolutions include:

  • report on coal combustion waste
  • report on coal-related costs and risks
  • assessment and report on greenhouse gas and other air emissions reductions through customer energy efficiency and renewable energy programs
Labadie Environmental Organization (LEO)
Clean Water and Sustainable Communities
spacer.gif
Launch of NEW Website Soon!
Support Ameren Shareholders in saying YES!
Tell friends and family to vote YES on Coal Ash Resolution
Labadie Landfill Site Plant in View
NEXT TUES, April 24th, Ameren shareholders will hear MCRI make a logical argument for why shareholders should expect Ameren policies to keep coal ash waste out of floodplains and to support comprehensive groundwater monitoring around coal ash sites. Ameren operates numerous risky coal ash ponds and landfills both in Missouri and Illinois. Responsible company management is even more important with Congressional Representatives voting this past week to disable EPA from regulating coal ash wastes.  How will Missouri protect communities from the toxins in leaching coal ash waste? Missouri fails to protect us as evidenced in the State of Failure report released last year. The largest Labadie pond has no liner, no groundwater monitoring and has had leaked for over 20 years under a MO DNR permit!If you have stock in Ameren you have every right to vote on directors, executive compensation and 3 shareholder initiatives (environmental) this year. You can vote in person at the meeting or choose to vote by proxy (internet).See the official notice of the annual meeting and details on how to vote (proxy or in person).

The 3 environmental shareholder resolutions include:

  • report on coal combustion waste
  • report on coal-related costs and risks
  • assessment and report on greenhouse gas and other air emissions reductions through customer energy efficiency and renewable energy programs

Meeting Details:

Date:  April 24th, 2012

Time:  9 AM

Place:  Powell Symphony Hall, 718 N. Grand Blvd. St. Louis MO 63103  FREE PARKING

Come down and support MCRI at the press conference likely to start about 8 a.m. 

HCR 35 Moving Forward
Help Us Get a Hearing Before End of Session!
Jeff City photo
HCR 35 Coal Ash Monitoring and Cleanup Resolution has been assigned to the MO House Tourism and Natural Resources Committee.  Unfortunately, we are fast running out of time to get discussion on the issue and move it to a House vote.Contact YOUR MO State Rep if they are on the Committee and/or the Chair of the Committee, Don Ruzicka (R-132)to say all Missourians deserve the right to know if ash ponds and landfills are contaminating drinking water and if they are, we want them cleaned up! Rep Ruzicka is responsible deciding which issues will receive a hearing in his Committee.

Rep Ruzicka was a former MO State Conservation Agent for 27 years with a BS in Wildlife and Conservation from Missouri State University. His job as a Conservation Agent was to “protect the natural resources of the state.” He should be our ally on this issue.

Contact Info:
Look up your State Representative contact info here.
Compare to the list of Reps on the Committee here.

Call Don Ruzicka directly to say “assign a hearing date”
Phone:

573-751-4077
email:  don.ruzicka@house.mo.gov

There are at least 12 Counties in Missouri with coal ash dump sites that could be contaminating groundwater. MO DNR does not require groundwater monitoring. See if your County is on the map.

 

Map 2

Take a moment right now to call your State Rep and/or Representative Ruzicka to get HCR 35 assigned a hearing before the end of session on May 18th!

We deserve this issue to be discussed by our legislators.

Thank you for taking action.

facebook_logo 2
Follow events, activities and actions onLabadie Environmental Organization (LEO) and Save OUR Bottoms!!!
EarthDayPlanetEarth
Celebrate Earth Day TOMORROW
April 22, 2012
Earth Day festivities in Forest Park SUNDAY, 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Stop by the Ameren tent and DNR Booth and ask them what they are doing to protect the public from the risks of coal ash pollution.
If you are available to help give out fliers at Earth Day St. Louis call Patricia at 636-402-8460
honey_bee_large 2
What do honeybees, fish and humans have in common? None of us do well when we ingest or are exposed to high amounts of metal pollutants.Could heavy metal pollutants be linked to colony collapse? Read the article below for more details.
Forward the LEO e-newsletter to friends and family! They can become a FREE member and get on the monthly e-newsletter list by emailing:contact@leomo.info

“We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.”
- Aldo Leopold

2012 Election Poll-What are the Issues that really matter to you?

What are the 5 most Important Issues in the upcoming election to you and your family.

Created March 23, 2012

Compare the Results of the 2010 Election Poll to the Issues of today- Poll Results from 2010 Election Issues

2010 Election (created Oct 28, 2010)-What issues are most important to you and your family in the up-coming Election?

Answer Votes Percent
Health Insurance 20 21%
Jobs / Employment 17 18%
Government Spending 17 18%
Republican 11 12%
Tea Party 9 9%
Ear Marks 5 5%
Democrat 5 5%
Other (see below) 4 4%
Green Legislation / Energy / Oil 3 3%
Lobbyist Activities 3 3%
Independant 1 1%
Climate Change 0 0%
Other Answer Votes
Social Security Benefit Legislation 1
pro-life 1
Life 1
eliminate Progressives 1

Missouri’s Climate: News, Building Codes, Energy Costs, Carbon Data, Energy Sources, and more

  • Midwest has experienced rising average temperatures with the largest warming seen in the winter months.
  • The growing season has been extended by one week because of earlier last spring frosts and precipitation has become more frequent including increased instances of heavy downpours.
  • Since the 1980s, large heat waves have become more frequent than any time in the last century.
  • These effects of climate changeare predicted to continue, threatening the region’s economy, landscape, character, and quality of life.

    Seal of the United States Department of Energy.
    Image via Wikipedia

Missouri‘s Climate: News, Building Codes, Energy Costs, Carbon Data, Energy Sources, and more

02/17/12Scotty-Scotts Contracting, St Louis Renewable Energy

information supplied by: http://bcap-ocean.org/state-country/missouri

Climate Concerns

Regional Issues & State Action: 

  • Midwest has experienced rising average temperatures with the largest warming seen in the winter months.
  • The growing season has been extended by one week because of earlier last spring frosts and precipitation has become more frequent including increased instances of heavy downpours.
  • Since the 1980s, large heat waves have become more frequent than any time in the last century.
  • These effects of climate change are predicted to continue, threatening the region’s economy, landscape, character, and quality of life.

BCAP Estimated Energy Savings

  • If Missouri began implementing the 2009 IECC and Standard 90.1-2007 statewide in 2011, businesses and homeowners would save an estimated $99 million annually by 2020 and $200 million annually by 2030 in energy costs (assuming 2006 prices).
  • Additionally, implementing the latest model codes would help avoid about 31 trillion Btu of primary annual energy use by 2030 and annual emissions of more than 2.1 million metric tons of CO2 by 2030.
  • A 2010 BCAP analysis indicates that the weightedaverage incremental construction cost of upgrading to the 2009 IECC in Missouri would be $875.28 per home. On average, the annual energy savings per home would be $459.00, meaning the simple payback for homeowners would occur, on average, in 1.91 years.These estimates are conservative and represent the upper bound on incremental cost.

Missouri Minimum Energy Efficiency

Standards For State Buildings

Public Buildings

Intro/Brief: 

  • Since July 1, 2009, all new state-funded buildings must comply with Missouri Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard for Public Buildings, which is based on the 2006 IECC. 
  • During the summer of 2008, the state of Missouri passed a wide-ranging package of energy efficiency initiatives, including homeowner tax incentives and minimum energy standards for state buildings. Passed in the state legislature on May 29 and signed by then-Governor Matt Blunt on July 10, the bill (SB 1181) required the Department of Natural Resources to establish minimum energy efficiency standards for state buildings, based on the 2006 IECC. The Commissioner of the Office of Administration may exempt any state building from meeting the minimum energy efficiency standard requirement for safety reasons or when the cost of compliance is expected to exceed the energy cost savings.

Missouri has no mandatory or voluntary statewide energy code for private residential and commercial construction. 

  • Public Buildings Code: Based on the 2006 IECC.

TEXT: SB 1181 (2008)

Citation: SECTIONS 8.295 – 8.837 – STATE BUILDINGS

Application: Applies to all new and renovated state-owned construction.

Approximate Stringency: As stringent as the 2006 IECC.

Effective Date: July 1, 2009

Approved Compliance Tools: REScheck | COMcheck

Background: 

  • In response to legislation signed in 1993, for Energy Efficiency in State Facilities, a rule was finalized and published on January 26, 1996, with an effective date 30 days later that established “state building minimum efficiency standards.” The rule covered new state buildings (or portions), additions, substantial renovations, or existing buildings considered for lease (when over 10,000 sq. ft.) or acquisition by the state. ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1989 was adopted by reference for buildings other than single-family and multi-family residential buildings not over three stories high. For single-family and multi-family residential buildings, the latest editions of the Council of American Building Officials Model Energy Code (MEC) or ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 90.2-1993 was applicable. New editions/revisions to these adopted standards would automatically be adopted by reference and become effective three months after the date of their publication. (10 CSR 140-7, Department of Natural Resources.) No statewide requirements existed for other buildings; local cities and jurisdictions adopt their own requirements.

Information last updated February 7, 2012

****

Based on: 

Mandatory

Date Passed: 

 Thursday, July 10, 2008

Date Effective: 

 Wednesday, July 1, 2009

 

History

  • Missouri has no mandatory or voluntary statewide energy code for private residential and commercial construction.
  • After the passage of SB 1181 in July 2008, all state-owned buildings must comply with Missouri Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard for Public Buildings, which is based on the 2006 IECC, beginning on July 1, 2009. The previous state-owned building code was based on ASHRAE 90.1-1989.
  • Due to its history of strong local government, Missouri does not have a mandatory statewide energy code. However, however all local jurisdictions except class III counties have the right to adopt an energy code. As expected, this system creates a sometimes confusing patchwork of different codes throughout the state. Seethis page or see below for more details on local adoption. 
  • Regardless of the system in place, the bottom line is that many jurisdictions in Missouri still don’t have an energy code—meaning that many residents do not receive the benefits of energy-efficient construction.
  • Missouri has considered adopting a state code previously. For example, SB 745, drafted by BCAP in 2010, would have adopted the 2009 IECC and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 statewide. It also would have directed DNR to establish an automatic review cycle, either every three years or within nine months of the publication of a new model code version. In addition, HB 938 in 2011 would have established most of the 2006 International Code series as minimum statewide construction standards (the 2006 IECC was not specifically cited, but would have been included via its position as an alternative compliance path to Chapter 11 of the 2006 International Residential Code). Both bills, however, failed to move past the committee stage. 
  • Local Adoption: For more, view the BCAP Missouri Gap Analysis Report, starting with pages 19-22.
  • All local jurisdictions except class III counties have the right to adopt an energy code. As expected, this system creates a sometimes confusing patchwork of different codes throughout the state.
  • It is typical for Missouri communities to adopt codes on a 6-year cycle rather than the 3-year code development cycle for ICC.  It is also typical for communities to follow the code adoption of surrounding communities. These adoption practices have developed two trends in Missouri; eastern Missouri communities are generally on the 2003 I-Codes and are moving/have moved to the 2009 I-Codes and western Missouri communities are generally on the 2006 I-Codes and are moving to the 2012 I-Codes.

 

Code Change Process: 

  • Legislative: In Missouri, only the General Assembly is authorized to enact legislation to establish statewide building construction regulations and/or authorize a state agency to do so. However, there currently is no state regulatory agency authorized to promulgate, adopt, or update construction codes on a statewide basis.

 

Code Change Cycle: 

Next Code Update: 

  • There is no pending state energy code update.

Basic Facts

Climate Zone: 

  • 4A, 5A  (zones based on DOE’s most recent zoning: zone numbers based on a spectrum, zone 1 represents very hot weather and zone 8 represents subarctic weather.  Letters indicate climate type, A-Humid, B-Dry, C-Marine)

Population: 

Construction Activity: 

  • New Housing Units Authorized by Permit:
    Total units: 13,273
    Number of Housing Units by Structure Type:
    1 unit: 7,777
    2 units: 654
    3 and 4 units: 854
    5 or more units: 3,988
    (2008, 
    Real Estate Center)

Projected Construction Rate: 

  • 7,782 dwelling units (-48% less than the previous year), maintaining an average value of $187,000  per dwelling unit.
    (2008, 
    Real Estate Center)

CO2 Emissions: 

  • 140.04 MMT CO2 (2007)

Energy Data

Primary Energy Source: 

  • Coal: 41% (2007, EIA)

Energy Consumption: 

  • Total Annual Energy Consumption of 1,964.1trillion Btu (2007, EIA)

Energy Expenditures: 

  • 23,341.8 Million Nominal Dollars (2007, EIA)

Energy Snapshot: 

  • 58% of the state’s natural gas supply is used for heating the home.Natural gas is the largest consumed source of energy for the state’s residential sector

    Residential use of natural gas in Missouri costs up to $12.97/thousand cu ft.

Source: EIA

Materials supplied by: http://bcap-ocean.org/state-country/missouri

Materials supplied by: http://bcap-ocean.org/state-country/missouri

It all starts with using your energy efficiently. Scotty
Twitter <—- Find Me —> Facebook
Web Site: http://stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scottscontracting
Job Site Photo Album
Green Blo
g

Canadian Tar Sand Pipeline Political Corruption

Keystone Pipeline Lobbyist Had Cozy Relationship With State Department Staffers, New Emails Show


reposted from:http://www.huffingtonpost.com

Opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline proposal continued their assault Monday on what they consider a corrupt federal approval process for the project, releasing dozens of new email messages between State Department employees and a lobbyist for the company behind the pipeline, TransCanada.

The emails, part of a growing cache obtained by the environmental group Friends of the Earth, focus on the interaction between TransCanada lobbyist Paul Elliott, a former deputy campaign director for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s failed 2008 presidential bid, and representatives of the State Department, which is currently weighing approval of the Keystone XL project.
While no emails between Clinton and Elliott have been released, the newest messages reveal a cozy and solicitous relationship between Elliott and State Department staff — particularly one member of the senior diplomatic staff at the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, Marja Verloop.
“The emails between Verloop and Elliott are extremely friendly and illustrative of a cozy and complicitous relationship,” Friends of the Earth said in a memo released Monday morning. “They are filled with emoticons and contain an invitation to visit Ottawa’s ‘winter wonderland,’ acknowledgment that Elliott obtained his job as a lobbyist ‘precisely’ because of his connections, and an offer by Verloop to hand-deliver an invitation to Elliott. The emails also indicate that Elliott succeeded in securing multiple meetings between TransCanada and high-level officials at the State Department.”
In one particular exchange from September of last year, Verloop is seen cheering for Elliott after he secured support for the pipeline from Democratic Montana Senator Max Baucus. “Go Paul!” Verloop writes. “Baucus support holds clout.”
previous cache of emails concerned interaction between Nora Toiv, a special assistant to Secretary Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills. Friends of the Earth suggested those emails provided “evidence of agency bias” and showed that “the State Department was doing favors for TransCanada during the Keystone XL review.”


Last week, Friends of the Earth called on the Justice Department to open an investigation into Elliott for violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which requires that “persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities.”

State Department officials have previously argued that the email exchanges only demonstrate that Elliott — an aggressive lobbyist by any light — was nonetheless unable to gain audience with key agency decision makers, and was instead routed to lower-level staff with no influence over the permit application.
Friends of the Earth argued in a letter to DOJthat Elliott failed to register.
The $7 billion, 1,700-mile proposed Keystone XL pipeline would carry crude oil from Alberta across the border with Canada in Montana and traverse five other states before reaching refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast. Because the project would cross an international border, a permit is required from the State Department.
Intense opposition to the pipeline project by a variety of environmental groups and, increasingly,citizens in states where the pipeline would run, have delayed the issuance of a permit for years, but the State Department is expected to render a decision on the project before the end of this year.
Friends of the Earth, along with the Center for International Environmental Law and Corporate Ethics International, sued Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last May after repeated attempts to obtain correspondence between Elliott and the agency through the Freedom of Information Act were rebuffed.
In late August, however, the State Department began to comply with the request, delivering 34 pages of emails. Friends of the Earth says more documents are expected.

Share Ideas with Sen Claire McCaskill-May 25-2011

 “Kitchen Table Talk” in St. Louis at the St. Louis Public Library – Buder Branch (4401 Hampton Avenue) from 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to reach out to you, to listen to your thoughts and ideas about federal policies and legislation and to take them back to the Senator.
 ______
Dear St Louis Renewable Energy Readers,
My name is Brendan Fahey and I am a staff member for U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill. On Wednesday, May 25, 2011, on behalf of the Senator, I will be hosting a “Kitchen Table Talk” in St. Louis at the St. Louis Public Library – Buder Branch (4401 Hampton Avenue) from 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to reach out to you, to listen to your thoughts and ideas about federal policies and legislation and to take them back to the Senator.
These “Kitchen Table Talks” also serve, in part, to inform you of the services that are available through Senator McCaskill’s regional offices. The Senator’s staff throughout the state are able to assist you on a range of federal government issues. If you are currently having an issue with a federal agency, I will be happy to discuss that with you and put you in touch with the member of the Senator’s staff best suited to help with your issue.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at Brendan_Fahey@mccaskill.senate.gov or by calling (314) 367-1364. I hope you will be able to join me in St. Louis on May 25th.
Sincerely,
Brendan Fahey
Field Representative
U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill