This past Tuesday, 4 of the remaining 6 "Cap n Tax 8" held primaries; here are the results:
Cap N Tax Rep. Leonard Lance (NJ-07) won his primary with 56% of the vote.
Cap N Tax Rep. Christopher Smith (NJ-04) won his primary with 68% of the vote.
Cap N Tax Rep. Frank LoBiondo (NJ- 02) won his primary with 78% of the vote.
Cap N Tax Rep. Mary Bono Mack (CA-45) won her primary with 69% of the vote.
Case Study: NJ-02
Although none of the four "Cap n Tax 8" incumbents were defeated, we need to give the opposition candidates credit. Let's examine the LoBiondo race where the incumbent garnished the largest percent of victory to put things into perspective:
(1) The South Jersey Courier Post described this as a "second consecutive challenge" for LoBiondo meaning that the 8-term Congressman has betimes run unopposed. Thank you challengers Linda Biamonte and Donna Ward for running! Keep up the great work!
(2) Voters narrowed LoBiondo's margin of victory in the primary down from 89% in 2008 to 78% this year. Excellent progress!
(3) These results were achieved with a biased media who described Biamonte as the "LoBiondo Challenger" (Shore News Today) instead of properly using her real name. (SNT completely ignored the presence of Donna Ward in the race--who won 45% of the anti-LoBiondo vote.)
(4) LoBiondo got some national vetting exposure in April by Michelle Malkin about his ignorance on the U.S. Constitution.
(5) Keep in mind the reason why incumbents are so hard to defeat is the money donated to incumbents by PACs and businesses. In the last FEC report, LoBiondo had donated $375K to his own campaign, outraising his opponents combined fundraising by magnitudes. LoBiondo has bought himself another two years in Congress.
Having seen LoBiondo run on an issue-less platform (see the utter lack of issue positions on his website at http://lobiondoforcongress.com/ -- unless you count his dogs as an issue position) it is great to see these two courageous patriots--Biamonte and Ward--stand for principle and I remain excited about their success.
Looking forward
The two remaining GOP "Cap n Tax 8" primaries are: Cap n Tax Congressman Michael Castle (DE) against Christine O'Donnell for the DE Senate seat with primary elections on Sept 14th and Congressman Dave Reichert (WA-08) vs. Ernest Huber with an Aug 17th primary.
Showing posts with label cap and trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cap and trade. Show all posts
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Ousting the Remaining 6 GOP "Cap n Tax 8" (Correction)
In yesterday's blog we explored the consequences of not getting a conservative through the Illinois GOP Senate primary: we are now supporting Mark Kirk, one of the GOP Cap n Tax 8, or the eight GOP congressman who voted for Waxman-Markey (HR 2454) last year, thus ensuring its passage through the house; the Senate having yet to vote on the bill.
The nomination of Kirk reminds us we must redouble our effort as we have the remaining 6 of the Cap n Tax 8 all yet to face a GOP Primary (one "Cap n Tax 8"--Congressman John McHugh of NY23rd--was appointed Secretary of the Army; the special election held last fall vaulted Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman into national limelight). These 6 must be stopped in their primary elections. The video below highlights the frustration we feel from their betrayal on such an important issue:
The nomination of Kirk reminds us we must redouble our effort as we have the remaining 6 of the Cap n Tax 8 all yet to face a GOP Primary (one "Cap n Tax 8"--Congressman John McHugh of NY23rd--was appointed Secretary of the Army; the special election held last fall vaulted Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman into national limelight). These 6 must be stopped in their primary elections. The video below highlights the frustration we feel from their betrayal on such an important issue:
Following is a recap of these remaining six and links to the candidates who seem to have all voiced opposition to HR2454:
- Congressman Michael Castle (DE) now in play for Biden's old Senate seat against Christine O'Donnell. Primary elections: Sept 14th
- Congressman Leonard Lance (NJ-07) running against Dave Larsen and Lon Hosford. Primary elections: June 8th
- Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ- 02) running against anti-Obamacare and anti-Cap n Tax Republican Linda Biamonte. Primary elections: June 8th
- Congressman Christopher Smith (NJ-04) vs. Alan Bateman. Primary elections: June 8th
- Congressman Dave Reichert (WA-08) vs. Ernest Huber. Primary elections:
June 8thAug 17th - And lastly, Nacilbupera's former 12-year Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack (CA-45) when we lived in Riverside County, California vs. newly Nacilbupera-endorsed Clayton Thibodeau. Primary elections: June 8th
So remains the question on your plate as the reader: how mad are you at the remaining 6 of the GOP Cap and Trade 8? Are you mad enough to follow them on Twitter, Youtube, Facebook and other social media? Are you mad enough to do a write up about them on your own blog? Are you willing to send out emails to relatives or friends who might live in these districts? And most importantly, are you willing to put some of your hard earned money the government has yet to take away from you and give it to these noble candidates?
Friday, June 26, 2009
On Mary Bono Mack's vote for Cap n Tax
Mary isn't the conservative her married surnames--from deceased husband Sonny Bono and current husband Florida Congressman Connie Mack--might convey her to be. Indeed she has quite liberal views in some areas although she generally votes along Republican lines.
Nacilbupera voted for Mary when we lived in Riverside County (CA) and would take Mary over the radical liberal Democratic alternatives we were offered pretty much any day.
However, the 45th Congressional District of California deserves not just a Republican better than a socialist Democrat, but rather a conservative: one who will uphold family values and traditional marriage as so many Catholic and Hispanic voters in the district would urge, as well as a fiscal conservative who will seek solutions to our problems though paying down federal debt not growing government and expanding revenues.
Nacilbupera was disappointed in Mary's vote today for Cap and Tax; perhaps better said irate, although the emotion is directed at her vote, not her person. Mary was one of just 1 of 8 Republicans voting for Cap and Tax in a vote so close that if just 4 of those Republicans had not bolted from the party, the bill would have been defeated. Consequently, Nacilbupera feels that the time has come for Mary to retire from Congress. As we remarked in an earlier post Nacilbupera supports a maximum of 5 or 6 terms for our U.S. Representatives. Mary is on her 6th term and that is enough.
To replace Mary, let's have a conservative Republican rise up now to run in 2010 and have Mary support him or her. One thing we like about Mary is that she does have respect for conservatives. That is the noble thing to do. Be like a George Washington who refused to run for a third term because he knew it wasn't good for the country.
Understandably there are many who need to retire worse than Mary starting with the longest-serving senator ever, nonagenarian Senator Byrd, who Nacilbupera predicts will die in office before he ever retires because he is now too old and senile to accept change and comprehend his own senility. It is an uncomfortable thought that behind plagiarist Biden and know-nothing-on-interrogations Pelosi is this KKK relic to be President. Byrd should have retired long ago. But Republicans must lead and not wait for their Democratic partners to die or acquiesce power because the Democrats won't--as we learned from having to create the 22nd Amendment in lieu of Byrd-esque gems like FDR.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Read Our Lips, Obama: No Cap And Trade
Obama promised in his quest for re-election a tax break "for 95% of Americans." Now with the Cap-and-Trade bill he urges Congress to pass he is indirectly taxing 100% of Americans. How so?
Obama gets away with his "inconvenient truth" of increasing taxes or the amount we pay to the federal government by effectively redefining taxes to be limited to personal income tax. Obama is not raising our income tax. Instead he is raising a massive tax on energy companies who must pass on the levied tax in the form of higher rates to consumers. This is not right and Nacilbupera is calling it out for what it is: a scheme to raise a massive $1.5 trillion through indirect taxation.
Interestingly, taxes levied through the higher rates are disproportionately levied on Republican-voting states. This chart shows that the 8 of the 10 states to receive the most energy price increases voted for McCain:
(1) Wyoming
(2) North Dakota
(3) West Virginia
(4) Kentucky
(5) Indiana
(6) Montana
(7) Alabama
(8) New Mexico
(9) Oklahoma
(10) Utah
while of the 10 states least affected in this proposal include 9 voting for Obama:
(1) Vermont
(2) Delaware
(3) Idaho
(4) California
(5) Washington
(6) Oregon
(7) New Jersey
(8) Rhode Island
(9) New York
(10) Connecticut
Put another way, the incremental energy-bill costs to consumers in Wyoming are close to 4000 times as more as if you live in Vermont.
But isn't the issue of CO2 emissions an issue for the states? Nacilbupera says yes. Yet in the 2007 Supreme Court 5-4 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA the court ruled that the EPA must regulate CO2. Nacilbupera believes this ruling was made erroneously and was out of bounds for the authority granted the court. Yet the court has no power to specify what actions must be taken as this is the arena of Congress. Nacilbupera feels that voluntary compliance with CO2 reductions fulfill our erroneous court-ordered obligation and that a massive tax burden on us Americans is unwanted, unwarranted, and un-American.
For anyone who believed Obama's garbage pre-election promise of a tax break, you need to get on the phone with your representative NOW (vote in Congress tomorrow) and urge them to defeat the energy tax of Waxman-Markey--else take that bundle of money you saved by switching to GEICO and kiss it goodbye.
Obama gets away with his "inconvenient truth" of increasing taxes or the amount we pay to the federal government by effectively redefining taxes to be limited to personal income tax. Obama is not raising our income tax. Instead he is raising a massive tax on energy companies who must pass on the levied tax in the form of higher rates to consumers. This is not right and Nacilbupera is calling it out for what it is: a scheme to raise a massive $1.5 trillion through indirect taxation.
Interestingly, taxes levied through the higher rates are disproportionately levied on Republican-voting states. This chart shows that the 8 of the 10 states to receive the most energy price increases voted for McCain:
(1) Wyoming
(2) North Dakota
(3) West Virginia
(4) Kentucky
(5) Indiana
(6) Montana
(7) Alabama
(8) New Mexico
(9) Oklahoma
(10) Utah
while of the 10 states least affected in this proposal include 9 voting for Obama:
(1) Vermont
(2) Delaware
(3) Idaho
(4) California
(5) Washington
(6) Oregon
(7) New Jersey
(8) Rhode Island
(9) New York
(10) Connecticut
Put another way, the incremental energy-bill costs to consumers in Wyoming are close to 4000 times as more as if you live in Vermont.
But isn't the issue of CO2 emissions an issue for the states? Nacilbupera says yes. Yet in the 2007 Supreme Court 5-4 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA the court ruled that the EPA must regulate CO2. Nacilbupera believes this ruling was made erroneously and was out of bounds for the authority granted the court. Yet the court has no power to specify what actions must be taken as this is the arena of Congress. Nacilbupera feels that voluntary compliance with CO2 reductions fulfill our erroneous court-ordered obligation and that a massive tax burden on us Americans is unwanted, unwarranted, and un-American.
For anyone who believed Obama's garbage pre-election promise of a tax break, you need to get on the phone with your representative NOW (vote in Congress tomorrow) and urge them to defeat the energy tax of Waxman-Markey--else take that bundle of money you saved by switching to GEICO and kiss it goodbye.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
No to Waxman-Markley, Yes to Republican-Environmentalism
Nacilbupera is a Republican-environmentalist. We have always purchased the smallest, most fuel-economic car that would meet our personal or family needs. We have used our Trek bicycle and our feet as primary means of transportation during our schooling years when we didn’t need a car. We use public buses when it makes economic and practical sense. We don’t idle our cars in the morning and work in the same town we live. We generally purchase Energy Star appliances, acutely so when we can recuperate the additional investment. We turn off lights and are converting to compact fluorescent light bulbs in our home as our incandescent ones burn out. We take short showers and avoid over-watering our lawn. We keep our home cool in the winter and warmer in the summer. We recycle newspaper, steel, and aluminum. We enjoy watching betimes “Planet Green” and keep our eyes vigilant for ideas and technologies we can implement on our meager budget.
Nacilbupera loves our planet. We are awed by the divers creatures—minute and gargantuan--and the breathtaking scenery and vast expanses both in and out of our protected parks. Nacilbupera despises smog and pollution as they detract from the vista and create health risks. Indeed, Nacilbupera believes the majority of Americans love their environment so much they are willing to take small sacrifices to keep American beautiful. So far, both Republican- and Democratic-environmentalists would both wholeheartedly support the ideas we have addressed.
Yet a Republican-environmentalist contrasts to a Democratic-environmentalist in two fundamental ways. First, the level of government involvement: Republicans believe that government should encourage environmentalism, while Democrats believe it should be forced, mandated, taxed, and bureaucratically controlled. The perfect example of this is the proposed “Waxman-Markey Bill” aka “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” aka “cap and trade bill.” The bill seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus in turn reduce global warming. Greenhouse gases are primarily carbon dioxide and methane and are contrasted to the smog and pollutant gases measured by the federal and state governments including carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. In other words, the bill is aimed at decreasing global temperature not directly at fighting pollutants and preserving nature.
There is no debate that the Waxman-Markely Bill will cost Americans more money; what is at question is how much. Estimates range between $100-$1500 annually per household in energy costs with significant increases in federal debt and fuel prices. Democrats have hijacked the environmental debate and turned it into a global warming crisis. Nacilbupera believes that while there is ample evidence to support global warming (e.g. worldwide glacier melt), it is difficult to pinpoint causes (volcanoes and the sun itself are two major variables) and even more unpredictable to suggest future temperatures. While Nacilbupera does not oppose curbing greenhouse gases, we are opposed to a heavy-handed Democratic mandated solution on an already overtaxed citizenry with a scandalously overspent Congress. A better solution would be to establish a voluntary fund that concerned citizens, unions, and corporations could donate to provide the government funds with which to curb gases through things like clean coal technology research or tax credits for alternative fuel source (electric, hydrogen, etc) vehicles. Finally, if developing nations like China and India do not the same (which is unlikely) the projected impact on global temperature is little to nothing and all the money of Waxman-Markley will have been wasted.
The second way a Republican-environmentalist differs is in supporting all forms of energy production (i.e. “all of the above”) to support the demands of our growing population. Nacilbupera wholeheartedly embraces zero-emissions nuclear power (including our support for Utah’s first nuclear power plant—Blue Castle—to be located in Green River), expansion of domestic oil & gas drilling (shame on Obama’s Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for cancelling drilling leases earlier this year on our Utah lands!), solar, wind, geothermal, clean coal, and hydroelectric. Democratic-environmentalists have an excuse ready not to do anything: wind turbines kill birds, solar panels block view, nuclear you have to actually store the waste, and so forth. America doesn’t need a California-style energy shortage Nacilbupera experienced several years ago under the hand of Democratic ex-Governor Gray Davis and the Democratic California Legislature. Some of the more extreme Democratic-environmentalists, advocates of so-called “sustainable development” philosophy are actually hostile to humans wanting to reduce total human population through diminished growth rates including abortion rather than researching solutions through science and exploration. As we have stated our principles previously, Nacilbupera is Pro-Life and if need saying, Pro-Human.
In summary being a Republican-environmentalist means protecting your environment, conserving resources, and promoting energy development while at the same time feeding your family, keeping taxes low to encourage parental time with children, and letting government focus on national defense and protection from terrorism.
Nacilbupera loves our planet. We are awed by the divers creatures—minute and gargantuan--and the breathtaking scenery and vast expanses both in and out of our protected parks. Nacilbupera despises smog and pollution as they detract from the vista and create health risks. Indeed, Nacilbupera believes the majority of Americans love their environment so much they are willing to take small sacrifices to keep American beautiful. So far, both Republican- and Democratic-environmentalists would both wholeheartedly support the ideas we have addressed.
Yet a Republican-environmentalist contrasts to a Democratic-environmentalist in two fundamental ways. First, the level of government involvement: Republicans believe that government should encourage environmentalism, while Democrats believe it should be forced, mandated, taxed, and bureaucratically controlled. The perfect example of this is the proposed “Waxman-Markey Bill” aka “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” aka “cap and trade bill.” The bill seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus in turn reduce global warming. Greenhouse gases are primarily carbon dioxide and methane and are contrasted to the smog and pollutant gases measured by the federal and state governments including carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. In other words, the bill is aimed at decreasing global temperature not directly at fighting pollutants and preserving nature.
There is no debate that the Waxman-Markely Bill will cost Americans more money; what is at question is how much. Estimates range between $100-$1500 annually per household in energy costs with significant increases in federal debt and fuel prices. Democrats have hijacked the environmental debate and turned it into a global warming crisis. Nacilbupera believes that while there is ample evidence to support global warming (e.g. worldwide glacier melt), it is difficult to pinpoint causes (volcanoes and the sun itself are two major variables) and even more unpredictable to suggest future temperatures. While Nacilbupera does not oppose curbing greenhouse gases, we are opposed to a heavy-handed Democratic mandated solution on an already overtaxed citizenry with a scandalously overspent Congress. A better solution would be to establish a voluntary fund that concerned citizens, unions, and corporations could donate to provide the government funds with which to curb gases through things like clean coal technology research or tax credits for alternative fuel source (electric, hydrogen, etc) vehicles. Finally, if developing nations like China and India do not the same (which is unlikely) the projected impact on global temperature is little to nothing and all the money of Waxman-Markley will have been wasted.
The second way a Republican-environmentalist differs is in supporting all forms of energy production (i.e. “all of the above”) to support the demands of our growing population. Nacilbupera wholeheartedly embraces zero-emissions nuclear power (including our support for Utah’s first nuclear power plant—Blue Castle—to be located in Green River), expansion of domestic oil & gas drilling (shame on Obama’s Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for cancelling drilling leases earlier this year on our Utah lands!), solar, wind, geothermal, clean coal, and hydroelectric. Democratic-environmentalists have an excuse ready not to do anything: wind turbines kill birds, solar panels block view, nuclear you have to actually store the waste, and so forth. America doesn’t need a California-style energy shortage Nacilbupera experienced several years ago under the hand of Democratic ex-Governor Gray Davis and the Democratic California Legislature. Some of the more extreme Democratic-environmentalists, advocates of so-called “sustainable development” philosophy are actually hostile to humans wanting to reduce total human population through diminished growth rates including abortion rather than researching solutions through science and exploration. As we have stated our principles previously, Nacilbupera is Pro-Life and if need saying, Pro-Human.
In summary being a Republican-environmentalist means protecting your environment, conserving resources, and promoting energy development while at the same time feeding your family, keeping taxes low to encourage parental time with children, and letting government focus on national defense and protection from terrorism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
