Specter Moves Further To Left, Votes For Costly, Controversial Cap-And-Tax Bill

Friday, 06 November 2009 09:34

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) voted in favor of the controversial and costly cap-and-tax bill yesterday, which would have a devastating impact on Pennsylvania’s steel and coal industries.

As a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Specter helped pass the contentious bill without any Republican support. Notably, the bill was also rejected by a key committee moderate in Specter’s own Party, U.S. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT).

As Reuters noted, "Baucus’ vote against the bill reflected the difficulties ahead in crafting a measure that would attract the 60 votes needed for passage by the Senate... Other Midwestern and Southern senators from states heavily reliant on coal will seek their own changes, which could upset liberals now supporting the bill."

And as Politico reports, "Rank-and-file members from both parties dismissed the Boxer bill, coal-state senators were unhappy and many said Boxer’s move to approve the bill without any Republicans even in the committee room had poisoned the process... Key Democrats said the Boxer legislation was moving too fast for some coal and manufacturing states."

According to a report in June 2009 by the Beacon Hill Institute, the cap-and-tax legislation would increase energy costs in Pennsylvania, lead to job loss and lower wages for workers in the Keystone State, and cause decreased tax revenue and state investment.

"Once again Specter put partisanship before the people of Pennsylvania when he pandered to the left-wing of his Party and voted for a cap-and-tax bill that will have devastating effects on key industries in his state," said National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokeswoman Amber Wilkerson Marchand.

"If he makes it to the general election next November, Senator Specter will be forced to explain to Pennsylvania voters why he decided to side with the liberals in his Party to ram this contentious bill through the Senate, despite the fact that members of his own Party deemed the bill too costly," Wilkerson Marchand concluded.

Background Information

Specter’s Cap-And-Tax Bill Would Lead To Increased Energy Prices In Pennsylvania

"These Carbon Taxes Would Cost The Residents Of Pennsylvania $6.45 Billion Dollars In 2020 And $55.34 Billion By 2050 Through Increased Energy Prices." (The Beacon Hill Institute, "The Economic Effects Of Proposed Cap-And-Trade Legislation On The State Of Pennsylvania," www.beaconhill.org, 6/09)

"The Policy Would Push Up The Price Of Gasoline By 29 Cents/Gallon By 2020 And By $1.94/Gallon By 2050 . . ." (The Beacon Hill Institute, "The Economic Effects Of Proposed Cap-And-Trade Legislation On The State Of Pennsylvania," www.beaconhill.org, 6/09)

"[R]aise The Retail Price Of Electricity Produced From Natural Gas By 1.11 Cents/kWh By 2020 And 7.64 Cents/kWh By 2050." (The Beacon Hill Institute, "The Economic Effects Of Proposed Cap-And-Trade Legislation On The State Of Pennsylvania," www.beaconhill.org, 6/09)

"Electricity Produced From Coal Would Experience A 2.48 Cent/kWh Increase By 2020 And A 16.93 Cent/kWh Increase By 2050." (The Beacon Hill Institute, "The Economic Effects Of Proposed Cap-And-Trade Legislation On The State Of Pennsylvania," www.beaconhill.org, 6/09)

"Additionally, Bituminous Coal Would Increase In Cost By $40.63 /Ton By 2020 And $277.89 /Ton By 2050, While Lignite Coal Would Increase By $71.69 /Ton By 2020 And $490.29 /Ton By 2050." (The Beacon Hill Institute, "The Economic Effects Of Proposed Cap-And-Trade Legislation On The State Of Pennsylvania," www.beaconhill.org, 6/09)

"We Find That The Cap-And-Trade System Would Impose A Tax Of $92.66 Per Metric Ton Of Carbon In 2020 In Order To Reach The 20% Emissions Reduction Goal." (The Beacon Hill Institute, "The Economic Effects Of Proposed Cap-And-Trade Legislation On The State Of Pennsylvania," www.beaconhill.org, 6/09)

"The Cost Of Carbon Would Rise To $714 In 2050 To Reduce Emissions By 83% Below 2005 Levels." (The Beacon Hill Institute, "The Economic Effects Of Proposed Cap-And-Trade Legislation On The State Of Pennsylvania," www.beaconhill.org, 6/09)

The Cap-And-Tax Bill Would Also Cause Job Loss And Decreased Wages

"The State Economy Would Shed 47,549 Jobs By 2020 And 480,852 By 2050." (The Beacon Hill Institute, "The Economic Effects Of Proposed Cap-And-Trade Legislation On The State Of Pennsylvania," www.beaconhill.org, 6/09)

"The Decrease In Labor Demand, As Seen In The Job Losses Would Cause Gross Wages Per Person To Fall By $297.59 Per Capita Annually By 2020 And $2,551.72 By 2050." (The Beacon Hill Institute, "The Economic Effects Of Proposed Cap-And-Trade Legislation On The State Of Pennsylvania," www.beaconhill.org, 6/09)

"As A Result, Real Disposable Income Would Fall By $5.536 Billion Per Year By 2020 And $47.469 Billion By 2050." (The Beacon Hill Institute, "The Economic Effects Of Proposed Cap-And-Trade Legislation On The State Of Pennsylvania," www.beaconhill.org, 6/09)

The Cap-And-Tax Bill Would Lead To Decreased Tax Revenue And State Investment

"Furthermore, Annual Investment In The State Would Fall By $671 Million By 2020 And $5.755 Billion By 2050." (The Beacon Hill Institute, "The Economic Effects Of Proposed Cap-And-Trade Legislation On The State Of Pennsylvania," www.beaconhill.org, 6/09)

"By 2020, The State Of Pennsylvania Can Expect Annual Tax Revenues To Fall By $575 Million, While Local Governments Would Lose $396.1 Million In Tax Revenue, For A Combined State And Local Revenue Loss Of $971.09 Million." (The Beacon Hill Institute, "The Economic Effects Of Proposed Cap-And-Trade Legislation On The State Of Pennsylvania," www.beaconhill.org, 6/09)

"By 2050, The State And Local Government Tax Revenue Losses Would Swell To Over $8.326 Billion, With The State Losing $4.93 Billion And Local Governments Losing $3.396 Billion." (The Beacon Hill Institute, "The Economic Effects Of Proposed Cap-And-Trade Legislation On The State Of Pennsylvania," www.beaconhill.org, 6/09)

Democrat Senators Have Spoken Out Against The Bill

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT): "I have some concerns about the overall direction of the bill ... I have serious reservations with the depth of the mid-term reduction target in the bill and the lack of preemption of the Clean Air Act." ("Senate Hearing Kicks Off Climate Bill," The Wall Street Journal, 10/27/09)

"Senator Max Baucus, The Montana Democrat Who Is The Second-Ranking Member Of The Environment Committee And Chairman Of The Finance Committee, Warned His Fellow Democrats That The Kerry-Boxer Bill Went Too Far And Could End Up Delaying Any Action On Global Warming For Months Or Years." ("White House Steps Up Climate Efforts," The New York Times, 10/27/09)

"The Legislation Before Us Today Is About Our Economy," Mr. Baucus Told The Committee. "Montana, With Our Resource-Based Agriculture And Tourism Economies, Cannot Afford The Unmitigated Impacts Of Climate Change. But we also cannot afford the unmitigated effects of climate change legislation." ("White House Steps Up Climate Efforts," The New York Times, 10/27/09)

Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV): "The climate legislation proposed today by Senators Boxer and Kerry is a disappointing step in the wrong direction and I am against it. Requiring 20 percent emission reductions by 2020 is unrealistic and harmful - it is simply not enough time to deploy the carbon capture and storage (CCS) and energy efficiency technologies we need. Period." (Sen. John Rockefeller, Press Release, 9/30/09)

Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT): "I’m Not Real Happy With [Kerry-Boxer]." "’I'd like to see what Maria's got. I'm not real happy with [Kerry-Boxer],’ said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) last week. ‘I don't want something real, real complicated.’" ("The Plots Thicken In Senate Climate Deliberations," Climate Wire, 10/26/09)

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH): "The bill introduced by Sens. Boxer and Kerry highlights the need to take climate change seriously; I appreciate their hard work on this measure. But we must work to strengthen the legislation to improve the competitiveness of American manufacturers, invest in new clean energy technologies, and target more relief to consumers in coal states." (Sen. Sherrod Brown, Press Release, 9/30/09)