News

Claire McCaskill’s Revisionist History Tour Continues

Published: January 5, 2012 | Comments: 4

Claims To Oppose Cap-And-Trade After Voting For It, While Continuing Silence On Obama EPA’s Harmful Policies

In a press release from her official office yesterday, Senator Claire McCaskill announced that she’s embarking on a statewide “energy tour” beginning with an event today at the Ralls County Electric Cooperative in New London, and remarkably, said further, “McCaskill bucked her own party in recent years, opposing the failed ‘Cap & Trade’ energy policies proposed in Congress.”

There’s just one big problem with that statement – it’s simply not true.

In fact, when a cap-and-trade bill sponsored by California’s ultra-liberal Senator Barbara Boxer came before the Senate for a vote in 2008, McCaskill stood with Boxer and voted to move it forward.  Fortunately, Senate Republicans, and not Senator McCaskill, ultimately blocked this disastrous bill from moving forward any further.

“It’s clear that Senator McCaskill is desperate to distract Missourians from her very liberal record in Washington.  The reality is that when the rubber met the road on cap-and-trade, Claire McCaskill stood with liberal California Senator Barbara Boxer instead of standing up for Missouri’s energy sector,” National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokesman Brian Walsh said today.

More recently, contrary to “bucking her party” as she is claiming today, McCaskill’s silence was deafening just two weeks ago when the Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a massive new rule just before Christmas Day for power plants that will cost American businesses – and ultimately consumers – almost $10 billion in new regulatory costs.

Even a select few Senate Democrats sounded the alarm bell as well.  For example, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin said, “Today’s announcement of yet another onerous rule by the EPA completely ignores the devastating impact these regulations will have on jobs and our economy, not only in West Virginia but across this nation.” 

And Missouri’s junior U.S. Senator Roy Blunt was similarly outspoken saying, “This rule would increase electricity prices by nearly 20 percent in areas like Missouri, which is very reliant on coal. I’m going to continue working to stop rules like this and other job-destroying regulations that will fall squarely on Missouri families and job creators who are still struggling to get back on their feet.” 

In contrast to the concerns expressed by Democrat Senator Joe Manchin, Missouri’s Roy Blunt and many other Senators, Claire McCaskill was silent.

“Whether it’s ObamaCare, the failed stimulus or the massive over-regulation by President Obama’s EPA which will hurt Missouri’s economy, we’ve seen a consistent pattern of Claire McCaskill standing side-by-side with President Obama.  No amount of election-year gimmicks like this ‘energy tour’ will change that,” Walsh concluded.

BACKGROUND….

In 2008, McCaskill Voted To Move Cap-And-Trade Forward In Congress

McCaskill Voted To Move Forward With The Boxer Amendment That Would “Cap Greenhouse Gas Emissions Nationwide.” “Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Boxer, D-Calif., substitute amendment no. 4825 that would cap greenhouse gas emissions nationwide and set up a trading system for companies to buy and sell emissions allowances.” (S. 3036, CQ Vote #145: Rejected 48-36: R 7-32; D 39-4; I 2-0, 6/6/08, McCaskill Voted Yea)

McCaskill Said “In Broad Strokes, I’m For This [Cap-And-Trade] Concept,” But Noted Concerns About The Effect On Energy Costs For Average Americans. “At issue is a ‘cap-and-trade’ bill sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va., under which companies would buy or sell the right to emit carbon dioxide, a leading cause of global warming. . . . ‘In broad strokes, I’m for this concept,’ McCaskill said. (Deirdre Shesgreen, “Global Warming Bill Puts McCaskill On The Hot Seat,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 6/2/08)

McCaskill Called The Bill “The Biggest Giant Earmark Ever Created On The Planet,” But Said “I’m 100 Percent Behind Its Environmental Goals.” “McCaskill said the bill ‘is the biggest giant earmark ever created on the planet.’ ‘I’m 100 percent behind its environmental goals, but my government accountability hat hears sirens going off,’ she said in an interview. She said she questions whether Congress should be deciding now how to spend so much money over the next four decades. She also said the bill did not call for enough congressional oversight.” (Pamela Brogan, “Climate Bill Dies In Senate,” Gannett News Service, 6/12/08)

2009: McCaskill Supported Curbing Climate Change, Saying “We Must Do Something Because Of The Reality Of Global Warming.” “Somewhere between Bond and Durbin is Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. She supports curbing climate change but shares concerns similar to Bond’s over how legislation will affect consumers. ‘We must do something because of the reality of global warming,’ McCaskill said in a statement.” (Sean Rose, “Bond Ups Ante In Fight Over Cap-And-Trade,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 4/8/09)

Cap-And-Trade Is Bad For Missouri Coal

McCaskill’s Senate Website: “Missouri Is Heavily Reliant On Coal For Power Generation And Manufacturing, So Any Climate Legislation Must Protect Our Consumers From Unfair Rate Increases And Prevent Our Manufacturing Base From Being Outsourced To Other Nations Unwilling To Reduce Their Own Carbon Emissions.” (Senator Claire McCaskill Website, www.mccaskill.senate.gov, Accessed 10/27/11)

“Direct And Indirect Employment Generated By U.S. Coal Mining In Missouri Accounts For 4,680 Jobs, For A Combined Payroll Of $160 Million.” (National Mining Association, www.nma.org, Accessed 1/5/12)

“Missouri Ranks #23 In The Nation In Coal Production And #6 In The Nation In Coal Use.” (National Mining Association, www.nma.org, Accessed 1/5/12)

“[T]he Arguments Remain The Same: Opponents Predict That A National Cap-And-Trade Program Would Mean Death To Coal Mining, $8,000 more in utility bills for a family of four, and 59 million acres of cropland out of production with an accompanying loss of food production.” (Susan Evans, “Disaster Or Deliverance? No Middle Ground In Cap-And-Trade Debate,” The [Johnstown, PA] Tribune-Democrat, 12/27/09)

Coal-Fired Power Plants Would Be “The Big Loser” Under Cap-And-Trade. “While nuclear power plants — which produce zero greenhouse gas emissions — would be the big winners under cap-and-trade, many NEI member companies also own coal-fired power plants — the big loser.” (Geof Koss, “All Sides Gird For Cap-And-Trade Fight,” Roll Call, 3/31/08)

Henry J. Waters III, Editor At The Columbia Daily Tribune: “The Cap-And-Trade System For Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions Is More Popular In Washington Than Jefferson City.” (Henry J. Waters III, Editorial, “Cap-And-Trade,” Columbia Daily Tribune, 11/29/09)

McCaskill Has Been Silent On Obama EPA’s New $10 Billion Power Plant Rule

One of the Most Expensive Rules in EPA History. EPA estimates that the final rule will cost $9.6 billion per year. Previous estimates had the rule at $10.94 billion per year. (EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, 12/2012 & EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Toxics Rule, 3/2011)

32 Power Plants Will Shut Down. An Associated Press analysis has found that more than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to close because of the new, more stringent regulations. Another 36 plants [in 16 states] are at risk of closing. (Associated Press, “Power Plant Closures to Cost U.S. Town Jobs, Taxes” 12/20/11)

Costs Outweigh the Benefits. Total monetized benefits estimated $500,000 to $6 million per year (less than 0.01% of the Rule’s total costs). (National Economic Research Associates, EGU MACT Rule’s Benefit-Cost Case and EPA’s Reliance on Co-Benefits, 12/8/11)

  • “Keep in mind that the EPA estimates that the benefits to society from the mercury reductions in the utility rule max out at $6.1 million, total, while imposing $11 billion in compliance costs annually. That is a crazy tradeoff even if it didn’t endanger the electric grid. (Wall Street Journal, “If the Lights Go Out” 12/6/11)

Shut Down 8% of U.S. Power. Merely losing 56 gigawatts—a midrange scenario in line with FERC and industry estimates—is the equivalent of wiping out all power generation for Florida and Mississippi. In practice, this will mean blackouts and rolling brownours, as well as spiking rates for consumers. (Wall Street Journal, An EPA Moratorium, 8/29/11)

Bipartisan Opposition. Senators Manchin (D-WV) and Coats (R-IN) have introduced legislation to rein in Utility MACT. Other Democratic cosponsors include Senators Nelson (D-Neb.) and Landrieu (D-La.) (Sen. Dan Coats, Manchin-Coats “Fair Compliance Act” Gains Support from Senators Thune, Moran, 12/19/11).

  • Cross State Air Pollution Rule CRA. The last CRA to rein in a costly EPA regulation failed with only 2 Democrats supporting. McCaskill was not one of them. (Vote 201, S.J.Res. 27, 56-41, 11/10/11) 

McCaskill Is Not Currently Supporting Any Of These Bipartisan Efforts.  

Tags

Share