No me acuerdo dónde encontré esto, pero me gustó y creo que debe subirse, lo único malo es que está en inglés per, como diría Stephen Hawkings, a riesgo de ahuyentar a la mitad de mis potenciales lectores, voy a subirlo, aunque voy a ver si lo encuentro de nuevo para citar la fuente, como corresponde.
Actualización: encontré la fuente, es el sitio del GOP. Para acceder al artículo, click en el título centrado, para el site, en el link.
1. The Democrat plan produces no new energy and threatens our energy security.
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce: “This purported ‘energy bill’ not only fails to produce a single kilowatt of energy, but also threatens to reduce (and in some sectors eradicate) energy production. Any lawmaker serious about energy security or energy independence should have strong reservations about voting for H.R. 2337.” (Letter to Resources Committee, 6/4/07)
2. The Democrat plan increases the cost of energy and the price at the pump.
- Like the House Democrats’ bill, the Senate energy bill raises taxes on domestic energy producers. Experts at the nonpartisan Heritage Foundation say the Senate bill “could result in significantly higher prices for gasoline consumers. A review of S. 1419, including the just-completed section on tax changes, reveals that the bill could increase the price of regular unleaded gasoline from $3.14 per gallon (the early May national average) to $6.40 in 2016–a 104 percent increase … The bill proposes paying for the new mandates and programs with a series of tax increases, most of which would be paid by producers of gasoline. The combined effects of these policy changes would cause retail gasoline prices to increase.” (Heritage Foundation, 6/18/07)
3. The Democrat plan increases our reliance on imported oil from the Middle East .
- The last time the Democrats increased taxes on domestic energy producers in the 1980s, it “made the United States more dependent upon foreign oil and therefore more vulnerable to either a price upsurge or a supply disruption.” (Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06)
4. The Democrat plan creates a $6 billion slush fund for questionable pork projects.
- “Republicans mocked a provision that would provide $6 billion in tax credit bonds that state and local governments could use to promote energy-efficient projects … Republicans maintained that the rules were written so loosely that the bonds could be used to subsidize a plasma TV for Martha Stewart or hybrid police cars in Beverly Hills. ‘There are all sorts of haphazard, inefficient things that could be done in the name of energy conservation,’ [Ranking Member Jim] McCrery said.” (CQ, 6/20/07)
5. The Democrat plan runs roughshod over private property rights.
- “[T]ucked deep in its heart is an extraordinary new tool to allow environmentalists to lock up private property across the country…the bill fulfills one big ambition of environmental groups in recent years: a rollback of any smarter use of public (or even private) lands for energy use … a green dream come true, carte blanche to promulgate endless regulations barring tree-cutting, house-building, water-damming, snowmobile-riding, waterskiing, garden-planting, or any other human activity…President Bush, with any luck, will veto any legislation that grants a freeze of every dirt clod in America — publicly or privately owned.” (Wall Street Journal, 6/15/07)
6. The Democrat plan rejects the environmentally conscious – and formerly bipartisan – liquid coal.
- “The new draft also dropped incentives for production of liquid coal, a fuel that supporters say would ease dependence on foreign oil … Most Republicans generally support the liquid coal measures, as do coal-state Democrats like [subcommittee chairman] Boucher … The dispute over the bill was just the latest chapter in an ongoing feud between Dingell and Pelosi.” (CQ, 6/18/07)
- Democrats “opposed language Dingell and Boucher dropped that would have allowed up to six coal-to-liquid projects to enter into a financial agreement with the Energy Department if they could show that carbon dioxide emissions would be at or below the levels for a petroleum-based facility.” (CongressDaily, 6/19/07)
7. The Democrat plan puts political pay-back ahead of a common sense, bipartisan energy solution.
- Republicans argued “the committee could have produced a comprehensive bipartisan bill” but that chairmen “Dingell and Boucher gave in to Pelosi…” (CQ, 6/20/07)
- Democrats continue their Big Labor payback by demanding government-mandated Davis-Bacon wages for projects in the bill. In the face of Democrat opposition, Republicans tried “to remove labor-friendly Davis Bacon prevailing wages for projects that get the loan guarantees.” (Environment and Energy Daily, 6/21/07)
- “First came Big Labor. Then the tort lawyers. What special interest lobby remains for the Democratic majority to reward for services rendered this past election? The answer rests in the ecstatic press releases tumbling out of the nation’s largest environmental groups … Bill presented; bill paid. Like union and trial-bar groups, the extreme environmental community forked over a hefty wad of cash last year to help put Democrats in the majority, as well as to keep key environmental allies in their seats.” (Wall Street Journal, 6/15/07)
8. The Democrat plan recycles GOP renewable fuel accomplishments in the 2005 Energy Policy Act.
- Energy Policy Act of 2005: “Of the [Republican-passed] energy bill’s $14.5 billion price tag, renewable sources and conservation measures would receive some of the largest chunks of federal support. Wind, solar and other renewables would receive $3.1 billion in support. Energy efficiency provisions for individuals and business tax credits draw $1.3 billion.” ( Dallas Morning News, 7/30/05)
- Energy Policy Act of 2005: “Homeowners who install solar energy equipment, such as water heaters and even electric panels, can claim a 30 percent tax credit, with a limit of $2,000 …The largest credits will be for persons who purchase hybrid cars and trucks … The purchaser of a hybrid car can claim a tax credit of up to $7,500 if the vehicle weighs 14,000 pounds or less and up to $30,000 if it weighs over 24,000 pounds.” ( Dayton Daily News, 7/30/05)
9. The Democrat plan will not help ‘consumers and families.’
- “The energy legislation is shaping up to be ‘extremely modest,’ says Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s energy program.” He said the Democrats’ bill results in “little trickling down to consumers and families.” (Christian Science Monitor, 6/25/07)
10. The Democrat plan represents another in a long line of broken promises.
- More than a year ago, Speaker Pelosi said “Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices,” but the average price of regular unleaded is $2.98, up 68 cents since Democrats took office. (Pelosi release, 4/24/06; AAA Daily Fuel Gauge Report, accessed 6/26/07)