The Club for Growth is working diligently to stave off what will be an economic disaster of gargantuan proportions should it pass the Congress and come to fruition. I am speaking of the Lieberman-Warner Climate bill which is nothing more than a claptrap of anti-Capitalist crap in the name of passing feel good legislation to placate the environmental alarmists and the masses they’ve managed to brainwash with their hype. Below is a press release from CFG. Also, The Heritage Foundation has a state by state breakdown of the economic damage that will be done to each state.

Club for Growth Unveils Ad Campaign to Combat Economy Crushing Climate Change Legislation

Calls Legislation another Mammoth Washington Exercise in Wealth Redistribution at the Expense of Consumers and Taxpayers

Washington - Today, the Club for Growth unveiled a four-state television and radio ad campaign, highlighting the inordinate costs imposed and dubious global benefits gained by pending cap-and-trade legislation, America’s Climate Security Act. The ad also urges Senators in those states to oppose the bill (radio ad can be heard here).Next week, the Senate is scheduled to consider legislation, sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner, mandating steep reductions in carbon emissions. Known as a “cap and trade” scheme, the legislation would cap carbon emissions at 2005 levels by 2012, and then gradually lowers the cap until it hits 70% below 2005 standards in 2050. If passed into law, companies will be granted credits permitting them to emit a fraction of the CO2 they need. In a massive redistribution of wealth, other credits will be granted to states and ancillary government programs. NGOs and other non-emitter “entities” are also positioned to receive free credits. Since most companies will need to emit more carbon than the credits they are given allow, they will have to buy additional credits supplied by the government, other companies, or third party entities at potentially huge costs.

Proponents of the cap and trade legislation argue the bill is crucial to combat global warming, but they don’t tell you that the legislation will impose tremendous costs on businesses, consumers, taxpayers, and workers, and that it will not likely impact climate temperatures in any meaningful way when viewed in a global context. While the new mandates and taxes included in the legislation would require major economic sacrifices from all Americans, rapidly developing nations such as China and India have made clear they have no plans to adopt similar measures - arguably negating the global impact of any emission decreases in the U.S.

“While the benefits of the Lieberman-Warner bill are dubious at best, the costs to our economy will be massive,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “If this legislation passes, Americans can look forward to fewer jobs, lower income levels, rising electricity prices, and higher fuel bills. Congress has a tendency to pass feel-good bills without adequately considering the tremendous costs to American businesses and families. We hope these ads will encourage people to contact their Senators and tell them the country simply can’t afford the Lieberman-Warner bill.”

According to a recent SAIC study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), the domestic economic impact would be severe. National findings include:

• Gross Domestic Product (GDP) losses of $151 billion to $210 billion by 2020 and $631 billion to $669 billion per year by 2030
• Employment losses of 1.2 million to 1.8 million jobs by 2020 and 3 million to 4 million jobs by 2030
• Household income losses of $739 to $2,927 per year in 2020 and $4,022 to $6,752 per year in 2030
• Electricity price increases of 28% to 33% by 2020 and 101% to 129% by 2030
• Gasoline price increases (per gallon) of 20% to 69% by 2020 and 77% to 145% by 2030

“At a time when our economy is already struggling, the Lieberman-Warner would simply add a heavy drag on growth, giving our global competitors a significant competitive advantage courtesy of the U.S. Congress,” continued Toomey.

The Club for Growth’s $250,000 ad campaign will run in Tennessee, West Virginia, and North Carolina starting today, and in Montana starting next week. The ads call on Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Jon Tester (R-MT), and Max Baucus (D-MT) to oppose this harmful legislation.

Courtesy of Fox News Sunday on May 25:
WALLACE: Congressman Cole, it’s not my position to give you advice, but let me suggest one idea that you — that the Republican Party could embrace that would send a message, “We’re going to do things differently.” A complete ban on all congressional earmarks. Are Republicans prepared to campaign for November banning all earmarks?
COLE: I think your advice is good, and we’ve actually taken that position as a conference and offered that to our Democratic colleagues.
WALLACE: You’re saying the position — wait a minute. You’re saying the position — you’re saying the position of the Republican Party in the House is no earmarks?
COLE: We have taken that position. There’s actually a piece of legislation — and we’ve said — we’ve challenged the Democrats to join us in that. That is, let’s have a ban on all earmarks, let’s have a special committee set up to examine the problem and then let’s come to a common agreement on it. So far, we haven’t heard a word from the other side. So you know, we’re not in a position to unilaterally make these decisions anymore. We’re not the majority. So frankly, I think that ball rests with them. When they respond to our challenge, I think we could have a really fruitful dialogue.
WALLACE: And I want to bring Congressman Van Hollen in. But you could unilaterally decide each Republican member of Congress not to put in any earmarks.
COLE: You don’t unilaterally decide anything. That’s like unilaterally deciding on term limits or something of that nature. Congress has to work together on common solutions. We’ve put forward a ban. We’ve asked the Democrats to respond. Last time I looked, we hadn’t even had the courtesy of an official response, even though we’d sent a letter to the speaker on this issue. (end quote)

This is yet another example of the “woe is me” caucus in the House. No sir, the Republican party could not stop inserting earmarks without Democrat approval. Yes Congressman, we know that you would legislate in a principled way, if only Speaker Pelosi would respond to your letter.

And my first post is available here:

Bob Barr is not an alternative | The Next Right