[Grassley is chosen to give the lamest conservative argument: Poor people, whom conservatives have never lifted a finger to help, would suffer under this bill. I guess they picked Grassley because he is the best at keeping a straight face. The only time conservatives care about poor people is during these types of debates, so may be is a good thing they've glommed in an extra 30 hours of debate.]
Household with limited incomes will be affected the most by this bill, according to Robert Greenstein [a person Grassley has never quoted in its entire life].
New energy-efficient equipment is expensive [and I choose to ignore the provisions in the bill to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to help the poor adopt such technologies.]
Items that would be more costly for low-income families, including gas prices.
This would raise energy bills for the poorest fifth of Americans by $750 to $1,000 a year.
Oh, but now he launches into a tirade against all the new programs that would be launched, even though many of those programs are to ameliorate the costs to poor people and businesses that he was just complaining about.
It does nothing to promote the use of wind energy.
Wind has tremendous potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
The bill leaves wind out — we should pass the wind production tax credit, which, as he knows, is being held up by dispute over how to pay for the credit, a dispute mostly driven by conservatives who simultaneously refuse to pay for the credits and refuse not to pay for the credits.
Keep one thing in mind. EPA says this will reduce the purchasing power of the average American family $1400 rising to $4400 in 2050.
Head of CBO says this will Bill will have the same effect as a tax increase.
This walks like a tax and talks like a tax.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
