Is Betsy Markey a Speed Reader?

June 30, 2009

Is Betsy Markey a Speed Reader?
Markey Claims to Read Bill, Talk to Constituents, but In What Time?

Washington – After waiting until the last minute to take a public position, Rep. Betsy Markey (D-CO) may have made a career-ending decision in voting “yes” in passing the National Energy Tax on Friday, which the Wall Street Journal has called “the biggest tax in American history.” (“The Cap and Tax Fiction,” Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2009). After the vote, Markey appeared on 9News “Your Show” to discuss her decision to support the job-killing bill. During the interview, she told political reporter Adam Schrager that she reads a bill and discusses it with her constituents before voting on it in Congress. That leads to two questions for Markey: Given the length, complexity and timing of the bill, how were you able to read it so fast? And if you listen to your constituents, then why didn’t you take their concerns regarding job losses and higher energy costs into account?

“You would think that after voting for the AIG bonuses included in the failed stimulus bill, that Betsy Markey would have learned her lesson and would have read this crucial bill in its entirety,” said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain. “Betsy Markey’s vote for the National Energy Tax was a vote against Colorado’s middle class families and agribusiness, as she disregarded their voiced concerns about this job-killing bill that will skyrocket costs for anyone who turns on a light switch.”

“The way I approach any piece of legislation is: I read the bill, I talk to my staff, I talk to people on the committee, and then I go out and I listen to my constituents and hear what they have to say. There were some initial concerns that I had with agriculture. I wanted to make sure that agriculture wasn’t being penalized.” (NBC 9 News, “Your Show”, 06/26/09)

How did you have time to read the bill? With 1,200 pages, including 300 pages of amendments that were introduced at 3 a.m. before the final vote, it’s obvious that Markey did not have time to read the bill before voting on Friday:

“The proposed legislation sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and championed by President Barack Obama, has been placed on a fast track by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who wants it passed before the July 4 congressional recess. The debate on such a transformative issue ought to continue and broaden…. How is it possible the 1,200-page American Clean Energy and Security Act is being rushed through Congress in a repeat of what happened with the stimulus package? Has anyone read this one?” (“Cap and trade is wrong solution,” Denver Post, Editorial, 6/26/09)

“But given that over 300 pages of amendments were introduced to the 1,200 page bill at 3 am before the final vote, it seems that not a single member of the House could have read the bill in its entirety. Insiders say even if a member wanted to review the legislation, a complete copy of the bill was hard to come by before the vote.” (“Markey Says She Reads Bills Before Voting, But How Could She?” Face The State, The Buzz, 6/29/09)

Why did you disregard your constituents’ concerns? The Denver Post twice editorialized on the job-killing bill and local trade associations wrote letters to Congress opposing the bill that will devastate Colorado’s agriculture industry:

“With cap-and-trade, however, the economic tradeoffs are so damaging, the environmental benefits so negligible and the plan such a clutter, that selling it — even to Democrats — is turning out to be difficult…Now, while most markets will trade commodities that are actually worth something, this artificial market would effectively nationalize the energy industry. And like any huge economic undertaking, it would be highly susceptible to fraud, insider trading, political influence and every other ugly consequence of big government and big business getting cozy…The trouble is that no matter what they call the cap-and-trade bill, it is a new tax.” (Harsanyi, “Cap And Trade: It’s An Economic Catastrophe,” Denver Post, Opinion, 06/21/09)

“Another problem with Waxman- Markey is that the analysis keeps changing. An early estimate by the Congressional Budget Office suggested the cost to families could be about $1,600 a year as the ratcheting down of credits to industry intensified. A newer estimate by the CBO that looks more narrowly at costs to families for 2020 suggests a more modest $175 a year, but critics loudly dispute that calculation, because it doesn’t consider the stricter cap-and-trade limits coming years down the road. And it doesn’t take into account the potential decrease in gross domestic product… But Waxman-Markey isn’t the solution. Fashioned to avoid appearing like a new tax, the measure nevertheless would work like one, as the higher costs of meeting the caps get passed on to consumers. The measure risks hurting our competitiveness globally without effectively lowering global greenhouse gases.” (“Cap and trade is wrong solution,” Denver Post, Editorial, 6/26/09)

“Not only is it important to understand the direct cost of allowances, it is equally important to understand the added indirect impact of higher energy costs on the food production chain… Many observers and indeed proponents of this legislation concede it will come with costs. We fear that efforts to help certain sectors minimize burdens will significantly impact the cost structure of one of the most critical sectors of the national economy: that sector which provides the most basic human necessity – food… During these difficult economic times, we believe it is unwise to insert additional economic uncertainties into an already fragile marketplace. Given this and the issues raised in this letter, in the absence of a more thorough examination of this monumental bill and its economic consequences on the food supply chain and American consumers, we respectfully ask that Members not support passage at this time.” (Letter from Rocky Mountain Agribusiness Association/National Grain Feeders Association and others to Members of Congress, 06/11/09)

According to a study released by the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis:

“Farm income (after paying all expenses) is expected to drop $8 billion in 2012, $25 billion in 2024, and over $50 billion in 2035. These are decreases of 28%, 60%, and 94%, respectively.
The average net income lost over the 2010-2035 timeline is $23 billion, which is a 57% decrease from the baseline.
Construction costs of farm buildings will go up from the baseline by 5.5% in 2025 and 10% by 2034.
By 2035, gasoline and diesel costs are expected to be 58% higher and electric rates 90% higher.