RSS Feed MenuMany at FrumForum have been arguing that Republicans should take the lead on environmental issues, and some Republicans in the congress are finally listening. A bi-partisan bill, designed to cut carbon emissions and improve energy efficiency, called the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act (H.R. 5019) or “Cash for Caulkers” passed the House last Thursday by a vote of 246 to 161.
While this is largely a Democratic initiative, some Republicans who care about governing and not just winning elections have stepped forward to support this measure. The bill was co-sponsored by Vern Ehlers of Michigan, a Republican known for his work on the environment. If passed in the Senate, it will be a solid victory for Republicans who care about the environment and will demonstrate that they are not simply the “Party of No.”
The $6 billion Bill includes two programs: Silver Star and Gold Star. The Silver Star program offers homeowner incentives (rebates) for up to $3000 to purchase American made energy saving products (such as windows, doors, and insulation). The Gold Star Program is designed to facilitate long-term energy savings by offering rebates up to $3000 for households that cut their energy consumption by 20% with an additional $1000 for every subsequent 5% up to $8,000.
The program will save 3 million Americans $200-$500 a year on energy costs which amounts to billions of dollars in savings over the next decade. It will create 150,000 to 200,000 green and construction jobs, while making the earth a little greener. The Bill has the support of thousands of businesses and environmental groups around the country.
Republicans who care about environmental protection and who are serious about governing and not just looking to indulge audiences in some abstract rhetoric about the Founding Fathers or limited government ought to support this market-based approach to improving energy efficiency, creating jobs, and slashing carbon emissions.
jakester // May 10, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Better than that yuppie welfare program “Cash for Clunkers”, where they even had to destroy the scrap engines and trannys to screw up the used parts market.
Stewardship // May 10, 2010 at 7:47 pm
It’s been a privilige for me to know Vern Ehlers. He is a very rare public servant–no ego, truly cares about the people he serves, and makes every decision with future generations in mind. Too bad others are too busy chasing headlines, re-election, or a committee chairmanship to mind his example.
chicago_guy // May 10, 2010 at 8:48 pm
A grand total of 12 (twelve) Republicans voted for this common sense bill, with every high-profile Republican voting against it.
It’s going to take a lot more than that for this to become “a Republican victory” in any way, shape, or form.
balconesfault // May 10, 2010 at 8:55 pm
What’s nice about this kind of program is that it really will stimulate a lot of small business growth around the country. There really isn’t an effective way for this to be scooped up by larger corporations since it’s labor intensive low-multiplier kind of work. Because of that, it will put money into contractors pockets quickly.
Bunch-of-Schitt // May 10, 2010 at 10:49 pm
I live in a home that I desperately need insulation and siding repair. I don’t see how this will help me since I have to put the money up first and wait for a REBATE. I live in a home that needs insulation so badly that it cost me $600.00 per month each and every month last winter to heat my home. I am so far in debt from trying to stay ALIVE that there is NO WAY I can put this money up and wait for a refund even if the refund was for 100% of the repair coat.
This will not help the people that truly need the help.. It’s another program like CASH FOR CLUNKERS. All those cars that would be a step up from what I am driving are gone off the market.
Sorry thumbs down.
balconesfault // May 10, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Bunch-of-Schitt
Wow. My troll meter had never pegged a 12 before.
hotlanta // May 11, 2010 at 9:53 am
Bunch-of-Schitt,
You’re right, it doesn’t sound like the “Cash for Caulkers” program would work for you.
However, the weatherization program, which is specifically a low-income targeted program, sounds like an exact fit for you. I strongly advise you to look into the weatherization program.
Much better to do that, than to spend $600 per month on winter utilities you can ill afford.
Bunch-of-Schitt // May 11, 2010 at 10:41 am
Thanks Hotlanta.
As always, I don’t really make enough to get a loan and make too much to qualify for assistance. But as the cost of living keeps going up and my income does not I hope I qualify for assistance.
If I don’t starve to death first. (or freeze to death)
Just sayin, this program is NOT for the people that really need it.
Mostly my point is this… I GUESS THE US GOV. DOESN’T SEE MY CARBON EMISSIONS AS BEING MUCH OF AN ISSUE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. hahaha My carbon is poor and uneducated and doesn’t know any better. (wink)
Bunch-of-Schitt // May 11, 2010 at 10:49 am
I am not really uneducated. Just poor and now raising the child of a drug addicted sibling. Who by the way QUALIFIES for every program offered.
thumbs down on this program.
medinnus // May 11, 2010 at 11:28 am
Just because it doesn’t work for you specifically doesn’t mean the program has no merit. Just saying.
Bunch-of-Schitt // May 11, 2010 at 12:24 pm
But isn’t the WHOLE IDEA to reduce carbon emissions? So in other words, If the carbon emissions come from a home where the owner can’t afford to get in on the free help, Then those carbon emissions don’t really count?
Have a nice day and be careful while you are skipping around in your fantasy… I wouldn’t want you to trip over a rainbow.
sheeeesh!
And by the way… I doubt I am a lone person with this same problem… all I am saying is… the Homes with the least efficiency are going to be the least likely to get in on this help… So in the end what good will it do. ?????
medinnus // May 11, 2010 at 3:06 pm
I didn’t say that you were the only person.
What I said was just because your circumstances don’t qualify you for the program, doesn’t make it a bad program; energy efficiency and reduced carbon emissions even from, say, 20% is better than scrapping the program as “thumbs down”. Every bit helps, the perfect is the enemy of the good, and all that.
And your ad hominem attacks just make me smile; when those begin, clearly you’ve lost the argument on its merits.
Bunch-of-Schitt // May 11, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Aaaaa well I wasn’t really having an “argument” I was stating facts. And it’s people like you that don’t see the reality of WHAT IS AND WHAT COULD BE. As a whole, If we continue to accept “20% and we are as a whole okay with it” Then what about the 80% When we are willing to accept that 20% is good enough, We fail to ask for something better. So you go a head and give a “Big thumbs up” to the 20%” I will go on to worry about the 80% that is still a problem.
“I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him.”
Galileo Galilei
Thank you “meddinnus” I learned something from you today. “Ignorance is bliss”
medinnus // May 12, 2010 at 10:09 am
Ah, nice to know you are capable of learning something; clearly you took the wrong lesson, but perhaps its correctable over time.
Tell me… do you honestly think you score victories by ad hominem attacks and purposeful mis-spelling my name? Do you think anyone respects you for that, or smirks and says “Good one, guy! BURN!”. Your diatribes are witless and puerile, and hold nothing of policy – just condemnation.
Since you have no facts – other than whining that the policy doesn’t directly benefit you, and therefore conclude its a BAD policy – I don’t see why you keep posting and trying to score points on the ad hominem bit.
Tell me why a policy that reduces overall home energy consumption by a significant amount is a bad thing, even when you don’t directly benefit from it, or are you so hopelessly selfish that you can’t see beyond your own circumstance?
Bunch-of-Schitt // May 12, 2010 at 11:04 am
QUOTE{Tell me why a policy that reduces overall home energy consumption by a significant amount is a bad thing, even when you don’t directly benefit from it, or are you so hopelessly selfish that you can’t see beyond your own circumstance?}
You tell me how it reduces “over all” and ohhh but I do see beyond that is exactly WHY I GIVE IT A THUMBS DOWN.
Quote {Ah, nice to know you are capable of learning something; clearly you took the wrong lesson, but perhaps its correctable over time.}
Sad to know you are not capable of learning. There will ALWAYS be people that will accept the “say, 20%” and not hold out for the 80%
purposeful mis-spelling my name? MEDINNUS <~~~ {hug and kiss} Feel better now???
What a silly thing to feel so hurt about. Aaaa medinnus, there are much bigger issues in the world than the mis-spelling of your name.
And why do I keep posting???? Because I feel like My opinion is valid even if YOU DON'T. and because the last time I checked this was still a free country and affords me the right to free speech.
OHHH GAWD… I hope I don't see a new thread about "who is or isn't allowed to post here. But if I do, I am sure you will be there. "screaming about how only "say 20% need to have their say here" No doubt you feel as if you should be the one to over see who gets to post. Now where is that suggestion box… I am going to be the first to suggest you for that position.
I am still saying thumbs down.
medinnus // May 12, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Some good is better than no good. *shrugs* As you clearly can’t grasp that concept, and have nothing but your own interest at heart, I think we’ve said all we can say. Since “20%” is a made-up number, your “hold out for 80%” has no value – like the rest of your posts.
“purposeful mis-spelling my name? MEDINNUS <~~~ {hug and kiss} Feel better now???
What a silly thing to feel so hurt about. Aaaa medinnus, there are much bigger issues in the world than the mis-spelling of your name. "
*grins* Given that nobody really spells it correctly in real life, why would it hurt? What I was wondering is why you went out of your way to mis-spell it as a little childish dig. Clearly, once more, you missed the point.
Of course you still say "thumbs down"; you're nothing if not dogmatic. "A tale told by an idiot – full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Please, do post. The more you do, the more you show everyone precisely the calibre of your alleged intellect and maturity.
Now, please – respond with another immature crack. I promise not to respond, so you can have the only kind of satisfaction someone like you is likely to ever get – the last word.
balconesfault // May 12, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Medinnus … I hope you realize that you’re arguing with someone whose story is likely as truthful as Joe the Plumber’s original anecdote?
I daresay that anyone paying a monthly $600 heating bill yet who claims to be without the means to properly insulate their home is probably too stupid to know how to log onto a computer, much less be able to repeatedly make it back to Frum Forum to participate in a dialogue.
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=11342994
In Anchorage Alaska, 88% of respondents to a poll claimed an average winter heating bill less than $500. For 71% it was below $300. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that those with heating bills in the $500-750 range are those with homes significantly larger than someone who can’t afford caulk, weather-stripping and duct-tape can live in.
I’m wondering if Mr. “Schitt” needs government assistance to close his front door?
Bunch-of-Schitt // May 12, 2010 at 1:50 pm
As far as the spelling of your name WHO CARES. It was pure accident. Sorryeeee (if it bothers you that much.. ya know, the “*grins* Given that nobody really spells it correctly in real life part. You could grow a thicker skin and accept that no one really cares how your name is spelled OR you could change it??) <~~ just sayin…
Back to My basic stance. When "we as a whole" are willing to accept a tiny bit of improvement (say, YOU'RE 20%) We fail as a whole to strive for something better.
So you give a shrugs and a thumbs up and accept it. I do not. In the end, It is and always will be the ones that strive for more that actually get the job done.
SURPRISE… I'm still saying THUMBS DOWN.
ImAwesome // May 12, 2010 at 2:36 pm
just my $0.02 the government is based on money. no longer “us” the people can do anything about it. the cash for clunkers came so quick and left so quick it was a JOKE.
think about it the earth being more “green” ha! us humans have destroyed it with Gases,Cars,Homes,Factory’s etc etc. infact me sitting here as all of you sitting on your computer cost electricity………witch in terms = more resources= more problems.
Bunch-of-Schitt // May 12, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Hey, YOU ARE AWESOME !!!!! Bravo.
Bunch-of-Schitt // May 12, 2010 at 7:00 pm
How much is your average monthly heating bill during winter?
$15 – $100 8 %
$100 – $300 63 %
$300 – $500 17 %
$500 -$750 5 %
$750 or more 3 %
My landlord pays it 4 %
All polls conducted by Channel 2 News and KTUU.com are unscientific.
In case you missed that part. UNSCIENTIFIC.
All polls conducted by Channel 2 News and KTUU.com are unscientific.
$500 -$750 5 % <~~ guess I am in the 5% range.
And yes, My home is larger. Its an old farm house in Minnesota. So? So? and ? Your point?
My Stance is this. This program will not help the people that need it the most. The poorer class living in old leaky homes.
Guess what DRUM ROLL PLEASE It still gets a thumbs DOWN from me.
Bunch-of-Schitt // May 12, 2010 at 7:12 pm
balconesfault
It’s Ms. Schitt to you.
and thanks for supporting my position.
{quote} anyone paying a monthly $600 heating bill yet who claims to be without the means to properly insulate their home is probably too stupid to know how to log onto a computer, much less be able to repeatedly make it back to Frum Forum to participate in a dialogue.{quote}
We wont get to hear from those people… But I am sure they are out there. I guess I will have to be their “spokes person” *grin*
badda bing, you guessed it… STILL THUMBS DOWN.
balconesfault // May 12, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Hmmm… as I thought.
The old troll meter still works.
The dual identities, and then giving yourself a back-slap, is also a cute touch.
Bunch-of-Schitt // May 13, 2010 at 8:10 am
I love it when the adverse are reduced to babbling idiots. (I don’t see how you would think I have dual persona .. what “awesome” said does not support my position. I was happy to see someone else realize WHAT THE ACTUAL FOCUS IS HERE and that is REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS)
LIKE I SAID this program will not help the people that need it the most.
But lets not think about the actual people living in the homes. The original concept here is to reduce CARBON EMISSIONS. The largest offending homes will STILL BE PRODUCING THOSE CARBON EMISSIONS.
To accept the small amount of good this program will do compared to the cost of it, Combined with the idea that it wont help the largest offenders it EARNS A THUMBS DOWN (from me)
But hey, if anyone else wants to give it a thumbs up thats okay with me. I have seen that type of thinking… It’s equal to the family that recycles their milk cartons but pours their motor oil in a hole.
and justify it with a shoulder shrug and saying “but I recycled my milk cartons… that counts… *idiot pats self on back* and then screams my neighbor is a troll for witnessing me for who and what I really am. If the shoe fits slip it on and wear it… AFTER ALL IT’S THE FOOT PRINT PEOPLE LIKE YOU LEAVE BEHIND. And when you don’t put your thumb down to our GOV. sub-standard programs you assist me in the FOOT PRINT I LEAVE BEHIND.
Sadly I realize that some people just don’t get it. I feel confident that if anyone that really matters reads this thread, will read it in its entirety and my points will be noted.
My final post here is me standing with both thumbs down. one for this program and the other for the people that are willing to accept the tiny band aids of costly programs like this one. IMAGINE WHAT GOOD COULD BE DONE IF WE ALL HELD OUT FOR A LITTLE BETTER.
tootles
Butiupandtwist // May 16, 2010 at 11:29 pm
bravo Sir Garland!
This marvelous piece has outdone your previous posts…Anyone who says otherwise is nothing but a dagum lier.