U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 17, 2010 05:55 PM UTC
37 Comments
Loading ...
the SEIU to thugs gives thugs a bad name, and an awful lot of enviros ARE anti-capitalist.
I’m still trying to figure out what it was that Mr. Caddell said that was so offensive.
it would appear from their penchant for corporate welfare.
But I digress. Why is preventing the fouling of our nest ‘anti-capitalist’? What is the root of ECOnomy? What does it share with ECOlogy?
What can be more supportive of free-market capitalism than pushing to have the price of a product reflect the true costs of producing it?
Isn’t this a good thing?
Doesn’t the act of externalizing costs show a flagrant distaste for free-market capitalism and a preference for socialism?
When a coal-fired electrical generator can spew mercury onto downwind communities, this means that the customers who purchase electricity are being subsidized by the community who suffers from mercury poisoning. In free-market capitalism,, the price of electricity will include the costs of cleaning up the mercury and the costs of not releasing the mercury in the first place.
This is good, right?
Don’t you know that shareholder profits trump community health? And who drinks tap water anyway? Losers, that’s who.
Yes, let’s please have the wind and solar industries charge the full price of those energies and end their subsidies now 🙂
and include the many externalities that Ardy refers to in the balance sheet.
based on the percentage of energy produced, the fossil fuel subsidy pales in comparison to the ridiculous corn ethanol subsidy, and those paid to renewables.
No, let’s measure it in unnecessary health care expenses. Or lives lost. Or birth defect rates.
(Graphic developed from data in Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 2002-2008 available for free download from the Environmental Law Institute.)
So yes, let’s remove all the subsidies for all fuel sources and let them compete in the real world where consumers know up front what the true costs in terms of fortune and lives each fuel type demands.
And, let’s especially look at all the federal R&D money into nuclear energy and compare that to the “percentage of energy produced” and get our money back from utilities that have used these subsidies.
(and the corn ethanol subsidy is because of the strength of agribusiness, not enviros, so yes let us remove that subsidy now)
It looks like we got ourselves an old fashioned cut and paste war!
Ok. Here you go –
Subsidy per unit of production (dollar/megawatt hour)
Solar $24.34
Wind $23.37
Nuclear $1.59
Hydroelectric $0.67
Coal $0.44
Natural Gas $0.25
Source: Energy Information Administration, 2007
there is a difference between ‘subsidies’ and ‘externalities’ right?
You understand that this thread was about Pat Caddell stating that environmentalists are out to “deconstruct capitalism”, and that the SEIU are “thugs”, right?
is an affront to capitalism. Things like a carbon tax would help balance that oversight. Ergo–environmentalism is not anti-capitalist.
It’s a bit difficult to verify your numbers or determine what is being calculated unless you provide a full citation or a link. Are your values for one year? Cumulative? For how long? What is included as a “subsidy?” Help.
For example, I find the nuclear subsidy very difficult to believe given that it has received 30-70% of the federal energy research and development support over the last 50 years yet it provides less than 10% of the total energy consumed in the U.S. (Here is a report prepared for the DOE in 2008.)
In contrast, renewables AND efficiency R&D funding together didn’t see even 20% of federal energy R&$ until recently (and this is largely due to overall declines in federal funding allocations to other fuel sources). Per dollar of R&D, renewables are doing pretty damn good. But it’s hard to get a foothold against fuel sources with decades of government largess.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/se…
Page 6. Oddly HTAT leaves out the figure $29.81 for refined coal. I wonder why that was. What a strange thing to leave out. It’s an awfully big number. How very odd.
HTAT also leaves out the big disclaimer right under the table.
What a curious omission. And HTAT also forgot to post the link, expecting presumably that nobody would google it his own damn self and read all the interesting stuff left out.
This analysis also explicitly leaves out any externalities.
That’s why I left it off.
From Table ES5: (h/t to sxp151)
Refined Coal – 72 billion kWh
Biomass & biofuels – 40 billion kWh
Wind – 31 billion kWh
Solar – 1 billion kWh
So the first two produce “very few megawatts” and so can be ignored, but the latter two produce enough for comparison?
(HTAT, you might also note that in $/mWh, biofuels compare quite favorably to nuclear at $0.89/mWh. Kind of defeats your argument that ethanol subsidies are “ridiculous.”)
We’re fighting two wars right now because of our use of oil. So the subsidy for that is gigantic.
You voted yes on 58.
Democratic caucus goers will learn of this. Then, they will learn that Romanoff would have single-handedly killed the Senate’s health care bill because he didn’t like the deals offered Nelson and Landrieu (which, the Nelson deal at least, was later rescinded).
These will be huge talking points at the caucuses.
But it wasn’t actually. Louisiana suffered a cost basis adjustment that didn’t reflect its own citizens incomes, but those of the contractors and consultants brought in from out of state to handle Katrina reconstruction. The “Louisiana Purchase” just corrected that.
It had been promised for years under Bush and Obama and not delivered, and Landrieu finally put her foot down.
That’s not to say I’m a Landrieu lover or that I think she’s above ethical reproach, but in this case the criticism is really unfounded.
When I heard him before he stopped short of saying he’d have killed the Senate healthcare bill and when pressed changed the subject.
We’ll have to go to the videotape, but I was listening closely because I have been interested in this since I heard him at a HD37 meeting strongly imply that he would have voted against the bill. I think he went the final step last night and said he would have killed it. (I poked my seatmate real hard when I heard it.)
Looking forward to the replay.
And caroman did poke the unfortunate guy sitting closest to him.
He would have forced the Senate to consider a better bill, so he wouldn’t have had to vote to kill the one he despises.
He’s delusional.
I wouldn’t have killed the Senate healthcare bill, I would have sprinkled some faerie dust and gotten a better bill. Can you say single-payer?
Imagine the wonderful committee assignments he’d land and favorable treatment his bills would get after pulling a stunt like that.
The Senate doesn’t have term limits — it’d be highly unusual, to put it mildly, to become leader of your party after just two years, as Andrew was able to accomplish in the Colorado House.
Like it or not, only Al Franken and Paul Kirk had less seniority than Bennet (or one of the other appointed senators, but they were all at the bottom of the heap). What Romanoff proposes is a one-way ticket to obscurity, not influence.
It’s the red unicorn- blue unicorn fantasyland of how DC could work.
It’s like not having any money to run a real campaign. We can have the campaign in my grandmother’s barn. My uncle Goober can be the election judge and after it’s over, we can use the voting booth for a lemonade stand.
Last night Bennet sounded practical and leader-ery.
Romanoff had solid moments- but sometimes he sounded foolish and dreamy. This was one of the dreamier moments.
the problem with the Senate is that no one threatened Landrieu or Nelson for insisting on their pet provisions which have made the Senate bill so unpopular.
Mcjoan at Daily Kos breaks it down and shows how these provisions have not only endangered the Senate Bill, but House Democrats as well.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/…
(from Michael Barone)
Had a few more Senators insisted on not compromising with these two Senators, we might have already passed a decent bill, as it stands, we are stuck with a bill that Nelson and Landrieu are running from, after they made it that way.
And this site noted that Romanoff supports a public option that drops the Medicare eligibility age to zero.
http://coloradopols.com/diary/…
I don’t find it a coincidence that two days after Romanoff made this statement, Bennet signed onto a letter to save the public option via reconciliation.
As Huffington Post comments:
Bennet and Gillibrand have something in common: Both were considered unusual choices to be appointed Senators after a vacancy, and both are facing significant primary challenges – and are both tacking to the left on issues to garner the support of the base of the party.
I make this statement not to call out Bennet, because this act still takes guts, and if it ends up saving the PO then I will be the first to congratulate him.
But, we owe both of these Senator’s actions in this letter to the Primary system in general.
For everyone who has said that Romanoff should drop out or ‘quit dividing the party’, remember when Bennet posted his ‘I support the Public Option video’ and when this letter to Reid was written.
Primaries are a good thing.
Us (thanks rsb)
1) http://coloradopols.com/diary/…
+
DenPo
2) http://www.denverpost.com/poli…
+
10-15 seconds on the google
And how many attendees from the Arapahoe Young Dems in June 2009 would you like to round up to clarify that Bennet supported a public option then (not counting the two who have already lied and denied it)?
Proving two things-
You keep saying it even though it isn’t true.
And by your own logic we didn’t need a primary for either of these things to be true.
I’m trying to accurately report Romanoff’s statements regarding whether he would have voted against the Senate HCR bill because of the deals to Nelson and Landrieu.
He has previously stated, including last night, that it took “only one senator” to stop those deals. At the HD37 meeting I attended, he strongly implied that he would have been that senator (otherwise, why would he make the point that it only required one senator?). As I noted to Blcora above, I think he said last night, when pushed by Aaron Harber, that he would have been that senator to have voted against the bill solely because of those deals. Let’s go to the videotape to see exactly what he said. At the very least, he’s being a weasel to say that it took only one senator, but that wouldn’t have been him.
caroman is right: last night Romanoff said he would have been the one Senator in the majority party to stand up and kill the Senate healthcare bill.
video any day now. If someone has it somewhere else- I can’t find it.
The public option and Medicare for all are two very different plans. I am not sure what you are talking about here, Wade. Which is he willing to go to the wall over? Please explain.
C’mon, that’s like the lamest old cliche in the book: “comparing [group you dislike] to [mobsters/thugs/whatev] gives [mobsters/thugs] a bad name.” I remember thinking that was a clever rhetorical device… and then I turned 17.
Seriously, are you actually saying that unions are worse than criminals? If so, how? If not, please consider refraining from using rhetorical devices that are both cliches and nonsensical; it just makes you sound like a tool.
but I have not been impressed by AR’s campaign so far.
Caddell offends my sensibilities, and it offends them more the campaign won’t own up to making a bad decision. Caucus-goers in particular are paying attention.