Protesters say Perriello’s vote will cost jobs
Calling U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello a “traitor” and a “coward,” roughly 125 protesters picketed the freshman Democrat’s Charlottesville office Thursday to denounce Perriello’s vote for an energy bill that aims to slash greenhouse gas emissions.
The protesters were angry that Perriello supported the American Clean Energy and Security Act — also known as “cap and trade” — that they said would cost millions of jobs and burden consumers with higher electricity bills in the name of promoting clean energy and reducing global warming.
“We will take our country back and set it back on its intended course,” said Keith Drake, chairman of the Albemarle Truth in Taxation Alliance and a member of the Jefferson Area Tea Party organization. “We’re doing this for our children and we’re doing it for our grandchildren.”
Perriello, who did not attend the protest, defended his vote in favor of the bill, a measure that he said would create numerous jobs, tackle climate change, strengthen national security and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.
“This is going to be a great win for Central and Southside Virginia,” Perriello said.
Legislators such as Perriello, the protesters complained, could not possibly have weighed the full implications of the massive 1,200-page bill that narrowly passed the House late last week.
The Jefferson Area Tea Party sponsored Thursday’s protest. The group held a rally at the Charlottesville Pavilion on April 15 to criticize what its members consider to be out-of-control taxing and spending by the federal government.
In the crowd at Thursday’s protest, there were several yellow Gadsden flags that depict a coiled rattlesnake and the words “Don’t Tread on Me.” Protesters held signs with such slogans as: “Hooray!! Another Political Prostitute;” “Tom Perriello is a Cap + Traitor;” and “Perriello — An Incompetent, Cowardly, Treasonous Fellow.”
Charlottesville resident Betty Sevachko said the federal government is “throwing her under the bus” with taxes and higher energy costs.
“I’m not going to let them take everything I have worked so hard for,” she said.
One protester questioned whether climate change is real, prompting a loud cheer from the crowd. “It’s a way to control us!” one man yelled.
During Perriello’s successful bid to unseat Republican Virgil H. Goode Jr. last year, one of Perriello’s top campaign promises was to position the 5th District — which stretches from the Charlottesville area down to Danville and Martinsville — at the forefront of the nation’s emerging green energy economy.
“Americans are looking for leadership and solutions,” Perriello said. “The only people against this were oil executives, Saudi princes and energy lobbyists. It wasn’t a hard decision.”
Opponents of the bill, Perriello said, are distorting the facts to further their agenda and score cheap political points. Energy costs may go up for some, he said, but costs will go down for many.
He cited a Congressional Budget Office study that found that the legislation would cost the average household $175 or less in 2020, not including any energy-efficiency savings.
“The reality is that the most people will pay is a postage stamp a day,” Perriello said.
Perriello is one of 13 Democrats in swing districts being targeted by an ad blitz by the National Republican Congressional Committee because of their support of cap-and-trade. While the NRCC has bought radio ads and is making phone calls against other Democrats, Perriello is the only congressman being targeted with TV ads.
“Tom Perriello’s vote for a job-killing national energy tax that will raise consumer costs in the midst of a recession is nothing short of appalling,” said Andy Sere, the NRCC’s regional press secretary. “The fact of the matter is, Tom Perriello proved with last week’s vote that he is categorically hostile to the values of the working families of Central and Southside Virginia.”
Perriello, Sere said, will “pay a political price next year.”
On Thursday, the NRCC’s ad against Perriello came under fire. The nonpartisan Factcheck.org found that the NRCC ad exaggerated claims against the legislation, such as the size of energy cost increases for families.
The NRCC bought airtime for the ad in the Roanoke and Lynchburg markets. According to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, WDBJ-TV of Roanoke declined to run the ad after seeing the questions raised about the ad’s accuracy.
“The NRCC has a track record of running ads so deceptive and misleading that local TV stations refuse to air them or have to remove from the airwaves,” Jessica Santillo, a regional press secretary with the DCCC, said in a statement.
“Clearly, Washington Republicans realize that the truth is not on their side so they resort to deceptive and false attack ads. Virginians deserve to hear the facts about how this bill will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, not be subject to scare tactics.”
The energy bill now heads to the U.S. Senate for consideration, though no exact date has yet been set.
The Jefferson Area Tea Party is planning another protest at 1 p.m. Saturday at Jackson Park in downtown Charlottesville.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
The Democratic majority has been trying to function in a bipartisan way but there are only a handful of moderates remaining on that side of the aisle who will participate: Collins and Snow. The rest of the Republican bench is still playing the Rovian loser’s game. So, “NotACzar”, how old will you be when the GOP learns how to govern?
Don’t sweat yourself Stamford.
Democrats will “never let a good crises go to waste”, as Rham Emanuel promised! LOL They’ll make it bigger and bigger by spending out the wahzoo, until people look back and long for the days when Republicans actually read spending bills and debated them! Oh yeah, and where is the bipartisanship? Does that go only when Democrats are in the minority? Next time it won’t, I promise you that my friend. Because we won’t let a good majority go to waste! LOL
You may not have gotten the memo, but blaming Republicans is soo last Fall. People aren’t buying it anymore. Seriously, you need to get with the times.
We wonder how “NotACzar” is so well informed about Rep. Perriello’s reading habits and his loyalties. This county is chock-a-block with bigots who support Virgil Goode’s hateful rhetoric and slit-eyed determination to deny equality to all Albemarle citizens. We very much doubt that the changing demographics in the region will countenance the reversion to the bad old days when the Klaverns ruled. The Democratic Party will move forward to restore fiscal restraint and balanced budgets as soon as the many and varied Republican disasters have been averted. Tom Perriello will continue to be a valued ally for the citizens of the 5th District.
@ antiboyd:
Master Tom, needs more than “seasoning”. He is a party puppet, voting for unread legislation, representing the DNC not the people of the 5th District. No amount of “seasoning” can cover that up. Although you get points for delicately recognizing what a klutz Perriello made of himself with this vote.
Also, “good intentions” that you think he has, aren’t going to avert the disaster the Democrats face when Americans get hit hard in the pocket books, and realize"Cap and Spend” is an expanded welfare program, via direct-deposit no less!
Goode has an excellent chance at reclaiming his seat in the next election! If we held the election today, there is no doubt that Goode would win easily.
It may be that “hayeknows”, but surely “haye” does not read. I don’t see where I advocate one type of “efficient” energy source over another, though I do wonder the basis of efficiency claims. I do advocate less waste, if that is not obvious to the most obtuse reader. I do argue for conservation. The $4/gal figure is nothing scientific, but not far out of line with imposing a price on consumption here in the US closer to what the rest of the industrail, civilized world faces. Maybe it would be more intellectually satisfying to impute the hidden costs to health, environment, the tax preferences the oil and gas industries recieve through corporate welfare, the expenditures on infrastructure that support inefficient modes of transportation, and the costs of waging war to protect oil interests—to name just a few. But, no, I like to KISS. It doesn’t tka e me 1200 pages of special interest legislation that nobody reads, or even understands, let alone fathom what will come from it. Simple supply and demand will do for me. Consuming less oil and gas IS a good thing. Taking in tax revenue, rather than shipping US dollars overseas, is an ancillary benefit—like I said, we can talk about what to do with the money.
Cap and Trade will not reduce pollution, nor consumption. Its a boondoggle. A train wreck waiting to happen. Maybe we agree on that much.
I don’t know my Lovelock from my Prufrock, and last I checked, it wasn’t pagan to be a good steward of God-given resources.
Anyway, my advice is to lay off the beer, or the fizzies, or whatever is causing you confusion.
Master Tom, indeed, needs considerable seasoning. Hopefully, with that seasoning comes a dose of humility, and an eagerness to be well-informed before opening one’s mouth. That said, he is far ahead of his predecessor in good intentions, if not practice.
Goode wasn’t [good]. That might have something to do with why he—an encumbent—was shown the exit by his constituency. With any luck, the Republican Party will get over the dual embarassment (a crumby candidate, and the loss of a seat) and find someone best qualified to represent the district. Something a shade more progressive than recruiting from the usual suspects.
Dr. Lovelock’s comments were focussed on the UK and his distaste for wind farms that would despoil the English countryside: “Most of the “green” stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It’s not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it’ll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning. I am not against renewable energy, but to spoil all the decent countryside in the UK with wind farms is driving me mad. It’s absolutely unnecessary, and it takes 2500 square kilometres to produce a gigawatt - that’s an awful lot of countryside.“ As a self-styled “optimistic pessimist” he does not think that people “react fast enough or are clever enough to handle what’s coming up.“ That is certainly true of so-called conservatives who want nothing but larger SUVs and smaller tax bills for their income bracket.
The Daily Progress documents Mr. Perriello’s misinformation or perhaps blissfully uninformed state in the quote “The only people against this were oil executives, Saudi princes and energy lobbyists.“
Those who worship at the foot of the pagan earth goddess, Gia, are well aquainted with the writings of Professor James Lovelock, the high priest (actually the author of the book Gia Hypothesis). They do not come much “greener” than that. In a recent interview reported in the New Scientist magazine, he stated “most of the green stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what the finance and industry wanted. It’s not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it will make a lot of money for a lot of people…windfarms are absolutely unnecessary…“
“antiboyd” seems happy to substitute one recipient of government subsidy for another: less efficient solar and wind for more efficient oil and gas.
In the new green lingo brought about by advice from public relations firms, clean is to be used in place of carbon or carbon doxide. So everytrhing now is in terms of clean energy. If you cannot win in the science debate, use your thesaurus to change the terminology.
President Obama now talks of “dangerous carbon emmissions that are contaminating the water we drink.“
I hope we all remember that when we drink our next beer, or soft drink; that all those bubbles of carbon dioxide have polluted that water.
Cheers!
Wow, this is a lively discussion. How fitting that a poorly written article inspire such foolish chatter.
Guess I might as well add some fuel to this fire.
Anytime we do not pay the full cost of a resource, we will tend to use too much of it. That is a no-brainer. In the case of oil, we in the US long ago set on a course which encouraged a lot of bad habits. A complete list of the bad decisions that government and business have made on our behalf would require more space—and patience—when it comes to how we have subsidized several industries through cheap oil. By the way, this is not liberal thinking, but quite conservative. As long as we are depleting what is a non-renewable resource, a policy that reduces consumption would be conservative. Similarly, conserving resources like clean air, clean water, is hardly a liberal POV. Pseudo-conservatives, in fact, horrify me. Especially as they natter liberally in the blogosphere, and most liberally dissociate their mouths from their brains.
Pollution is bad. That, too, is a no-brainer. I don’t even know why it would need further explanation.
Not all jobs are good. We could have an interesting system of “job creation” if, hypothetically, we split the available workforce in two groups, one to create, the other to destroy, set the two groups in some state of equilibrium, and voila, achieve “full employment”. Of course, that seems simplistic, and preposterous (at least I HOPE it does—javadude, I’m not so sure), but it works. I liken this example to one I encountred in real life: an engineer I once worked with, steadfastly applied himself to recovering waste and recycling it. I suggested that he might apply his sharp mind to improving the process that created so much waste. He refused (or maybe, he just did not get it), we fired him, and we put together a CQI team of workers, empowered them to make changes, and in 180 days, they found ways to reduce waste by 98 percent. One guy lost his job, dozens more got a bonus, the customer got higher quality product, the plant ran more efficiently, and I would say conservatively. Oops, did I say one guy lost his job? If every enterprise took this approach, more jobs would be lost! Not just engineers figuring out how to capture the waste, but folks to haul it away, some business to recycle or reclaim the waste, equipment manufacturers on the collecting, transporting, and recieving end—fuel not used, electricity not consumed—OMG!
If you cannot see parallels between this example, and the IDEA behind the proposed energy legislation, you may need to spend less time typing silly protests, and more time studying basic economics. We can argue about Global Warming until ____ freezes over, but it defies common sense—and conservative priciples—to stay the current course.
Me, I’d forget the Cap and Trade approach and slap a $4/gal tax on gasoline. Why, because all the bill will do, I think, is transfer wealth—it will not reduce pollution, it will not create “green” jobs, and it will not simplify anything. It WILL create unintended consequences. We can talk about how we can use that $4/gal—at least it will stay on this side of our borders.
Now, I have a bone to pick with Mr. Drake. A big one. It goes something like this: “People who live in glass houses…“—you know the rest.
If I were his child, or grandchild, I’d be saying thanks, but no thanks. This so-called “truth” squad needs a serious lesson in truth telling. Again, it would take too much time and space—perhaps there will be time later—but the stuff he’s been selling (and smoking?) is bad. He needs to have listened to Nancy Reagan (JSN).
But seriously, I’d respect his group a whole lot more if they did something truly productive toward solving problems in this community—almost anything would make me happy—instead of whining, and playing a really bad game of “potty-mouth”.
That’s not to say I am happy with our freshman Congressman; I’d only note that he has a long way to go to be as ineffectual as his predecessor. “Political Prostitute”? The proverbial pot calling the kettle black.
If the truth be known I bet everyone of the protesters was a Republican!!!!!!!!!!!
Did you know we’ve been in a series of ice ages for 3 million years? Ice at sea level anywhere on the planet. Ice age = age of ice. Ever heard “melted age”? Because earth being this cold is unusual. 20 deg F warmer is the norm for last billion years. Why is there so much oil and natural gas in polar regions, Alaska, Siberia? Didn’t used to be so cold. If environmentalists truly cared about the planet, they would want to heat it up. Some folks fear the milder arctic climate and same temps in tropics would threaten man. Mankind arose in Africa where it’s hot. Don’t pollute. But give carbon back to Mother Earth for nourishment. You can’t imagine the species kill-off caused by the abnormal ice ages of human history.
Advertisement