Democrats in the Senate want their health care reform enacted as soon as possible. If these four Republicans go the way of the Ds–and that’s not an impossible scenario–the intrusive government takeover of the health care industry may happen before the August recess. The only way we can take action and attempt to have an impact on the decision of these four Republicans is to bombard the state and federal offices with phone calls, emails, faxes and–in some cases–Twitter messages. The Democrats may have their supermajority, but with the support of these 4 people, they may not even need it.

1. According to the Associated Press, Sen. Snowe “is seen as a key swing vote on health care. She was the committee’s only Republican who declined to go on record as opposing the public option.” In fact, she supports a public option, but–at least for now–says that it should happen a few years down the road. Without a little push from grassroots conservatives, who’s to say that a liberal push won’t inspire Snowe to embrace the immediate public option government takeover.

2. Sure, there are signs that Sen. Enzi will do the right thing on health care reform, but there is no guarantee. He has still expressed an interest in compromise and until we know exactly what that means, we can’t get too comfortable.

3. Sen. Grassley is in the same boat as Enzi. There have been promising signs that he will not be “hoodwinked,” but he’s also…cranky…when it comes to any reasonable questions:

4. Sen. Hatch is another one who could do the right thing (this press release is particularly reassuring), but he could probably use some calls and emails to encourage him on that path, considering he is a close friend of Sen. Kennedy. (I’m with CATO on the idea of creating reform as a tribute to Ted.)

You can find the state and federal office phone numbers for these 4 Republican senators on their websites. You can also visit TweetCongress to put on a little virtual pressure and support.

I have to admit that I laughed out loud when I saw the title of a Talking Points Memo blog post, On Health Care: GOP is Out of Touch with Reality. Day in and day out, I’m flooded with emails, policy papers, Tweets, Facebook posts, new websites, text messages–all devoted to research and committed to stopping Congress’ plans to usher in a single-payer health care system in America. In fact, every day, everything I read suggests the opposite of the TPM post: that it is the Left that is out of touch. So yes, I laughed, but I was also interested in understand what it is the Left thinks that have on us that equips them with the energy to push intrusive programs and costly legislation upon us. I did some homework, and I think it is Talking Points Memo–and the vast majority of the Left–that is out of touch.

I’ve included the TPM post in its entirety in this post , appearing in italics, broken down by section, and refuted every step of the way with news and research conservatives need to know to refute these all too common arguments in favor of a government-run health care industry.

And, we’re off:

Last Sunday, Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell was interviewed on “Fox News Sunday” and declared, “America has the finest health care system in the world.”

Only a politician who takes his talking points from big PhRMA or the insurance industry could make such a statement in these times. Whereas during the last big health care debate many tried to make this argument, most elected Republicans would be unwilling to go out on this limb today.

First, let me point two very important things out: We do have the finest health care system in the world, and exclaiming as much does not–in any way–mean that it cannot or should not be improved. No one thinks that. Sen. McConnell definitely doesn’t think that, as he’s taken to the Senate floor over and over again to say so; it’s convenient, however, for the Left to ignore the fact that Republicans in both the House and Senate are actively promoting alternative reforms. In the House, for example, Reps. Roy Blunt, Tom Price, John Shadegg and others in the Health Care Solutions Group have been leaders among their colleagues on the issue. Each of them believes that the American health care system is a good one–and wants it to be even better.

Any number of McConnell’s floor speeches can squash this idea that Republicans are against all kinds of reform. Take this one, from Wednesday, June 10th, for example (emphasis added):

“So the need for reform is not in question. The real question is what kind of reform — the kind that makes care more affordable and accessible; or the kind that makes existing problems worse.”

At the same time, McConnell and so many others are also completely justified in their defense of American health care. From that same June 10th speech:

“One thing most people like about health care in the U.S. is the quality of cancer care that’s available here. Far too many Americans die from cancer. Yet for all the problems we have, the fact is, America boasts some of the highest cancer survival rates in the world. And that’s not the kind of thing Americans want to see change. But it could very well change if the U.S. adopts a government-run health care system along the lines of the one some are proposing.

A recent study comparing U.S. cancer survival rates with other countries found that, on average, U.S. women have a 63% chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis compared to a 54% rate for women in Britain. As for men, 66% of American males survive at least five years while 45% of British men do.”

McConnell provides more stats and evidence in that speech and in so many others, so I recommend reading through some of them over the long weekend.

Next, the PhRMA talking points accusation from TPM doesn’t make any sense. PhRMA is a major–if not the major–player of the health care industry that is cutting $80 billion dollar deals with the President and Democratic-led Congress, providing what The Politico called a “boost” to the Democrats’ health care reform efforts. I think that speaks for itself.

Let’s just examine some very simple facts:

•WE PAY MORE: According to a recent CNN report, the U.S. spends vastly more per capita for health care than many other countries. For example, we spend about six times per capita what Singapore spends. We spend about three times what Israel spends ($6,000 per capita vs. $2,000 per capita) and about twice as much as France and Germany.

This is a great point. Why do we spend so much on health care? The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle (emphasis added):

1) We pay more for our medical services. But though the pharma industry is important, the real action is in wages. Our medical personnel cost vastly more than their counterparts abroad in almost every category.

2) We consume more services. Americans get shiny new facilities–my British colleagues once derisively commented that American hospitals are “like hotels”. American hospitals don’t have open wards for almost anyone. They staff at very high levels. Doctors conduct an inordinate amount of tests. We use an expensive machine rather than watchful waiting. And often, those expensive machines catch conditions that never would have turned into anything, which we then treat. Natasha Richardson probably would have lived if she’d had an accident here, because doctors would have done a cat scan, and there would have been a Medevac helicopter available. That’s tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars to save a single life.

Still not convinced? Remember that paying more isn’t necessarily indicative of a bad thing. McArdle again:

The mindless trend extrapolation about how much we’ll spend on health care in the future elides the point that we’ll be much richer in the future; why shouldn’t we spend all that extra income on healthcare? Your ancestors spent 2/3 of their daily income on food. Now you spend about 15-20%. But spending much more of your income on clothes and housing doesn’t mean that you’re starving; it means that you’re so rich, you only spend a small fraction of your income on food.

Next up from Talking Points Memo:

•WE DIE YOUNGER: Yet, according to the same CNN source, despite spending so much our life expectancy rates are poor compared to these other nations. The citizens of the following countries (this is not a complete list since 49 nations have better life expectancy than the U.S.) have longer life expectancies than Americans:

Japan

Singapore

Australia

Canada

France

Switzerland

Israel

Italy

Spain

Austria

German

United Kingdom

Life expectancy has many different variables. That very same CNN article that TPM cites goes on to explain how innovation and economic growth are the real keys to improving life expectancy:

Frank Lichtenberg, professor of business at Columbia University, said it’s impossible to determine at this point what effect a single-payer system would have on life expectancy in the United States.

But medical innovation in general does benefit the rate at which life expectancy increases, he said.

His research has found U.S. states that adopt new drugs more rapidly, use more advanced imaging procedures, and have graduates from top medical schools, tend to have higher rates of life expectancy growth.

Also quoted in that article is Harvey Brenner, professor of public health at the University of North Texas Health Science Center and Johns Hopkins University, who adds that economic growth is “the bedrock of life expectancy.” So, let’s see: We need innovation and economic growth to increase life expectancy, yet a government takeover of the health care industry will strangle innovation.

John Stossel is worth citing here, too. He defended private innovation in his weekly, syndicated column this week:

It’s true that America’s partly profit-driven, partly bureaucratic system is expensive, and sometimes wasteful, but the pursuit of profit reduces waste and costs and gives the world the improvements in medicine that ease pain and save lives.

“[America] is the country of medical innovation. This is where people come when they need treatment,” Dr. Gratzer says.

“Literally we’re surrounded by medical miracles. Death by cardiovascular disease has dropped by two-thirds in the last 50 years. You’ve got to pay a price for that type of advancement.”

Canada and England don’t pay the price because they freeload off American innovation. If America adopted their systems, we could worry less about paying for health care, but we’d get 2009-level care — forever. Government monopolies don’t innovate. Profit seekers do.

Let’s hear it for the profit seekers! Thanks to them, my week-old niece had her heart re-wired so that blood could flow in the correct direction. Thanks to them, my brother survived a childhood of severe, sometimes debilitating asthma. Thanks to them, my 87-year-old grandpa and 80-year-old grandma live very independent and happy lives. You get the idea.

•OUR INFANTS DIE AT HIGHER RATES: According to a University of Maine paper published earlier this decade, American infants die at much higher rates than infants in 12 European countries and Japan. The U.S. ranked 26th overall among industrialized countries on this measure.

Well, that may be true. But according to, again, that same CNN article, babies in general and, in particular, high risk babies receive better care than they do under single-payer systems, like that of Scandinavia. (Emphasis is my own.)

While infant mortality rates in the 1980s and ’90s were higher in the United States than in some Scandinavian countries, low birth weight babies had better survival rates in America at the same time, he said.

“The simplest hypothesis for this paradox is that at any given birth weight, especially at the critical high risk low birth rates, American babies got better access to medical care than Scandinavian babies,” Eberstadt said.

Similarly, looking at five-year survival rates for cancer patients of any ethnicity, the U.S. generally beats European countries, he said.

Jim Hoft, the man behind the very popular blog Gateway Pundit, recently said it best in a column for American Issues Project: If the United States passes the Democrats’ suggested health care reform, where will Canada send its preemies?

We have a lot of babies in this country and I wish that more of them survived into adulthood. But the fact remains: the care is better.

Speaking of better care, TPM takes issue with that idea, too:

•ON QUALITY, ACCESS, AND EFFICIENCY THE UNITED STATES RANKS NEAR THE BOTTOM: A study released in 2007 by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States against five other countries - Australia, Canada, Germany and New Zealand. On all but one measure the United States ranked 5th or 6th among the six nations.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: If our health care advancements are the envy of the world and are hand-picked by international leaders for whom money is no object, we must be doing something right. It’s not just the wealthy politicians of the world who come here for treatment, by the way. I received an email from a reader earlier this month explaining how three of his family members from the Netherlands needed separate treatments available only through specialists in America. The government agreed to pay for the American procedures if the family would pay for their own travel expenses. This kind of partnership sounds nice, but demonstrates the fact that specialized care is often completely inaccessible under a single-payer system. Where will the Netherlands send their citizens for specialized care if we reform our system to resemble theirs?

And that’s just one example. Jim Hoft, in another American Issues Project column, recently addressed the fact that breast cancer and nationalized health care are a deadly mix.

The examples go on and on. John Stossel also addressed the idea that other nations with single-payer systems have “better” and “cheaper” care:

In England, health care is “free” — as long as you don’t mind waiting. People wait so long for dentist appointments that some pull their own teeth. At any one time, half a million people are waiting to get into a British hospital. A British paper reports that one hospital tried to save money by not changing bedsheets. Instead of washing sheets, the staff was encouraged to just turn them over.

If you haven’t already, read that entire Stossel column. It’s smart and succinct.

Talking Points Memo concluded their post with another stab at McConnell and the Republican party: “McConnell’s statement regarding our health care system is another indication that GOP leadership is not just out of touch with public opinion - it’s out of touch with reality.” It seems clear that just the opposite is true. A recent ABC News poll shows as much, finding that “fifty-eight percent don’t buy President Obama’s pledge that reform can occur without forcing people to make undesired changes in their current coverage” and “about eight in 10 are concerned that reform may reduce their quality, coverage and choice of care, and increase their costs, government bureaucracy and the federal deficit, with anywhere from 51 to 62 percent ‘very’ worried about each of these.” A majority of Americans–like Republicans–have serious concerns about the Democrats’ reforms.

The Right has its work cut out for them when it comes to blocking the Democrats’ aggressive, intrusive and costly reforms and promoting their own ideas for improvements, such as buying insurance across state lines, but it has never been more important for us to keep up our efforts. The Left is out of touch with reality and, if we win the health care debate this summer, we might be well on our way to kicking the Left out of majority control, too.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Kudos to the folks of McArthur’s Bakery in St. Louis for telling Rep. Russ Carnahan what they think about his vote on cap and trade:

DSM, a Missouri blogger I met at the Conservative Heartland Leadership Conference, got the video and has the scoop:

McArthur’s Bakery on Lemay Ferry Road, exercised their freedom of speech to protest Rep. Russ Carnahan’s (D-MO) vote in support of Cap and Tax (HR 2454). Their sign read: “Russ Carnahan voted to close us and other small business;” however, they’ve agreed to take it down pending a discussion with Rep. Carnahan.

Here’s a snippet of DSM’s interview with Randy McArthur, CEO of the bakery:

Stay tuned to DSM’s YouTube channel for additional video footage of the interview. Thanks for your work in sharing this story!

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

UPDATE: Carnahan addressed the baker’s concerns in a response to the Washington Times:

“I think there’s been confusion about the issue generally, and I think the estimates that I have seen are the fact that small businesses much like McArthur’s probably experience a dollar more per day adding up to about $365 a year, which is a small price to pay when you consider it would give our country energy independence, which we have been working towards for some time now.”

Gateway Pundit had a great response to this: “The response by Carnahan, of course, was inaccurate. The Democrats cap and trade bill will decimate the economy and result in the loss of nearly 4 million jobs all in the name of junk science. ”

After 7 long months, Al Franken was declared the winner of Minnesota’s 2nd Senate seat today.

I’m disappointed in the results out of Minnesota–and in the interest of being polite, I’ll end my comments about the results themselves there. It is fitting, however, to call my readers’ attention to something that Sen. Norm Coleman said earlier this month.

From my own contribution to the American Issues Project blog:

“It takes bulldog courage to overcome obstacles,” said Sen. Norm Coleman this afternoon at the Conservative Heartland Leadership Conference in St. Louis, Mo., an event which American Issues Project sponsored. Encouraging conservatives with an incredible sense of optimism–both for the future of America and the outcome for his own, still-undecided Senate race–Coleman encouraged the crowd to “outwork our competition” and added that “a single act of goodness can tip the scales.”

Coleman displayed that very bulldog courage today at his press conference. Listening in via Minnesota Public Radio online, I couldn’t help but sense that he was genuinely at peace–or, at least, relieved–and ready to move forward.

What an incredible example this presents to those of us who’ve felt discouraged over and over again by the 2008 election results and the aftermath. Coleman, a man with every right to be bitter and cynical, instead joked about his bad luck with fishing and shared his family’s faith in a higher plan; conservatives too should embrace their place as happy warriors.

Let’s renew the focus to “outwork our competition. Health care is a central legislative battle of the summer, and I’m pledging to keep information available on my blog that will help you take action against these expansive and expensive reforms. On Wednesday, look for a factual refutation of a popular liberal blog post and, later this week, expect to find details about the Republican senators that need a push from their constituents to use common sense.

Who knows? A little bulldog courage may go a long way.

On Friday, 44 Democrats voted against cap-and-trade legislation in the House. I want to congratulate those who did so because the legislation is far-reaching, job-destroying, and costly–but it is worth distinguishing the list of Ds into who voted “no” because the bill was bad and who voted “no” because the bill wasn’t liberal enough. Some of you may have heard, for example, that Greenpeace came out against the legislation; while many Republicans–at least on Twitter–used this as proof that the bill was terrible, these greenies thought the bill didn’t do enough for climate change and didn’t punish business owners polluters with enough taxes.

So, who had the good sense to call this bill what it is: an energy tax on hard-working families and job-creating businesses? And who is farther Left than Speaker Pelosi and President Obama?

Below you’ll find the list of 44 Ds, broken into groups of Naughty and Nice. When it comes time for Santa to vote, he better check this list twice.

Wait. What does this list mean for me, a conservative Republican or Independent against cap and trade? If your representative is on the nice list, give them a call and thank them for speaking truth to Pelosi’s power. Thank them for representing the needs of their constituents above pressure from their party. Our leaders need encouragement when they do the right thing; maybe next time a tax increase comes before your Democrat representative, he or she will remember what you said when you called. If you have liberal friends who are willing to listen to reason on this issue, ask them to call, too.

If you find your representative on the naughty list, give them a call, as well. Politely express your disagreement with their vote and encourage them to bear in mind the fiscal burden already on the shoulders of their constituents next time around.

The Nice List

Jason Altmire, 4th district, Pennsylvania.- “As our country struggles to recover from a severe economic recession, this legislation would raise energy prices for western Pennsylvania families.”

John Barrow, 12th district, Georgia - As vice chair of Blue Dogs’ energy task force, Barrow’s vote didn’t surprise anyone. In fact, Americans for Prosperity commended him for his early stance against the bill in committee and encouraged the other Georgia representatives to follow in his stead.

Dan Boren, 2nd District, Oklahoma - “Frankly, since I’ve been in Congress, this is one of the worse pieces of legislation I’ve ever seen.” Amen to that.

Chris Carney, 10th district, Pennsylvania - “Surely we can find a way to address these critical issues without burdening hard-working Americans with a tax increase and without passing along increased energy bills to consumers. Increased energy costs would be a devastating blow to families across Northeastern and Central Pennsylvania, especially now as we are all struggling to turn our economy around.”

Travis Childers, 1st district, Mississippi - “While I commend the Administration’s and House leadership’s commitment to legislation intended to promote conservation and energy independence, I could not in good conscience vote for a bill that could significantly raise costs for hard working American families and producers - specifically the agriculture industry - during today’s difficult economic times.”

Jerry Costello, 12th district, Illinois - According to TheSouthern.com, “[Costello] has said that he too believes it will result in higher electric bills.”

Kathy Dahlkemper, 3rd district, Pennsylvania - It’s true that Dahlkemper thinks “global climate change remains one of the most serious concerns facing the United States and the world today,” but she makes the Nice List because she gets it when it comes to cap and trade. From the Meadville Tribune: “Because ‘heavy manufacturing and steel production are crucial industries to the economic vitality, jobs and families of northwestern Pennsylvania,’ Dahlkemper said, ‘the legislation will leave these jobs vulnerable to countries like China and India that are not subject to cap-and-trade laws.’”

Artur Davis, 7th district, Alabama - This one liner from the congressman-running-for-governor sums it all up: “This bill is still going to wreak havoc with the manufacturing sector in some parts of the country.” Watch this C-SPAN video for more about his opposition to the bill, in his own words:

Lincoln Davis, 4th district, Tennessee - Davis didn’t take a solid, this-is-an-energy-tax stance, but he does recognize that it’s bad for business in his state–and that’s good enough for me. According to Nashville Public Radio, “Under cap and trade, Davis says power companies in states like Tennessee would likely scramble to buy unused credits from their Western counterparts: ‘You wanna put a cap? Fine. But I’m not for shifting that dollar somewhere else and give them the economic advantage.’”

Joe Donnelly, 2nd district, Indiana - “The legislation has too many uncertainties in terms of the effect it would have on manufacturers and other businesses and the Hoosiers they employ. In particular, I am very concerned that the bill would put us at a competitive disadvantage relative to other emerging economic powers like China and India.” (Good call, Donnelly, considering The Heritage Foundation estimates that Indiana has the most to lose from this legislation.)

Chet Edwards, 17th district, Texas - “I voted against the energy cap and trade bill, because I am concerned it could increase gasoline and utility costs for families, farmers and businesses during tough economic times. Addressing global warming is a laudable goal, but I respectfully disagree with President Obama and Speaker Pelosi on this bill and believe it could cost jobs and hurt the economy, especially in oil, gas and coal producing states such as Texas.”

Brad Ellsworth, 8th district, Indiana - “I am deeply concerned about the unintended consequences this bill may have on consumers and businesses in Indiana. We don’t know how these policies will ultimately impact utility bills, job prospects and the strength of our economy down the road.”

Parker Griffith, 5th district, Alabama - “I am concerned about the negative impact this legislation would have on our economy, the state of Alabama and our nation.  … Everyone can agree on the long term goals of greener energy, but there is a cheaper and better way to do this without burdening Alabama consumers.” Griffith gets bonus points for calling out the fact that nuclear energy isn’t part of the legislation’s green energy efforts.

Ann Kirkpatrick, 1st district, Arizona - “Right now, we need to make some tough choices, and our first priority has to be keeping folks employed and getting our economy back on track. We need to focus on jumpstarting our economy and creating jobs, and this legislation will work against that goal at a critical time.”

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota (at large) - According to the Argus Leader, “Herseth Sandlin said she heard from several utilities ‘that the allowances for emissions in the bill still aren’t fairly distributed and this disparity could mean dramatic rate hikes for its customers in South Dakota.’” Plus, she criticized the House leadership’s speed: “The stakes are simply too high for a rushed solution that can potentially create more problems than it solves.”

Eric Massa, 29th district, New York -  “I was also deeply concerned by the fact that hydrogen fuel cell technology did not receive any attention in this legislation. Additionally, my constituents have told me in overwhelming levels that they wanted me to reject this plan, and as their Representative, I take their opinions very seriously. I was also upset by how rushed this process was. We have a district work week coming up and I would have liked the opportunity to hold more town hall meetings while this issue is on the front burner to hear what the families of Western New York thought about Cap and Trade.” Like his South Dakota colleague, Massa had the courage to say, in so many words, “Hey, what’s the rush?”

Jim Matheson, 2nd district, Utah - A Salt Lake Tribune editorial, referring to Matheson’s no vote on the bill in committee stages, conceded that he “represents a district with heavily Republican pockets that depend on coal mining and coal-fired power plants,” but chided him for “plac[ing] coal, oil and gas interests ahead of his constituents’ and fear of change ahead of faith in American ingenuity.” Am I going out on a limb here by saying that the coal mining and coal-fired power plants provide a heckuva lot of jobs in the area? How then is it that siding with business is incongruent with the constituency?

Mike McIntyre, 7th district, North Carolina - “God’s beautiful earth must be protected and preserved, but this bill is not the answer. It will cost jobs, increase electricity rates, pass on financial burdens to the next generation, and hurt ourselves in this global economy. It would potentially allow more jobs to go overseas to countries who do not comply with the same standards.” Imagine that: a reasonable list of objections without the usual “but, of course, climate change is a serious issue” disclaimer. And no, before someone accuses me of it, he didn’t automatically make the nice list by mentioning God.

Charlie Melancon, 3rd district, Louisiana - “The oil and gas industry is the engine driving south Louisiana’s economy, providing good-paying jobs to hundreds of thousands of our workers for generations. Rising sea levels and more frequent hurricanes are serious threats to south Louisiana, threats caused by climate change. We must work together as a nation to reduce the pollution causing this climate change, but not on the back of our energy industry in Louisiana.” Weather caused Hurricane Katrina, not climate change, but his strong defense of Louisiana’s oil and gas industry is commendable nonetheless.

Alan Mollohan, 1st district, West Virginia - Kudos to Mollohan for remaining loyal to his coal county constituents. “For the past several weeks, I have joined the electric utility industry, the coal industry, the United Mine Workers of America, and other coal state Representatives on negotiations to improve the legislation. We have made significant progress on a number of fronts that together would hold down the cost of electricity to residential and industrial consumers, that would help level the playing field for our steel and manufacturing industries that face international competition, and that would enable the electric power industry to continue to burn West Virginia coal. As a result of our efforts, the bill is much improved from the original draft, but it still falls short in several key areas, and I cannot support it.”

Earl Pomeroy, North Dakota (at large) - “I’m here to represent North Dakota and we only have one guy: me. I know how badly the speaker wants this bill, but I have a job to do.” America’s Grandma, take that.

Nick Joe Rahall, 3rd district, West Virginia -  “Coal does much more than keep the lights on in big cities across America. In southern West Virginia, it covers the mortgage, puts food on the family dinner table, and keeps open the doors of small businesses. While the emissions target in the early years of this program has been lowered from the 20 percent cap initially contained in this bill, there remains widespread concern that even the reduced cap — 17 percent in 2020 — is still too high and too soon to incentivize rapid development and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technologies, so as to ensure coal mining jobs for the future.” A reservation worth noting: Rahall opposes the bill because the carbon cap would kill coal mining jobs in his district, but seems open to a lower carbon ceiling.

John Salazar, 3rd district, Colorado - “I cannot support dramatically increasing utility rates on my constituents at a time when I feel the economy is just starting to stabilize across the state.”

John Taylor, 8th district, Tennessee -  “We realize action is needed to address our country’s energy needs, lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy, and ensure good stewardship of our environment. This legislation, however, is not the best approach and does not come at the right time. Many of us are hopeful the Senate will produce legislation that addresses these goals without the negative impact the House-passed bill could have on the 8th District.” Tanner has been maddeningly vague about his vote on the energy tax, but he is the proud co-founder of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats, who were queasy about the bill’s price tag.

Gene Taylor, 4th district, Mississippi - “I do not believe a cap and trade system is the approach that is best to reduce global warming gases. As a matter of fact, I think it is a simple ‘Ponzi Scheme’ that will increase energy prices.”

Pete Visclosky, 1st district, Indiana - Visclosky acknowledges the effect of rising energy prices and job losses among his blue-collar constituents. “Although significant progress has been made on this bill on a number of fronts that would hold down the cost of electricity to residential and industrial customers and help level the playing field for our steel and manufacturing industries that face international competition, the bill still falls short.”

Charlie Wilson, 6th district, Ohio - “I told [Pelosi] I’ve been with you on the stimulus package, the budget. . . children’s health care. . .everything you’ve asked me be with you on. This is a vote against the people I represent. I can’t do it.” Good call, considering the steel and coal jobs in his district that would be on the line.

The Naughty List

Michael Arcuri, 24th district, New York - Arcuri voted against the bill, but with no statement or justification behind it, so I’m presuming that he’s not against the bill because it is an energy tax. I’m happy to be proven wrong on this one.

Marion Berry, 1st district, Arkansas - It’s almost impossible to find anything from Berry regarding the cap and trade bill. Let’s hope the large number of rural voters in his district lit up his phones.

Bobby Bright, 2nd district, Alabama - Bright voted no at the very end, presumably when he knew the bill would pass and he was safe from Democratic criticism.

Jim Costa, 20th district, California - From the good people at Flash Report: “Sources in the capitol tell me that once it became apparent that cap and trade was going to pass, Costa got a ‘pass’ to vote no.” Plus, Costa has voted with party leadership 97.9 percent of the time in 2009; this didn’t factor into others rankings on this list, but it sure doesn’t gain Costa the benefit of the doubt either.

Peter DeFazio, 4th district, Oregon - Greenpeace, meet your BFF. In his own words: “An unregulated cap-and-trade system could be the next subprime mortgage bubble. In the next decade we could easily be talking about ‘subprime carbon,’ ‘carbon default swaps,’ and ‘junk carbon.’” His press release on the issue also states: “In Europe, emissions continue to rise despite $60 billion worth of allowances being traded in the lucrative market every year.  DeFazio has been a long time critic of an unregulated market-based approach to address climate change, pointing to the potential for market manipulation, speculation, and profiteering.” DeFazio’s vote against cap and trade is a signal of his distrust in a “market-based approach,” not a stance against unfair energy taxes.

Bill Foster, 14th district, Illinois - Yes, Foster acknowledges a cost concern, but he wants tougher legislation that would further punish (read: tax) polluters.

Tim Holden, 17th district, Pennsylvania - He indicated early on that he was a “definite no,” but never clarified his opposition or publicly condemned the bill.

Larry Kissell, 8th district, North Carolina - His spokesperson announced that Kissell will be opposing the bill, but no statement or reasoning was ever released by his office.

Dennis Kucinich, 10th district, Ohio - No one is surprised here. “It sets targets that are too weak, especially in the short term, and sets about meeting those targets through Enron-style accounting methods. It gives new life to one of the primary sources of the problem that should be on its way out “coal” by giving it record subsidies. And it is rounded out with massive corporate giveaways at taxpayer expense. There is $60 billion for a single technology which may or may not work, but which enables coal power plants to keep warming the planet at least another 20 years.”

Jim Marshall, 8th district, Georgia - Marshall refused to take a position on the bill well into the debate and has made no strong statements of principle against it.

Walt Minnick, 1st district, Idaho - Minnick’s comment starts off great, but then rapidly makes a bizarre U-turn from fiscal conservatism and proposes what amounts to a pseudo-Marxist pollution tax. See for yourself: “‘Cap and trade’ is not the best way to control greenhouse gas emissions, nor is it the right solution for Idaho. It will raise prices, make it harder to invest and is bad for business at a time when we must be focused on creating jobs. … We should also tax the biggest polluters and rebate the proceeds to their customers. That will create market stability, and will help business know their costs. There will be less greenhouse gases, but consumers will avoid higher prices at the pump and in their monthly electric bills.”

Harry Mitchell, 1st district, Arizona - “This bill literally re-commits the United States to coal, a step backwards at a time when it is vitally important for us to move forward. Clean, renewable energy should be our chief priority, not fossil fuels. In Arizona, this bill asks us to pay more for our energy, but fails to deliver what is necessary to help us grow our emerging solar industry. I introduced an amendment to improve the bill to make financing more available for solar energy. However, my amendment was blocked and didn’t receive a vote.” Let’s see: Mitchell voted against the bill because it insufficiently damaged the coal industry and didn’t provide enough funding for solar panel fantasies. Mitchell is no friend to the free market and he’s no friend of mine.

Glenn Nye, 2nd district, Virginia - Nye seems to have given no definitive press release or quote on the cap and trade bill.

Solomon P. Ortiz, 27th district, Texas - Ortiz pledged Pelosi he would vote yes, but then voted no at the last minute. Another backbone gone missing.

Ciro Rodriguez, 23rd district, Texas - Fearful of Hoyer’s and Pelosi’s wrath, Rodriguez pledged to vote for the bill, then cast a “no” vote and sprinted from the House chamber, according to the Politico. Rodriguez has since remained unavailable for comment and has released no press release on the topic. Grow a backbone.

Mike Ross, 4th district, Arkansas - “This cap-and-trade bill fails to create any new energy and disproportionately hurts rural areas like Arkansas. That is why on Tuesday, I introduced a bill, the American-Made Energy Act of 2009, H.R. 3009, which proposes to create new energy by calling for the single largest investment in American-made alternative and renewable energy in our nation’s history, while increasing our domestic oil and natural gas production here at home using new, 21st century technologies that allow us to recover the oil and natural gas we need and be good stewards of the environment.” Ross’ place on the list is debatable because he is worried about his district, but the fact that he introduced another bill funneling unprecedented amounts of taxpayer money to new energy sources amidst a skyrocketing deficit makes him naughty.

Pete Stark, 13th district, California - “I commend the emission reduction targets laid out in the legislation. I am not convinced, however, that these targets will be met in the near future due to the many loopholes and dubious offset provisions contained in the bill. This bill unfortunately continues the Congressional tradition of subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. Only this time it is cloaked in the disguise of environmentalism and the subsidies come in the form of free allowances, institutionalization of the “clean coal” fiction, and the gutting of EPA authority.” Stark, a mean-spirited left-winger, thinks there’s too much free market and not enough government regulation in the bill.

***

Most expect that cap and trade will not make it through the Senate, but we can’t bank on that. Is your senator is on the fence about cap and trade? Do a little homework–and post a comment below or contact me via e-mail or Twitter and let me know what you plan to do about it.

Update: Why wait to contact your representative? Below you’ll find a useful tool that allows you to contact your legislators through social networks and express your concern about cap and trade, energy dependence and more. Thanks to @JennL for sharing this resource with me.

Matt Purple contributed to the research for this post.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

There’s a trend on Twitter where people send messages on Fridays recommending some of the people they follow to their followers. If you’re not a Twitter person, in plain English, people recommend other interesting people to their online friends.

One of the people whom I follow and respect is Barry Moltz, who was kind enough to invite me onto his radio show earlier this year. Today, in honor of Follow Friday, he posted a blog entry listing 16 smart business people.

Following his lead, I’ve compiled a list of 16 smart conservatives, writers and/or business people–I’m counting Barry in the mix–who have taught me something this year and have something to offer you.

Amy Menefee: Formerly of The Galen Institute and now with Americans for Prosperity, Amy is a great resource for all things health care. If you’re worried about the unfair government takeover of health care, you should read the resources she shares via Twitter.

Bettina Inclan: I’m so thrilled to know Bettina, former executive director for the Republican National Hispanic Assembly (among other things), in no small part because I’m proud to know immigrants in America have such an intelligent ally. The Republican Party should be the natural fit for immigrants who seek the American Dream and, with Bettina’s help, the GOP at large might finally embrace that role.

Rep. Tom Price: Earlier this year, I heard this congressman from Georgia say, “I know in my gut that the American people don’t want what’s happening.” Turn to him for health care information; not only is he a smart man, he’s also a physician who understands the real damage pending health care proposals could have on American patients and medical professionals alike.

Tony Messenger: I was a fan of Tony’s before he hit the big time and was hired by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. He’s always struck me as refreshingly fair and honest, and I trust his reporting more than most. For Missouri political reporting, he’s your guy.

Brian Faughnan: Brian writes for Red State and the Weekly Standard blog, and I’ve always been impressed that–no joke–every time I read his work, I learn something. Every time. So when I had the chance to meet him at CPAC earlier this year, I seized the opportunity to have him on my team. A good editor surrounds herself with writers that make her look good–and I’m humbled to edit Brian’s weekly column for my client, American Issues Project.

Todd Herman: I only got to know Todd yesterday, but I’ve already learned from him. He’s the New Media Czar for the Republican National Committee (i.e., director of new media) and has a savvy background with Microsoft and MSNBC Interactive, which he’s quit to point out is not quite the same as MSNBC the cable channel. Republicans are in good hands.

Kirsten Wright: Kirsten is no stranger to readers of this blog; she created the design of my blog, contributed her own writing skills and helped transform my blog into something purposeful. She’s a creative guru and writes one of my favorite blogs. You will learn something from her; I do every day.

Frank Canzolino: Frank reminds us all that the Renaissance Man doesn’t have to be a thing of the past. He’s a former political campaign manager, engineer, physics teacher, carpenter and small businessman–and has recently added blogger to his roles. He knows his stuff and he’s not afraid to share that knowledge with those who will listen.

Melissa Clouthier: She said yesterday, to an audience of Republican women, that she is just a mom. But that’s not the case. She’s a great mom and loving wife, yes, but she’s also a dedicated physician, insightful writer and hilarious confidant. If you aren’t familiar with her work, you should be.

Melissa Clouthier and I at CPAC 2009

David Hauptmann: David has a great eye for cutting through the noise of the news and sharing what really resonates. I find myself forwarding along so much of what he shares on Twitter. (He’s a Senate Republican staffer, but recognize that his Tweets represent his personal opinion and not that of his employer.) His updates are password protected, but it’s worth seeing if he’ll let you into his world of knowledge.

Jon Henke: I’m a fan of Jon’s kids-say-the-darndest-things Tweets, but you should really follow him on Twitter because of his Thoughts (yes, with a capital T). He also seems to understand what the Left does right online better than anyone else on the Right. He’s a man with incredible common sense and, in a sphere where that’s often uncommon, it doesn’t go unnoticed.

Phil Kerpen: When there’s a critical vote on Capitol Hill that demands action, count on Phil to keep you in the know. Today, for instance, he’s leading the way on Twitter with the status of the cap and trade (or, #capntax) vote and directives for taking action.

Darren Rowse: Whether you’re just starting a blog or you’re an old pro, everyone can learn from Darren. I liked his 31 Days to a Better Blog book so much that I signed up as an affiliate seller; consider purchasing it as an inexpensive but significant investment in your online writing career.

Grover Norquist: He’s not new to the sphere of politics by any means, but I learned something in particular from Grover this year that bears repeating: Politicians need to hear from their constituents when they do the right thing, and not only when they’re on the fence. It’s a tough business and we, as citizens, need to provide a backbone for the folks we don’t want to break under the weight of the system. That may be a small thing, but it stuck with me and changed the way I look at both the politicians I support and those with whom I disagree.

Matt Rooney: If you’re rooting for a Republican victory in New Jersey this year, Matt’s blog Save Jersey is the place to be. Matt is an old friend from college and has quickly turned his blog into must-read material for activists and politicos in the Garden State.

Via Facebook:

“Join Roy Blunt for a special event this Saturday, June 20, with Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder and former U.S. Senator Jim Talent.

The event will be held on Saturday at 11:00 a.m. at the Hilton St. Louis Frontenac in the Ambassador Ballroom. The address is 1335 South Lindbergh, St. Louis, 63131. Please join us for this special event and show your support for Roy!”

I think it’s safe to assume that this event will include endorsement announcements from both Kinder and Talent. Missouri Republicans should be very excited. I’m stuck in Virginia tomorrow, but if you’re in the area, grab your camera and head over to the event. If you post pictures or comments on  your own blogs, Facebook, or Twitter, be sure to let me know and I’ll link.

Those of you who followed my first blog, Elocutio (via Townhall.com), might recall that I got started blogging more or less because of Jim Talent’s 2006 Senate race. I wrote about it daily, volunteered for the campaign, and earned myself a ticket to a full-time job with Townhall because of my coverage of the race and the stem cell amendment in Missouri that year. I only mention this to impress the serious respect I have for Jim Talent and his career. If he’s with Blunt, I am, too. If you’re not familiar with the work he’s doing these days–largely on missile defense–know that it is unmatched.

I ran into him at the airport here in D.C. not too long ago, and among other things, said, “I hope we’ll see you again soon.” He smiled and replied, “I hope so, too.” With any luck, Talent will be joining Roy Blunt in the Senate in just a few years.

I saw an advance screening of The Stoning of Soraya M. tonight, and it got me thinking about all the freedoms that I take for granted. For those who don’t know, Stoning is the true story of the murder of an innocent Iranian woman, condemned to death by her husband’s greed and lust.

I’m purchasing the book immediately myself; you can buy the paperback or the hardcover version of the real story, as told to an Iranian-French journalist and first published in 1994 –via Amazon.

Leaving the showing this afternoon at the Capitol Hill Business Center, driving to the ESL class I teach to adult immigrants working hard for liberty and opportunity for themselves and their families, I couldn’t help but feel overwhelmed thinking about all things I did today that other women around the world can’t do, things I never stop to think  twice about.

I woke up in my own apartment. I read news online and checked my email. I looked up airline travel specials. I emailed an intern of one of my clients and told her (another woman) what to do today. I wore pants. I drove out of my state and into the capital city of the country, twice today: once, to attend a political meeting, where I applauded a rising politician, shook hands with a movie producer and was invited to interview a politician from Australia. I worked. I bought what I wanted for lunch when I wanted it. I watched a movie about human rights violations on the property of the federal government. I taught immigrants how to speak English. I drove fast and listened to my favorite music. I ate a cheeseburger. I sent my brother a text message. I talked to my boyfriend on the phone about political concerns.

I can’t count the number of times I expressed my opinion.

I can’t count the number of times I made eye contact with men, some of whom were strangers.

Any number of things that I did today could create serious trouble for women in other parts of the world.

Until today, I don’t think I ever stopped to think about if women were still stoned around the world. After watching it in the film, I can tell you with complete honesty that it’s worse than you think. And it’s still happening today in parts of the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

Soraya was stoned in the late 1980s. I’m a young person, and that means my lifetime. While I was a little girl watching The Little Mermaid and being told I could do anything I set my mind to, two other little girls were growing up without their innocent mother.

That’s all I’ll say about the movie for now, as I’m working on a review. I’ll leave you with the trailer for the film. Soraya haunts me, but I want to see the movie again on the big screen when I’m able, and I want to write about this more. Like Soraya’s brave aunt says in the film, “The world will know.”