A recently published article in The Washington Post asserted that Brown “consistently votes on the wrong side on energy interests and in favor of the Obama agenda.” One such vote from the irresponsible Brown-Obama energy agenda was his enthusiastic support to begin debate on cap-and-trade legislation in 2008.
Under the reckless cap-and-trade energy tax agenda that Brown supported, the average Ohio family would incur a cost of more than $1,700, or an equivalent of facing a 15% tax increase. Not only would cap-and-trade increase taxes, but it also threatens to make Ohio’s precarious employment situation significantly worse. One non-partisan think tank found that under cap-and-trade, Ohio could stand to lose over 195,000 much-needed jobs. Brown’s vote to support Obama’s reckless cap-and-trade program is just one more reason his 95% voting record with President Obama is wrong for Ohio.
According An Article Published By The Washington Post, Brown “Consistently Votes On The Wrong Side On Energy Interests And In Favor Of The Obama Agenda.” “The good news for Josh Mandel, the Republican challenger to Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) is that he is running against a career politician at a time when career politicians are greatly out of favor. Brown, for that matter, consistently votes on the wrong side on energy interests and in favor of the Obama agenda.” (Jennifer Rubin, Op-Ed, “Josh Mandel Thinks He Can Win This,” The Washington Post, 6/5/12)
In 2008, Brown Voted For The Cloture Motion On The Lieberman-Warner Cap-And-Trade Bill. “Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the motion to proceed to the bill that would cap greenhouse gas emissions nationwide and set up a trading system for companies to buy and sell emissions allowances.” (S. 3036, CQ Vote #141: Adopted 74-14: R 32-13; D 40-1; I 2-0, 6/2/08, Brown Voted Yea)
- The Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill Marked The First Time Cap-And-Trade Legislation Made It To Senate Floor For Consideration. “Senators voted 74-14 to proceed to debate on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036), which aims to control global warming through the establishment of a federal cap-and-trade scheme. The debate marks the first times such legislation has come to the floor in either chamber after passing through a committee.” (Geof Koss, “Senate Launched Historic Climate Change Debate,” CongressNow, 6/2/08)
- After The Vote, Brown Said That Climate Change Is “The Defining Issue Of A Generation” And Argued For “An Immediate Mandatory, Cap-And-Trade Policy.” “We have an opportunity to address the defining issue of a generation, and to do that in a way that is economically responsible. Done right, this legislation can stem the tide of destructive climate change and create new green jobs in Ohio. Done wrong, this bill could accelerate already devastating job loss in Ohio and in manufacturing states across the nation. We need an immediate mandatory, cap-and-trade policy to solve the problem of climate change. We also need to invest in alternative energy development and manufacturing in Ohio. It is not a matter of ‘if’ a climate change bill passes, but ‘when.’ Ohio’s interest must be represented in any final climate change bill.” (Sen. Sherrod Brown, “Brown Votes To Begin Debate On Climate Change Bill,” Press Release, 6/2/08)
An Obama Administration Study Concluded That Cap-And-Trade Would Be The Equivalent Of A 15 Percent Tax Increase, Or $1,761 On Average Per Family. “The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent. A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.” (Declan McCullagh, “Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year,” The Associated Press, 9/15/09)
A Report By The Economic Policy Institute Estimates That 195,200 Jobs In Ohio Could Be In Jeopardy Under Proposed Climate-Change Legislation. “The report, produced by the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank, estimated that 4.1 million jobs nationally could be at risk under proposed climate-change legislation. The institute focuses its research on how policies affect low- and middle-income families. The report estimates that 3.6 percent of Ohio’s workforce, or 195,200 jobs, could be in jeopardy. That means Ohio ranks No. 3 out of 51, including the District of Columbia, in the number of jobs supported by energy-intensive manufacturing industries. Ranked by share of state employment, Ohio is ninth.” (Emily Mullin, “Report Claims ‘Cap-And-Trade’ Endangers Thousands Of Ohio Jobs,” The Athens News, 10/8/09)
- The Economic Policy Institute In A Non-Profit, Non-Partisan Think Tank. “The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a non-profit, non-partisan think tank, was created in 1986 to broaden discussions about economic policy to include the needs of low- and middle-income workers.” (Economic Policy Institute Website, www.epi.org, Accessed 6/5/12)
Brown Has Supported Obama An Average Of 95 Percent Of The Time:
In 2011, Brown Supported Obama 92 Percent Of The Time. (CQ Voting Studies, www.media.cq.com, Accessed 3/21/12)
In 2010, Brown Supported Obama 98 Percent Of The Time. (CQ Voting Studies, www.innovation.cq.com, Accessed 3/21/12)
In 2009, Brown Supported Obama 96 Percent Of The Time. (CQ Voting Studies, www.innovation.cq.com, Accessed 3/21/12)