Finding Ulysses

When Trumansburg Democrats voted for Congressman Mike Arcuri in 2006 and 2008, did they think they were voting for someone who would help Republican politicians block action on climate change? That’s just what happened yesterday, as Representative Arcuri voted with the Republicans yet again. This time, Arcuri was trying to prevent H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which would establish a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next generation.

Congressman Arcuri made the following argument in defense of his opposition to the Obama-backed climate legislation: “We all know that New York state already has some of the highest electricity rates in the country, and if those rates were to dramatically increase as a result of this legislation, it would almost certainly cost jobs in Upstate New York and discourage new businesses from locating here.”

To anyone with a scrap of critical thinking skills, this argument is plain nonsense. A national bill that creates a national cap-and-trade system won’t discriminate against Upstate New York unless industries here decide to continue to pollute the atmosphere. That’s not a regime under which new businesses would be discouraged from locating in our region.

Besides that, our expenses won’t be significantly affected by the American Clean Energy and Security Act, if it passes the Senate. That’s not my opinion. It’s the judgment of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has calculated that the American American will only have an increase in expenses of 48 cents per day resulting from the legislation. Furthermore, that judgment does not take into account the increasing economic burden created by climate change.

Michael Arcuri’s claims just don’t match the facts. Either Arcuri isn’t aware of the facts, or he doesn’t care about them, and doesn’t think that we’ll be able to tell the difference. Whichever is the case, Arcuri’s actions in opposition of the American Clean Energy and Security Act demonstrate that he is unsuited to the responsibilities of representing our district in the U.S. House of Representatives. He has repeatedly voted against the progressive values of our community, and merits a progressive challenge for the 2010 election, either from within the Democratic Party, or from without.