Special Report
Has Obama Killed Carbon Cap and Trade?
Tax collection trumps the environment.
President Obama has driven a stake in the heart of his carbon cap-and-trade program. By transforming it from a relatively cost-effective environmental program into a cash cow to finance his ambitious health and social welfare agenda, he has encumbered it with very expensive baggage. Blue Dog Democrats and conservation-minded Republicans will gag on its cost to an economy now racked by recession.
In broadening the goal of cap-and-trade legislation from the paramount goal of reducing Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), primarily carbon, and mitigating climate change, to that of raising, conservatively, well over $600 billion in revenue for his social programs, the President has raised the ante on this ambitious proposal. He has guaranteed a contentious fight in Congress, strong Democratic majorities notwithstanding.
A clear sign of what is to come was a February 3rd statement by Senator Bob Corker (R-TN): “I believe there is a growing bipartisan agreement that all of the revenues generated from a cap-and-trade tax should be returned to the American people.”
Evidently, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, both of which supported the President’s stimulus package, are drawing a line in the sand over the proposed cap-and-trade program.
Most economists who have studied the matter of mitigating climate change and the daunting challenge of reducing GHG emissions have focused on two major policy options: carbon taxes and cap-and-trade programs. The former is more transparent than the latter and, therefore, less popular with politicians.
There are two variants of the carbon tax option. There is one that is designed to generate revenues and another that is “revenue-neutral.” The latter one is the preferred option from the perspective of economic efficiency and is defensible on supply-side and security grounds, independent of climate concerns, since it contemplates off-setting tax cuts in either marginal income and corporate tax rates or Social Security taxes. In other words, the government does not gain any significant additional revenue. Any income generated from the carbon tax is returned to taxpayers and plowed back into the economy.
A revenue-neutral carbon tax shifts taxation away from income and productivity (“distortionary taxes”) in favor of taxing emissions, pollution and waste. It encourages energy efficiency, a cost saver, while reducing the nation’s reliance on international energy markets controlled by less than friendly petroleum states. It is an example of a “No Regrets” response to scientific uncertainty and a changing climate without putting the entire economy at risk. It provides time for the economy to grow, science to mature and new technologies to emerge.
“No Regrets” approaches recognize that there is certainly climate variability out there without resolving ultimate issues as to causality (human or natural) or duration (permanent or cyclical). For instance, a water utility manager in the western United States has to adapt to drought, increased forest fires, and less mountain snowpack, which impacts the quality and quantity of water supplies in reservoirs no matter the ultimate cause.
Jack Kemp once said, “If you tax something, you get less of it. If you subsidize something, you get more of it.” A revenue-neutral carbon tax would give us less pollution, reduced energy intensity and more growth and efficiency while preserving political transparency.
Carbon cap-and-trade is the other market-based instrument offered by economists and policy specialists. The concept is simple in theory, less so in practice. A cap or reduction target is set for carbon or GHG emissions that can be achieved in a flexible, least-cost manner by regulated industries. Newer or more efficient operations can over-control and sell credits, say, to older, less efficient plants that may not find it economically feasible to control their emissions. It avoids one-size-fits-all regulation or overkill in favor of a flexible system that takes advantage of control-cost differentials between different sources of emissions.
The poster child for cap-and-trade programs is the one set up to control acid rain and sulfur dioxide emissions in the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act supported by the first Bush administration. This program yielded tremendous results at a fraction of anticipated costs.
Whether or not the government should give away or sell carbon allowances or credits in the start-up of a cap-and-trade program is the tricky part. If the idea is to put a price on carbon and create incentives for reducing carbon emissions, selling or auctioning the allowances makes sense. However, this drives up the costs for taxpayers and energy utility ratepayers with deleterious consequences for the economy. In functional terms, it has the same effect on the productive sector as any other tax.
What’s the solution? Basically, the most economically efficient response is similar to the revenue-neutral carbon tax: return as much money as possible to taxpayers or ratepayers to offset the elevated energy costs. This could be done through tax cuts, rebates or other kinds of payments.
The Obama administration has decided not to pursue this more cost-effective response to carbon reduction. It intends to sell carbon allowances and pocket the proceeds to carry out its ambitious social agenda. It views the proposed carbon cap-and-trade program as a means to generate more federal tax revenues rather than simply an environmental program to be implemented in the most cost-effective manner possible.
This is a strategic error in the best of times, which these are not. It will yield a great deal of controversy and political acrimony at the expense of both the economy and the environment.
About the Author
G. Tracy Mehan, III served at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the administrations of both Presidents Bush. He is a consultant in Arlington, Virginia, and an adjunct professor at George Mason University School of Law.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (111) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by G. Tracy Mehan, III
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/12/has-obama-killed-carbon-cap-an
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Trackback| 3.12.09 @ 7:40AM
The American Spectator : Has Obama Killed Carbon Cap and Trade?, on PunditKix, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Robert Rosencrans| 3.12.09 @ 7:49AM
Carbon dioxide comprises less then 1/2 of one percent of the atmosphere. That's why the entire concept is ridiculous.
But ridiculous goals have never stopped social movements, drunk teenagers, idiots or fools, or government officials drunk with power.
owyheewine| 3.12.09 @ 9:44AM
The fact that we are even talking seriously about the relative merits of carbon cap and trade is a surrender to the absolute stupidity of the premise of carbon dioxide caused global warming. It is a sad comment on the scientific illiteracy of the population that the possibility is taken seriously. We need to add a little more science to mandatory education in place of worthless subjects, like maybe journalism.
wow| 10.17.11 @ 8:42AM
Great info, thank goodness for my Google translator so I can read this great content. I will be back most definitely!
diving equipment
Son Of Sam | 3.12.09 @ 10:35AM
This "carbon tax" is nothing but another weapon for the ObamaNazis to use in their war against the middle class. Their vision of the world consists of them hurtling around the globe in private jets and armored limousines, while formerly free middle class Americans are reduced to ten speeds and Amtrak.
Come to think of it, wasn't that what their hero Fidel Castro did for Cuba?
until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.geocities.com/samadamssos
RC Pope| 3.12.09 @ 10:38AM
I hope no one (at least those who read this site regularly) is surprised by this.
Thomas| 3.12.09 @ 10:58AM
For those who have touted BHO and his administration as near Machiavellian strategists, this puts that idea to rest. Unless these people are active agents for a hostile foreign government, they are truly incompetent boobs.
The idea of taxing money making industries to death to support non-productive expenditures is analogous to a dairy farmer slaughtering his dairy herd for meat and then using the proceeds to buy Lamborghini's and trips to the Riviera and still expecting to survive. These people are like small children. Unfortunately they are small children driving an eighteen wheeler on a steep downhill grade in heavy traffic. Watch out.
btenney| 3.12.09 @ 11:34AM
How can CO2 be harmful? It is Organic.
Pingback| 3.12.09 @ 11:35AM
Cap and Horse Trade: Obama’s Uphill Battle for Climate Bill - Environmental Capital links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
CTF | 3.12.09 @ 12:02PM
In these economic times, a cap and trade scheme doesn't make good sense. A carbon tax-shift is the best approach because it a) reduces emissions b) practically guarantees investment in new, climate-friendly technologies and c) returns revenue to the people. I genuinely hope that members of Congress do not throw the baby out with the bathwater--this country needs climate change legislation...just not in the form of a regressive tax.
rr| 3.12.09 @ 12:18PM
How about the cost of compliance: bookwork, accountants, etc.
The whole idea is nonsense. It will only weaken the economy, give a competitive edge to China and India who are smart enough to ignore this crap, and do nothing for the enviornment. After all, man made carbon dioxide is a tiny percentage of the atmosphere. Oh, but I do need some CO2 for my greenhouse this spring--the plants love it. What a bunch of bull!!
Gill O’Teen| 3.12.09 @ 12:26PM
Tax carbon emissions? Don’t tell Treebeard. I have seen what happens when his Ents get mad.
Pingback| 3.12.09 @ 1:59PM
Carbon Tax Center » Has Obama Killed Carbon Cap and Trade? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
The Cycles of life| 3.12.09 @ 2:21PM
Was Carbon responsible for the Ice age too, global warming was around when people used horse drawn carts too. And before the industrial age. People out there are trying to avert the distruction of man, cannot be done.
This is natures way of cleaning up the scum of the earth.
JOE| 3.12.09 @ 4:13PM
This Carbon garbage is so bogus. I am confused you would even give it the time of day, let alone speak for a variation of it. There is NO Gobal Warming, let alone Man Made.
stmichrick| 3.12.09 @ 8:03PM
Ehhhh...one problem.
Carbon is not a pollutant. The whole scheme is based on whole cloth.
We live in historic times.
Chris | 3.12.09 @ 9:03PM
Believe it or not their is a lot of scared people that believe that the Ice will melt in the middle of winter and flood our earth. I am still doing research on this matter. Has any one calculated the square area of the oceans and of the artic ice, Greenland ice, and Antarctic ice if melted at the same time which is hard to do, unless the Sun moves closer to us and heats us up really good, combine them and see how much it would really effect us all on this small world we live on in the middle of this galaxy amongst all the stars in this void?
Thomas| 3.12.09 @ 9:28PM
Chris,
You are on the right track here. Could all of the ice on the planet melt? What if something caused the orbit of the planet to change moving it closer to the sun? What if a gigantic asteroid collided with the planet? What if some lunatic started a nuclear world war? How would the human race survive?
By not being chained to a single planet. No matter how well we care for the planet, there is a big universe out there that we simply can not control. Remember the old adage about putting all of your eggs in one basket? Start thinking long-term species survival, people. Before it is too late.
Chemman| 3.12.09 @ 10:30PM
I have seen no research that gives a baseline for a normal amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The historic average appears to be over 1000 ppm while today it is about 380 ppm. You can not discuss mitigation unless you have a baseline unless the photosynthesis deniers want 0 ppm of CO2 to insure runaway AGW will never happen.
stmichrick| 3.12.09 @ 11:09PM
Thomas;
Far out! Call Bruce Willis!
TennesseeVolunteer| 3.12.09 @ 11:14PM
Let me get this straight. Someone who has never run a thing in his life is going to tax us to compensate for something that goes into the atmosphere which has been proven not to harm anything.
Is anyone taking a step back and seeing how stupid this is?
S.L. Toddard| 3.13.09 @ 12:01PM
JEREMIAH AND BOB: FYI - I haven't been posting here in over a month, since maybe Feb 2nd. There is a troll here who adopts other people's names and posts as them. I never called Bob "blow-bob" or whatever. I saw you also got into some scraps with him, Jeremiah. None of it was me. I don't use terms like "lib" or whatever else this clown said.
Imagine doing that - being that pathetic? Logging on and pretending to be someone else you only know through the internet? It's sad and the sort of thing one would expect of a stalker.
Anyway, none of the posts under my name - S.L. Toddard - have actually been me since the first couple days of February. It's been that same, sad, lonely troll.
Pingback| 3.13.09 @ 5:36PM
Captain’s Log: March 13, 2009 « Captain Trade links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Thomas| 3.13.09 @ 11:25PM
stmichrick.
Not Bruce Willis, William Shatner. To boldly go, etc.
Polyester Mather D,D,| 3.13.09 @ 11:27PM
Tracy, you can rest easy-- messrs Chemen , Joe & Rosencranz have pretty well poe-proofed the place
Ray Baney| 3.14.09 @ 12:09AM
President Obama declared recently "Now, this order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let's be clear: Promoting science isn't just about providing resources -- it's also about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about letting scientists like those who are here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient -- especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda -- and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."
If only he were talking about "climate change", we might see the end of this scam. If he would apply this principle to AGW, there would be hope for us all. I don't think it will happen. Maybe after a few more "unusually cold" winters like 2007 and the present, more people will wake up and toss Obama and his administration out because of the Cap & Trade scam.
Carbonicus| 3.14.09 @ 1:41PM
Meehan is correct. Carbon tax is better than cap & trade. EU's efforts with their CDM proved that already.
But neither will mitigate "climate change". Both are costly and environmentally inconsequential.
The Catholic church taught that the sun revolved around the earth. Copernicus (my namesake) discovered that it was the other way around.
Heresy. He was a dangerous "denier". Laid low until just before he died for fear of being jailed. Later, Galileo proved Copernicus right, and was jailed for it. Dangerous blasphemy! (this isn't a shot a the church, only an analogy on ideology vs. science).
The church recently apologized to Galileo. 400 years later.
Fast forward. The church is the UN IPCC, Al Gore, neo-environmentalists, the PBO administration. We are "deniers". We are "dangerous". Coal company CEO's "should be jailed".
Turns out, anthropogenic CO2 doesn't control the climate. Despite what the "models" say, the observed evidence says otherwise. CO2 levels have been much higher. Polar bears survived those periods. Ironically, our quality of life and level of development were enabled by pre-historic CO2 largesse, before we were around to cause it, in the form of what we now deride: "fossil fuels". We deniers are right. period.
But this isn't about science, as many of you have ascertained. It is about politics and ideology.
Human development survived the Copernicus/Galileo incident. But it will not survive the "anthropogenic global warming" incident in political/scientific history without our standing up. RIGHT NOW.
Unless and until all of us speak out against "the church" and all its followers - and most importantly EVERY elected politician - we run the risk of sacrificing our future. All for something environmentally inconsequential.
Pingback| 3.14.09 @ 3:40PM
EnergyByEarth.com » This is news? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Freya| 3.14.09 @ 10:51PM
"raising, conservatively, well over $600 billion in revenue for his social programs, . . . It intends to sell carbon allowances and pocket the proceeds to carry out its ambitious social agenda."
What a liar. If the author had actually read the president's proposal, he'd know that over 75% of the revenues generated by the auction of carbon credits "will be returned to the people,
especially vulnerable families, communities,
and businesses to help the transition to a clean
energy economy." Net cost to the taxpayers is only $150 billion over ten years.
fireofenergy | 3.15.09 @ 12:39AM
There are better forms of taxing carbon but you know just as well as I, that the carbon tax will hit home! Instead of spending most of that money on concentrated solar power with heat reservoirs for (almost) 24/7 clean power generation (and etc), Obama will finance the social agenda. Therefore, we will still rely on the fossils that the SECRETIVE top level corporate, financial, media (and of course) political leaders employ. This means that the carbon tax will not do much to prevent CO2 (sorry Al). Global warming is real (because CO2 content is proven to be rising in accord with human activity), but turning it into a deprivation of all the people does not have to be! These "taxes" need to be arranged such that every thing but minimal administration costs goes back into the generation (and jobs producing nature) of clean energy (the cheapest, most effective and efficient for each regional area). They (the bankers which are our leaders) know that, but why should they even care? They don't want to lose money (since it is already in fossils, and thus this realization should also put an end to conspiracy theories that "all they want to do is to destroy us"). Eventually, the big money will (again) go to the banks and it will have to be powered by a "next" level of energy (they will make us pay for it).
Thus, (if we have any power at all), we should opt for feed in tariffs instead of the carbon tax.
Sujoy | 3.15.09 @ 2:54AM
I think the main issue is not simply to tax carbon emission and make revenues out of it. The bigger issue is to reduce total carbon emission. I dont see how is this possible without capping total carbon emission. Now whether govt should auction the whole of the allowance or only a percentage of it is obviously a matter of debate. I dont think the new power plants who already have effective system to keep carbon emmission to minimum would be bothered. Beacuse they do not need to buy a large allowance. Only the older units with inefficient system may feel worried. But then is this not a competitive market?
Richard Dean| 3.15.09 @ 11:31AM
Freya 3.14.09 10:51p
If you really believe that Obama will return all but 150 billion of the carbon tax proceeds, then you probably have not noticed all the other promises he has broken. Among many, for example, posting any legislation, he has been asked to sign, on the internet for five days for the public to read and comment. May I remind you the stimulus bill, was rushed through in 24 hours and no congressman or senator had even the chance to read it. Also his promise not to hire lobbyists. No explanation necessary. He promised any proposed new spending would be payed for, not by borrowing, but by new revenue or budget cuts. Broken promises, promises, promises. You are dreaming.
Rich D.
Freya| 3.15.09 @ 1:14PM
According to the St. Petersburg Times, of the promises the president has made, so far he has kept 18, gotten 41 in the works, and broken a grand total of ... two.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/?page=2
Besides, whatever you think of the stated intention to put the money back into the pockets of citizens, not even mentioning it is still dishonest.
fireofenergy | 3.15.09 @ 2:20PM
That's a coincidence, just two nights ago, instead of searching "conspiracy theories", I searched "Obama and campaign promises". That's how I found Politifact. It seems that all the "In the works" ones are for the building of "foriegn forces, youth brigades, ect". These are social programs that don't help us out at all!
Ben| 3.16.09 @ 9:44AM
The idea of replacing income tax with carbon tax actually has merits on economic grounds in promoting energy efficiency. I'll give it that. Interesting idea.
However, comparing carbon trade with sulfur trade is disingenuous. Sulfur trade is simple, you were emitting and then you stopped. The only two methods of cheating (putting the sulfur in fuel or emitting H2S or H2SO4) were banned. There was a proven and reliable (but expensive) technology to take SO2 out of the air and put it to a useful end (solid sulfur for fertilizer).
Greenhouse gases are infinitely more complex with thousands of ways to cheat. The Chinese have already been caught redhanded; in one instance they were producing a nasty greenhouse gas for the sole purpose of destroying it to create credits. In another, they were building dams that would have been built anyway and then claiming credits. Furthermore, you can get carbon credits for not doing things (such as not cutting down your forest). Whenever that happens, the system is extremely easy to break. Useless and dangerous ideas such as sequestration and wind power become widely popular in public imagination. In short, it isn't a pretty sight.
Snorbert Zangox| 3.16.09 @ 5:40PM
The original comment about dogs and Democrats came from a gubernatorial race. The Democrat candidate, had been killed a man shortly before the race and a faction of Democrats, led by Theodore Hallam was opposing his continued participation. During a town hall meeting a participant challenged Hallam's loyalty to the party. He responded to the challenge by saying, ""I admit, that I said then what I now repeat, namely, that when the Democratic party of Kentucky, in convention assembled, sees fit in its wisdom to nominate a yaller dog for the governorship of this great state, I will support him — but lower than that ye shall not drag me!"
The color selection was important because a yellow dog had value only as a family pet. A good hunting dog or even sheep dog would have been more valuable and therefore would have defeated the Republican more easily than a relatively worthless yellow dog.
This is such a wonderful story; I do not understand why the media have found it necessary to change the color of the dog.
Ted| 3.19.09 @ 5:31AM
You people are really stupid.
Trackback| 3.22.09 @ 1:00PM
Mature lesbian sex movies, on Mature lesbian sex movies, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 3.24.09 @ 1:01AM
Free viagra in the uk, on Free viagra in the uk, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 3.24.09 @ 2:11AM
Mark meeks ohio, on Mark meeks ohio, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 3.28.09 @ 2:21PM
Mature sex movie, on Mature sex movie, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 3.31.09 @ 1:01AM
Viagra super active, on Viagra super active, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 4.5.09 @ 6:10AM
My girl 2, on My girl 2, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 4.14.09 @ 1:08AM
Generic Viagra, on Generic Viagra, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 4.15.09 @ 9:41PM
Chris canty dallas, on Chris canty dallas, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tenn Slim| 5.16.09 @ 8:46AM
Blue Dog Democrats and conservation-minded Republicans will gag on its cost...
I would comment soley on the Blue Dog influence in restraing costs, via the House Rules process. Yep, these folks have a good PR. Thier voting record however, is the opposite. They vote straigt Pelosi. My rep is the founder. He votes JUST AS HE IS TOLD, no more, no less. No amount of petitioning, e mails, letters, etal sway this gent. He is a Dem first last and always. The Blue Dogs speak loud, but carry a non existent stick of reform.
end
Tenn Slim| 5.16.09 @ 8:56AM
Re the Cap and Trade.
Our main hope for no passage this year lies in Sen Corkers influence. He and others on the Right, can fight a delaying action. They have the guts to do so.
OBNA has indeed shot his foot on the Legislation. He continues to believe he can impose, force, coerce, blatantly push and shove, just like his days in the Chicago Communities. HOWEVER, the USA Capitalistic system has dealt with the likes of him before. The history of the USA Capitalistic system is strewn with the Wobbilies, UAW-CIO megers, John L Lewis Unions, Anti Trust pacts, SBO's, and more failed legislative attempts to control the entreprenuership innovativeness of folks, than the Left can gin up in the next 4 years.
I alternate between hope and despair reading the news, the net and the blogs. BUT under it all, I recognize the shrewdness of Banks, CEOs, SBO CEOs, state governors, local pols, folks that have beat storms, recessions, wars, corrupt pols, crime in the street. etc. The OBNA has taken on a system that survived Civil war, Imperialism, Tyranny in two wars, hunger, dust storms, Depression, civil unrest (watts, detroit etc).. all which make OBAN look like a neophyte.
We will prevail
Semper Fi
end
christine jacobus| 8.20.09 @ 12:53AM
WOOHOO I always knew they would find a way to tax the air we breathe! Whats next? You gonna tax every time my heart beats. TEXAS FREEDOM FTW!
Michael B| 9.2.09 @ 1:16AM
How stupid do they think we are...
The Obama administration has gone far enough with this shoot from the hip government run wealth redistribution plan.
People should be rewarded hard work and honesty ,and not for being lazy.
fiance visa| 10.18.11 @ 11:35AM
have never thought that surfing online can be so much beneficial and having found your blog, I feel really happy and grateful for providing me with such priceless information.
actos lawsuit
L Tod Schlosser | 11.5.11 @ 11:19AM
You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this matter to be actually something that I think I would never understand. I appreciate this blog.
Trackback| 2.6.10 @ 4:27PM
Asian Brides, on Asian Brides, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
balcuizar62| 10.13.11 @ 2:36AM
that has lots of knowledge to impart. I admire those writers who share the best of their knowledge in writing such articles.
yaz class action
ruth| 10.17.11 @ 11:48AM
This page is a walk-through for all the info you wanted about this and didn't know who to ask.
Look here, you'll absolutely get your answers.
silver spot price
ruth| 10.17.11 @ 3:15PM
,It's quietly interesting and valuable information for me.I also bookmark your site and visit it in future for more info.
mesothelioma lawsuit
fiance visa| 10.18.11 @ 3:17AM
I am happy to find this post very useful for me, as it contains lot of information. I always prefer to read the quality content and this thing I found in your post. Thanks for sharing this one.
fiance visa
creamer| 10.20.11 @ 1:39AM
Must agree that you are one of the best bloggers I ever saw. Thanks for posting this useful article
Actos Attorney
abominable putridity| 11.5.11 @ 11:10AM
Hello writter!Have you ever considered adding more videos to your blog posts to keep the readers more entertained? I mean I just read through the entire article of yours and it was quite good but since Im more of a visual learner.
L Tod Schlosser
HAPPY| 11.8.11 @ 8:20PM
Great post man! I always follow your blog because it is full of compelling information about various things.
filipina women
wow| 11.13.11 @ 8:39PM
As I just started posting comments for blog and facing problem of lots of rejections. I think your suggestion would be helpful for me. I will let you know if its work for me too.
paxil lawsuit
bogol| 11.16.11 @ 1:48PM
I got lucky and found your site from a random Google search. Fortunately for me, this topic just happens to be something that I've been trying to find more info on for research purpose.
Actos Lawyer
bogol| 11.28.11 @ 8:17AM
This is a really good read for me. Must admit that you are one of the best bloggers I have ever read. Thanks for posting this informative article
Paxil lawsuit
bogol| 11.30.11 @ 12:43PM
Excellent read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that: Thanks for lunch!
Lexapro Lawyer
bogol| 12.1.11 @ 8:52AM
Very effectively written information. Will probably be invaluable to anybody who usess it, including myself. Sustain the good work – for sure i'll take a look at extra posts.
mesothelioma lawyer
inah0911| 12.3.11 @ 9:31AM
This blog has so much Great information in it that i could spend all week reading it.Just want to say what a great blog you got here!Thanks for the information.
asbestos lawyers
inah0911| 12.5.11 @ 1:18PM
I must say that overall I am really impressed with this blog.It is easy to see that you are impassioned about your writing. I wish I had got your ability to write. I look forward to more updates and will be returning.
san diego personal injury
inah0911| 12.6.11 @ 9:25AM
I must say that overall I am really impressed with this blog.It is easy to see that you are impassioned about your writing. I wish I had got your ability to write. I look forward to more updates and will be returning.
san diego bankruptcy lawyer
IMYI| 12.15.11 @ 10:07PM
Wow, nice post,there are many person searching about that now they will find enough resources by your post.Thank you for sharing to us.Please one more post about that..
Medtronic Infuse Lawyer