View Full Version : Biggest Tax Increase in US History just passed in the US House of Reps!
The Cap and Tax Fiction
JUNE 26, 2009
Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done…
Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman’s co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.
For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.
To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO’s analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.
The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."
The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.
When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035…
Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won’t pinch wallets, behind the scenes they’ve acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.
The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain’s Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.
Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can’t repeal that reality.
As this editorial notes, the Waxman-Markey would cost the US economy $161 billion in 2020, which works out to $1,870 for a family of four.
As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number will rise to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.
And, of course, it isn’t just the hike in taxes that is the problem.
AskHeritage.org is a single site, a single resource -- The Heritage Foundation
"Later today, the House of Representatives is slated to vote on the most convoluted attempt at economic central-planning this nation has ever attempted: cap and trade. The 1,200-plus page Waxman-Markey climate change legislation is nothing more than an energy tax in disguise that by 2035..." Think your children, and this is independent of any other market forces that are going to affect the prices of these items as a mental list here. This bill alone will raise gasoline prices by 58 percent by 2035. This bill alone, in addition to whatever increases there are in gasoline between now and then, this bill will raise natural gas prices by 55 percent by 2035. It will raise home heating oil prices by 56 percent, and electricity prices by 90 percent.
Your electricity bill, by 2035, is going to go up by 90 percent. If we didn't do this bill, I guarantee you your bill is not going to go up 90 percent between now and 2035. "Although proponents of the bill are pointing to grossly underestimated and incorrect costs, the reality is when all the tax impacts have been added up, the average per-family-of-four costs rise by $2,979 per year. In the year 2035 alone, the cost is $4,609," for a family of four, additional taxes on energy. Energy, of course, is how we move, how we get around, how we heat our homes, cool them, run our refrigerators. Basically energy is one of the building blocks of our advancing lifestyle. "And the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 are $71,493." In other words, the bill's slated to go into effect 2012, and if you add up all of these costs for a family of four from 2012 to 2035, you've got to come up with $71,493 that you otherwise wouldn't have to.
The Heritage people have analyzed this. "Over the 2012-2035 timeline, job losses average over 1.1 million. By 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline (without a cap and trade bill). Particularly hard-hit are sectors of the economy that are very energy-intensive: Manufacturers, farmers, construction, machinery, electrical equipment and appliances, transportation, textiles, paper products, chemicals, plastics and rubbers and retail trade would face staggering employment losses as a result of Waxman-Markey," this bill. "It's worth noting the job losses come after accounting for the green jobs policymakers are so adamant about creating. But don't worry, because the architects of the bill built in unemployment insurance," too.
You want to hear how that works? They know that the bill is going to cream you! Listen to this. Section 432, Energy Refund Program For Low Income Consumers: "(1) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, or the agency designated by the Administrator shall formulate and administer the 'Energy Refund Program'. (2) At the request of the State agency, eligible low-income households within the State shall receive a monthly cash energy refund equal to the estimated loss in purchasing power resulting from this Act." Now, this is just for the poor. Pay attention. This is a part where the poor get direct deposit transfers of your money. They know your "purchasing power" will be lost resulting from this act! I'm reading from the act.
Let me read this again: "(1) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, or the agency designated by the Administrator shall formulate and administer the 'Energy Refund Program'. (2) At the request of the State agency, eligible low-income households within the State shall receive a monthly cash energy refund equal to the estimated loss in purchasing power resulting from this Act." They intend to raise prices on energy. They intend to make you use less of it. They intend for you to be less mobile. They intend for you to be less comfortable. They intend for you to have less disposable income. Disposable income is liberty! Disposable income is freedom. They intend for you to have less of it. What's an "eligible household"?
Well... "Participation in the Energy Refund Program shall be limited to a household that (B) has gross income that does not exceed 150 percent of the poverty line. ... (c) Monthly Energy Refund Amount -- "(1) Subject to standards and an implementation schedule set by the Administrator, the energy refund shall be provided in monthly installments via -- (A) direct deposit into the eligible household's designated bank account." Barack Obama and the Democrat Party intend to just "direct deposit" your money into the bank accounts of the poor because of their "loss of purchasing power" due to the passage of this act. Your loss of purchasing power is not going to be compensated. In addition to paying these new taxes, you are also going to be redistributing or have redistributed your wealth to the poor.
So who is going to let their Congressman know they did a good or bad job, making them accountable?
Who is going to tell their Senators to stop this at all costs?
Who is going to bitch and mone about it yet not try to let their voice be heard?
Sheeple anyone?
RAM Engineer
06-26-09, 19:24
I want to see the list of who voted for this shit.
Brasilnuts
06-26-09, 19:44
I want to know what they plan to do with this new tax revenue? It would be wasted I'm sure.
So who is going to let their Congressman know they did a good or bad job, making them accountable?
Who is going to tell their Senators to stop this at all costs?
Who is going to bitch and mone about it yet not try to let their voice be heard?
Sheeple anyone?
Called AND emailed Dreier, McClintock, Sanchez, Hunter, Harmon, Schiff etc. Called Feinstein's office within 5 mins of the vote tally being finalized.
People, if you are a CA resident (or not) please call Feinstein. Boxer is a lost cause but Feinstein gets the occasional moment of clarity.
Apparently the bill, if passed in the Senate and signed would take effect in 2012.
In other words, everyone will be seeing an increase in their electric bills on election year. Sounds like a good way to ensure a one-term Presidency to me.
Gutshot John
06-26-09, 20:01
It passed by seven votes in a left-leaning House.
I agree its BS legislation but it's deader than disco in the Senate.
The_War_Wagon
06-26-09, 20:02
What if they threw a tax, and NOBODY paid? :confused:
They're ABOUT to find out... :mad:
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/46/19628821.jpg
LonghunterCO
06-26-09, 20:25
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/46/19628821.jpg
There's the votes and a then some.
Doggone it, this has gone far enough. We need to vote out all incumbents in this next election. This even applies to those in Washington who we feel are, "good enough", "not too bad" or even "does a decent job". They have to get voted out. The system is broken. Entrenched, career politicians grow out of touch with reality, the needs of the country and start seeking money, power and control.
Our congress and senate is off on a tangent that is too bent to fix. Time to vote them home permanently and get new folks in Washington who work for us. Can we start a new grass-roots movement called, "Time to Clean House"???
kaiservontexas
06-26-09, 21:41
I literally believe they want to wreck everything and starve us.
LMTshooter
06-26-09, 22:31
As long as they are getting paid / making cash in Washington, they don't really care about the people back home. 2010 can't come fast enough.
i work for a power company (wont say which) and this is going to raise your power bill, there will be rolling brown outs, and you know how the cable guy says "i'll be by next month sunday to connect you cable between the hours of 5am and 8pm" thats how your outages will be restored. of course this is only my opinion and not supported by my company.....they are not saying anything.
Now there is some more good news. Oh yeah, 4 more years....:rolleyes:
They are the problem, the ballot box is the only solution, failing that the 2A has been upheld by SCOTUS.
This is why I am working on being completely off the grid in a couple of years, growing most of my own food, generating my own power through geothermal, solar, and wind sources.
I hunt, fish, and garden, once my vehicles and house/land are paid off then other than property taxes I don't intend to feed them, if more people went independent of the system then that's less revenue for the fat cats. I served my country to preserve our way of life and in return get screwed every chance those idiots can, so piss on them.
I did not vote for this administration and do not support them or share any of their views.
They are the problem, the ballot box is the only solution, failing that the 2A has been upheld by SCOTUS.
This is why I am working on being completely off the grid in a couple of years, growing most of my own food, generating my own power through geothermal, solar, and wind sources.
I hunt, fish, and garden, once my vehicles and house/land are paid off then other than property taxes I don't intend to feed them, if more people went independent of the system then that's less revenue for the fat cats. I served my country to preserve our way of life and in return get screwed every chance those idiots can, so piss on them.
I did not vote for this administration and do not support them or share any of their views.
Thank you for your service. I think your choice of getting off the grid is totally cool and completely justified given the robber barons we have in DC these days. Now given the stakes, I'm concerned when good folks like yourself check out. IMHO, we have a nation and a way of life to preserve. We can't let a a group of socialist hacks take it away!
final roll call
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll477.xml
find your senator on the list and call them
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
They are the problem, the ballot box is the only solution, failing that the 2A has been upheld by SCOTUS.
This is why I am working on being completely off the grid in a couple of years, growing most of my own food, generating my own power through geothermal, solar, and wind sources.
I hunt, fish, and garden, once my vehicles and house/land are paid off then other than property taxes I don't intend to feed them, if more people went independent of the system then that's less revenue for the fat cats. I served my country to preserve our way of life and in return get screwed every chance those idiots can, so piss on them.
I did not vote for this administration and do not support them or share any of their views.
well said. The sad fact is the majority of people who voted for this administration do not have a clue as to what is going on in Washington. They are fed information by liberal news media that tells them world is going to end if they don't buy a hybrid car.
It basically all boils down to power. They look at us as one large community, and they want to organize it as they see fit.
Now given the stakes, I'm concerned when good folks like yourself check out. IMHO, we have a nation and a way of life to preserve. We can't let a a group of socialist hacks take it away!
Think of it less as checking out and more like cutting out a cancer on freedom, if more people just "left" and did it on their own (maybe in small independent communities) there would simply be no tax revenues, starving the thieves in DC.
This is why I am working on being completely off the grid in a couple of years, growing most of my own food, generating my own power through geothermal, solar, and wind sources.
I hunt, fish, and garden, once my vehicles and house/land are paid off then other than property taxes I don't intend to feed them, if more people went independent of the system then that's less revenue for the fat cats. I served my country to preserve our way of life and in return get screwed every chance those idiots can, so piss on them.
That way of life is sounding more and more appealing to me.
They say a senate pass is not likely....pretty sure our two know they will get walking papers if they vote for it.
I tell you what really scares me and to watch out for is amnesty.....this makes my blood boil. Only reason they want it is to expand the liberal voting power base.
Just those 8 GOP stooges could have stopped this. Im not sure I can afford anymore HOPE and CHANGE im going broke!!! :mad:
Just those 8 GOP stooges could have stopped this. Im not sure I can afford anymore HOPE and CHANGE im going broke!!! :mad:
the liberal media got it wrong, Obama's plan is to leave us with nothing but HOPE and a pocket full of CHANGE
I literally believe they want to wreck everything and starve us.
That would be the plan of the NWO... You can call them Third Wayers, Humanists, World Socialists or Globalists. It's all the same.
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/46/19628821.jpg
Just remember these names/faces come re-election time.
Business_Casual
06-28-09, 08:41
I'm not usually proud to be from Ohio, but John put a bright spin on our heritage:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/boehner-climate-bill-a-pile-of-s--t-2009-06-27.html
M_P
Outlander Systems
06-29-09, 22:06
Ahem. I'd like to remind everyone to peep my sig.
1) Throw these clowns out.
2) Institute a policy of no-incumbents - PERIOD!
3) Maintain the intestinal fortitude to ensure rule number 2, indefinitely.
The result will be no more career-politicking, and these greasebags will:
A) Be forced to earn an honest living, you know, like the rest of us.
B) Eliminate special interest pressures, due to a short career in public service, which leads us to:
C) By allowing for no incumbents, government office becomes, once again fully restored to a public service position - not a career.
Giving these clowns free run, and allowing for them to develop "careers" has put us at the short end of the stick. Obviously, um, look around, what we've been doing for the last half century or so ain't workin'.
Since we've set no term limits for these parasites, they will continue to feed off us and our grandchildren indefinitely, unless we require, impose, and enforce term limits, or simply vote no incumbent forever.
Otherwise it's rinse and repeat.
The Republicans, quite frankly, suck.
The Democrats, quite frankly, suck.
Libertarians, quite frankly, have no chance.
Thusly, no incumbents, after a few cycles of officeholders, you won't get the greedy, self-aggrandising career swindlers we've had for my 30 years on this rock.
Outlander Systems
06-29-09, 22:15
Think of it less as checking out and more like cutting out a cancer on freedom, if more people just "left" and did it on their own (maybe in small independent communities) there would simply be no tax revenues, starving the thieves in DC.
As much as I'd like to believe this, I can't.
The goobers in the District of Corruption have infinite patience, number one.
Number two, their greed and their lust/love for power knows no bounds.
No matter what rock you crawl under, with no regards to which shore you set sail from, and no concern for which horse you ride off on, they will find a way to tax you and/or penalise you, until you return to the system.
There is no escape. As the politicians become more and more drunk on themselves, and whatever their "agenda" is, they will always, ALWAYS, find a way to keep you under their thumb.
Death and Taxes, bro. If it keeps going the way it has been, I'd take the former; I hate it, but I see it getting a lot worse before it gets any better.
While the rest of us get put on furloughs and get our pink slips; while our pensions, retirement, and savings go the way of the Dinosaur, the weasels in the Capital can just tax what they "need"(want) out of what we don't have.
Ain't life a bitch?
Just those 8 GOP stooges could have stopped this. Im not sure I can afford anymore HOPE and CHANGE im going broke!!! :mad:
There were 211 others that voted for it as well. We need to lean on them ALL.
rickrock305
06-30-09, 02:11
you guys need to look here...
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=33407
republican, democrat...doesn't matter.
Thank you for your service. I think your choice of getting off the grid is totally cool and completely justified given the robber barons we have in DC these days. Now given the stakes, I'm concerned when good folks like yourself check out. IMHO, we have a nation and a way of life to preserve. We can't let a a group of socialist hacks take it away!
I've been out knocking the doors for campaigns. I've looked the people in the eyes as 90% of them have basically said, they just don't care. They won't do their homework, most can't even be bothered to vote or spend 2 hours reviewing their rep's performance. Then there's those who let the media think for them, which are probably worse.
I'll continue to put in my time for real change I can believe in. But until the people rise up and shake off their shackles, nothing will change. At present, we have those in power openly looting the treasury and ignoring rule of law, robbing the people, giving cash to their friends while they neglect the veterans and destroy the middle class working people. I don't blame people for checking out, it occurs to me often. This thing is going to get much much worse before it gets better.
I do believe we'll see improvement eventually, a return to the old values. So I believe good will win, in the end, but the road there is looking very dark and bleak.
This is why I am working on being completely off the grid in a couple of years, growing most of my own food, generating my own power through geothermal, solar, and wind sources.
Just wait until you are charged at market rates for the food you grow and the power you generate, which is allowed under the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Since you would otherwise buy food and power from the market, you are affecting the market and thus interstate commerce. So, you are off the grid until Congress says you aren't.
montanadave
07-01-09, 08:49
Interesting point of view coming from a conservative columnist:
Cap and Traitors
8 Republicans Stand Tall on Climate Change
By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
With the cap-and-trade bill passing the House of Representatives last week by seven votes, the eight Republicans who supported it were bound to feel some rapid political warming. Conservative Internet and radio accused them of single-handedly passing President Obama's "cap-and-tax" legislation, which is a myth; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi probably would have forced the requisite number of Democratic votes in the absence of Republican backing. But these eight Republicans were still termed "traitorous."
It is typical that we praise independent judgment and political nerve in our elected officials -- until they show those qualities.
Admittedly, this was not the best time to display conspicuous Republican environmental conscience. Obama's ideological overreach on issues from the fiscal stimulus to health-care nationalization has put conservatives in a scrappy mood. The recession has brought the public's economic anxiety into sharp focus and moved environmental concerns -- droughts in the Sahel or floods in Bangladesh -- into the hazy distance. And the House cap-and-trade bill itself was a riot of loopholes, concessions and offsets -- legislative sausage-making with an excess of offal.
But none of these political considerations change an underlying reality. A serious concern about global climate disruption remains the broad (not unanimous but predominant) view of the scientific community, including the National Academy of Sciences. Global warming since the 19th century is undeniable -- a trend not disproved by year-to-year variations. These changes are closely correlated with increases in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution. Climate disruption has become so rapid in some places that it is overwhelming the natural process of adjustment, reducing crop yields and leading to the extinction of species. Meanwhile, global carbon emissions are increasing faster than expected. Some scientists warn of possible "tipping points" -- the rapid disintegration of the ice sheets, the sudden release of methane from warming northern soils -- that could turn a challenge into a catastrophe of lethal heat waves and rising sea levels.
Is this scientific viewpoint certain or guaranteed? Not when the scientific models concern a system as complex as the Earth's climate. Neither is it guaranteed that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be used against that country's enemies. But the realistic possibility of disaster, in both cases, would recommend a serious response.
The range of serious responses is limited. The federal government might spend directly on new technologies that produce energy without emitting carbon. But government's record in picking technological winners and losers is poor.
Others propose a carbon tax -- a cost per ton emitted, with no special exemptions. This system would be simple to implement and difficult to game. But it would also disproportionately punish some energy-intensive American industries -- cement, glass, steel and paper -- that face intense international competition.
The final alternative is a cap-and-trade system, which sets an overall limit on carbon emissions while directing relief to specific industries through rebates and offsets. Cap-and-trade has been used with dramatic success to reduce acid rain -- but it has never been employed on the massive scale that the regulation of carbon requires.
Critics argue that carbon restrictions, even if fully implemented, would reduce global temperatures only by minor amounts, which is true. We are not going to regulate our way out of global climate disruption. The only eventual solution is technological -- the ability to produce affordable, clean power on a large scale.
But conservatives seem strangely intent on ignoring the power of markets to encourage such innovation. Right now, the emission of carbon is essentially cost-free. Putting a price on carbon would make the development of cleaner energy technologies more profitable. New technologies could be employed, not only by America, but also by China, India and the rest of the developing, polluting world. And it is an added (but not minor) benefit that American resources would no longer be transferred to Saudi princes, Russian autocrats and Venezuelan dictators.
It is perfectly legitimate to argue that the House cap-and-trade system is flawed beyond redemption -- so complex and confusing that it only benefits regulators and the lobbyists who outwit them -- and that Congress should start over with a carbon tax.
It is also legitimate to contend that, while the cap-and-trade system is flawed, it is better than inaction and necessary to spur innovation. And for eight House Republicans who took this stand at great political risk, it is not only legitimate -- it is admirable.
I'm absolutely livid about this administration. Seriously, those that put these tyrants in should never be aloud to vote again. Our local rep voted for this bill saying he was voting in the interest of his constituents. Well reported is about 90% did not want this bill approved. These tyrants just don't care, they just want to rule. I just shake my head when I hear someone regret their vote... how did they not see this coming. My fear is that this country and it's foundations will be unrecognizable by the end of this year. The constitution means nothing to these insane lefties. At this point if the majority of voters don't wake up I don't think it will change. An option that might have an effect on Washington would be a united effort to forget April 15th. I'm self employed, have my own business and I seriously regret the quarterly adjustments to this government as it is now. Although no quams for what portions go to military, I really feel for those guys, especially now.
Business_Casual
07-01-09, 09:58
Interesting point of view coming from a conservative columnist:
Cap and Traitors
8 Republicans Stand Tall on Climate Change
By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
With the cap-and-trade bill passing the House of Representatives last week by seven votes, the eight Republicans who supported it were bound to feel some rapid political warming. Conservative Internet and radio accused them of single-handedly passing President Obama's "cap-and-tax" legislation, which is a myth; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi probably would have forced the requisite number of Democratic votes in the absence of Republican backing. But these eight Republicans were still termed "traitorous."
It is typical that we praise independent judgment and political nerve in our elected officials -- until they show those qualities.
Admittedly, this was not the best time to display conspicuous Republican environmental conscience. Obama's ideological overreach on issues from the fiscal stimulus to health-care nationalization has put conservatives in a scrappy mood. The recession has brought the public's economic anxiety into sharp focus and moved environmental concerns -- droughts in the Sahel or floods in Bangladesh -- into the hazy distance. And the House cap-and-trade bill itself was a riot of loopholes, concessions and offsets -- legislative sausage-making with an excess of offal.
But none of these political considerations change an underlying reality. A serious concern about global climate disruption remains the broad (not unanimous but predominant) view of the scientific community, including the National Academy of Sciences. Global warming since the 19th century is undeniable -- a trend not disproved by year-to-year variations. These changes are closely correlated with increases in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution. Climate disruption has become so rapid in some places that it is overwhelming the natural process of adjustment, reducing crop yields and leading to the extinction of species. Meanwhile, global carbon emissions are increasing faster than expected. Some scientists warn of possible "tipping points" -- the rapid disintegration of the ice sheets, the sudden release of methane from warming northern soils -- that could turn a challenge into a catastrophe of lethal heat waves and rising sea levels.
Is this scientific viewpoint certain or guaranteed? Not when the scientific models concern a system as complex as the Earth's climate. Neither is it guaranteed that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be used against that country's enemies. But the realistic possibility of disaster, in both cases, would recommend a serious response.
The range of serious responses is limited. The federal government might spend directly on new technologies that produce energy without emitting carbon. But government's record in picking technological winners and losers is poor.
Others propose a carbon tax -- a cost per ton emitted, with no special exemptions. This system would be simple to implement and difficult to game. But it would also disproportionately punish some energy-intensive American industries -- cement, glass, steel and paper -- that face intense international competition.
The final alternative is a cap-and-trade system, which sets an overall limit on carbon emissions while directing relief to specific industries through rebates and offsets. Cap-and-trade has been used with dramatic success to reduce acid rain -- but it has never been employed on the massive scale that the regulation of carbon requires.
Critics argue that carbon restrictions, even if fully implemented, would reduce global temperatures only by minor amounts, which is true. We are not going to regulate our way out of global climate disruption. The only eventual solution is technological -- the ability to produce affordable, clean power on a large scale.
But conservatives seem strangely intent on ignoring the power of markets to encourage such innovation. Right now, the emission of carbon is essentially cost-free. Putting a price on carbon would make the development of cleaner energy technologies more profitable. New technologies could be employed, not only by America, but also by China, India and the rest of the developing, polluting world. And it is an added (but not minor) benefit that American resources would no longer be transferred to Saudi princes, Russian autocrats and Venezuelan dictators.
It is perfectly legitimate to argue that the House cap-and-trade system is flawed beyond redemption -- so complex and confusing that it only benefits regulators and the lobbyists who outwit them -- and that Congress should start over with a carbon tax.
It is also legitimate to contend that, while the cap-and-trade system is flawed, it is better than inaction and necessary to spur innovation. And for eight House Republicans who took this stand at great political risk, it is not only legitimate -- it is admirable.
No way that guy is a conservative. How stupid do you think we are?
M_P
Ugh.
Global warming since the 19th century is undeniable -- a trend not disproved by year-to-year variations. These changes are closely correlated with increases in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution.
Ok, let me get this straight. In man's little sliver of history, according to these folks, trends over decades/centuries are significant but trends year to year are not. In the grand scheme of things...these guys say the earth has been here for millions of years, shouldn't trends over millenia/ages be significant and not trends over such little time periods as decades and centuries? Never mind that it has been warmer pre-Industrial Revolution than it is now. Never mind that the earth as warmed and cooled on it's own.
Then of course there is the non-correlative (at least in the sense being described here) relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and global atmospheric temperatures, where CO2 activity often lags temperature with respect to time. Let's not talk at all about solar activity, the primary source of heat energy for our planet. It, by the way, is not a constant.
ETA: Concentration of carbon dioxide, ok. First of all, the primary constituents of our atmosphere are nitrogen and oxygen. Together, they comprise approximately 99% of the atmosphere. Of the remaining 1%, argon comprises about 93%, or about 0.93% of the atmosphere in entirety. Carbon dioxide is about 4% of the 1%, or about 0.04% of the atmosphere in total. Now, carbon dioxide is a necessary component in the atmosphere, we exhale it, plants convert it to oxygen as part of the photosynthesis process, etc. In other words, it is naturally occuring and necessary to continued life on the planet. Additions by industrialized human activity to the overall fraction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are incremental at best, less than 5% of the total CO2 composition. That puts the composition of CO2 in our atmosphere due to human industrialized activity around 0.002% (using generous numbers). Assuming that we don't want to go back to the stone age, we are talking about shaving off fractions of fractions of a percent, all at a cost of billions/trillions of dollars. But hey, feels good to save the planet, right?
Cap-and-trade has been used with dramatic success to reduce acid rain -- but it has never been employed on the massive scale that the regulation of carbon requires.
How about a real life apples to apples comparison? It has been employed on that massive scale. Cap-and-trade is in place with respect to carbon dioxide emissions. It has not been anything approaching a "dramatic success" in practice.
Then of course there are the wonderful unintended consequences (are they unintended?) that will result from this...like the creation of a new derivatives market much like the one that sank the housing market. Carbon default swaps anyone? It's coming. People will get rich off of this. Off of a tax on you and me. We should be wildly familiar with what can happen with these repackaging and trading schemes...
But conservatives seem strangely intent on ignoring the power of markets to encourage such innovation. Right now, the emission of carbon is essentially cost-free. Putting a price on carbon would make the development of cleaner energy technologies more profitable.
Conservatives want the market and the market alone to encourage innovation in energy. I'm a conservative, I'm opposed to taxing carbon, and I think the future development of new technology is exciting. I'm not anti-science. I can't stand the painting of this POS as a free market solution. It is not. It is being done at gunpoint. If it was, there wouldn't be 1300 pages of governmental regulations, restrictions, and intervention.
This is a little disingenuous, as putting a price on carbon [dioxide] may make "development of cleaner energy technologies" cheaper, but ONLY IN RELATIVE TERMS. It's still going to cost more than what we do now which means gas, power, and anything that took gas and/or power to manufacture, deliver, and/or sell WILL BE MORE EXPENSIVE. EVERYONE will pay more for EVERYTHING. GDP WILL decrease as a result. Companies WILL pass on added costs of doing business to you and me. And for what? A temperature delta of -0.9°F over 41 years? That's worth the loss of hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars?
A temperature delta of -0.9°F is equivalent to two years' worth of warming according to the models that the ManBearPig warners are using. Furthermore, it should go without saying to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of mathematical modeling, differential equations, etc that the output is highly dependent on the input variables, boundary conditions, and assumptions that are used to construct the model. Small variations at the front end can diverge at the back end. The complexity of the system being modeled obviously affects the accuracy and results. Our atmosphere, along with the the dynamic heat generation of the sun (yeah, that big ball of nuclear fusion in the sky does have something to do with heat on earth), are slightly complex systems. Point being, it is my educated opinion that we are collectively being pretty damn cavalier with a lot of people's money, freedom, and livelihood all things considered.
And it is an added (but not minor) benefit that American resources would no longer be transferred to Saudi princes, Russian autocrats and Venezuelan dictators.
This situation can be rectified in great part if we could use the resources that we have here, right now. Oil, coal, coal-to-oil, nuclear...and then when so-called alternative/clean energy sources truly become economically viable (not in a skewed situation where all of the conventional energy sources are jacked up in price by the government so that they can say "hey look, alternative sources are cheaper! Woohoo!"), by all means, bring them on.
Global warming since the 19th century is undeniable -- a trend not disproved by year-to-year variations. These changes are closely correlated with increases in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution.
Actually not.
There has not been and even now is not a great way to even measure "global temperature" and it does not correlate at all to CO2 emissions or concentrations.
It does however correlate to the Sun's activity and the pursuant cloud formations.
montanadave
07-01-09, 13:19
No way that guy is a conservative. How stupid do you think we are?
M_P
If you wish to question Michael Gerson's conservative credentials, I suggest you do a quick Google or Wickipedia search. The guy was Dubya's chief speechwriter, a senior policy advisor in the Bush White House, and came to the administration from The Heritage Foundation.
As for your question, I'm uncertain who you are referring to with the collective "we," but I'll simply say you are ill-informed as to Michael Gerson's political affiliations.
If you wish to question Michael Gerson's conservative credentials, I suggest you do a quick Google or Wickipedia search. The guy was Dubya's chief speechwriter, a senior policy advisor in the Bush White House, and came to the administration from The Heritage Foundation.
As for your question, I'm uncertain who you are referring to with the collective "we," but I'll simply say you are ill-informed as to Michael Gerson's political affiliations.
I just did some reading on Google, Wikipedia, and Amazon about Mr. Gerson; and I'll have to confirm what M_P said. He said conservative. Mr. Gerson may very well be a Republican (certainly appears that he is), but he appears to be a big government, big tent Republican that believes that the Republican party has moved too far to the right and needs to be a little more "centrist" to succeed.
In "Heroic Conservatism," he calls for the Republican Party to redefine itself and brighten its future by casting aside its suspicion of big government and pursuing lofty projects of statist do-goodery.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110010922
Mr. Gerson will have none of it. Siding with FDR and Woodrow Wilson, his acknowledged heroes, he assumes that traditional conservatives do not care about American society's problems. He never stops to ponder whether traditional conservatives disagree with his statist prescriptions precisely because they do care.
Guess he's a progressive as well, if FDR and Wilson are his heroes.
He may be a Republican, but he ain't a conservative.
Back to your regularly scheduled anthropogenic global warming discussion...
kaiservontexas
07-02-09, 01:22
I'm absolutely livid about this administration. Seriously, those that put these tyrants in should never be aloud to vote again. Our local rep voted for this bill saying he was voting in the interest of his constituents. Well reported is about 90% did not want this bill approved. These tyrants just don't care, they just want to rule.
That is the vibe I have had for a long time.
He may be a Republican, but he ain't a conservative.
Agreed. Thinking that someone is conservative because said person is officially Republican is fundamentally flawed. Powell admitted switching from the Dems to the Republicans back in the 90s because he wanted to be part of the winning team at that time. So, it's no surprise he switched back (in reality, if not in name) in 2008.
Business_Casual
07-02-09, 08:07
If you wish to question Michael Gerson's conservative credentials, I suggest you do a quick Google or Wickipedia search. The guy was Dubya's chief speechwriter, a senior policy advisor in the Bush White House, and came to the administration from The Heritage Foundation.
Bush? The guy who said he would sign an AWB if it were sent to him, gave us a prescription drug benefit and doubled the deficit? He and his administration were not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination. Conservatives voted for him as the lesser of two (very evil) evils.
As for your question, I'm uncertain who you are referring to with the collective "we," but I'll simply say you are ill-informed as to Michael Gerson's political affiliations.
Oh, dear, some numpty on the Interweb made a snarky comment about my intelligence! Pass me the smelling salts! :D LOL!
M_P
Also, to address the other name-drop aside from Bush as justification for conservative credentials; go to The Heritage Foundation's website and do a little reading about their work on cap-and-trade.
Hint: They are not a fan.
http://www.heritage.org/LeadershipForAmerica/energy-and-environment.cfm
So I wrote my senator, Saxby Chambliss to urge him to vote against cap and tax and I got this mumbo jumbo canned response:
Dear Mr.....:
Thank you for contacting me regarding global climate change. I appreciate hearing from you.
Climate change is an important issue that deserves serious and thorough debate. The current legislative proposals to address climate change would have a dramatic effect on our economy and the way we all live.
The Senate is considering climate change legislation that would affect our nation for many years to come. Any system that is created to address this issue must be understandable to taxpayers, including consumers and small businesses. Citizens need to be aware of the effects of any proposal and how it will impact them.
As Congress continues the debate on climate change, I will focus on several main principles. Climate change legislation should encourage economic growth and protect American jobs. It also must be capable of adjusting to changing scientific findings, economic conditions, and the actions of other countries.
We should continue to focus on science-based technologies to become more energy efficient and secure our energy future in the midst of our increasing energy demands. To do this in an environmentally friendly way, we must continue to develop and use alternative energy sources including nuclear energy.
As climate change legislation is debated in the Senate, I will examine it in accordance with these principles and I will keep your comments in mind.
I literally believe they want to wreck everything and starve us.
That's socialism for you. Make everybody poor and miserable. Except for those in power of course.
That's socialism for you. Make everybody poor and miserable. Except for those in power of course.
The vanguard party must always be taken care of. After all, those who bring equality to the masses should reap the benefits of doing so.
Bush? The guy who said he would sign an AWB if it were sent to him, gave us a prescription drug benefit and doubled the deficit? He and his administration were not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination. Conservatives voted for him as the lesser of two (very evil) evils.
M_P
AGREED!
Now if only the current CINC would either (A) grow a pair or (B) get himself informed we could head back in the direction of prosperity (liberty as well as financially). Of course, that would require an educated public... :(
"Superman where are you now..."
Banksters Love Cap-and-Trade: Economic Collapse About to Accelerate
The well-placed and well-connected are set to make trillions off new climate bill
by James Corbett
July 2, 2009
The Corbett Report
The sweeping new bill which just passed the House last Friday, the Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, is ostensibly about climate change, but it is in fact a bill of staggering economic ramifications that is going to accelerate the takeover of the economy by the well-placed financiers who have already plundered the Treasury and the Fed of $12+ trillion and counting. It was rushed through the House in the tradition of such nightmarish legislation as the Patriot Act and the banker bailout of last October [and NAFTA]: hundreds of pages were added to it at the last minute and it was humanly impossible for anyone to have read it before they voted on it. This, of course, is exactly what Obama promised his administration would never allow to happen, and for good reason; bills passed in this manner are always the result of fear and panic and inevitably results in legislation that would never be passed upon sober second thought.
In this case, the rush to pass this new bill was an attempt to stop any scrutiny of a plan that is going to utterly transform the American economy, further centralize control of citizens' lives in the hands of unaccountable federal bureaucrats and complete the transfer of the American economy from Main Street to Wall Street. And all of this in the name of fighting a threat which itself is a demonstrable fraud. In short, the banksters and bureaucrats are sharpening their knives, preparing to butcher what's left of the carcass of the United States, and a good portion of the public are not only willing to allow it but are actually clamoring for it.
The first thing that needs to be understood about the brand new trillion dollar carbon-trading commodities market that will be brought into existence if this bill passes the Senate is that it is a ripoff designed by and for the very corporate interests the environmentalists claim to be fighting. For an historical precedent of what is being proposed under this cap-and-trade scam one can look to Enron, which immediately found ways to plunder billions of dollars from new energy market legislation passed by the Clinton Administration in 2000. They gave schemes for manipulating billions of dollars out of Californians funny little names like Death Star and even went so far as to rig up a completely fake trading floor in their offices in order to bamboozle investors who were interested in the company's remarkable success. They got away with it because they were The Smartest Guys in the Room, much brighter than the government bureaucrats who were supposed to stop them from committing such blatant fraud (assuming the regulators weren't simply paid to look the other way). And now supporters of this new bill are putting their blind faith in these same bureaucrats to regulate a scheme to create a vastly more complex market with hundreds of times as much money at stake. Is it any wonder Enron was a booster for cap-and-trade?
That the new carbon trading market can and will be manipulated by the very same financial oligarchs and government bureaucrats who have brought the world to the brink of economic Armageddon is laid bare in a must-read article by Matt Taibi in the latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine. In "The Great Bubble Machine" Taibi meticulously documents how the amazingly well-connected Goldman Sachs has managed to manipulate and profit from every financial bubble since the Roaring Twenties and how they're getting set to do it all over again with the creation of a carbon trading bubble:
"The bank owns a 10 percent stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange, where the carbon credits will be traded. Moreover, Goldman owns a minority stake in Blue Source LLC, a Utah-based firm that sells carbon credits of the type that will be in great demand if the bill passes. Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who is intimately involved with the planning of cap-and-trade, started up a company called Generation Investment Management with three former bigwigs from Goldman Sachs Asset Management, David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris. Their business? Investing in carbon offsets. There's also a $500 million Green Growth Fund set up by a Goldmanite to invest in green-tech ... the list goes on and on. Goldman is ahead of the headlines again, just waiting for someone to make it rain in the right spot."
In effect, this bill creates an entirely new commodity that is guaranteed to generate ever-increasing profit for those who have already spent millions preparing to get in on the ground floor. Here's a hint: that does not include your average mom and pop investor or your dual-income family struggling to make ends meet in a crashing economy. Here's another hint: it does include financial juggernauts like Goldman Sachs who have been investing in solar, wind, and biofuels for years and now just happen to find themselves in the perfect position to start reaping vast profits from their headstart in the new carbon credit economy (and you thought Paulson was into going green for any other reason than making green?). It also includes Obama, who was instrumental in helping set up the Chicago Climate Exchange for his political cronies like Al Gore, who already has a company which he uses to buy carbon credits from himself and who had made multi-million dollar investments in companies developing carbon tracking software that will be essential to the new carbon-swindle economy.
There are still those out there, however, who believe that this time it's going to be different. This time the government is going to set up a new trillion dollar industry overnight, make sure it is regulated by angels of unquestionable integrity and goodwill, prevent it from being manipulated by big business, and create scores of new "green" jobs in the renewable energy industry (presumably to replace the hundreds of thousands of jobs that the economy is already hemorrhaging or the hundreds of thousands more that will be shed when these carbon taxes and penalties really ratchet up in the next decade). Well, let's assume for a moment that we have crossed into just such a fantasy world. It still does not change the fact that the bill itself only offers phony solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.
The phony solution is the "Clean Energy" part of the Clean Energy and Security Act. What feelgood platitudes about pumping billions of dollars into solar, wind and alternative energy projects obscure is that throwing money hand over fist at inherently flawed technologies will not actually make them work, nor will it make the money-hungry charlatans who promote them any more honest. Just ask Albert Lanier. He's a freelance journalist who has been writing a series of articles about First Wind, a Massachusetts-based wind developer that is currently being investigated by the New York Attorney General's office. In a recent interview with The Corbett Report he revealed how the Mafia has been linked to the Italian wind farm industry, which might say more about the industry than it does about the mob.
Of course, the entire idea of "cleaning" the atmosphere of carbon dioxide seems a bit ridiculous when you realize that by historical levels we are living in a CO2-starved environment, that global surface temperatures are dropping, that global ocean temperatures are dropping, that key proponents of the manmade global warming theory have been caught faking data to support their arguments, that Arctic sea ice is expanding, and that sea levels are not rising. But why let actual science get in the way of a good scare story, especially when that scare story can be used to create a new trillion dollar industry for the banksters?
For those who cannot be convinced to consider an issue until it affects them personally, rest assured this draconian new legislation will reach into every American citizen's living room... literally. As Congressman Steve Scalise has already pointed out, this "climate bill" contains within it a new national building code that supersedes all existing state codes. If enacted, this legislation will create an entirely new class of federally-funded green brigades with the mandate to perform house-to-house inspections to look for violations of this new "green" building code. They would even be able to impose civil penalties for code violations (like having the wrong windows or lightbulbs). Watch Congressman Scalise's comments in the player below:
"This bill is not only unnecessary, it is dangerous. It is not only economically reckless, it is economically suicidal. It's passage will be a particularly dark day in American legislative history, something almost unthinkable given the constitution-destroying atrocities passed during the Bush years. There is only one thing left for Americans to do: call their senators and let them know that it's time to make a decision: vote against the Clean Energy & Security Act of 2009 or join the unemployment line come next election."
Comments:
I think there are some technologies that require funding to be viable but for those who automatically think the bill is good (admittedly few here - thank God): it can be manipulated like any and everything. And probably will. I also suppose IFF (if and only if) Congress actually meant well it could work, too. But I don't believe Congress means well (and I'm not sold on the CINC, either) so look forward to rolling brown outs from the power companies (I think that's been mentioned in this thread already), increased cost of everything which may very well accelerate more business OUT of the USA, more poverty, higher taxes, higher cost of healthcare, more crime, more oppressive legislation, etc., etc., ad nauseum :mad:
This crap HAS to end (somewhere before the depths of Hell, I suppose).
montanadave
07-02-09, 23:11
Just in case your hard on for Goldman Sachs was starting to go soft, check out Matt Taibbi's latest article:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine
Out democratic republic has become a plutocracy and we're all just fighting over the crumbs those at the top deign to toss aside.
Business_Casual
07-03-09, 07:55
Just in case your hard on for Goldman Sachs was starting to go soft, check out Matt Taibbi's latest article:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine
Out democratic republic has become a plutocracy and we're all just fighting over the crumbs those at the top deign to toss aside.
See, I knew you were an all right guy! I agree 100%. When the tax increases go through and the government controls health care, banks, car companies and credit cards it will be 1984.
M_P
montanadave
07-03-09, 08:48
See, I knew you were an all right guy! I agree 100%. When the tax increases go through and the government controls health care, banks, car companies and credit cards it will be 1984.
M_P
While some of my views may be out of sync with the majority of folks on this forum, I don't think I'm totally off base when I suggest that many of us are engaged in a false argument when we take rigid positions and man the ramparts in a pitched battle between "socialized government programs" and a "free market" economic model. As Taibbi (and many others) have so clearly illustrated, there is nothing "free" about a market where the power players are in an incestuous relationship with the government, rigging the system by privatizing profit and socializing debt.
The system is fundamentally flawed when our political leadership is bought and paid for by companies who, in turn, dictate the legislative and bureaucratic policies which regulate their business practices. They seek to maximize their profits at every turn, minimize or eliminate their tax obligations, and then have the hubris to blackmail the government (and, ultimately, you and I as the taxpayers) with a financial armageddon if we don't bail them out when their businesses fail through either poor management or excessive risk-taking.
It requires a delicate touch (and obviously one difficult to maintain) to promote collaboration and cooperation between government and private business without ultimately resulting in collusion and conspiracy.
kaiservontexas
07-03-09, 10:56
As I said before they are trying to wreck everything and starve us, and I think that because there is no reason for governmental power control over fuel, food, water, and electricity. The only historically known reason for any entity to try and control those items one or all is to control people and or kill them.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.