• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

WSJ on Cap and Bankrupt

Sandhusker

Well-known member
The Cap and Tax Fiction
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.

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

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.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

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.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Just to show how far off the mark some of these legislative projections are, Medicare costs are around 50 TIMES the original estimates.

This Administration and Congress are leading us down an "UNSUSTAINABLE" path all to get more Gov't control of our lives.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
"Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families. "


And zer0 promotes himself as The Great Uniter???? :x :mad:
 

MsSage

Well-known member
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.
They havent even added in these costs to the "postage stamp a day" cost.

I keep telling yall I have windpower as my energy source and I pay MORE for less than my Dad. WHo has 4 times the sq ft and keeps his house cooler and uses more.
I am wondering how much food and other goods will go up around here...we already pay MORE for a loaf of bread than in Dumas.


Wake up yall if you cant see this as a major destroyer of the middle class, and make the low incomes totaly dependant on government your only closing your eyes.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
Husker, The best solution to all of this aint legal.

Actually, backhoe, I think it is more than legal. Wasn't it Jefferson who said that citizens not only have the right, but the duty to overthrow tyrannical government?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster Horses- Did you listen to Taylor Brown today-- who came out praising the additions/amendment that was put in for Agriculture-and gives Ag an exemption from Caps - while allowing them ways to make money by trading (selling) carbon credits?... And while he said he was not yet endorsing the bill, because he was not clear of all the implications - said the Ag benefits of Cap and Trade could be quite beneficial to Agricluture...

Nice to hear a good young Republican boy that doesn't wet their pants and automatically run screaming "the sky is falling" when the subject of some change is brought up... :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Faster Horses- Did you listen to Taylor Brown today-- who came out praising the additions/amendment that was put in for Agriculture-and gives Ag an exemption from Caps - while allowing them ways to make money by trading (selling) carbon credits?... And while he said he was not yet endorsing the bill, because he was not clear of all the implications - said the Ag benefits of Cap and Trade could be quite beneficial to Agricluture...

Nice to hear a good young Republican boy that doesn't wet their pants and automatically run screaming "the sky is falling" when the subject of some change is brought up... :wink:

Oldtimer do you know what was in the 300 pages of amendments that were added to the energy bill at 3 in the morning and what the affects of those amendment will be? According to those voting on it they had no time to study them before the vote was taken AGAIN. Is this going to be the MO of this government? :???: Put hundreds of pages of amendments into a bill then rush the vote so nobody knows what they are voting on. This is a very dangerous trend that seems to be forming with this government.

How long will it be before they hide an amendment that says Obama will beable to stay President for life in those hundreds and thousands of pages that they will not allow Reps and Senators to read before voting on it and then rush the signing of the bill into LAW prior to posting it on the internet as promised by Obama so the public can see what is happening? :shock: What are they hiding and not allowing the public to see prior to making it law that is going to come back to bite everyone in the butt. There has to be a reason for adding last minute amendment and then rushing the voting through. It's time to SSSLLLLOOOOWWWW down and Read the damn bills before allowing Obama to sign them into law. :mad:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Farming Groups Welcome Clean Energy Bill



TheCattleSite News Desk

June 29, 2009



US - The House of Representatives has approved legislation that will allow farmers, ranchers and forest owners to fully participate in a market-based carbon offset programme, earning income for activities they undertake to address global climate change.



A press release from the US House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture says that the bill's agriculture provisions negotiated by Chairman Peterson had the support of many agriculture, conservation and forestry organizations, including the American Farmland Trust, National Farmers Union, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Corn Growers Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Milk Producers Federation, American Corn Growers Association, American Forest Foundation, American Soybean Association, Dairy Farmers of America, Growth Energy, Minnesota Corn Growers Association, Minnesota Farmers Union, Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation, National Association of Conservation Districts, National Biodiesel Board, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Cotton Council, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Farmers Union, National Pork Producers Council, Renewable Fuels Association, United Egg Producers, Western Peanut Growers Association, and Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation.



House Agriculture Committee Chairman, Collin C. Peterson, (MN) worked with the authors of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) to include several important programs that recognise and reward the agriculture and forestry sector for conservation activities and clean energy production.



Under the legislation passed by the House, the agriculture and forestry sectors are clearly exempt from the bill's greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements, which means that farmers, ranchers and forestland owners will not be subject to the greenhouse gas emissions cap.



The bill establishes an agricultural and forestry offset program at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) that will work with farmers, ranchers and forestland owners to design and implement plans that reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions and sequester carbon on their operations. Farmers, ranchers and forestland owners will earn offsets for these actions, and they can sell the credits to utilities, refiners or other firms subject to limitations on greenhouse gas emissions.



"The offset programme run by USDA creates a new market opportunity for farmers, ranchers and forestland owners who can play an important role in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States," Chairman Peterson said. "Farmers, ranchers and forestland owners have been participating in conservation and carbon sequestration programs for many years, working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency, and support a thriving renewable energy industry. This legislation recognizes those efforts and encourages these important activities."



The bill also boosts the renewable fuels industry by eliminating regulatory requirements that unfairly restrict US renewable energy production. It prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from holding US biofuels producers responsible for deforestation or other land use changes in other countries, and it expands the availability of biomass for energy production by improving the definition of what qualifies as renewable biomass. It also includes a programme that will help fund the installation of blender pumps, making clean-burning renewable fuels available to more Americans.



"This bill promotes home-grown, clean burning renewable fuels, which is one of the best things we can do for the economy and the environment," Mr Peterson said.



NFU commends the bill

National Farmers Union President, Roger Johnson, commended the US House of Representatives for passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 by a vote of 219-212.



"This legislation recognises the unique role America's family farmers and ranchers can play when it comes to combating global climate change. The agricultural offset programme, overseen by USDA, will help mitigate the increased input costs of a cap and trade programme, while the early actors provision recognizes those producers who have already adopted environmentally friendly practices.



"Failing to pass climate change legislation is not an option. The EPA is poised to act, with the agency's proposed endangerment finding paving the way for a regulatory approach to addressing greenhouse gases. If this were to occur, the positive provisions within climate change legislation would be lost.



"I commend the House leadership for their tireless efforts to include agriculture as part of the climate change solution. Agriculture Committee Chairman Peterson, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman were instrumental to the passage of the bill.



"While not perfect, the House-passed bill is a step in the right direction. I look forward to working with the Senate as they begin considering climate change legislation,"
concluded Mr Johnson.



thecattlesite.com
 

Steve

Well-known member
They havent even added in these costs to the "postage stamp a day" cost.

if a paltry postage stamp is used as an example..

consider this comparison... "If USPS costs had been limited to the increase in the consumer price index since 1969, a stamp today would cost 35 cents, not 48 cents."

Even so, the rate increase is unlikely to cover the ongoing losses and the possibility remains that the post office could run out of money before the end of the fiscal year."


so if we learn from history.. and use the example presented.. we can expect cap and tax to outpace inflation and still be bankrupt? :roll: :roll: :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Faster Horses- Did you listen to Taylor Brown today-- who came out praising the additions/amendment that was put in for Agriculture-and gives Ag an exemption from Caps - while allowing them ways to make money by trading (selling) carbon credits?... And while he said he was not yet endorsing the bill, because he was not clear of all the implications - said the Ag benefits of Cap and Trade could be quite beneficial to Agricluture...

Nice to hear a good young Republican boy that doesn't wet their pants and automatically run screaming "the sky is falling" when the subject of some change is brought up... :wink:

How can there be much money to be made when the claim is that it will only cost the average family 44 cents/ day?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Has anybody else seen any numbers on how this "cap and tax" will effect the climate?

I'm seeing numbers in the range of .2 degrees by 2050. First off, they haven't proven that it would have any net effect, but their own estimates are minimal at best.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Has anybody else seen any numbers on how this "cap and tax" will effect the climate?

I'm seeing numbers in the range of .2 degrees by 2050. First off, they haven't proven that it would have any net effect, but their own estimates are minimal at best.

It will be miniscule.....the only real effect will be that Americans probably will try to use less electricity etc. because it will be too expensive to do otherwise and low income families will be affected the most.
 

leanin' H

Well-known member
And the sad part about each of us using less power is how the power and utilities turn around and sell that power to thier new customers! Here's a little news flash for ya! You can't store power from transmission lines! So the power "saved" is hogwash! Power companys dont want to invest tons of money into building more generation plants. So they do their best to sell us on saving power when in reality, they will sell that power to whoever writes the check! :roll: Al Gore is just pushing global warming because people are stupid enough to believe him! It is liberal scare tactics at thier finest! :roll:
 
Top