On the campaign trail Barack Obama repeatedly said that he would not raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000. He’s already thrown that promise out the window once by signing an increase to the sin tax (an increase on the price of tobacco), but he’s about to break that promise again if he signs Cap and Trade into law.
Many people don’t know cap and trade outside of the media spin zone. The media, and the Obama administration, would like you to believe that cap and trade is a market based initiative to reduce America’s carbon footprint, sounds so environmentally conscious.
The fact of the matter is cap and trade is the exact opposite of market based, the only thing market based about it is the massive regulation it imposes on the free market. As for reducing American’s carbon footprint, that’s not very likely either. An analysis of an earlier cap and trade bill, the Lieberman-Warner bill, showed the program would only reduce CO2 levels by 1.4% by 2050. Then there’s the European cap and trade which actually increased CO2 levels.
However, the glaring issue with cap and trade is the cost to businesses and consumers. To understand this component of cap and trade you have to grasp how it works. So let’s dive in to a quick cap and trade crash course.
Currently if a business wants to emit carbon dioxide they can, they don’t have to pay the government to do so and they don’t need permission from anyone. Under cap and trade this would all change, business who want to emit carbon dioxide would have to purchase a permit from the government.
For some bizarre reason the government believes they own the troposphere (fun fact, they don’t, actually I wouldn’t be surprised if Britain still owns it, after all at one point they basically owned the entire planet). As the self proclaimed owner for the air above our country, the government, under cap and trade, will grant permission to businesses to pollute that area.
However, it will come at a cost; this is where the cap comes in. Under the Waxman-Markey bill the government will begin the program charging $28 per ton of carbon. Each year that price will go up. The idea is that the high price of emitting carbon dioxide will create a massive disincentive to pollute and businesses will curtail their pollution.
So, where the heck is the trade at? This is the part that Washington calls “market based.” If a company purchases too many carbon permits they can trade, or sell, those permits to another business. This way business will not have wasted money on carbon they didn’t emit.
Now, anyone that passed second grade can see that this will increase costs for business. Whether they pollute thousands of tons or just one ton, it will cost them more money. And those added costs will be paid by the consumers through higher energy prices and high prices for basic goods.
The Heritage Foundation found that by 2035 this cap and trade bill will increase electricity costs by 90%, gasoline by 58%, and natural gas by 55%. All told a household of four can expect to pay $1,241 more for energy each year.
Oh, but it doesn’t stop there. Think for a minute, what delivers bread to the grocery store and Snuggies to the local Wal-Mart? It’s not the magic delivery fairly; it’s a massive gas guzzling diesel truck. If gasoline prices go up so will the cost of delivery for nearly every good on store shelves. If the price for delivery goes up, the price stores buy it for goes up. And finally, if the store has to purchase it at a higher price, they will sell it for a higher price. It’s basic economics.
Cap and trade is obviously a bad idea. History tells us it won’t reduce the amount of carbon in the air, and a third grade economics course tells us that it will cost consumers a pretty penny, and in this economic time pennies are looking a lot prettier. So why is the left so hell bent on jamming this massive tax down our throats?
Many will say it’s to further infringe on our civil liberties and businesses freedom to emit carbon dioxide. While that will be the product of cap and trade, I don’t think that’s the reason for the legislation. I also don’t think it has anything to do with saving the earth, after all carbon will barely be reduced.
The one thing this legislation does well is generate revenue. Businesses will be forced to purchase carbon credits; the government will make billions of dollars. They say this money will be reinvested in “green” projects and “green” research, but who actually trusts the government to appropriate money? Revenues from cap and trade will be used for universal health care and all the other socialized programs the left wants to impose upon us.
Think about it, Obama is going to have to raise taxes to pay for universal health care, but people aren’t exactly receptive of higher taxes. However, if he hides it behind a smoke screen like “saving the earth” people don’t notice it. They’ll see their energy bills and grocery bills go up, but most won’t connect the dots back to the government.
When Obama said he wasn’t going to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000 he knew he was lying through his teeth. He had every intention of raising everyone’s taxes to pay for all his lofty socialized fantasies. He was just planning on hiding those taxes behind an environmental smoke screen, and hope we were all too stupid to notice.
