A Delightful Alternative to 404 – Not Found :: Serving you since 1996

Pontifications and Other Mindless Banter

<< previous post: Why does Bronco Towing hate Fitness?::Main::next post: GMail Ninjas >>

June 26, 2009

Trade in Cap

Filed under: IFJ,Rants @ 1:35:43 PM
From the "Climate-Change-for-Dummies" Department

Dear Congress,
You Cap Us,
We Trade You.
Your Boss

ScrappleFace editor Scott Ott sent this as a tweet at 2:05 p.m. Eastern

Updates Below

The way the House is cramming this lousy bill through reminds me of the equally lousy Stimulus Bill earlier this year.
From VodkaPundit:

BREAKING: House leadership is refusing to provide a copy of the text of the bill.

REPORTEDLY: There is exactly one extant copy of the bill. It his hidden in the Congressional cloakroom. I believe it is on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of the Leopard.”

Here is my problem: This is not a Climate Change Bill. Voting for it, does not make you green; voting against it does not make you hate the planet.
This is a Tax, that is all. A Tax on Energy. There is no legislation to clean up the environment, there is no legislation to reduce carbon emissions. This is just a tax on carbon energy production and use. There is nothing in this bill to replace Carbon Energy Production. It will affect your electric bill, and the electric bill of your retailers, the electric bill of your manufacturers. This will affect your Gas Bill, and the Gas Bill of your retailers, the gas bill of your manufacturers. The price of EVERYTHING will go up.
And we are not talking about a few dollars a month. (And that is just your utilities.)
The Commercial Sector is not going ot eat these costs. They are also going to pass them on to you.

Don’t believe me? How about the Wall Street Journal?

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.

Welcome to you Brave “Green” world.

The fact that Democrats have not locked this as a win, in the House, is telling. Republicans do not have enough votes to block it, by themselves.

And how messed up is this: Patrick Kennedy has checked out of Rehab to vote for this bill.

And it passed the House (219-212)


  1. Now the big question is are there 10 democrats in the senate that will go against it. It’s very interesting that it nearly failed in the house where nothing the Dems want passed should fail. This whole process of the way this went up for vote is classic politics that the average citizen is disgusted with.

    Comment by Chan — June 27, 2009 @ 1:13:46 PM

  2. Why the expectation that a tax bill come with a commensurate spend towards the same “goal”?

    I’ll say up front I know nothing of this bill other than what’s written here. But taxes are used for two things, generating income and modifying behavior. Take cigarette taxes for example. So if you agree with carbon energy production being bad for the planet, then this IS green, yeah? It doesn’t specify the alternative… and you elephantine lot should actually like that, no? And lord knows we need the revenue. Would you rather we borrow it from China?

    And are you promoting Twitter now Jer??

    Oh and I love how the (lousy?) stimulus bill from late last year is blissfully ignored.

    Comment by Cisco — June 27, 2009 @ 2:07:55 PM

  3. I assume you are talking about the misguided, and misspent TARP I bill that Bush’s Treasury Secretary crammed through.

    Its easy to ignore, because it has been eclipsed (Money wise) by TARP II (also Mispent) Stimulus I (Which I refer to above) and this Cap and Trade nonsense.

    In fact, Pelosi and Company are even talking about Stimulus II.

    The Last time we saw this much spending (in terms of spending bills, not in terms of spending dollars) was FDRs New Deal and subsequent “recovery packages” that followed.

    And the Revenue of this Tax isn’t going to existing programs, it is going to NEW programs. Its not going to reduce the Debt, or the temperature, a single cent.

    Comment by Jeremy — June 27, 2009 @ 7:26:17 PM

  4. But that wasn’t you’re argument. So now you are saying there is spending attached to this bill, just not on green energy or the like?

    I can understand your dislike of the spending. But this is not a stimulus bill, it’s a tax. And a tax on carbon energy carries the intent of reducing carbon emissions (by disincentive). I respect your disagreement with that disincentive, and I think it’s effectiveness is up for debate, but can’t agree with your reasoning that this bill doesn’t address the environment.

    So what are these new programs the money is supposed to go to? “New program” is not necessarily a bad program. All this misplaced Republican angst! Let’s get some actual debatable facts out here. You don’t like being taxed. Cool. Though I’m sure you’re ok with some taxes or else you would be a die-hard libertarian against the military, police, etc. Presumably the disincentive on carbon emissions is not a good reason for you. Also cool. Although you knew this administration was going to try and move us away from carbon emissions… isn’t this the most free-market way to do it? Would you rather have Obama choose a clean energy solution and pour government money into it? Again… this solution should be right up your alley (at least in terms of the lesser of two evils since presumably you see no need to reduce carbon emissions).

    So the other question is what is being done with the money. I’ve yet to see anything saying where that’s going. What new programs? Are they tied to the bill, or just the assumed result of them?

    Comment by Cisco — June 28, 2009 @ 11:56:46 AM

  5. You keep Labeling me a Republican, Cisco. In fact, I’ve already ditched my party affiliation; several months ago. Please Update your records.

    I would like to know where all this tax revenue is going as well, but I can’t seem to get a copy of said bill, because no one wants to publish it (even to the House of Representatives… another case of a bill being voted on before it was even read by our Legislature.)

    But to your point of a free market solution: A Tax to disincentivise as a vehicle to reduce is NOT Free Market. A Free Market solution is for the industry to generate a better solution, and capitalize on it.
    Unfortunately, every solution that has come (Nuclear Power, Solar Power, Wind Power) has been poo-pooed by the Government, or some organization like PETA. (PeTA has killed both wind and solar… I don’t mind losing Wind and Solar, those were losing propositions and not scalable at all, the statistics go nuts when trying to power a City.)
    No, this is a government control of yet another facet of private industry, and I don’t think it is an effective one.
    Are Utilities going to change from their existing production to something else, in a year, in ten years? from this legislation? They are not the ones going to pay the burden, the consumer is.
    We the people, paying the bill, are going to see our energy rates go up, and what are we the people going to be able to do about it?
    “Well, honey, we’re either going to have to install a nuclear reactor and use that, or sell the house.”
    It’s just like raising the price of Gasoline. We’re still going to pay for it, because we left ourselves no alternatives.

    Now, there is still the question of where all these taxes are going to go. And my mistrust of Government tells me that this flux of cash is not going to go anywhere good, or productive. Look what happened to TARP. It was designed to buy the Toxic Assets from the banks, and instead our Government used it to buy stock in the banks, leaving the Toxic Assets still rotting away in the Balance Sheet. (I was against the idea then, I’m even more against the idea now.) Same with the AIG bailouts, the Automotive Bailouts, this insane Bankruptcy of Chrysler where the Auto Union end up with ownership of 50+% of the company, and GM is probably going the same route

    That is why I think this is all related, its either spending money badly, or getting money, badly.

    Comment by Jeremy — June 28, 2009 @ 1:58:20 PM

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress 4.2.10