inthebox
Jun 2, 2008, 09:45 PM
Just in case you missed this while the majority of today's news is focused on Clinton and Obama. :cool:
washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines (http://washingtonpost.com)
Cap-and-trade WOULD ACT AS A TAX, but it's not described as a tax. It would regulate economic activity, but it's promoted as a "free market" mechanism. Finally, it would trigger a tidal wave of influence-peddling, as lobbyists scrambled to exploit the system for different industries and localities. This would undermine whatever abstract advantages the system has.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that a 15 percent cut of emissions would raise average household energy costs by almost $1,300 a year.
How do you feel about that in addition to $4 / galllon gas? :eek:
That's how cap-and-trade would tax most Americans. As "allowances" became scarcer, their price would rise, and the extra cost would be passed along to customers. Meanwhile, government would expand enormously. It could sell the allowances and spend the proceeds; or it could give them away, providing a windfall to recipients. The Senate proposal does both to the tune of about $1 trillion from 2012 to 2018. Beneficiaries would include farmers, Indian tribes, new technology companies, utilities and states. Call this "ENVIRONMENTAL PORK," and it would just be a start. The program's potential to confer subsidies and preferential treatment WOULD STIMULATE A LOBBYING FRENZY. Think of today's farm programs -- and multiply by 10.
A straightforward tax on carbon would favor alternative fuels and conservation just as much as cap-and-trade but without the rigid emission limits. A tax is more visible and understandable. If environmentalists still prefer an allowance system, let's call it by its proper name: cap-and-tax.
Townhall.com::When "Market-Based" Is a Facade::By George Will (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/06/01/when_market-based_is_a_facade)
A CARBON TAX would be too clear and candid for political comfort. It would clearly be what cap-and-trade DEVIOUSLY is, a tax, but one with a known cost. Therefore, taxpayers would demand a commensurate reduction of other taxes. Cap-and-trade -- government auctioning permits for businesses to continue to do business -- is a huge tax hidden in a bureaucratic labyrinth of opaque permit transactions.
This would be industrial policy, aka socialism, on a grand scale -- government picking winners and losers, all of whom will have powerful incentives to invest in LOBBYISTS TO INFLUENCE GOVERNMENT'S thousands of new wealth-allocating decisions.
This a bipartisan bill. Do you really think congress is looking out for you?
Just another scheme to rob taxpayors and increase the power of politicians, lobbyists, and big business. :(
washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines (http://washingtonpost.com)
Cap-and-trade WOULD ACT AS A TAX, but it's not described as a tax. It would regulate economic activity, but it's promoted as a "free market" mechanism. Finally, it would trigger a tidal wave of influence-peddling, as lobbyists scrambled to exploit the system for different industries and localities. This would undermine whatever abstract advantages the system has.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that a 15 percent cut of emissions would raise average household energy costs by almost $1,300 a year.
How do you feel about that in addition to $4 / galllon gas? :eek:
That's how cap-and-trade would tax most Americans. As "allowances" became scarcer, their price would rise, and the extra cost would be passed along to customers. Meanwhile, government would expand enormously. It could sell the allowances and spend the proceeds; or it could give them away, providing a windfall to recipients. The Senate proposal does both to the tune of about $1 trillion from 2012 to 2018. Beneficiaries would include farmers, Indian tribes, new technology companies, utilities and states. Call this "ENVIRONMENTAL PORK," and it would just be a start. The program's potential to confer subsidies and preferential treatment WOULD STIMULATE A LOBBYING FRENZY. Think of today's farm programs -- and multiply by 10.
A straightforward tax on carbon would favor alternative fuels and conservation just as much as cap-and-trade but without the rigid emission limits. A tax is more visible and understandable. If environmentalists still prefer an allowance system, let's call it by its proper name: cap-and-tax.
Townhall.com::When "Market-Based" Is a Facade::By George Will (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/06/01/when_market-based_is_a_facade)
A CARBON TAX would be too clear and candid for political comfort. It would clearly be what cap-and-trade DEVIOUSLY is, a tax, but one with a known cost. Therefore, taxpayers would demand a commensurate reduction of other taxes. Cap-and-trade -- government auctioning permits for businesses to continue to do business -- is a huge tax hidden in a bureaucratic labyrinth of opaque permit transactions.
This would be industrial policy, aka socialism, on a grand scale -- government picking winners and losers, all of whom will have powerful incentives to invest in LOBBYISTS TO INFLUENCE GOVERNMENT'S thousands of new wealth-allocating decisions.
This a bipartisan bill. Do you really think congress is looking out for you?
Just another scheme to rob taxpayors and increase the power of politicians, lobbyists, and big business. :(