On second thought, GOP cap-and-trade cost estimates on the money

posted at 12:14 pm on April 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Republican opponents to Barack Obama’s cap-and-trade policy claimed that the costs passed along to the energy consumer would eventually amount to about $3100 a year, calling this a tax by other means.  Proponents scoffed at the suggestion, claiming that the actual cost would be less than a tenth of that amount.  They cited John Reilly, an MIT professor who claimed that the GOP lied about the study he conducted in order to concoct that number — and organizations from newspapers to Think Progress to MS-NBC and even the Wall Street Journal used his statement to call Republicans liars for the last several weeks.

They may have to eat those words.  Professor Reilly has rechecked his figures, and now he says that not only were the Republicans right after all, they actually underestimated the costs to the consumer.  John McCormack scores the exclusive:

Many congressional Republicans, including members of the GOP leadership, have claimed that the plan to limit carbon emissions through cap and trade would cost the average household more than $3,100 per year. According to an MIT study, between 2015 and 2050 cap and trade would annually raise an average of $366 billion in revenues (divided by 117 million households equals $3,128 per household, the Republicans reckon).

But on March 24, after interviewing one of the MIT professors who conducted the study on which the GOP relied to produce its estimate, the St. Petersburg Times fact-check unit, Politifact, declared the GOP figure of $3,100 per household was a “Pants on Fire” falsehood. The GOP claim is “just wrong,” MIT professor John Reilly told Politifact. “It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.” …

During a lengthy email exchange last week with THE WEEKLY STANDARD, MIT professor John Reilly admitted that his original estimate of cap and trade’s cost was inaccurate. The annual cost would be “$800 per household”, he wrote. “I made a boneheaded mistake in an excel spread sheet. I have sent a new letter to Republicans correcting my error (and to others).”

While $800 is significantly more than Reilly’s original estimate of $215 (not to mention more than Obama’s middle-class tax cut), it turns out that Reilly is still low-balling the cost of cap and trade by using some fuzzy logic. In reality, cap and trade could cost the average household more than $3,900 per year.

The $800 paid annually per household is merely the “cost to the economy [that] involves all those actions people have to take to reduce their use of fossil fuels or find ways to use them without releasing [Green House Gases],” Reilly wrote. “So that might involve spending money on insulating your home, or buying a more expensive hybrid vehicle to drive, or electric utilities substituting gas (or wind, nuclear, or solar) instead of coal in power generation, or industry investing in more efficient motors or production processes, etc. with all of these things ending up reflected in the costs of good and services in the economy.”

In other words, Reilly estimates that “the amount of tax collected” through companies would equal $3,128 per household–and “Those costs do get passed to consumers and income earners in one way or another”–but those costs have “nothing to do with the real cost” to the economy. Reilly assumes that the $3,128 will be “returned” to each household. Without that assumption, Reilly wrote, “the cost would then be the Republican estimate [$3,128] plus the cost I estimate [$800].”

At issue is what happens to all of the cap-and-trade funds that get collected by the government in the Obama plan.  In order to believe that the Obama-predicted revenues pulled out of the energy industry won’t impact the consumer, either one has to believe that energy producers won’t pass along those costs in price hikes (which is ridiculous), or that the Obama administration envisions a profit-sharing plan in which the money all goes back to the consumers.  The latter is equally ridiculous, and demonstrably so.  In the first place, Obama has already hiked federal spending $400 billion in the next fiscal year, and even his own OMB predicts trillion-dollar deficits for the next decade after that.  Massive rebates might sound great to Republicans, but Democrats will never, ever agree to them.  In any case, with these deficits, the money for rebates technically doesn’t exist.

Besides, the money has already been earmarked.  Obama himself said he would use the money for massive government expenditures on renewables research.  Other Democrats counted on the money to fund health-care reform.  No one in the administration or Congress ever envisioned giving the money back to the consumers, directly or even indirectly.

Once the government gets this money from energy production, they’re going to keep it.  That means that Reilly’s final figure of $3900 per household is the correct number to use.  It validates what the Republicans have said all along — that Obama’s cap-and-trade policy will be a disastrous burden on American families.  Maybe all of the scoffers should read what Reilly has to say now, but that’s not nearly as much fun as calling Republican liars.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

My ass. It bleeds.

lorien1973 on April 22, 2009 at 12:17 PM

But, they will be getting $13 a pay period back from the government…so it all evens out, right? /s

coldwarrior on April 22, 2009 at 12:17 PM

Of course it will cost us more. Only someone like Forrest Gump couldn’t figure it out. Check out how I spent my Earth Day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=226pcc0p3WI

kramer840 on April 22, 2009 at 12:17 PM

Of course it will cost us more. Only someone like Forrest Gump couldn’t figure it out. Check out how I spent my Earth Day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=226pcc0p3WI

kramer840 on April 22, 2009 at 12:18 PM

They want justice. This is a way to punish priior CO2 output.

seven on April 22, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Don’t you know you are getting a $400 tax credit back?

lorien1973 on April 22, 2009 at 12:18 PM

I said it yesterday and I’ll say it again: the left doesn’t care about facts. It is hellbent on getting EVERYTHING done before the elections in November 2010.

Never let a crisis go to waste indeed.

BardMan on April 22, 2009 at 12:19 PM

This brilliant MIT hack must be the same guy measuring Glaciers & Sea Ice.

“This is not the spreadsheet I knew.”

portlandon on April 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Well the good news is he’s not going to raise taxes.

Keeping his word, as usual.

/sarc

Let’s call it what it is, a trillion dollar shell game.

fogw on April 22, 2009 at 12:21 PM

A distraction from the important work at hand.

a capella on April 22, 2009 at 12:21 PM

So what you’re saying is that an MIT professor couldn’t friggin’ ADD???

CurtZHP on April 22, 2009 at 12:22 PM

So what you’re saying is that an MIT professor couldn’t friggin’ ADD???

CurtZHP on April 22, 2009 at 12:22 PM

I nominate him for new Treasury Secretary.

fogw on April 22, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Please don’t compaare Forrest Gump to the left! He was so much smarter, honest and sincere.

ChicagoBlues on April 22, 2009 at 12:26 PM

I have an economics degree from a public university, so I can elucidate for the community what Reilly’s logic is. The $800 figure is what economists call a “dead-weight loss” from taxation–people being motivated to inefficient economic behaviors.

The $3,128 Reilly writes off is the tax revenue. It is a standard assumption by mainstream economists that $3,128 collected in tax from a household is returned as $3,128 in government services and benefits to that same household–what the government taketh with one hand, it giveth freely back with the other. This, of course, is complete balderdash, but it’s what every university in the country (with the possible exceptions of GMU and Pepperdine) teaches in economics.

hicsuget on April 22, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Massive public debt at this point and the Treasury can’t print money fast enough for Obama. At this rate the Dollar will have the same value as Confederate money in 1865 and quality of life in the USA will rival that of Somalia.

My Thanks to you Fools, the 53% of you that put Spanky & Our Gang in office. The current Socialist Regime seems to have slept through Econ 101. We gave the village Idiots the keys to the car & the checkbook in November 08.

old trooper2 on April 22, 2009 at 12:26 PM

So what you’re saying is that an MIT professor couldn’t friggin’ ADD???

CurtZHP on April 22, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Prime example of how our univerities and colleges are in real trouble.

ChicagoBlues on April 22, 2009 at 12:26 PM

at least I know how to use EXCEL before I make an ass out of myself……>DWEEB!

SDarchitect on April 22, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Besides, the money has already been earmarked. Obama himself said he would use the money for massive government expenditures on renewables research. Other Democrats counted on the money to fund health-care reform. No one in the administration or Congress ever envisioned giving the money back to the consumers, directly or even indirectly.

Pretty much says it all.

ChicagoBlues on April 22, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Cap and Trade
Will Cost
$3900 Per Household

Good possibility for a TEA party sign on July 4th. Brings it home, makes it personal.

RushBaby on April 22, 2009 at 12:30 PM

$3900 my ass.

The problem with even that assumption is that it assumes that nothing else in the economy will change if everyone suddenly gets walloped with that kind of a pay cut.

Anyone really buy that?

Anyone else buy that suddenly too energy prices will drop due to the “downward pressure” placed on oil and coal prices by the suddenly abundant windmill power?

Y’know, what’s tragically sad is that in the history of this country, every boom and bust we’ve ever had; every up and every down, we’ve only had one downturn that wound up being a depression that garnered the designation of “Great.”

And that was the one the federal government tried to fix.

If this nonsense passes and winds up only costing the net of $3900 a household a year, that’ll probably be a blessing.

Typhoon on April 22, 2009 at 12:31 PM

And you just know that in the end, they’ll all be way off and the cost will be pushing close to $7000.

mankai on April 22, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Then Candidate Obama stated in Jan 2008 exactly what his cap and trade plan was going to do to electricity cost.

Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket
(P.S wish we could embed youtube videos)

So why does the media not report that?

JeffinSac on April 22, 2009 at 12:31 PM

My ass. It bleeds.

lorien1973 on April 22, 2009 at 12:17 PM

“If it bleeds we can tax it.”

Benjamin9 on April 22, 2009 at 12:32 PM

I commend the MIT professor for deciding to recheck his work and remove errors which provide false results. I would not be so quick to smash this guy down into the dirt for making an error in calculations, a simple minus sign somewhere can, at the end of your calculations, can leave your answer way off where it’s supposed to be. What’s important here is that he found his mistake, corrected it, admitted to it, and changed his opinion from the output of the data. That’s science!

Weebork on April 22, 2009 at 12:32 PM

aaaaaaaaaaaaand, that’s not the spreadsheet that I knew.

marklmail on April 22, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Don’t you know you are getting a $400 tax credit back?

lorien1973 on April 22, 2009 at 12:18 PM

And this website is sponsored by that right-wing network, Fox.

I better go because this isn’t family viewing.

Rhinoboy on April 22, 2009 at 12:33 PM

This cap n trade just gets even better. This morning on FoxNews, Az Rep John Shadegg said that not only were there going to be exceptions to companies that get taxed, but that he believed that there is deal-making in the works that would leave out whole congressional districts who would NOT be exposed to these price increases the rest of us will pay, just so that the vote would pass. Here’s his interview with Megyn Kelly this morning, found over at YT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QaoVw1LXiE. Good Grief. Make it stop!

CInAz on April 22, 2009 at 12:34 PM

It is a standard assumption by mainstream economists that $3,128 collected in tax from a household is returned as $3,128 in government services and benefits to that same household–what the government taketh with one hand, it giveth freely back with the other.
hicsuget on April 22, 2009 at 12:26 PM

So, how do they explain the source of operating and administrative costs for the government? I assume they conclude earmarks and corruption also add into value received back by individual households? Unbelievable!

a capella on April 22, 2009 at 12:35 PM

A pretty dumb mistake for someone with an MIT position and who willingly allowed his initial study to be used to attack Obama’s opponents.

But give Reilly credit for admitting him mistake and sending out the new numbers — Among the Global Warming fanatics, finding out about mistakes that hurt their cause usually causes them to double-down, and either attack the person providing the information as untrustworthy, or (as in Reilly’s case), if they’re the original source of the data, to try and bury their mistake or figure out a new way to jiggle the numbers to make things come out their way.

(Whether or not the cap-and-trade crowd will go after Reilly now as a Traitor to the Cause and an Enemy of the State is unknown, but my guess is before they do that, they’ll try to ignore the Weekly Standard’s story and pretend these new numbers that confirm the Republican criticisms don’t exist and/or that the Standard itself made up the numbers.)

jon1979 on April 22, 2009 at 12:37 PM

so, I’m confused, is $3900 a big number, or a small number?

kirkill on April 22, 2009 at 12:38 PM

kirkill on April 22, 2009 at 12:38 PM

It’s 13,000 times more than what Obama saved when he cut government spending this week. :P

lorien1973 on April 22, 2009 at 12:40 PM

It’s been stated that to make alternative energy viable, gasoline and oil must be more expensive – gas on the order of $5 a gallon.

To me, this sets a baseline. Energy prices will not be any cheaper than an equivalent energy price of $5 a gallon.

How is this not an increased financial drain on the people? Cap and trade only amplifies those costs.

SouthernRoots on April 22, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Guess what? I don’t have an extra $4K a year to shell out. I have a kid in college and a baby at home. We barely make ends meet as it is and this scheme to fund you’re fantasy government wants an extra $4k? I don’t have it. Now what should I do? Don’t send the kid to college? Not heat the house? Baby won’t like that! Sell my home and rent? Go live in a tent in the woods? WHAT!??!!

Sefton on April 22, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Wait, does this mean I’m not going to get that middle class tax cut after all? Why I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.

It is almost like history repeating itself or something.

18-1 on April 22, 2009 at 12:41 PM

what is the Cap & Trade bill number? where is it currently in Congress now? what is the bill really called?

we need this info so we can start putting the pressure on Congress.

this info should go on the header as an “update”.

kelley in virginia on April 22, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Reilly assumes that the $3,128 will be “returned” to each household. Without that assumption, Reilly wrote, “the cost would then be the Republican estimate [$3,128] plus the cost I estimate [$800].
____________________________

Huh?????? On what basis (fanciful or otherwise) does our esteemed professor assume this $3128 will be returned to each household??????

How does this clown become a professor???

Am I to assume this type of drivel is typical of professors at MIT???

(Sorry, I know there are lots of ??? in this post – but at some point (and I’ve reached it) one’s credulity is strained beyond the breaking point.

alwyr on April 22, 2009 at 12:43 PM

What is the message in the “boneheaded” spreadsheet error?

Ask the climate “modelers” who have foisted the “climate crisis” on the world.

What could go wrong?

notagool on April 22, 2009 at 12:45 PM

If the money is going to be rebated, as the good proffessor assumes, why would anybody spend money trying to cut their energy usage?

The number is either $3900, or it is $0.

MarkTheGreat on April 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM

so, I’m confused, is $3900 a big number, or a small number?

kirkill on April 22, 2009 at 12:38 PM

You just qualified for the Obama Treasury department deputy position.

portlandon on April 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Thank God I’m part of 95% of Americans.

kirkill on April 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Wait a minute…I think I’ve figured out Obama’s plan.

If this is going to cost the average household about $4k, we are looking at it costing the Al Gore McMegaMansion roughly the current deficit.

Well played Mr Obama…well played.

And you Mr Gore – less flying all over the globe, more selling DVDs – you are going to need those profits!

18-1 on April 22, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Maybe this is the same spreadsheet the Sec Treas used to compute his taxes?

John D on April 22, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Not willing to pay $285.33 a month for a GLOBAL HOAX!

Branch Rickey on April 22, 2009 at 12:49 PM

alwyr on April 22, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Read here

hicsuget on April 22, 2009 at 12:26 PM

a capella on April 22, 2009 at 12:51 PM

So, how do they explain the source of operating and administrative costs for the government? I assume they conclude earmarks and corruption also add into value received back by individual households? Unbelievable!

a capella on April 22, 2009 at 12:35 PM

There really is no explanation. It’s a gap in the theory that nobody has thought fit to explore. One of the foundational assumptions of classical economics is that any government intervention in the market yields a result worse than that which the market would produce. One of the foundational assumptions of Keynesian “economics” is that any government intervention in the market, provided it is informed by economists, yields an outcome at least as good as that which the market would produce.

In intermediate microeconomics we were taught that giving cash as a gift yields a higher utility to the recipient than giving a present of the same cost. The same principle clearly applies here–you would spend your $3100 exactly the way you would want to, whereas the government almost certainly would not spend it that exact same way–but this is a conclusion too logical for a Keynesian to draw.

hicsuget on April 22, 2009 at 12:52 PM

So wait, let me get this straight. First, our Treasury Secretary can’t use turbotax, now an MIT professor can’t use Excel?

Morons.

leetpriest on April 22, 2009 at 12:53 PM

The current Socialist Regime seems to have slept through Econ 101. old trooper2 on April 22, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Actually have to disagree with you, Old Trooper. They were WAY TO WIDE AWAKE during Prof. Ayers classes. :)

Branch Rickey on April 22, 2009 at 12:54 PM

but this is a conclusion too logical for a Keynesian to draw.

Your average Keynsian, like your average liberal, starts with the assumption that the average citizen is just to stupid to know what is best for them. And therefore the more govt controls, the better off the world becomes.

MarkTheGreat on April 22, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Go live in a tent in the woods? WHAT!??!!

Sefton on April 22, 2009 at 12:41 PM

You can have a place in my pasture to pitch your tent, rent free. All you gotta do is work for me!
We’ll cut trees together to heat our homes (I got plenty).
There’s lots of lignite coal washing down the river by my house. We’ll find a way to use it.
I’ll come up with a device for my cows to wear to harness the methane they spew for energy purposes.
We’ll put up a homemade windmill!
We will live like kings-like they did in the 17th century, anyhow.

Badger40 on April 22, 2009 at 12:55 PM

We will live like kings-like they did in the 17th century, anyhow.

Badger40 on April 22, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Bathe once a year and die at 50?

18-1 on April 22, 2009 at 12:56 PM

So has PolitiFact corrected its conclusions? What do you think?

capitano on April 22, 2009 at 12:57 PM

I really can’t imagine how this is going to screw up the world.
Taxing energy in general makes everything go up.
Your food takes energy to get produced, moved to a location, sold.
All of your other goods take energy to produce etc.
The only way to avoid this tax for me at least is to go native.
Dig an outhouse.
Cut a lot of wood.
Use the coal near my house (illegally of course).
Live like a peasant.
How fun this will be.

Badger40 on April 22, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Your average Keynsian, like your average liberal, starts with the assumption that the average citizen is just to stupid to know what is best for them. And therefore the more govt controls, the better off the world becomes.

MarkTheGreat on April 22, 2009 at 12:54 PM

That is an accurate statement. “Externalities” is the technical term for the concept in economics.

hicsuget on April 22, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Cap and Trade…probably the grossest policy error ever proposed by the american left. The straight up silliest sh*t. Ever.

If you want more efficient energy generation, just dole out research grants to university teams and make the spec requirements whatever you’d like. Random research team comes up with novel procedure, shops private sector buyers. Private sector doles out licenses to prospective users. Voila, more energy efficient power generation. They key to all this being, you use current federal funds rather than borrowing for an increase in grant dollars.

The fed needs to restructure, quite like our banks. Spend less on x and more on research grants. Tax less. I propose a managed bankruptcy of the federal government, in order properly encourage said restructuring.

ernesto on April 22, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Forgot to carry the two…

29Victor on April 22, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Just what is the projected effect of the Cap and Trade scheme on the job market? And don’t give me a bunch of fantasy “green jobs” mumbo-jumbo.

Increasing the cost of energy to businesses and industries can only have a negative effect, and the overall damage to the economy will go far beyond the initial additional outlays.

This is truly a recipe for disaster. It would be an economy-killer even in robust times.

hillbillyjim on April 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Just what is the projected effect of the Cap and Trade scheme on the job market? And don’t give me a bunch of fantasy “green jobs” mumbo-jumbo.

Does the year 1929 ring a bell?

18-1 on April 22, 2009 at 1:09 PM

I guess that lying academic crapweasel didn’t get that big grant he was shooting for, so he was forced to tell the truth.

It’s coal, nuclear, gas and oil or massive fuel taxation.
Take your pick.
Little crappy and unproductive windmills are not going to do it in the real world.

TexasJew on April 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Don’t you know you are getting a $400 tax credit back?

lorien1973 on April 22, 2009 at 12:18 PM

I sooo wanted to use that when I started reading the article.

I shall now wait with baited breath for ThinkProgress, MSNBC and the WSJ to correct the error.

BadgerHawk on April 22, 2009 at 1:15 PM

This is truly a recipe for disaster. It would be an economy-killer even in robust times.

hillbillyjim on April 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Even Detroit is a little nervous about it. Poor Conyers and Levin must be mightily conflicted. Think what it will do to food prices. Then you have inflation on top of that.

a capella on April 22, 2009 at 1:16 PM

We need Tesla right now.

Little crappy and unproductive windmills are not going to do it in the real world.

TexasJew on April 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Agreed. And what happens to the electronics & industrial sectors when the only power available is from low performing, unpredictable sources?
People will stop buying TVs, electronics of all kinds.
Industry won’t have enough power to make ‘stuff’.
We will be another 3rd world country in no time.
Meanwhile China & India will ignore this stupidity & make everything (like they basically do already) & soon we will be their serfs.

Badger40 on April 22, 2009 at 1:16 PM

So this John Reilly is an MIT professor and he can’t even do simple math?

$215? $800? $3,128?

What does he do, just pull these numbers out of his arse depending on what sign of the zodiac it is?

What a maroon.

MB4 on April 22, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Ditch, meet U.S. economy.

petefrt on April 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Think what it will do to food prices.
a capella on April 22, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Which are already the cheapest they have ever been in this country due to market manipulation & price fixing by your US Govt.
Another reason farmers & ranchers don’t get a fair chunk of the dollar made from food.
I swear I wish I could go Galt.
No burgers for anyone!
Soylent Green will = the new ‘bruger’

Badger40 on April 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM

‘bruger’ burger

DUH.

Badger40 on April 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Thanks for clearing that up Ed. The left wing blogs were going crazy about how cap and trade would cost <$300 per household. I bet they will be silent about this one. This reinforces my earlier thought that Cap and Trade is the worst idea ever.

nazo311 on April 22, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Patent system needs to be fixed.
Give people a financial reason to make clean, reliable, & cheap energy.
Channeling Tesla.

Badger40 on April 22, 2009 at 1:20 PM

kramer840 on April 22, 2009 at 12:18 PM

I’m sorry, but Forrest Gump would be able to figure this out. There are a lot trolls around here who can’t but Forrest could…

ladyingray on April 22, 2009 at 1:21 PM

I watched a global warming propaganda show on Public TV this past weekend where, their ‘facts’ consisted of reports by mountain climbers who claim the mountain landscape had changed over the 30 years he had been a climber.

Toward the end, they questioned a former IMF bean counter about ‘Cap n Trade’ and his response was something like “With all the spending Obama is doing, we will need to tax something, it may as well be something that is helping the planet.”

Disgusting.

This is just another way to ‘legitimize’ a tax.

But don’t worry, he’s not raising taxes on 95% of the people, he’s just raising taxes on 100% of the things that 95% of the people buy.

cntrlfrk on April 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Maybe we can check the tire pressure on those awful commuter trains that Barry wants us to subsidize.

TexasJew on April 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Barry O and the Dumocrats aren’t going to be happy until everyone’s living in caves or grass huts.

TrickyDick on April 22, 2009 at 1:25 PM

Can we buy CO2 to inflate car tires to offset the carbon output?

seven on April 22, 2009 at 1:28 PM

he’s not raising taxes on 95% of the people, he’s just raising taxes on 100% of the things that 95% of the people buy.

cntrlfrk on April 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM

LOL! That is too funny!

Badger40 on April 22, 2009 at 1:29 PM

…meanwhile, B.O. is here in Iowa at a plant that once made household appliances, and now makes wind turbine parts so we can cover farmland with windmills.

Maybe with what is left farmable we can make more ethanol to fuel the cars we will be forced to purchase from GM and drive them on the roads we built with the stimulus money.

cntrlfrk on April 22, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Since Democrats are absolutely clueless about economics I suppose they haven’t considered the substitution effect and how many jobs will be lost as Americans divert ‘disposable income’ to increased energy costs. How many will lose their jobs in restaurants, dry cleaning, entertainment, etc. as Americans are forced to substitute “luxuries” for necessities?

If the Government wants a windfall income stream then dammit, open up the entire US for oil and gas drilling and collect the royalty income.

DerKrieger on April 22, 2009 at 1:31 PM

he’s not raising taxes on 95% of the people, he’s just raising taxes on 100% of the things that 95% of the people buy.

cntrlfrk on April 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM

That’s pretty much perfect.

BadgerHawk on April 22, 2009 at 1:32 PM

With the EPA’s ruling last week regarding CO2, the odds we will get an economy killing Cap & Trade tax shoved down our throats are significantly higher. How are we to fight back against this menace? One idea I had and shared with my GOP Congressman, John Boozman (R-AR), was an amendment attached to the Waxman/Markey bill, if that’s the carbon tax vehicle of choice, requiring all businesses to add a separate line item on any bill or receipt that explicitly lists the amount of tax imposed from cap & trade. Cap & Trade is not much more than a European style VAT tax applied at every point of production and transportation and therefore should be transparent in prices. Since the Democrats are who they are they will of course oppose this idea because it exposes them, which naturally makes this a good idea. Congress should not be allowed to hide behind the companies that are forced to collect this tax on Congress’ behalf and then jump on the anti-business bandwagon when people take their anger out on their utilities, Big Oil, and everyone else with whom they do business. If this is the path we are being forced to take, let’s at least demand we know who’s doing the driving.

DerKrieger on April 22, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Marie Antoinette: If the peasants are hungry then let them eat cake.

Barack Obama: If the peasants are cold them burn $hit.

MB4 on April 22, 2009 at 1:36 PM

As a geologist. it really sickens me to see all this crappy pseudoscience being bantered around.
The funny thing is that there is absolutely no evidence of any sea level rise, after all this panicked hysteria. None. Zero. Zip.
Even the UN’s IPCC – a “scientific” organization that mainly consists of leftist hack political appointees and clueless social scientists – only points to a 100-year sea level rise of 7-10 inches – less than a quarter of a daily normal tidal range.
Unbelievable…

TexasJew on April 22, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Barack Obama: If the peasants are cold them let them burn $hit.

MB4 on April 22, 2009 at 1:38 PM

clueless social scientists

TexasJew on April 22, 2009 at 1:37 PM

A more worthless ‘science’ I have never seen.
A BS in that should be labeled a BA.
It is truly based upon artistic interpretation.

Badger40 on April 22, 2009 at 1:41 PM

With the EPA’s ruling last week regarding CO2, the odds we will get an economy killing Cap & Trade tax shoved down our throats are significantly higher.
DerKrieger on April 22, 2009 at 1:32 PM

EPA=Obama’s vehicle of ‘change’.
I can’t wait til they start trying to regulate the dust they say is a pollutant.

Badger40 on April 22, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Barack Obama: If the peasants are cold them let them burn $hit.

MB4 on April 22, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Isn’t Congress comprised mostly of $hit?

Badger40 on April 22, 2009 at 1:43 PM

We will live like kings-like they did in the 17th century, anyhow.

Badger40 on April 22, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Bathe once a year and die at 50?

18-1 on April 22, 2009 at 12:56 PM

That’s the only way universal health care is affordable.

ProfessorMiao on April 22, 2009 at 1:46 PM

I’m from the EPA and I’m here to help.

Dhuka on April 22, 2009 at 1:52 PM

I live in Houston. I can’t even imagine what this will do to us down here. It’s hotter than hades in the summer. Imagine the mold factor in homes now, if we have to keep turning up the thermostat, to avoid an expense we can hardly afford. Imagine all those lower income, and retired peoples. They can hardly afford their bills now. This is insane.

Al Gore must be doing one helluva happy dance, just dreaming of the money this will make him.

capejasmine on April 22, 2009 at 1:53 PM

kramer840 on April 22, 2009 at 12:17 PM

LOL!!! Bravo!

D2Boston on April 22, 2009 at 1:53 PM

My ass. It bleeds.

lorien1973 on April 22, 2009 at 12:17 PM

Don’t you know you are getting a $400 tax credit back?

lorien1973 on April 22, 2009 at 12:18 PM

You’re killin me.

Jaibones on April 22, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Here in coal country, the EPA has already set about hamstringing local coal-mining operations through the permitting process, and I expect this is only the beginning.

By the permitting process, of course I mean the process of delaying/denying permits.

hillbillyjim on April 22, 2009 at 2:05 PM

I think I’ll celebrate earth day by burning a tire or two in Obama’s name.

Spiritk9 on April 22, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Guess what? I don’t have an extra $4K a year to shell out. I have a kid in college and a baby at home. We barely make ends meet as it is and this scheme to fund you’re fantasy government wants an extra $4k? I don’t have it. Now what should I do? Don’t send the kid to college? Not heat the house? Baby won’t like that! Sell my home and rent? Go live in a tent in the woods? WHAT!??!!

Sefton on April 22, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Well I’ll guarantee you one thing- when the Obama loving masses start to cry about their heating bills, there will be an outcry from Congress that we must subsidize their utilities. And no, it will not include anyone on any “list”.

anniekc on April 22, 2009 at 2:12 PM

Someone explain this to me. Is this $3900 figure the total cost per household for crap-and-trade? Or is that just what each family will pay extra in their power bill? If so, that leaves out the cost of food, goods, services, hell pretty much everything we consume.

We’re screwed either way, but I’m wondering to what degree we’re gonna have to bend over and grab the ankles.

Doughboy on April 22, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Is it Earth Day?

Oh well, guess I’ll build a nice big fire, and marinate some polar bear steaks to go with those delicious spotted-owl eggs.

hillbillyjim on April 22, 2009 at 2:16 PM

I work for a major oil company (big, but not close to the biggest), and we were told that cap and trade will cost us between $500 million and $750 million per year. That is a lot of money that we don’t have to drill for more oil and gas, and that applies to all the oil companies. Which means fewer wells drilled, which means either higher prices from less supply, or more imported oil, which the Saudis will love, but it hurts all of us with the trade imbalance. Better get those bicycles out and fix ‘em up if you want to get around.

iurockhead on April 22, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2