Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

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...

...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.

catamount man wrote:Sent my email to Gresham Barrett asking him to vote no on this. If this passes, I may not have the will left in me to fight anymore for this nation and the principles it SHOULD be guided by.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

That is about all you are good at.

travelinman67 wrote:It will be the single worst law enacted since the Clean Air Act.

At a time when the U.S. economy is in the worst situation since the Great Depression.

Not done with bad intent, but a total absence of awareness as to the devastating economic consequences.

If passed and enacted, America will be a third world economy within 5 years.

Kiss your children's future goodbye. And don't forget to VOTE EVERYONE OUT next year...

...especially Waxman and Markey.

The Cap and Tax Fiction
Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.
JUNE 25, 2009

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

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...

...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.

Grizalltheway wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:It will be the single worst law enacted since the Clean Air Act.

At a time when the U.S. economy is in the worst situation since the Great Depression.

Not done with bad intent, but a total absence of awareness as to the devastating economic consequences.

If passed and enacted, America will be a third world economy within 5 years.

Kiss your children's future goodbye. And don't forget to VOTE EVERYONE OUT next year...

...especially Waxman and Markey.

It's statements like this that make it hard to take you seriously, T.

Cleets Part 2 wrote:I'm not sure if "Kill America" is accurate but it's a stupid Tax Bill...
I've never seen so many Republicans turn into such dram-queens (a lot of silly over emotion)

catamount man wrote:Well.........the house passed it 219-212. It's up the Senate.

GODDAMN YOU BARACK OBAMA!!! IN THE MIDDLE OF A **** RECESSION AND YOU AND YOUR COCK-SUCKING LEFTIST, MARXIST, PIECE OF **** COMRADES CONTINUE TO **** THE AMERICAN OVER AND OVER AND OVER!!!!!!!!

I HOPE ANY AND ALL NO-ACCOUNTING PIECES OF **** THAT PUT THIS MOTHERFUCKER IN THE WHITE HOUSE LAST NOVEMBER HAVE A POWER BILL SO GODDAMN HIGH THEY HAVE TO **** MORTGAGE THEIR HOUSE TO PAY FOR THE **** THING!!!!!!

CHINA, JAPAN, INDIA, FRANCE, AND COUNTLESS OTHER NATIONS HAVE SHED THE IDEA OF HIGHER TAXATION AND THEY ARE THRIVING. WHAT THE **** DO U DO? **** YOU, YOUR DREAMS, YOUR GOALS, AND YOUR SORRY ASS IDEALS. YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PIECE OF **** ****!!!!!!!

CID1990 wrote:

catamount man wrote:Well.........the house passed it 219-212. It's up the Senate.

GODDAMN YOU BARACK OBAMA!!! IN THE MIDDLE OF A **** RECESSION AND YOU AND YOUR COCK-SUCKING LEFTIST, MARXIST, PIECE OF **** COMRADES CONTINUE TO **** THE AMERICAN OVER AND OVER AND OVER!!!!!!!!

I HOPE ANY AND ALL NO-ACCOUNTING PIECES OF **** THAT PUT THIS MOTHERFUCKER IN THE WHITE HOUSE LAST NOVEMBER HAVE A POWER BILL SO GODDAMN HIGH THEY HAVE TO **** MORTGAGE THEIR HOUSE TO PAY FOR THE **** THING!!!!!!

CHINA, JAPAN, INDIA, FRANCE, AND COUNTLESS OTHER NATIONS HAVE SHED THE IDEA OF HIGHER TAXATION AND THEY ARE THRIVING. WHAT THE **** DO U DO? **** YOU, YOUR DREAMS, YOUR GOALS, AND YOUR SORRY ASS IDEALS. YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PIECE OF **** ****!!!!!!!

This is a win-win situation now. It is very unlikely that it will pass the Senate. If it fails there, then it will be Obama's first high-profile flop. If it DOES pass the Senate, the fallout in a couple years will come right back to Obama and the House dems. We'll be realizing the effects of the bill right around election time, along with inflation stimulated by the stimulus....

SeattleGriz wrote:Are those that believe in climate change on this board unaware of the incredibly bad science that is used to back this bill?

At a time when the rest of the World is waking up to the tax sham climate change has created, we are set to pass a bill that flies in the face of what everyone else is realizing.

I am all for being a good steward of the land, and I do walk the walk, but I don't like having a cash cow tax and shoddy science crammed down my throat. To compound matters, does anyone on here believe China and India are going to do anything to limit their emissioins?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
It's statements like this that make it hard to take you seriously, T.

It's focusing on statements like this that prove you don't have the ability to see the forest for the trees, GATW.

D1B wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
It's focusing on statements like this that prove you don't have the ability to see the forest for the trees, GATW.

Says the retard who predicted McCain would win in a landslide and voted for W twice and has been flat out wrong on every domestic and foreign policy for at least 8 years.

catamount man wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
This is a win-win situation now. It is very unlikely that it will pass the Senate. If it fails there, then it will be Obama's first high-profile flop. If it DOES pass the Senate, the fallout in a couple years will come right back to Obama and the House dems. We'll be realizing the effects of the bill right around election time, along with inflation stimulated by the stimulus....

I agree and DeMint and Graham have already gotten my emails. I would like to thank the 44 democrats WHO HAD THE GOOD COMMON SENSE AND BALLS to vote against this. Of course, the 8 rinos who voted AYES got the **** thing passed. Still crossing my fingers for the Senators to defeat this.

D1B wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
It's focusing on statements like this that prove you don't have the ability to see the forest for the trees, GATW.

Says the retard who predicted McCain would win in a landslide and voted for W twice and has been flat out wrong on every domestic and foreign policy for at least 8 years.

houndawg wrote:

D1B wrote:
Says the retard who predicted McCain would win in a landslide and voted for W twice and has been flat out wrong on every domestic and foreign policy for at least 8 years.

So consistently wrong that it makes me think there must be something good about the bill that isn't readily apparent. They just don't come anymore clueless than our own brother T'man.

Col Hogan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
So consistently wrong that it makes me think there must be something good about the bill that isn't readily apparent. They just don't come anymore clueless than our own brother T'man.

So, do think this is good legislation???