Conservative's Conscience

Cap and Trade - and Sink

Some irrefutable knowledge is intuitive, for example:

• Taxes should not increase during a recession because they penalize the private sector, which needs its money to live, invest, expand and save jobs.
• Taxes should decrease during a recession because the private sector benefits from a lighter tax burden and makes more probable new investment and expansion that leads to more jobs, and recovery.
• Any government program that takes money from the private sector is a tax, no matter what lawmakers call it.  As such, however worthy the cause, during a recession it must be shelved for another day.
• Bills that affect the nation dramatically should not be presented for passage until members have had a chance to read them (power politics), and should never be approved by any politician until read (constitutional oath).

The above statements are the equivalent of: Two plus two is four.  Those who refuse to accept the obvious because it is, for some reason, uncomfortable, have no legitimate seat at the table of serious debate.

The House of Representatives by a 219-212 vote just passed the Cap and Trade act -- 44 of Democrats (17%) and almost all Republicans (95%) voted against it.  Few, if any of them, knew the details of what they were voting for or against.

Democrats tout the bill as being a measure that will improve national security, protect the environment, create jobs and make America a net exporter of energy.  Its functional goal is to cut greenhouse gases 17 percent by 2020 and by 83 percent in 2050.  It mandates that 20 percent of electrical energy by 2020 must come from renewable sources and from conservation (presumably because of high prices etc.). 

These goals will be achieved by putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions from electric utilities, coal plants, manufacturers, farmers, refineries and others under something called a cap and trade system, the effect of which will send a flood of money to Washington and cause higher prices for everything in the market. 

The bill will cause hardships.  Accordingly it contains promises of financial assistance for transition costs to polluters and to consumers.  But off the record, some eye this cash flow as the never-ending source of support for more social programs.  When the two ideas clash the assistance to the private sector will predictably diminish. 

According to the president and his supporters, the cost to the consumer will be trivial.  Nobody else agrees.

Sit back.  Cross your legs and relax.  Let's think about this together, point by point.

o       This was presidential/leadership legislation forced on members as a loyalty test.  Most representatives didn't know what they voted for.    

o       Bills that cost a lot now, and promise benefits sometime, are not easy to swallow. 

o       "Polluters" today were the backbone of the U.S. energy system yesterday and will be for a time to come.  Somebody once said: "Never poke a stick at a bear."   That is good advice for those inclined to trash the private sector at every opportunity. 

o       The cap and trade system, according to the Financial Post, will bring to Washington by 2050 almost $500 billion a year in permit fees.  It may or may not create net new jobs; it may or may not improve energy independence.  But one thing is sure: It is a tax system that is being sold to the public under false colors.  As such, it should not be considered in 2009 -- it will lengthen the recession and hinder recovery.     

o       The promise not to raise taxes on lower income groups rings hollow when a bill is passed that removes money from the same class in the form of an increased cost of living.

o       The current recession has many causes.  The lack of a cap and trade system isn't one of them.  Let's fix the economy first -- tend to business -- take care of other things later.  What's the hurry?   

o       The urgency for cap and trade was originally based upon the noble objective to save the planet from the ravages of global warming, as outlined by Al Gore.  Notice: "global warming" isn't mentioned anymore.  The buzz words these days are "climate change" and "environmental concerns."  There is a reason for this.  Evidence mounts daily that mankind (fossil fuels/carbon monoxide/greenhouse gases) is not responsible for climate change, and that warming observed is cyclical and natural -- that Goreology is junk science..     

o       The whole functional purpose of cap and trade is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20l7, and practically eliminate them by 2050.  Why?  If cap and trade was triggered by Goreology, and if Goreology is, at least, doubted and, at worst, is a colossal error, why turn the American economy upside down to pursue its objectives? 

o       A clean environment, apart from Goreology, is a common American objective that can be gradually resolved in a less dramatic, and a more timely way than cap and trade.

o       A movement away from fossil fuels is a common American objective that can be gradually resolved within an energy program that uses all resources of the United States, plus government support that direct American energies toward such things as renewable forms of energy production, including nuclear.  

o       The cap and trade system has nothing to do with gasoline, except to increase the price of it.  Gasoline accounts for about half of U.S. oil imports.  Reliance upon them is the national security aspect of the immediate problem.  It should be more directly attacked as the primary short-term objective of any energy program.  It can be done, quicker and better than cap and trade, and at a lower cost.  In fairness, separate initiatives are aimed at this, but not with sufficient intensity.   

o       Fossil fuels will be with us for years to come.  The goal should be to maximize the use of those that can be locally produced in an environmentally reasonable (not perfect) manner.

There is no need for this legislation.  It does nothing that could not be done less intrusively.  Leadership in this area has been lacking for a half century.  It still is. 

There are, should be and always will be differences between Democrats and Republicans.    But this (and, by the way, health care) is a major national issue that should not be politicized.  There are common objectives:

o       To be energy independent.

o       To minimize pollutants for environmental (not global warming) reasons.   

Given that as a beginning point, wise heads from both sides of the aisle, guided by experts, properly motivated could come up with a palatable program that both sides could  live with.

The cap and trade bill would not see the light of day if Democrats were not in power with a near veto-proof majority, which they want to exploit before the elections of 2010.  It will pass in the Senate unless independents and some Democrats think more of their country than they do about passing the biggest tax bill since the income tax became law under Woodrow Wilson.

Read anything but liberal propaganda and you will find all the information you need to scream from the rooftops:"Stop this insanity." 

If approved as law, cap and trade will increase the cost of everything that moves, it will lessen America's international competitive position (China is building a new coal plant every four days), it will cost jobs as well as create them, it will decrease America's GDP (according to Heritage Foundation) and it will continue America's dependence on foreign oil for years to come, something that could be reduced overnight if we turned loose the  internal capacities of the nation (drilling/clean coal).     

The ball now moves to the Senate.  Burn your partisan hat.  Think American.  Make your voice heard.  Fight against this bill. 

Or sit back, and watch your kids pay the price.