Congress is set to release the details of the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy & Security Act sometime next week. This bill is supposed to help limit carbon emissions in an attempt to slow global warming. Cap and trade should be addressed as a tax and a redistribution of wealth and nothing else.

The CBO’s report dated May 7th 2009 titled: The Distribution Of Revenues from a Cap-and-Trade Program for CO2 Emissions states on page 1 and throughout, “under a cap and trade program consumers would ultimately bear most of the cost for emission reductions”.

In this 26 page report the CBO makes references to the distribution of revenues, rebates for low income families, credits and other terms associated with the redistribution of revenues or wealth 42 times. It makes direct or indirect references to higher costs for consumers over 50 times. The Government will decide what families pay the tax and what families get rebates or credits. It makes mention that income will be used as a factor to determine who gets to pay this tax and who gets paid. On page 9 of the report it says some households will pay for the allowances and other households will receive the income associated with them. On page 16 of the report it states,

Low-income households
would be better off in that case because the size of the rebate would be larger
than the average increase in their spending resulting from the higher price of energy
(see Figure 2).6 High-income households would be worse off under that scenario
(again, excluding any benefit from reducing the risks associated with climate change)
because the average increase in their spending would be larger than the rebate.

The report is alarming for many reasons. For instance the Government will decide who gets these allowances. Do you really think this will be on the up and up? The Government may just give these credits away. Does the Government  give away anything without seeking something in return? On more than 1 occasion the report states that there are extensive uncertainties both in data and in the projections based on that data. But researchers are confident. I feel better already. Why not do more testing, get more conclusive data?

From this report we know: some people will get taxed, some people will receive income. More study should be done and is necessary. This will push the costs solely on the consumer and only certain consumers. Another form of Government handouts to business for a favor to be named later. Another handout to low income families for votes in upcoming elections. The GDP will be impacted negatively and we will produce less goods. This is a great way to discourage investment in America, discourages work and will lead to job loss.

I don’t need the Government to tell me how to monitor my energy usage. I do that myself, I get a Public Service Bill every month that I pay. If the bill is to high I adjust my usage. Try monitoring those that don’t pay for their energy, like low income housing.  Just another way the Government is reaching in our pockets.

Here is the link to the report, great bathroom read.  The Distribution of Revenues from a Cap-and-Trade Program for CO2 Emissions- Statement of Douglas W. Elmendorf- Director

RB/411acrossamerica.com