Bachmann - ‘Cap and trade’? More like ‘tax and spend’
Posted by Andy on June 10th, 2008
Let’s hope Rep. Bachmann’s (R MN6) staff sends a copy of her Strib Op Ed to Sen Coleman’s (R MN) office.
From its name, cap-and-trade legislation sounds harmless enough. Unfortunately, cap-and-trade would be more aptly called “tax and trade” or “tax and spend” and it is far from harmless, posing a serious threat to our economy and our personal freedoms.
A parliamentary maneuver was used on Friday to kill debate in the Senate, but this is only the beginning. With many national leaders, influential lobbyists and powerful special-interest groups pushing hard for a cap-and-trade bill, there is no doubt that this is going to be a hot debate in the months to come as well.
The bill in question is called America’s Climate Security Act. However, like the subject of this bill, global warming, the legislation has been the subject of considerable hype and little hard-nosed analysis.
In this case, the federal government would impose arbitrary limits on six emission gases, with the primary emphasis on carbon dioxide. In order to prevent or “cap” these emissions, the government would sell permits to power plants, refineries, and natural gas producers, among others. To offset losses, the costs of the permits will be passed along in the form of increased energy costs to consumers (much like an energy tax).
As if costs weren’t high enough already, now American businesses and users of energy — nearly everyone — would have to pay more for the right to use energy. One of the bill’s main advocates, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., estimates the cost of these permits at $6.7 trillion by 2050. The federal government is estimated to directly receive $3.32 trillion, with $3.42 trillion in permits sold by other parties. American consumers will still pay the full $6.7 trillion tab.
Sen. Coleman supported this pig of a bill.
Sphere: Related Content
June 10th, 2008 at 10:15 am
You cannot say Coleman supported this bill, since all he did was vote to debate it, as far as I know. That is his usual approach, and in this case a good choice, since we get to paint Democrats into a corner on this stupid, stupid bill.
The problem is worse than Rep. Bachmann even states. The trouble with the “trade” portion of the bill is that it creates a “market” for a commodity with no intrinsic value– a permit to release CO2– and forces people to buy it. But both the seller and the buyer are going to continue to output the same exact amount of CO2 as they did before the “trade”! There is absolutely nothing done for the environment except to increase the cost of our most plentiful sources of energy, like coal and oil!
And that’s where the “Cap” part comes in. In order to reduce CO2, the government must simply mandate that we all use less energy. After all, if you tell a coal-fired power producer to cut CO2 60%, they will produce 60% less electricity, because it is the only way to cut CO2. That means 60% less energy for running your fridge, air conditioner, and electric space heater (since you won’t be allowed to burn natural gas to heat your home– too much CO2, you know). Naturally, these severe restrictions are going to have a highly negative effect on the economy and your way of life, and all to stave off global temperature increases by SIX DAYS! Yep, that’s it. Whoopee.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Jerry you are full of BS.
Here’s the Senator in his own words in a letter about this exact bill.
http://wrightrepublican.blogspot.com/2008/06/norms-response-on-cap-trade.html
You can read the whole thing. Al Gore would be proud. I’m really disappointed that a Republican sounds just like liberal Democrats.
Utter BS spin. Go try that crap somewhere where people don’t use their own brainstems.
Cullen Sheehan refused to answer my question if the Senator was going to vote for this bill 6 times at the State Convention on Thursday evening. I asked it, he changed the subject. He and I have gotten in to it numerous times before over Cap and Trade, and he has never rebutted it when I have said he opposes it.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Jerry - Norm was indeed a co-sponsor of this pig of a bill!
LL
June 10th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
What can you say? MN loved ethanol. I’d rather have a GOP senator that represented Minnesota by supporting ethanol, than being represented by a DFL senator who supported ethanol. Maybe the ethanol bubble is bursting. We can hope, but until then we’ve got to accept the best MN will vote for, and that mean Senator Coleman and Governor Pawlenty
June 11th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
That is BS!!! I’m sick of hearing that crappy is the best we can hope for! That’s the line coming from leadership in the RNC and state party, and is the philospohy that has led to years of back-to-back crushing GOP defeats. I’m losing my mind every time I read or hear some smarmy statement like that! Enough! It’s time for a serious conservative revolution in the party. All these RINO hacks have to go. I’m not going along with “at least I’m not as bad as the other guy” any more. If you aspire to mediocrity, that’s what you’ll get, or worse. We HAVE TO aim higher.
Shoot for the stars and drag your feet in the treetops. That’s better than shooting for the dirt and hitting it!