Cap and Trade: The Lobbyist Full Employment Act

If we want to reduce carbon emissions - something I find dubious to begin with - the best way to accomplish that goal is a direct tax. So why do President Obama and Henry Waxman want to implement a cap and trade program instead? From the NYT:

Cap and trade, by contrast, is almost perfectly designed for the buying and selling of political support through the granting of valuable emissions permits to favor specific industries and even specific Congressional districts. That is precisely what is taking place now in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has used such concessions to patch together a Democratic majority to pass a far-reaching bill to regulate carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade plan.

Cap and trade allows the politicians to reward friends and punish enemies. They've successfully disguised the carbon tax under cap and trade. Most Americans have no idea what it is and that's exactly the way the politicians want it to stay. Will it reduce carbon emissions? Doubtful, but that isn't the goal.

Cap and Trade? What's That?

From Rasmussen:

The gap between Capitol Hill and Main Street is huge when it comes to the so-called "cap-and-trade" legislation being considered in Congress. So wide, in fact, that few voters even know what the proposed legislation is all about.

Given a choice of three options, just 24% of voters can correctly identify the cap-and-trade proposal as something that deals with environmental issues. A slightly higher number (29%) believe the proposal has something to do with regulating Wall Street while 17% think the term applies to health care reform. A plurality (30%) have no idea.

Why do you think they aren't pushing a carbon tax? I'm sure the politicians pushing this (primarily Democrats, but some Republicans have drunk the global warming kool-aid too) are pleased with this result. Their goal is to enact a massive energy tax without the public having any clue as to what is going on. They claim to want to reduce CO2 emissions but if that happens it will just be a coincidence. What this is about is revenue and the power to dole it out.

Truth About Cap and Trade

Al Gore testified today about cap and trade. During the questioning, John Dingell (D-MI) said the following:

"Nobody in this country realizes that cap-and-trade is a tax -- and it's a great big one."

Here's the video



Notice what Gore says after Dingell is done. This is during a debate about what is better: a straight carbon tax or cap and trade. Gore advocates both! How much would a gallon of gas cost in this Gore world? How much would my electric bill be? To his credit, he does say a carbon tax should be revenue neutral, but why doesn't he say the same about cap and trade? Shouldn't that be revenue neutral as well? Or is it okay to raise taxes as long as its disguised and no one understands it? And does anyone really believe that Congress could or even has any desire to design a revenue neutral approach?

Congressional Extortion

From a WSJ editorial today about the recent EPA ruling on CO2:

Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey put it this way at MIT recently: "Do you want the EPA to make the decision or would you like your Congressman or Senator to be in the room and drafting legislation? . . . Industries across the country will just have to gauge for themselves how lucky they feel if they kill legislation in terms of how the EPA process will include them."

The Obama administration is using the EPA as the hammer to get their cap and trade program passed through Congress. If a business doesn't want to deal with the draconian rules of the EPA, they better get on board with cap and trade. Regardless of whether cap and trade is a good idea, doesn't this amount to extortion?

I wonder what the going price is in terms of a campaign contribution for an exemption?