News about the pinheaded things by politicians and governemt.
Posts tagged Cap-and-Trade
Tax and Spend approach to Government, this is change?
Aug 27th
The White House released its estimates for the total deficit over the next decade. That number is $9 Trillion in additional national debt.
The deficit for this year alone is over $1.5 Trillion. That’s 3 to 4 times last year’s deficit. The CBO predicts that the debt held by the public as a share of GDP will grow to 67.8% in 2019 from the current 40.8%. It keeps growing after that. For the non-economists, that’s like getting a new credit card every time you max one out. The amount you owe goes up faster than your income, and your ability to pay it off, does.
The increase in the deficit is largely due to increased spending, and the projections for increased spending are not credible. Actual spending is likely to increase at a much greater rate than the projections use, at least as long as the current people run Congress.
The projections are based on an increase in spending equal to the rate of inflation. This is laughable. Congress has never limited itself to the rate of inflation, even when the Republicans first took control in 1994. This was Congress at its most fiscally responsible. (The Republicans quickly learned about the joys of pork.)
Spending in 2009 has jumped by 47%. BTW, this spending increase would be AFTER Bush left office. Obama needs to stop blaming the previous administration for deficits caused by out-of-control spending. As stated above, his first deficit is 3 times larger than Bush’s last deficit. Stop blaming your predecessor for spending bills you signed.
Spending is slated to increase by 8% in 2010. Much larger than current inflation. Just ask those Social Security recipients that got no cost of living increase for the first time ever. Why no increase? No inflation.
Another absolutely astonishing prediction: spending falls between 2009 and 2012. This is as credible as the used car salesman telling you the car was only driven by some old lady on Sunday. Spending going down?
Another red flag, revenues as a percentage of GDP increases from 14.9% this year to 20.2% in 2019. In case you wonder what that means, it means the Federal Government will be taking more of the money made by the American people. In other words, tax hikes.
The prediction on revenues relies on ALL of the Bush tax cuts expiring (rich and middle class) PLUS 28 million middle-class tax filers being subjected to the Alternative Minimum Tax. The Democrats say they’ll prevent this, but that may be as likely as them decreasing spending from 2009 to 2012.
The problem gets worse if you factor in the drag on the economy that will result from proposed policies, especially cap and trade.
Taxes on tobacco have already been raised under Obama. An increase on alcohol is likely, followed by another possible tax on surgary drinks. Then there are the Bush tax cuts that expire in 2010. 55% of these taxes effect small businesses. Not continuing these cuts will increase taxes on small businesses. Increasing the cost of doing business results in fewer jobs and hurts the economy (which in turn lowers revenues).
Then there are the new taxes being proposed, most in conjunction with the Health Care Bill. There’s the proposed 1% surcharge on “the rich.” Then there’s the tax on people that don’t have health insurance. And in an act of government brilliance, a proposed tax on those that do.
There are also proposed taxes on companies doing business overseas, eliminating caps on the tax on Social Security benefits, and eliminating the deductions for charitable giving. Etc., etc., etc.
Then there’s the effect of “cap and trade”. This alone has the possibility (more like a dead certainty) of actually shrinking the economy.
A shrinking economy equals shrinking revenues. Shrinking revenues equal ballooning debt.
That $9 Trillion Debt over ten years could look like chump change compared to the actual number.
Democrats in Congress propose increasing Tariffs.
Aug 7th
In the latest example of “Doomed to Repeat”, Democrats in Congress are proposing imposing Tariffs on goods imported from countries that don’t have policies that are meant to address Global Warming.
10 Senators signed a letter calling for those tariffs in order to protect manufacturing in the U.S. from competition from countries without laws that reduce CO2 production. (All Democratic Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, Carl Levin of Michigan, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Al Franken of Minnesota.)
The fact that these Senators are so concerned that the Tax-and-Trade proposal before Congress will impact the ability of American companies to compete on the world stage is an indictment of the Bill. Instead of imposing tariffs on foreign goods, maybe these Senators should take a hard look at the Bill.
And if anybody needs a reason why looking at the Bill is a better alternative than tariffs, look up the phrase “Smoot-Hawley”.
Another Reason not to Pass Cap and Trade
Aug 5th
If you needed another reason to oppose President Obama’s and his fellow Democrat’s Cap-and-Trade bill, try reading the latest report from the non-profit group that advises the Electric Industry on things like energy conversation and alternative methods of producing power.
The best case scenario for reducing CO2 creating by the production of power will result in an 80% increase in the cost of electricity. The best case scenario assumes that technology for Carbon sequestration will be technically feasible and that the Nation will build 45 new Nuclear Power plants.
The best case scenario includes the country building 45 Nuclear Power Plants when it hasn’t built one since Three Mile Island had its melt-down? This is not a realistic assumption. As for the Carbon sequestration, the assumptions on that are unreliable. The group has no real way to determine what technology will be available in the future, or how much it will cost to use.
It get’s worse for “Best Case”. An 80% increase in cost is not trivial. I just opened my July Utility bill. The electric bill was $160. This is fairly typical for a month of electricity during the Summer (June through September). At $150 per month over 4 months, we pay $600 for electricity during Summer. Most of that for the air-conditioner. An 80% hike for those months amounts to $480. That’s $480 for four months of electricity. This doesn’t cover the other 8 months.
Then there’s the cost increase if the best case doesn’t occur. Without Nuclear Power Plants and carbon sequestration, cost due to the Cap-and-trade plan will increase by 210%.
That is a tripling of electric costs.
And the problem is that this scenario is far more likely. Washington and local Governments aren’t likely to grow a set and start standing up to those standing in the way of building new Nuclear Power Plants. No Nuclear plants means we must rely on carbon producing plants in order to create new power. But Washington plans to cap the amount of carbon created in this country. That means no new carbon-creating plants.
Another assumption in the “Best Case” scenario that is highly unlikely is the ability to lower overall electric consumption through conservation methods. I’m all for lowering the amount of energy people consume, but it’s unlikely that overall consumption will go down. If nothing else, population growth will result in more energy being consumed in this country.
The only way you can guarantee the amount of electricity consumed will go down is to ration it. Rolling Black-outs anyone?
daddams16007
Recent Comments