Tag Archives: Read

New Heritage Foundation study says cap-and-trade will kill jobs and the economy

New study from The Heritage Foundation, my favorite think tank! (H/T Hot Air)

This image tells all:

Job losses per year if cap and trade passes.
Job losses per year if cap and trade passes.

Summary of the effects: (adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars)

  • Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035;
  • Single-year GDP losses reach $400 billion by 2025 and will ultimately exceed $700 billion;
  • Net job losses approach 1.9 million in 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035. Manufacturing loses 1.4 million jobs in 2035;
  • The annual cost of emissions permits to energy users will be at least $100 billion by 2012 and could exceed $390 billion by 2035;
  • A typical family of four will pay, on average, an additional $829 each year for energy-based utility costs; and
  • Gasoline prices will rise by 58 percent ($1.38 more per gallon) and average household electric rates will increase by 90 percent.

FYI, current GDP is around 14 trillion per year. The current labor force is around 130 million (non-farm).

Friday night funny: health care, legislators

Just a few items this week.

ECM sent me this video from GOP.com. I cannot believe that a political party put out an ad this good. (H/T Health Care BS via ECM)

Next, Frank J. asks whether doctors should really be making your health care decisions, instead of Obama.


Blinded by profit, doctors often try to remove tonsils from children. If your doctor wants to remove your child’s tonsils, take some step to make sure it’s necessary.

* Ask the doctor if he’s considered whether the problem could be just allergies or something.

* Ask how much profit will he make from this “necessary” procedure.

* Take your child’s medical files and send it to Barack Obama. He or another qualified bureaucrat will determine whether the operation is necessary.

* Wait eight to ten months for a response.

Remember: Only you can prevent doctors from making a profit off your kids’ tonsils.

Why trust trained professionals? They cost too much. A government worker can make the decision for a third of the price of a doctor. Think of the money we’ll save!

But seriously, should we really be hand over health care to Obama?

Recently at a townhall, when a woman asked whether she would have been able to get a pacemaker for her ninety-nine-year-old mother, Obama responded by saying her mother could have just taken painkillers. This illustrates what a lot of people have started to realize about Obama: He’s a moron.

That’s why his health care plans are not winning popular support; from Obama’s handling of the economy people know he’s a moron and they know health care will only be made worse by having a moron fiddle with it. They worry if they let Obama loose in a hospital, he’ll eat all the lollipops, chew on the wiring, and get a bio-hazard bucket stuck on his head. And if the moron Obama chases a ball into traffic, the White House has a spare moron, Biden, waiting. That’s why we have to keep health care out of governments hands: Government is full of morons who couldn’t make in the private sector just waiting to get their stupid on everything. You don’t want your life in their hands.

What Republicans need to do and I think public opinion will support is just keep moron Obama away from important things so he doesn’t hurt himself and others. Maybe they can have a resolution passed to pin mittens to his jacket.

On the other hand, there are some real medical problems that government needs to solve, as Scott Ott describes.


A provision of the comprehensive healthcare reform bill now before Congress includes $87 billion to establish a national research facility to study a condition called Lawmaker Reading Disorder (LRD), according to summaries of the bill prepared by professional lobbyists.

Experts say symptoms of LRD include a variety of ‘avoidance strategies’ when confronted with a legal or ethical obligation to read legislation before voting on it.

Click here to read the whole thing.

Happy Friday!

Sarah Palin crushes cap-and-trade in the Washington Post

Sarah Palin’s op-ed in the Washington Post is called “The ‘Cap And Tax’ Dead End”. (H/T Watts Up With That, Gateway Pundit, Stop the ACLU)


American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

…The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket.” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, “poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity.”

Meh. It’s merely excellent. Somewhat superlative.

Not nearly as good as Michele Bachmann could do, and Michele is conservative on vouchers and illegal immigration, unlike Sarah. See, Sarah writes about supply-side economics once in a while, but Michele gives passionate speeches about supply-side economics every day:

And Michele likes Christian apologetics more than Sarah! Sarah probably doesn’t even know who William Lane Craig is! Michele should be President, Sarah can be Secretary of Energy.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air comments on Sarah’s article:

We need to make all of this clear.  Cap-and-trade rations energy production, which means there will be less of it for a long time.  Alternatives are not ready for the kind of mass production that would allow a complete replacement of energy, and probably won’t be for decades, if ever in some cases (notably wind power, as GreenChoice showed and as T. Boone Pickens finally realized).  That means a lower standard of living that will impact America regressively, with the lowest income earners getting hit the hardest.  The drain on the economy from high energy prices means less jobs and higher retail prices for goods and services, again a regressive consequence of energy rationing.

Obama and his Utopian allies promise that government will help close the gap by offering more services to the unemployed and the poor at the expense of the “rich”.  What will that do?  It will further handicap the economy by keeping capital out of the markets.  Even worse, it will vastly expand the dependent class in America who have to go on the dole to survive.  And many of those ardent liberals will be pretty happy with that outcome, too.

We need to stop this thing. It’s good that Sarah came out against it.

Understanding what cap-and-trade actually does

I thought I would put together a few snippets to help everyone understand what Obama’s cap-and-trade energy tax actually does.

It’s a massive government intervention in the free market

The Heritage Foundation explains the point of cap and trade.

One of the most contentious provisions in the bill is the use of offsets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, in which “a manufacturing plant in, say, Gary, Ind., that is exceeding its ‘permitted’ expulsion of CO2, could continue to commit this sin against humanity by paying for a Brazilian farmer to plant some trees in the rain forest…. Of course, to guard against some nefarious polluter trying to cheat Uncle Sam and the world by claiming bogus ‘offsets,’ here must be a monitoring mechanism. Enter the ‘Offsets Integrity Advisory Board’ — yet another group of scientific ‘experts’ that would be tasked with compiling a list of qualifying offsets around the globe.”

Cap and trade is a regulatory nightmare that would hand over more power and money to the government with the intention of reducing global temperatures. The problem with that, however, is the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill will only reduce temperatures by an amount almost too small to measure. The bigger problem is that consumers’ pocketbooks will be hit hard by this bill. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that by 2035, gasoline prices would increase 58 percent, natural gas prices would increase 55 percent, home heating oil would increase 56 percent, and worst of all, electricity prices would jump 90 percent. After all, the goal of cap and trade is to drive up energy prices so high that people will use less. Yet in Missouri, state legislators are considering a bill that would charge consumers for saving electricity.

That’s enough to scare the snark out of you, but there’s much more to it than that.

The bill provides opportunities for corruption

Consider this National Review Online post, which counts 50 reasons why cap-and-trade is bad. (H/T Club for Growth)

I cannot excerpt the 50 points. I read through them and each one is more horrible than the last. Any of the 50 would be sufficient to cause an honest man to cry like a baby. (The print version of the article is easier to read – please send it to all your friends, too!)

The Democrats didn’t even read the bill

And remember, none of the Democrats who voted for the energy tax actually read it.


Recall the passing of Waxman-Markey by the House, which had 300 pages added 18 hours before the floor vote–almost certainly going unread by most members of Congress. Furthermore, the nonplussed responses from administration backers and Democrats in Congress–when pressed to read the legislation they vote on or support–should be infuriating to anyone in favor of transparency and responsibility in government. As CEI Adjunct Fellow Fran Smith noted, some on the left went as far to claim that members of Congress uncomfortable with voting for climate change legislation in the dark were guilty of “treason against the planet.”

Yes, there’s that vaunted leftist morality again. Cutting missile defense is good, but not passing an energy tax is treason.