Funny. I just noticed in my blog called "Heaven help us all," that I kept referring to the president's plan as a plan to "cut spending." That's the way it was heralded by the White House.
Silly me. A "cut spending" program that proposes $3.6 TRILLION in social programs and other b.s.? Jeez, gotta be so careful in quoting anything that comes from a federal agency. I should know better.
I still haven't processed all aspects of the GIGANTIC MONSTER SPENDING BILL (Obama's Budget Plan), either. But I can tell you one thing for sure -- that budget proposal is not going to make life easier for most Americans. And here's one way, just one for now, that it's going to cost all of us a lot more.
Here's a Dec. 2008 column on cap and trade in Europe from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/business/worldbusiness/11carbon.html?_r=1
And this is from information provided last year by Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., of Wisconsin, who was Ranking Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming:
“Under cap-and-trade, a total cap is placed on the amount of carbon dioxide emissions, and economy-wide allocations are given or sold to emitters. Companies that are able to keep their emissions under their allocation can sell their savings, or credits, to companies that could not. Year after year, the total cap will be ratcheted down, with the goal being lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
“It sounds simple. It is not. And it has the potential to do significant harm to Wisconsin.
“As the cap on greenhouse gas emissions is brought lower and lower, it will cause electric rates in many places to go higher and higher, especially places that rely on coal for electricity generation. Guess what? Wisconsin gets nearly two-thirds of its electricity from coal.
“Cap-and-trade will punish states like Wisconsin for their coal use, and the punishment will be delivered in the electric bills of every home and business in the state. For example, in a regional cap-and-trade system, states like Illinois which has higher energy supply from coming from non-fossil fuels would receive benefits from states like Wisconsin."
That is, Wisconsin would probably be buying emissions credits from Illinois -- as long as Illinois or anyplace else has any credits left over. Being from Illinois, it's pretty damn hard to imagine this state having a surplus of anything apart from blockheaded and/or corrupt politicians.*
There is so-called "clean coal" technology. But how much does that cost? Where do energy companies get the money to pay for re-tooling? The feds, no doubt, which means taxpayers. After all, where would private investors come from to fund a start-up energy company? The stock market is still in free-fall. Maybe our good friend, the Peoples' Republic of China?
Coal has been viewed as a fuel that could help the US reduce it's reliance on foreign oil. It's the most abundant fossil fuel in the USA. So does it make a lot of sense to raise the cost of burning coal? Yet if it's cheaper to burn oil than coal... You figure it out. Would you rather be in hock to the Arabs or to Communist China?
Energy companies don't have a secret stash of money to buy a starter batch of credits or to purchase more, or to re-tool. Energy companies get their money from their customers. If the price of energy goes up, their customers pay for it. Their customers are you and me, the stores we patronize, and the manufacturers of the products and services we buy. The price will go up for everyone, so all their prices will go up because all of their energy costs will go up. Sort of like gasoline costing $4.00 a gallon, only worse because it affects absolutely everything we do.
How's that for a "multiplier effect"?
A clapboard shack in the hinterlands of Montana is looking more and more attractive every day. Of course, then you'd probably be burning wood, and heaven only knows what kind of a permitting and cap-and-trade process you'd have to go through.
Should be noted, too, that energy companies in many places are government-supported monopolies. In order to keep that status, these companies already are heavily regulated; they can't raise rates or alter service without some kind of approval from the local government, which decides what a "fair" price is.
So if energy companies' costs go up, and City Hall doesn't want to tick off the voters with a rate hike, what happens? The companies shut down... Or, more than likely, the local government acquires them and operates them. That is to say, taxpayers end up funding them.
On the other hand, as Obama sees it, taxpayers are an absolutely endless source of funds, so maybe it will all work out....
Any way you look at it, though, there goes any benefit the average American may get from $400 dollars a year in tax cuts.
Something I thought was funny: Last year Americans got a $600 credit on their income tax. Michelle Obama scoffed at that, saying it represented nothing more than a new pair of earrings. (Obviously, she doesn't shop at the same flea markets I do.)
Scale it down, Michelle. Forget the earrings. That $400 probably won't cover the increase in your electric bill.
'Course, ol' Michelle and Barack don't pay electric bills anymore. As long as they occupy the White House, they're on the taxpayer's dime. So for them, talk is very, very cheap.
*Want to make a slight correction. I found out my US Rep, who's a Democrat, voted against the $410 billion pork bill. So there's at least one politician in Illinois who's enlightened on at least one issue. We went to the same university -- probably not at the same time -- maybe that has something to do with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment