Via Hot Air
Of course its a tax increase no matter how many times Obama or Geithner say otherwise.
"People are learning," says William Kovacs, vice president of environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which has been cautious about embracing a climate plan). "The Obama budget did more to help us consolidate and coalesce the business community than anything we could have done. It's opened eyes to the fact that this is about a social welfare transfer system, not about climate."
Truth is, any cap-and-trade system is a tax, even if Mr. Obama's plan has only started to force business proponents to admit it. The government sets a cap on how much greenhouse gas can be emitted annually. Companies buy and sell permits that allow them to emit. Customers bear the price of those permits.
Energy policy as a means to redistribute wealth, well said Mr. Kovacs. By the way cheers for Bob Corker who has made a profession of skewering climate plans:
Congress isn't sympathetic. Most Democrats want the money to spend, while many Republicans have written off companies asking for government freebies. "What you saw when [the Climate Action Partnership] was draping itself in the name of saving mankind, what they were really doing was trying to create the largest earmark in modern history," says Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker of the "allocation" system.
Mr. Corker has been having fun exposing the self-dealing in recent climate bills. Companies aside, he blew an early whistle on Congress's ambitions to use an auction system to enrich itself. During last year's debate on Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D., Calif.) climate bill, he offered an amendment to require rebates of all auction funds to American families. It helped kill the bill, as did a growing awareness among Midwest and Southern Democrats that the legislation would disproportionately hammer their industries and constituents.
Of course the whole system is horribly unfair:
Mr. Obama is promising to return auction money to Americans, via a tax cut he proposed on the campaign trail. Mr. Corker calls this a "sleight of hand," since people were counting on a tax cut in any event. Nobody told them they'd have to fund it with higher energy costs. It's also a wealth transfer -- electricity users in coal-heavy Ohio, for instance, will be funding tax cuts for green Californians. Not that congressional spenders have any intention of using this money for tax cuts in the first place.
Obama is using the Making Work Pay Tax Credit as the "tax cut" he describes, its a bogus argument and more about having a talking point to cover up the regressive nature of the cost he wants to foist on all of us. Good work, this is an argument we can win.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Nobody told them they'd have to fund it with higher energy costs."
ReplyDeleteI disagree. I believe Obama did point out that he wanted to tax coal companies & put them out of business. Still, PA & OH voted for Obama.