Seriously. I've been scouring thar Interwebz for some sort of explanation on what "Pelosi's National Energy Tax" is. I've been looking for a proposed bill. I've been looking for some relation between this tax and the potential loss of jobs. I've been looking for some way to understand the claims from an economic point of view.
But it's not there. This is not a national energy tax. This is deliberate spinning, and it offends the shit out of me.
Apparently, everyone is squawking about the proposed environmental cap-and-trade system. For proof, I point to this article: http://www.gopleader.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=133823. Specifically, under Point 1, Rep. John Dingell (R-MI) has said the following: "Nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax. And it’s a great big one."
Okay, folks: time for the truth. Cap-and-trade is not a tax. Let me repeat: cap-and-trade is not a tax. To my Republican compatriots: stop calling cap-and-trade a tax. Because it is not. It's not even close.
As I stated on Weapons of Mass Discussion (you can go to http://massdiscussion.blogspot.com, and look for the article, or choose this quick link to my comment: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/maestromatt/8025008392814448733/), the cap-and-trade system involves the privatization of the pollution-control system in the United States. At the moment, the EPA runs a regulatory scheme that is aptly-described as a public-rights system. The EPA permits private companies to pollute the United States' air and water, so long as they do so under a prescribed limit based on best current technological standards (which is, in turn, based on cost-benefit analysis). If you fail to meet the standards, you get fined. It's pretty simple.
What the cap-and-trade system would do is divide the country up into regions, and determine regional limits for pollution. Then, the private interests would bid for permits that would allow them to pollute in "X" amount. The cost of this process would put money into the hands of the federal government, which may (or may not) be used to ameliorate externalities caused by the pollution. The theory behind the approach is based on the (heavily-flawed) neoclassical model of environmental economics, and relies upon market forces to place an appropriate value on each permit, and the law to enforce the property rights created by the system.
The big, obvious, glaring issue is the fact that the system effectively pawns one of the most precious public resources available to the American people -- clean air and water. Thanks to the EPA, we have a very clean environment (overall), and it is something that Americans can enjoy for generations. The system does not take into consideration that pollution moves from region to region, and that pollution limits need to be adjusted over time. If the government wants to change pollution standards, it can only make them looser; if it decides to lower limits, then the government will have to buy back a number of permits in order to decrease overall pollution. Further, this program debilitates the ability for the States to modify or further restrict pollution above and beyond federal levels (which they can currently do).
And I have not even touched upon how the system has the potential to squash entrepreneurship in this country, and to limit the ability of small manufacturing firms to be able to compete with bigger ones.
So, two points to bring away from this post:
1. The Energy Bill is bad.
2. It's not a tax.
News-spinning is really stupid when you can just as easily attack the bald-faced truth: that the government is proposing to give to private interests the right to pollute the air and water of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A lot of what the Republican Spinners (Not the sexual word Spinner, though I'm sure there are Republicans who are into that) are very good at one thing: Keeping you looking for the reality while they spout the negative.
ReplyDeleteYou're kept busy and they can keep jabbering away. What really sucks is I've noticed that my Democratic friends have stopped looking for the truth.
It's a cold and terrible tactic.
I wrote the following comment on Matt Murley's 'Weapons of Mass Discussion' in response to something he found at the Heritage Foundation's website. You can read it here: http://www.heritage.org/Press/FactSheet/fs0034.cfm.
ReplyDeleteIt disappoints me when GOP members buy into the same sort of rhetoric that DNC folks do. In order to build a significant and overwhelming opposition, it is important to project the truth of measures which are unequivocably in the worst interests of the United States.
Let's look at the list presented by the Heritage Foundation with regard to the proposed cap-and-trade system:
• It’s a massive energy tax
No, it's not. It's not a tax. It's not even close to what a tax is defined as, or described as. Calling it a tax is deliberately misleading. If the GOP is to be the party of morality and integrity, it must not stoop to this sort of obfuscation. It's not just in poor taste -- it's insulting to those who follow politics.
• It will not make a substantive impact on the environment
True, from what I can read.
• It will kill jobs
Possibly true, but likely to happen. It will supposedly create "green" jobs to improve on the external costs that industries slough off onto the people, but the system will not force the worst culprits -- coal power plants, large factories, etc. -- to do so.
• It will cause electricity bills and gas prices to sharply increase
There's simply no evidence of this. The bill does not affect the method by which gas or electricity is delivered. For areas dependent upon coal power, there may be a bit of an increase. However, what is more likely is that energy companies will raise their prices to buy the permits, and then continue to keep prices high to gouge consumers. The bill just provides a convenient excuse for an unreasonable hike in rates.
• It will outsource manufacturing jobs and hurt free trade
Outsourcing is already occurring because labor costs are lower overseas. Free trade is also in place in most sectors. This bill does nothing to damage a system of sending manufacturing overseas that has not already been done by public and private policy.
• It will make you choose among energy, groceries, clothing, and haircuts
These are choices I and most other Americans already make. Next.
• It will be highly susceptible to fraud and corruption
Define "fraud and corruption". The environmental regulatory system is already prone to fraud and corruption. If there are private entities interested in permit limits, and making sure others are not cheating in the system, then there is a systemic incentive for private enforcement of the cap-and-trade system. As the lending industry has shown, though, collusion is the preferred method of handling these situations.
• It will hurt senior citizens, the poor, and the unemployed the worst
True. Also included in this list of legislation that hurts senior citizens, the poor, and the unemployed: (1) tax cuts for the wealthy; (2) the hamstringing of union labor laws; (3) the failure to enforce anti-trust laws; (4) the failure to police the securities and investment funds in the United States; (5) the failure to regulate the lending industry; (6) rising education costs; (7) fair tax policies; etc.
As I stated in a previous comment, cap-and-trade can be, and should be, challenged on other levels. The most basic premise is the fact that the government is selling the right to pollute the environment to private entities for nothing. Where the government could charge "rent" for the licenses, they have elected, instead, to just give away the permits on start-up. The same thing happened under Clinton with the Telecommunications Act of 1996; whole bandwidths of signals were given away to the media conglomerates -- the rights to which belonged to the American people -- for nothing. Americans of all stripes and allegiances should be outraged at this pawning of American legacy.
Teddy would not approve, no sir.