(Reuters) A portion of the revenue from any U.S. system capping carbon emissions must go toward softening the impact of higher energy prices on consumers, a White House official said on Wednesday.
…
Obama’s proposal would use most of the revenue generated from the sell of carbon permits for tax breaks, offsetting costs for consumers.
Okay, looks like it’s time to do some detective work. Say a lightbulb costs $1 today. Tomorrow, the government tells the lightbulb companies that they owe $0.25 for each light bulb they sell. Not so shockingly, lightbulbs the next day go for $1.25.
So along comes Santa Claus who says, “Fret not troubled soul – I will give you $0.25 so that the lightbulb will only cost you $1.00.”
Well that works nicely – maybe they can do one of those programs for every expense. In fact, why not have Santa Claus give us refunds of all our purchases? If a car costs $15,000, Santa Claus can give us $15,000 to cover the cost?
Let’s follow the adventure of the quarter. The company has to give the quarter to Santa Claus. Then Santa Claus is promising that he will give the quarter, or maybe a little less, to the consumer. Of course, with the stroke of a pen, Santa Claus doesn’t have to give anything to the consumer – but that’s an article for another day.
In effect, what we have, is what is really just a tax increase on businesses. So why not just do that? Because, Santa Claus knows that this tax increase will be trashed by the consumer. So Santa Claus cuts the consumer in on the deal.
You know those stories where Jimmy the Pipe hires Billy the Club to go beat up Loanshark Larry – but Sally the Sham watches the assault so Billy the Club tells her that for $100, she should keep her mouth shut? Sort of the same thing going on here.
In the middle of economic calamity, when businesses are struggling with their cost structures, etc. and when employees are being laid off, this administration wants to push forward with a business tax increase. What do business tax increases do? Well, they make it more beneficial for companies to move to other countries. They make it more difficult to pay for things like employee salaries so you get wage cuts and layoffs. And it ultimately stifles creativity.
This has nothing to do with climate change or the environment. This has everything to do with giving the government more money through tax increases, and more control through regulation.
The same company that is running social security and medicare into bankruptcy, and the same company that created this massive economic imbalance, and the same company that owns a subsidiary which is the “biggest polluter on earth” is the company we want to use to clean up the air and water through this plan. That company happens to be the United States Government.
CommonDreams.org says “The U.S. Department of Defense is the largest polluter in the world, producing more hazardous waste than the five largest U.S. chemical companies combined”.
Say you are standing next to an odor-saturated bum in the drugstore. Would you ask him for recommendations on which soap is best? Probably not.
Yet here we have the same entity that pollutes to no avail telling us how to clean up pollution. And funny enough – the plan is for one polluter who produces things to give money to the other polluter who doesn’t.
My stance on the matter: I want a clean environment, and thus, I am totally against this plan. Just so happens I’m also for lower taxes. Imagine that.