Heritage Morning Bell - Cap and Tax

Cap And Trade’s Mandates And Subsidies Are Wrong
Following major defeats at the ballot box on Tuesday, the left’s legislative agenda suffered another huge setback yesterday when once wavering Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME) all signed a letter supporting Sen. George Voinovich’s (R-OH) demand that the Environmental Protection Agency provide a thorough analysis of how the Kerry-Boxer cap and trade legislation will impact the U.S. economy. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) had been pressing for swift passage of her cap and tax legislation, but conservatives on the Environment and Public Works Committee thwarted her efforts by boycotting a vote on the legislation Tuesday.

An EPA analysis on the economic costs of cap and trade is no small issue. If Tuesday’s elections proved anything, it is that jobs and economic growth are the top concern on Americans’ minds. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has found that cap and tax legislation would cost the average family-of-four almost $3,000 per year, cause 2.5 million net job losses by 2035, and a produce a cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) loss of $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035. The EPA has issued preliminary reports reaching different conclusions; including an October 23 report on Kerry-Boxer that found it would only cost the average American family $80 to $111 dollars per year.

There are many fundamental problems with that EPA report, none more glaring than their fanciful assumption that nuclear power generation will nearly double in the next 25 years. This is the equivalent of about 100 additional nuclear power plants. The reality is that in the past 30 years, not one new nuclear power plant has been licensed. More importantly, the Kerry-Boxer approach to reviving the nuclear energy relies on the same failed policies that have crippled the U.S. nuclear energy for the past 30 years. Heritage fellows Jack Spencer and Nick Loris explain:

Washington has a role to play in reducing financial barriers, but not by funding projects with taxpayer dollars. The regulatory costs and uncertainty posed by the federal bureaucracy represent significant risk to the success of the nuclear industry, just as regulatory uncertainty significantly affected the timing and budget of past nuclear plant construction. Indeed, this risk and uncertainty results in the higher prices that are most often used to justify government subsidies for nuclear projects. Efforts to reduce that risk by reforming the most obvious areas, such as the regulatory process and waste management, are nowhere to be found in the bill.

Instead, the bill attempts to reduce the financial risk caused by regulatory delays and technological development by expanding the federal government’s responsibility — and authority — on the technical side. It promotes government intervention into areas that are either unnecessary or that should reside solely in the private sector. For example, the Boxer-Kerry bill creates a research and development program to assess plant aging, improve plant performance, engineer safer fuels, and lower overall costs. These are all areas currently being addressed by the private sector and already supported by public institutions and funds.

Instead of handing out more government subsidies to compensate for increased government regulation, Congress should be heading in the exact opposite direction. What the nuclear industry really needs is an end to market distorting loan guarantees, a streamlined permit process for new plants and reactor designs, market reforms for nuclear waste management, and the ability to recycle spent fuel. America can create thousands of new jobs through an expansion of the energy sector. But just as with oil, coal, and natural gas, the less government intervention in the market, the better.

Krauthammer On Domestic Energy

Krauthammer On Domestic Energy
Weekly Standard via DCExaminer

There are, of course, major threats to the American economy. But there is nothing inevitable and inexorable about them. Take, for example, the threat to the dollar (as the world's reserve currency) that comes from our massive trade deficits. Here again, the China threat is vastly exaggerated.

In fact, fully two-thirds of our trade imbalance comes from imported oil. This is not a fixed fact of life. We have a choice. We have it in our power, for example, to reversethe absurd de facto 30-year ban on new nuclear power plants. We have it in our power to release huge domestic petroleum reserves by dropping the ban on offshore and Arctic drilling. We have it in our power to institute a serious gasoline tax (refunded immediately through a payroll tax reduction) to curb consumption and induce conservation.

Nothing is written. Nothing is predetermined. We can reverse the slide, we can undo dependence if we will it.

There are things to be done. Resist retreat as a matter of strategy and principle. And provide the means to continue our dominant role in the world by keeping our economic house in order. And finally, we can follow the advice of Demosthenes when asked what was to be done about the decline of Athens.

His reply? "I will give what I believe is the fairest and truest answer: Don't do what you are doing now."

This article - condensed from The Weekly Standard - is based on syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer's 2009 Wriston Lecture delivered for the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research in New York on October 5.

Labels: chares krauthammer, dcexaminer, domestic oil production, drill here drill now, energy independence, national security, offshore drilling, weekly standard

VA-05 Needs A New Representative

and On the Senate Side

Boxer-Kerry Unveil Their Energy Tax Bill: Incomplete But Still Very Harmful

Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) introduced the Senate companion to the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation today and while many pieces are missing, the framework in place spells bad news for every American energy consumer, especially low income ones.

Like Waxman-Markey, the focus is a cap and trade system, but takes the House bill’s 17 percent reduction of 2005 emissions by 2020 to a more stringent 20 percent cut. Unlike the House version, which gives away emission allowances to special interests groups that lobbied hard to protect their bottom line, the Senate draft does not include how the emission allowances – hundreds of billions of dollars - will be given away.

Co-sponsor Senator Kerry tells us, “This is not a cap-and-trade bill, it’s a pollution reduction bill.” But the simple reality is it’s an energy tax bill. As OMB director Peter Orszag says, “Under a cap-and-trade program, firms would not ultimately bear most of the costs of the allowances but instead would pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices.” And the bill’s incompleteness goes to show how impatiently Kerry and Boxer are trying to move a historic energy tax into law.

Cap and Trade-A Federal Leviathan

Not Everyone Won the Cap and Trade Lobbying Battle

The cap and trade bill introduced by Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA) and passed in the House is 1,427 pages and includes much more than a cap and trade system to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. We’ve been detailing these economically harmful provisions in our cap and trade calamities, but Kathleen Hartnett White at the Texas Public Policy Foundation provides a tremendous synopsis of the entire bill and asks many tough questions in her policy paper, A Federal Leviathan: The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.

One particularly revealing part of the paper is the graph on the bottom of page three. Approximately 2,340 energy lobbyists worked on the cap-and-trade bill to do what President Obama said we shouldn’t – hand out allowances costs to utilities and other industries direct revenue to them. Opposition to this huge energy tax bill wheeling, dealing and arm-twisting to eke out the narrowest of majorities. They promised generous handouts for various industries and special interests but not everyone came out winners. The blue indicates the emissions by industry and the red indicates the allowances allocated by the government.

As shown by the graph, the refining and petroleum products industry, responsible for much of the carbon emissions from energy, receive the very little allowance allocations. White writes,

“Under the aggressive carbon caps, many U.S. industries could not compete with foreign products manufactured in countries without binding carbon limits. And increased import of goods manufactured elsewhere without carbon limits would
increase global carbon emissions. To address this “carbon leakage,” the bill provides for “carbon emission allowance rebates” to industries which meet specified levels of “trade intensity” or “energy intensity.” Petroleum refining, oddly, is excluded from those eligible.”

The other loser is, of course, me and you. The disguised energy tax will cost a family of four an additional $3,000 per year. When all the tax impacts have been added up, we find that the average per-family-of-four costs rise by almost $3,000 per year. In the year 2035 alone, the tax impact is $4,600. And if you add up the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035, the years in which we modeled the bill, it’s about $71,500.

Giving away allowances are not an exception to the “no free lunches” adage. Giving away allowances does not lower the costs of cap and trade; it merely shifts the costs around.

Waxman-Markey is Robin Hood in reverse: it takes a lot of money from regular Americans and funnels it to Washington bureaucrats and the corporations with the best lobbyists.

Cap and Trade Apollo Style

Cap-and-trade can’t bridge gap between unions and enviros
By: Booker T. Stallworth
August 30, 2009

Inspired by the speed and spending of the Apollo moon landing, the Apollo Alliance — a coalition of community organizers, environmentalists and big labor — is aggressively pushing President Barack Obama’s plan to regulate carbon emissions through cap-and-trade.
If a recent meeting of labor and environmentalists is any indication, however, cap-and-trade may end up in a disaster more reminiscent of the Apollo 13 mission than the triumphant Apollo 11 landing.
Earlier this month, the AFL-CIO and its Washington state affiliate hosted a conference on the proposal in Wenatchee, Wash. Despite labor’s seat at the table, Bob Baugh, executive director of the AFL-CIO Industrial Union Council, conceded that cap-and-trade posed a serious threat to workers, especially labor members in energy-intensive industries.
Baugh’s right. According to a recent report by the Heritage Foundation, Waxman-Markey would cost millions of jobs and would increase unemployment levels for every year: 1.9 million fewer jobs in 2012, and an average of 1.14 million fewer jobs from 2012 through 2035. Those industries most affected would include manufacturing, glass, plastic and rubber-product production, and the fabricated-metal industries — all heavily unionized sectors.

Atlas Shrugs

More On Sarah from Pam
The more evil succeeds and overwhelms our foreign and domestic policy, our culture, our discourse and the very social fabric of our lives, the clearer it becomes that Palin is the antidote, the answer to fighting this morally bankrupt sewer in which we find ourselves during the Obama Administration. Pam Geller

When Sarah Palin gets the nomination in 2012, I hope she has the good sense to pick Pam Geller as her campaign press spokesperson, and then when she wins the election, Ms. Geller can be the press secratary. I miss the class acts we had with Tony Snow and Dana Perino and Ms Geller would definitely be a class act.

Her speech embodied what a great American sounds like, and what a President ought to sound like. Palin made no apologies. She said nothing like Obama's inane drone of "America's best days are behind us." No tearing down of our nation. Obama ranks on us; Palin raises us up and speaks of national pride.

First and foremost, she thanked our brave men and women defending this great nation and ripped the media, warning: "You represent what could and should be respected, honest profession that could and should be a cornerstone of our democracy. Democracy depends on you, and that is why, that's why our troops are willing to die for you. So, how about, in honor of the American soldier, you quit makin' things up?"

She briefly outlined her plans for real energy independence -- American resources for Americans -- speaking of commercializing our clean natural gas (AGIA) as the first private sector energy project in the history of America. Palin believes (and rightly so) that the pressing issue of our time is energy independence.

"There is," she said, "an inherent link between energy and prosperity...We will prove you can be pro-development and pro-environment because no one loves their clean air, and their land, and their wildlife more than an Alaskan. We will protect it!"

She invoked America's pioneering spirit. She urged us to resist enslavement to big central government: "Be wary of accepting government largess."

Sarah Palin embodies what an American is. She is what Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin envisioned when they carved out the American idea. Anyone who wants write her off, proceed at your own risk. The more evil succeeds and overwhelms our foreign and domestic policy, our culture, our discourse and the very social fabric of our lives, the clearer it becomes that Palin is the antidote, the answer to fighting this morally bankrupt sewer in which we find ourselves during the Obama Administration.

The low state of the world is a fact, but so are great Americans who will fight tooth and nail to stop what Obama is doing to America.

Clear thinking Americans see what is happening. America is being tested in a way she never has been before. The President has in every decision reinforced the impression that he is a radical, even a communist/Islamist: the usurpation of the Constitution, the bankrupting of our nation, the illegal grab of private wealth, the infiltration of Islamic supremacism, the abandonment of our allies, the weakening of our military.

It's stunning.

Sarah Palin sees it, too. Smart, sharp, patriotic, she best represents the majority of Americans. Not Obama's shills in the press, not the chattering elites and the Beltway insiders, but Americans.

Read it all and feel good.
Download Atlaska on KBYR 28July09

Knee-Cap [the Economy] and Stop Trade

"...from an economic standpoint, the C&T bill should be titled the "Raise the Cost of Living and Ship Jobs Overseas [and reduce the American standard of living to the level of Mexico] Act of 2009."

The purpose of cap and trade (C&T) legislation is to reduce Americans' consumption of fossil fuels — coal, oil, and natural gas — and to speed up the transition to alternate forms of energy, such as wind and solar power. The "cap" part would be a legislated limit to the quantity of carbon dioxide that Americans would be permitted to put into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. The government would then issue permits that it would sell or give (details are being worked out) to businesses who could then either emit CO2 up to the amount stipulated in their permit, or, if they can curb CO2 emissions below that amount, could sell or "trade" the permit to the highest bidder in the after-market.

The stated overarching goal of proposed C&T is to save the planet from human-caused climate change, which C&T proponents attribute to human emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily CO2 from fossil fuels. These proponents truly believe (despite considerable scientific disagreement) that such measures are necessary to save the earth. Others have a political agenda: If government can regulate energy consumption, then government has great control over economic activity and people's lives — an irresistible lure to central planners, social engineers, utopian visionaries, and megalomaniacs. [not to mention wannabe dictators, marxist idiots, and assorted loonie-tunes]

/snip

We the people, though, should reckon the cost to our liberty. If this principle becomes law, we may face a day when a federal bureaucrat will grant permission to Al Gore to jet around to preach the evils of CO2 emissions while denying Joe Sixpack the right to fly cross-country to see his girlfriend once a month.

Might we emulate the Brits, who currently are devising a "para-police" force to monitor energy consumption?

There is much at stake in the C&T debate. This is one of the major issues of our time. Become informed.

Boehner's Brigade

HAPPY BIRTHDAY AMERICA

I HOPE WE MAKE #235

Everyone, here are media clips on Boehner’s web video thus far. All of the following clips either embed the video or link to it. YouTube also put it in the “spotlight videos” section of their News and Politics videos: http://www.youtube.com/news?s=rf.


Washington Post: Sharp Words from Republicans as Unemployment Edges Up
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/02/sharp_words_from_republicans_a.html?wprss=44

CNN: GOP Says Even Bloodhounds Can’t Find Stimulus Jobs
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/02/gop-says-even-bloodhounds-cant-find-stimulus-jobs/

Huffington Post: Boehner Video Stars “Job-Sniffing Bloodhound” To Whack Obama


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/02/boehner-video-stars-job-s_n_224701.html

WSJ: Republicans Blame Obama Policies for Job Losses
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/07/02/republicans-blame-obama-policies-for-job-losses/

Fox Nation: Would We Have Better Job #’s if Stimulus $ Had Gone to Small Biz?
http://www.thefoxnation.com/business/2009/07/02/would-we-have-better-job-s-if-stimulus-had-gone-small-biz

U.S. News & World Report: Boehner, Republicans Sick the Dogs on the Obama Stimulus Package
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/07/02/boehner-republicans-sick-the-dogs-on-the-obama-stimulus-package.html

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Lynn Westmoreland’s next career: Voiceover artist
http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2009/07/02/lynn-westmorelands-next-career-voiceover-artist/

First Read – GOP Hammers Obama on Job Losses
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/07/02/1985093.aspx

CQ: Bad Job Numbers? Blame Bush One More Time http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/balance_of_power/2009/07/bad-job-numbers-blame-bush-one.html

Real Clear Politics -- GOP: Where are the jobs?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2009/07/gop_where_are_the_jobs.html

New "Bloodhounds" Web Video Asks: Where Are the Jobs?
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnBoehner/2009/07/02/new_bloodhounds_web_video_asks_where_are_the_jobs

Human Events: Boehner's Bloodhounds: ‘The Stimulus Isn't Working’ (Video)
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=32554

The Hill: Boehner ‘Releases the Hounds’ on the Stimulus
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/07/02/boehner-releases-the-hounds-on-the-stimulus/

ABC’s The Note: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/the-note-job-one-pressure-on-obama-to-show-stimulus-results.html

Frank Strategies Blog: Video: Boehner Releases the Hound on YouTube
http://frankstrategiesblog.com/2009/07/02/video-boehner-releases-the-hound-on-youtube/

Ending Our Dependence On Foreign Oil

is a very simple problem to solve, and will create long-term permanent jobs.

1. Start drilling. If the oil companies say they know the oil is down there, let them go get it.

2. Build refineries; refurbish existing refineries.

3. Offshore drilling. I defy anyone to produce an instance of an oil spill from an offshore drill rig.

4. Let AMERICAN oil companies have first crack at the Iraqi oil. Our soldiers risked their lives for that oil, why did the dhimmicrats give it to China?

And last but not least:
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It's a neccessary component of life. Stop treating it like its poison. If it were poison, all the trees and plants would be dead.

Of course, cap and trade is not about clean energy, climate change, or foreign oil.

Everyone Who Voted For Cap and Trade

and everyone who supports it is a screaming Marxist asshole dumbfuck with no, zero, zip, nada comprehension of what it will take to end our dependence on foreign oil.

Of course, ending our dependence on foreign oil is not what this bill is about.

This bill is about creating a socialist utopia where all our actions are controlled by a central government. Its about reducing the standard of living to a point where Americans can no longer afford the normal luxuries of things like camping trips and extra free time.

Its about making us spend our money just to survive. Its about taking as much of our income as possible.

Assholes. Marxist DUMBFUCK ASSHOLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Heritage Foundatio Morning Bell

Waxman-Markey Bill Is An Energy Tax That Doesn’t Work
Later today, the House of Representatives is slated to vote on the most convoluted attempt at economic central-planning this nation has ever attempted: cap and trade. The 1,200-plus page Waxman-Markey climate change legislation is nothing more than an energy tax in disguise that by 2035 will raise:

Gasoline prices by 58 percent
Natural gas prices by 55 percent
Home heating oil by 56 percent
Worst of all, electricity prices by 90 percent

Although proponents of the bill are pointing to grossly underestimated and incorrect costs, the reality is when all the tax impacts have been added up, the average per-family-of-four costs rise by $2,979 per year. In the year 2035 alone, the cost is $4,609. And the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 are $71,493.

But on second thought, cap and trade is much more than that.

It Kills Jobs:
Over the 2012-2035 timeline, job losses average over 1.1 million. By 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline (without a cap and trade bill). Particularly hit hard are sectors of the economy that are very energy-intensive: Manufacturers, farmers, construction, machinery, electrical equipment and appliances, transportation, textiles, paper products, chemicals, plastics and rubbers, and retail trade would face staggering employment losses as a result of Waxman-Markey. It’s worth noting the job losses come after accounting for the green jobs policymakers are so adamant about creating. But don’t worry because the architects of the bill built in unemployment insurance; too bad it will only help 1.5% of those losing their jobs from the bill.

It Destroys Our Economy:
Just about everything we do and produce uses energy. As energy prices increase, those costs will be passed onto the consumer and reflected in the higher prices we pay for products. Higher energy prices will cause reduced income, less production and an economy that falls way short of its potential. The average Gross Domestic Product (GDP) lost is $393 billion, hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035. From 2012-2035, the accumulated GDP lost is $9.4 trillion. The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. The increase in family-of-four debt, solely because of Waxman-Markey, hits an almost unbelievable $114,915 by 2035.

It Provides Red Meat for Lobbyists:
Businesses, knowing very well this would impose a severe cost on their bottom line, sent their lobbyists to Washington to protect them. And it worked. Most of the allowances (the right to emit carbon dioxide) have been promised to industry, meaning less money will be rebated back to the consumer. Free allowances do not lower the costs of Waxman-Markey; they just shift them around. In other words, every day Americans are going to be footing the bill. Although the government awarded handouts to businesses, the carbon dioxide reduction targets are still there, and the way they will be met is by raising the price of energy and thereby inflicting more economic pain. Prices have to go up enough to force people to use less energy, and so if anyone is bought off with free allowances, the costs for everyone else are that much higher.

There’s one thing the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill doesn’t do: Work. All of the above-mentioned costs accrue in the first 25 years of a 90-year program that, as calculated by climatologists, will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree Celsius in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree Celsius at the end of the century. In the name of saving the planet for future generations, Waxman-Markey does not sound like a great deal: Millions of lost jobs, trillions of lost income, 50-90 percent higher energy prices, and stunning increases in the national debt, all for undetectable changes in world temperature. Who’s buying that?

Lt Col Allen West on Cap and Trade

Re-posted with permission. If yo have family or friends in Florida, please encourage them to support this man.

An officer and a gentleman

Lt Col Allen West's Facebook page
His Twitter page

West Slams “Cap and Tax” Legislation
Calls on Klein to Support Energy IndependenceRepublican Congressional candidate Allen West (R-FL 22) called the upcoming vote on the so-called climate change legislation, “just another example of a bloated government program that will not address our nation’s energy problems”. West also called on Democratic incumbent Ron Klein to support legislation that will address our country’s need for energy independence.

The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote Friday on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. This bill is aimed at addressing climate change that contains a cap-and-trade program, commonly referred to as a National Energy Tax.

“The Pelosi-Klein approach to our nation’s energy needs will do nothing but increase energy costs and raise taxes in this tough economy,” West said. “This will be a key issue in my race against Ron Klein next year.”

West noted that the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that under this bill gasoline prices could increase by as much as 77 cents per gallon. Other estimates say every American family will be over $3000 in higher taxes.

“We need legislation that will make America energy independent by cutting regulations that are inhibiting the development of all new sources of energy. That means everything from drilling for more oil to clean coal to alternative forms of energy“

I’m an avid scuba diver. I’m for protecting our environment. But this bill will not move us forward in the right direction.“Take nuclear energy. Klein and Democrats say they are for more nuclear energy. But this bill does nothing to reduce the red tape involved in building new nuclear plants. Just last week a new nuclear plant was announced in southern Ohio. But the experts all say it will be a decade before any energy will be produced there. That’s ridiculous.”

West went on to describe the difference between himself and Ron Klein. “Ron Klein continually votes for the expansion of government that adversely affects everyday Americans, programs that have not worked in the past and will not work in the future. I’m for a program that uses the full spectrum of energy resources—plans that will provide energy independence for America and protect our citizens from higher taxes and huge increases in energy costs.”

Its An Energy Tax Its a Dessert Topping Its An Energy Tax

Blogowner's comment:
The first thing that needs to happen is for people to stop calling carbon dioxide a pollutant. How is a substance necessary for life to continue a pollutant?
Trees and all green plants need CO2 to survive. They breathe CO2 and give back oxygen; we breathe oxygen and give back CO2. Almost seems like it was planned that way...DUH!!!!!!!!!!!

DEAL OR NO DEAL ON SPEAKER PELOSI’S NATIONAL ENERGY TAX?

No matter how Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) re-arrange the deck chairs, the fact of the matter is that their bill is a huge national energy tax. The so-called “deal” that was struck between Waxman and Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) is a sham. Hollywood, San Francisco and Boston still get a sweetheart deal at the expense of families, farmers, and small businesses. Here are the facts on the so-called Waxman-Peterson deal.

PART I – USDA, EPA & Agriculture Offsets

Myth #1 – The Waxman-Peterson “deal” on agriculture offsets will allow agriculture to benefit from the legislation.

FACT, Part 1 – Today the nation’s largest organization representing farmers, the U.S. Farm Bureau, voiced continued strong opposition to this misguided legislation, calling it “seriously flawed” and “detrimental to U.S. agriculture.” This influential group with members in all 50 states argues that the bill would “…force agriculture and other productive sectors of our nation’s economy into a position of severe competitive disadvantage with trading partners like China and other nations who will not burden their economies to control carbon emissions.”

FACT, Part 2 – Farmers and ranchers spent $60 billion on fuel, electricity, fertilizer and chemicals in 2008 and for some crops, those energy intensive inputs account for more than 70 percent of production costs. There is no debate that each of those inputs will increase in price under Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax. An agriculture offset program – no matter if it is administered by USDA or EPA – will allow farmers to recoup a fraction of their increased production costs. The Heritage Foundation recently estimated that farm income would drop $8 billion in 2012 and $50 billion in 2035 and that offsets will make-up for less than 10 percent of this lost income.

FACT, Part 3 – Many farmers will not be able to participate in an offset program, and will simply be stuck with significantly higher energy costs. Some crops like fruits, vegetables, rice, cotton and potatoes are simply not suitable for no-till or other farming practices to sequester CO2 in soil. The start-up costs to purchase the necessary equipment to engage in farming practices potentially eligible for an offset can be cost prohibitive, with some equipment costing more than $1 million. And, a new analysis by EPA projects virtually zero potential for soil sequestration.

Myth #2 – Under the Waxman-Peterson “deal,” the EPA will have no ability to regulate farmers and ranchers.

FACT, Part 1 – According to press reports, Chairman Waxman’s description of the deal is that “we will seek guidance from the Administration to figure out the appropriate role for the EPA.”

FACT, Part 2 – The 1,200-page Waxman-Markey has more than 800 references to the EPA or the EPA Administrator and includes the phrase “the Administrator shall” 274 times. In addition, for just the cap-and-trade section of the bill, the EPA is required to produce more than 60 rulemakings, agency and regulatory actions or reports. In contrast, USDA and “agriculture” appear a total of 12 times. Make no mistake, the EPA is the top cop on the beat.

FACT, Part 3 – The devil is in the details…of which there are very few. Until legislative language is produced and reviewed, it is impossible to determine the true impact of the so-called deal between Chairmen Peterson and Waxman. According to press reports, even the Blue Dog’s are reluctant to support a bill if given very short notice to review it. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) said the following:

“The coalition is just not going to be ready to vote on this next week, particularly if we don’t get language until Monday,” she told E&E last week. “Because many will insist that we have a number of days to review the language ourselves, to have back and forth with our constituencies and stakeholder groups, to understand how the system with a significant manager's amendment will work. Yes, absolutely, we need to chew on this awhile”


PART II – Indirect Land Use & Biomass Definition

Myth #1 – The Waxman-Peterson “deal” on indirect land use fixes the problem.

FACT – According to press reports, this “deal” simply kicks the can down the road by delaying the rule for five years and having the EPA and USDA jointly study the issue. The legislation Rep. Peterson introduced (H.R. 2409) permanently prohibited EPA from using indirect land use changes in the calculation of lifecycle GHG emissions.

Myth #2 – The Waxman-Peterson “deal” improves the definition of renewable biomass.

FACT – There is no deal. According to press reports, Chairman Peterson “hoped” to have an agreement by the end of the day (Wednesday). This issue – using the language from the 2008 Farm Bill to define biomass – is also included in H.R. 2409.


PART III – Rural Co-ops

Myth #1 – The Waxman-Peterson “deal” protects Rural America from electricity price increases.

FACT, Part 1: Farmers, families, and ranchers in rural America will still pay higher electricity prices. Why? The deal that the Democrats struck with the rural co-ops leaves some states way in the hole. The sham deal leaves many state co-ops still far short of the free permits they will need to comply with the new standards in the bill. Translation: rural America will pay more to comply with the bill.

FACT, Part 2: The Democrats’ backroom deal ties the hands of the co-ops to help offset the costs to their consumers. The few additional free allowances that were given to rural co-ops have strings attached. The money can only be used for efficiency, renewable, or low-income assistance. The local distribution company cannot use these allowances to cover the increase in the electric costs due to carbon permit costs. But these local distribution companies need the permits BECAUSE they face higher electricity costs, but the bill says they are not allowed to use these permits to pay for those costs?

FACT, Part 3: Although the bill made marginal improvements by prohibiting “excess distributions,” the deal simply means that states like California and Washington don’t actually make excessive profits on this provision. This Waxman-Peterson deal still means consumers in most of rural America will end up paying more for electricity.

Myth #2 – The Waxman-Peterson “deal” protects consumers and small business from electricity price increases.

FACT: Residential or commercial customers who use a lot of electricity, such as groceries or convenience stores, could be especially harmed by the Democrat deal. The deal now provides for industrial customers to receive allowance value based on the quantity of electricity they purchase and to reduce costs for them. However, utilities are NOT required to reduce costs to residential or commercial customers - the bill only requires that the allocations should be used for the benefit of ratepayers, and specifically prohibits rebates based on the amount of electricity they buy.

Myth #3 – Free allowances to the electricity sector are equitable.

FACT: The bill still distributes allowances to LDCs based 50 percent on emissions and 50 percent on retail sales. This is unprecedented. The much-touted acid rain permit program, for example, allocates permits solely on the basis of emissions. The Waxman-Peterson deal means that states with higher CO2 emissions are penalized. None of the changes they made in the bill remedy that inequity.

Dhimmicrats Deliberately Working to Undermine Security and Economy

A powerful congressional chairman has joined a growing number of Democrats who want to sharply increase the cost of drilling leases that the government provides on federal lands, a move vigorously opposed by Big Oil and Republicans.
Rep. Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia Democrat and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, has proposed a plan to boost royalty rates by 50 percent and to cut the lease periods to five years from the current 10 years or more. His recommendation would be part of a sweeping overhaul of the $22 billion, scandal-tarred oil and gas drilling program that the Interior Department oversees.
The plan also appears in line with the broader energy goals of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who is conducting a review of the Interior Department's handling of oil and gas leases and royalties as the House prepares to push through a bill to address climate change and the Senate works on its own energy legislation.