Skip to comments.
IBD Editorials ^
| August 13, 2009
| INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY Staff
Posted on 08/13/2009 5:27:29 PM PDT by Kaslin
Cap-And-Trade: The administration likes to defend bad policies with analogies to the post office. New studies from a business group and the administration itself confirm that cap-and-trade belongs in the dead-letter bin.
Along with Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Rep. Ed Markey likens the cost of the Waxman-Markey cap-and trade bill to "about a postage stamp a day," based on estimates made by the Congressional Budget Office and the EPA.
But as we and others have shown, they arrive at this magical number in part by ignoring the hit on gross domestic product and employment that will occur.
As Garret Vaughan, economist with the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI, has written on these pages: "More expensive energy would inevitably slow growth in production and income, as measured by the gross domestic product," and the CBO study "looks past the proverbial elephant in the room with a discrete footnote stating that its cost estimate does not indicate the potential decrease in GDP that could result."
Grasping the real costs of Waxman-Markey is a study released Wednesday by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation. From 2012 to 2030, it says, Waxman-Markey could cost GDP $3.1 trillion. By 2030, it says, job losses could total 2.4 million jobs, residential electricity prices could jump 50% and the price of gasoline could escalate 26%.
Noting that developing countries such as China and India aren't about to take similar steps to rein in emissions, ACCF chief economist Margo Thorning says there would be "almost no global environmental benefits from the bill."
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Canada; Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Nevada
KEYWORDS: 111th; accf; anwr; bhoeconomy; bhoenergy; bhoenvironment; bhojobs; capandtax; capandtrade; capitalformation; capping; cappingjobs; cbo; china; climatechange; crude; crudeoil; dirtyharry; economy; edmarkey; eia; electricity; energy; energyindependence; energyprices; epa; gasprices; gdp; globalwarming; gorebullwarming; h42454; harryreid; henrywaxman; hr2454; ibd; india; jobless; joblosses; jobs; manufacturing; nam; nancypelosi; nimby; nostrildamus; nuclearenergy; nuclearpower; nuclearwaste; ocs; offshoreoil; pelosi; petroleum; reid; saudiarabia; speakerpelosi; unemployment; waxmanmarket; waxmanmarkey; yucca; yuccamountain
posted on 08/13/2009 5:27:31 PM PDT
To: bareford101; BerniesFriend; blaveda; Bookwoman; Celeste732; dsc; FrdmLvr; FreedomPoster; ...
posted on 08/13/2009 5:28:42 PM PDT
(Acronym for 0bama: One Big Ass Mistake America)
The numbers for 2030 look horrific! No one will be working so no one will be paying taxes!
Who stands to make money on this? Goldman sachs comes to mind. Soros. GE.
posted on 08/13/2009 6:38:10 PM PDT
To: Delacon; Entrepreneur; Defendingliberty; WL-law; Genesis defender; proud_yank; grey_whiskers; ...
posted on 08/13/2009 7:09:38 PM PDT
("Power is not alluring to pure minds." - Thomas Jefferson)
ACCF chief economist Margo Thorning says there would be “almost no global environmental benefits from the bill.”
Let's not forget that the “global warming” is not a “crisis”. All this bill does is get us closer to being a third world country in poverty - living like the impoversihed in Africa.
posted on 08/13/2009 9:23:02 PM PDT
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson