Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year

[calfoxwc]

 

But mr. know-it-all? Still insists that it's only 176 bucks? Really? Maybe he'll say he's freakin sorry now.

***************************

Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year

• (AP)

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

 

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

 

A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation."

 

The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.

 

These disclosures will probably not aid the political prospects of the Democrats' cap and trade bill. The House of Representatives approved it by a remarkably narrow margin in June -- the bill would have failed if only six House members had switched their votes to "no" -- and it faces significant opposition in the Senate.

 

One reason the bill faces an uncertain future is concern about its cost. House Republican Leader John Boehner has estimated the additional tax bill would be at $366 billion a year, or $3,100 a year per family. Democrats have pointed to estimates from MIT's John Reilly, who put the cost at $800 a year per family, and noted that tax credits to low income households could offset part of the bite. The Heritage Foundation says that, by 2035, "the typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year."

 

One difference is that while Heritage's numbers are talking about 26 years in the future, the Treasury Department's figures don't have a time limit.

 

"Heritage is saying publicly what the administration is saying to itself privately," says Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who filed the FOIA request. "It's nice to see they're not spinning each other behind closed doors."

 

"They're not telling you the cost -- they're not telling you the benefit," says Horner, who wrote the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. "If they don't tell you the cost, and they don't tell you the benefit, what are they telling you? They're just talking about global salvation."

 

The FOIA'd document written by Judson Jaffe, who joined the Treasury Department's Office of Environment and Energy in January 2009, says: "Given the administration's proposal to auction all emission allowances, a cap-and-trade program could generate federal receipts on the order of $100 to $200 billion annually." (Obviously, any final cap-and-trade system may be different from what Obama had proposed, and could yield higher or lower taxes.)

 

Because personal income tax revenues bring in around $1.37 trillion a year, a $200 billion additional tax would be the equivalent of a 15 percent increase a year. A $100 billion additional tax would represent a 7 or 8 percent increase a year.

 

One odd point: The document written by Jaffee includes this line: "It will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX." The Treasury Department redacted the rest of the sentence with a thick black line.

 

The Freedom of Information Act, of course, contains no this-might-embarrass-the-president exemption (nor, for that matter, should federal agencies be in the business of possibly suppressing dissenting climate change voices). You'd hope the presidential administration that boasts of being the "most open and transparent in history" would be more forthcoming than this.

 

Update 9/16/2009: The Environmental Defense Fund has responded to the documents' release with a statement saying, in part:

Even if a 100 percent auction was a live legislative proposal, which it's not, that math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers. It only looks at one side of the balance sheet. It would only be true if you think the Administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire.

 

The bill passed by the House sends the value of pollution permits to consumers, and it contains robust cost-containment provisions. Every credible and independent economic analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (such as those done by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Energy Information Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency) says the costs will be small and affordable -- and that the U.S. economy will grow with a cap on carbon.

[calfoxwc]

Heck translation:

 

" .... ......,

 

eh........................................."

[osusev]

well I dont think a sustainable unpoisoned world that our kids can live in has a price.... considering we only have one world currently we can live on

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

The EDF response is the right one, of course. These are from white papers that score the costs of reduction, done before the election. These aren't scoring the bill before Congress, which includes rebates to consumers that mitigate the costs.

 

If you want to know what those costs are projected to be you can find it in another thread I'm sure.

 

This has been another edition of "Shit Cal Saw on Drudge This Morning."

[calfoxwc]

Not in any post you post, Heck.

 

THIS is reality, bub:

 

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

 

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, you clearly don't understand this. You shouldn't try. And I shouldn't try to explain it to you. But I'm a sucker so here goes.

 

You go into a car dealership and point at the Mercedes. They say it's $60,000. And you say, "Holy shit! I can't afford that!"

 

And then they say, "We're running a special. After you buy it, we'll give you back $45,000."

 

Now it's only $15,000, which is still a cost, but now you can afford it.

 

 

The article you linked to is talking about the gross costs to taxpayers pre-rebate, but also before they watered down the emissions targets (among other things), which also lowered the costs to taxpayers.

 

Feel better?

[calfoxwc]

No.

 

It's smoke and mirrors, bait and switch.

 

The result is, Obama lied about more costs to the middle class.

 

He said "not one penny".

 

Only now, we get double talk, and the old switch a roo that they figure

 

most folks are too busy to notice.

 

I know you are a doofus, but let me try one more time:

 

If you vote for a president of your union, and he steals a trillion dollars from your union treasury,

 

leaving your entire national union retirement funds bankrupt, would you defend his doing so,

 

since he promised to send every union member who voted for him a $200 dollar check, and since he

 

arranged to only raise your union dues 30% ?

 

Seriously, you'd be happy as a clam.

[Mr. T]

Obama and his Klan need to raise money $$$$$$ to slow down the printing presses. Otherwise

look out for hyperinflation and watching the US dollar sink to an all time new LOW.

 

 

Since it looks as if his HealthCare Tax isn't going to come through its back to the Energy Tax!

 

[nobuo]

He might as well attempt to pass a law demanding we give 95% of our paycheck to the gov't, because that's what he's trying to do with this and the other nonsensesical bills and agendas Obama is trying to force on our great country.

 

And for the record, being a Liberal means never having to apologize for the mistakes they make. They just ignore them and do more of what they were doing instead.

[calfoxwc]

It's their extreme self-interest. The leftists contradict themselves so glaringly, they can't possibly be sincere.

 

I honestly think they are so arrogant, and self-interested in $$$ and power, that a lot of people in the inner cities

 

are so stupid, they will buy any asinine posturing the leftists dish out, to manipulate their opinion and votes.

 

If you look at the areas of country who voted for Obama - maybe they are not so wrong.

 

Or, it's just mass manipulation of a needy, corrupt-thinking class of people in the big inner cities.

 

But the racial card being played before and after the election - sends it over the top. Sadly enough.

[choco]

The article you linked to is talking about the gross costs to taxpayers pre-rebate, but also before they watered down the emissions targets (among other things), which also lowered the costs to taxpayers.

 

Feel better?

oh, i get it....

 

the fed is going to add a tax, then give us a majority of it back as a tax rebate....

 

right......he also defended acorn to the death....how'd that turn out again?

[heckofajobbrownie]

How can I argue with that logic?

[calfoxwc]

Heck translation:

 

"I just kicked my own backside, and now I have to act like I'm being sarcastic as I try to avoid the issue unless

 

I decide to give Steve more unwarranted crap"

 

BTW, Heck, I spoke of Obama, half joking, appointing Angela Davis. Actually, I said at least he hadn't...

 

But then after all this time, he appointed Van Jones, the self avowed communist.

 

You can say you're sorry, and I will accept your apology. @@

[choco]

How can I argue with that logic?

you can't. dont let go of that party line....you can go down with 'em.

[heckofajobbrownie]

This has been another edition of "Poor Tupa."

[Westside Steve]

This has been another edition of "Poor Tupa."

 

 

Well we'll all be dead in five years and it won't matter then.

 

Just our luck to make it to the Superbowl and have to play in a submerged stadium...

 

WSS