Michele Bachmann: 'Cap and trade'? More like 'tax and spend'

Michele BachmannSenate bill would do great harm to the economy and little good to the environment. 

By Michele Bachmann 

From its name, cap-and-trade legislation sounds harmless enough. Unfortunately, cap-and-trade would be more aptly called “tax and trade” or “tax and spend” and it is far from harmless, posing a serious threat to our economy and our personal freedoms.

A parliamentary maneuver was used on Friday to kill debate in the Senate, but this is only the beginning. With many national leaders, influential lobbyists and powerful special-interest groups pushing hard for a cap-and-trade bill, there is no doubt that this is going to be a hot debate in the months to come as well.

The bill in question is called America’s Climate Security Act. However, like the subject of this bill, global warming, the legislation has been the subject of considerable hype and little hard-nosed analysis.

In this case, the federal government would impose arbitrary limits on six emission gases, with the primary emphasis on carbon dioxide. In order to prevent or “cap” these emissions, the government would sell permits to power plants, refineries, and natural gas producers, among others. To offset losses, the costs of the permits will be passed along in the form of increased energy costs to consumers (much like an energy tax).

As if costs weren’t high enough already, now American businesses and users of energy — nearly everyone — would have to pay more for the right to use energy. One of the bill’s main advocates, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., estimates the cost of these permits at $6.7 trillion by 2050. The federal government is estimated to directly receive $3.32 trillion, with $3.42 trillion in permits sold by other parties. American consumers will still pay the full $6.7 trillion tab.

Read the rest of this piece at Star Tribune.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Wow, a lot of people must have bought Hummers last week. How else to explain the spike in oil prices? No, I’m not being silly: THEY are, and by they I mean the gaggle of media pundits and other administration apologists–even abetted by some green zealots–who want to explain our energy crisis by reference to profligate consumers.

    Sure, in the long run we consumers, particularly the most wasteful ones who happen to reside in the good old USA, and who have become accustomed to consuming many times our population’s worth of the world’s resources, do need to shape up. But that has little to do with the fivefold rise in the price of oil since George Bush became our president.

    Yep, he did it; Bush’s deliberate roiling of world politics is the key variable in the run-up of oil prices. No president has been more brilliant in destabilizing the politics of oil-producing countries from Venezuela to Russia and on to the key oil lakes of Iraq, and again lately Iran. Every time he does this prices have gone up. This time it’s not the only reason by it sure doens’t help. Thanks Georgie.

    Iraq will go down in our nation’s history as one of the dumbest escapades ever, rivaling even the madness of the Vietnam War. But this time the neoconservatives bet their smart money on oil as the decisive missing ingredient for success. Vietnam was always absurd on its face as an imperial capitalism run amok, and even with the lure of oil, so was Iraq. We are reaping what we’ve sown- are you happy now? Thought not.

  • And what does that have to do with cap and trade? I’ve suggested before: If you want to go on about your own topics, there are several sites that offer free blogs. Please try and stay on topic.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.