Sitting near the top of the Left’s ambitious agenda is the tempering of alleged man-made global warming. The Democrat-controlled Congress and Obama administration hope to achieve this goal through a variety of tactics which include green energy incentives, stricter environmental regulations and the absolutely ludicrous concept of cap and trade.
Simply put, cap and trade is a means of taxation and control in which the federal government — further exceeding its intended bounds — would put limits on the amount of greenhouse gases that manufacturers, energy producers and the like could put into the atmosphere and then charge them for anything over and above their individual caps.
This user’s fee for the atmosphere would add significantly to the cost of living, which, in turn, would severely decrease the quality of the human existence (the polar opposite of what cap and trade’s proponents trumpet as their ultimate goal). The tax will show up in every single thing we buy, for it will be applied to the energy we use to heat and power our homes or take ourselves to work and it will be affixed to the activity that produces the food we eat, the clothes we wear and the products we utilize. Its impact will be staggering, without a doubt.
But, how bad will it be? No one seems to know for sure, but any way you slice it, it stinks.
On the low end of the scale, estimates were released by the Environmental Protection Agency just over a week ago that pegged the impact at no more than $100 per year in added energy costs to the typical household. That number is obviously too small and it should not be believed because of its bias. The EPA is only looking out for its own interests (its job security and power) by minimizing the estimation of the financial impact of the bill.
The Congressional Budget Office, which typically underestimates the financial burden of all things government, said back in June that cap and trade would cost the average household only $175 per year. Theirs was a flawed study, looking only at the costs to manage the program, ignoring the impact that energy restrictions would have on the greater economy and all it produces.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, has been saying since May that the program would cost American families some $1,500 per year in direct energy expenses alone. This large value doesn’t even include cap and trade’s costs hidden in any of the products they purchase.
The Heritage Foundation seems to be quite close in its estimates for formerly-secret internal documents released by the Department of Treasury this September said it would cost American taxpayers $200 billion per year — or $1,761 per family. One must assume the Treasury would know best of its impact as it would be that agency that manages the revenues reaped by such a program.
Whether you’re talking about $100 or $1,761 (the latter being the most likely result), no family can afford cap and trade. Taxpaying Americans already pay more than their fair share for local, state and federal government programs through income, sales and property taxes, whether directly or indirectly in the value of the goods and services they purchase.
In a recession where jobs are scarce and incomes have dropped, breadwinners will be unable to support themselves and each other under this new, massive theft from our citizens.
Bob Confer is a Gasport resident and vice president of Confer Plastics Inc. in North Tonawanda. E-mail him at bobconfer@juno.com.
Bob Confer
Related Photos
CONFER: The cost of cap and trade: Part 1
- Bob Confer
-
-
CONFER: Time to end the NFL’s blackout rule
Long ago, in a much simpler time, ticket sales accounted for the majority of revenues for professional football teams.
-
CONFER: Federal spending derailed by Amtrak
We’ve been inundated with news reports about the fiscal woes of the U.S. Postal Service. Why is it that we never hear anything about another federal enterprise facing ongoing losses -- Amtrak?
-
CONFER: Sifting through the hydrofracking propaganda
Hydrofracking ranks among the most contentious issues in New York. For each person clamoring for the jobs and economic development it will bring to the Empire State, there’s another who strongly opposes the method of natural gas extraction for its potential to damage the environment.
-
CONFER: Unexpected sights in the wilds of Niagara
In recent years, local residents have had the chance to witness some interesting animals within our borders. Among those that generated the most press and most talk were the black bears that frequented the area for a couple of months.
-
CONFER: On 911, Upstate, payroll taxes
Congresswoman Kathy Hochul’s ALERT ACT has been welcomed with open arms by many people in her district, including my friend Scott Leffler who addressed it in his column last week. He supports the Act in entirety. I, on the other hand, can’t do the same.
-
CONFER: Presenting an alternative to war
Last week I was the guest on Don Griffin’s “Second Opinion” on KJSL in St. Louis. The topic of discussion was a 2009 column I wrote about a part of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
-
CONFER: Wage Theft Act: More paperwork for businesses
Business owners and managers like to spend their time doing productive things that make them, their company, their co-workers and their clients better.
-
CONFER: Libya is no better off — maybe its worse
All of the major news outlets, and therefore most U.S. citizens, were downright giddy over the uprising — and NATO intervention — in Libya. Thinking it was some sort of feel-good story, an extension of the Arab Spring, they reveled in the toppling of Gadhafi and threw unyielding support behind the rebel forces.
-
CONFER: Government encroaching on parental rights
Once the government has its foot in the door through the federally sponsored Home Visiting Program, it will have carte blanche to manage all facets of child care.
-
Time to occupy Ralph Wilson Stadium
Most Americans can identify, in part, with the ideals of the Occupy Wall Street movement. What probably resonates most with the majority, regardless of “right” or “left” tendencies, is the basic concept that our government should not be in the business of business.
- More Bob Confer Headlines
-
Denver's Largest-Ever Drug Bust Nets Dozens
Marines: No Punishment for Nazi-like Flag
Vets Look to Translate Military Skills Into Jobs
Expert: Removing LA School's Staff 'Appropriate'
Raw Video: School Bus Burst Into Flames
LA School Reopens Amid Sex Abuse Scandal
$25B Settlement Reached Over Foreclosure Abuses
Pentagon: Allow Women Closer to Front Lines
Obama Gives Education Waivers to 10 States
Giffords Aide to Run for Her Seat
LA School in Sex Abuse Scandal Reopens
Winter Slamming North Asia, Parts of Europe
Syrian Forces Renew Bombardment of Homs
States, Banks Reach Foreclosure-abuse Settlement
Raw Video: Italy's Mount Etna Bursts Into Life
Greeks March; Angry Despite Debt Deal
Raw Video: U.S. Pullout Celebration
Raw Video: Annual Empire State Building Run-Up
Man Killed in Courthouse Shootout
Air Force Airlines: Leaders Get Polished Service
