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
CONFER: The cost of cap and trade: Part 1
- Bob Confer
-
-
CONFER: The reality of rationed health care
The ongoing debate over Obamacare has brought to light the concept of rationed healthcare. Opponents of health care reform keenly point out that while the bill never explicitly calls out rationing, it features certain provisions that will lead the markets to adjust to strict federal demands and, therefore, dispense certain procedures in smaller amounts or not at all. Because of it being the first time that the subject has really come up in public circles, most people, especially on the right, believe that rationing is something new. It’s not. The free markets have been practicing that for quite some time. I should know; with a 4-inch long, 1-inch wide scar running south of my belly button – and a couple of related scars around my groin – I could be the poster child for rationed health care.
-
CONFER: Property taxes: Paying unfair share
A debate that has dominated the American political scene for months has been this premise that everyone should “pay their fair share.” So much attention has been trained on this matter at the national level (in the form of federal income tax) that most people have almost totally ignored the concept at the local level (in the form of property taxes) where it would carry even greater weight.
-
CONFER: The dangers of feral cats
The town of Newfane — more specifically the lakeshore hamlet of Olcott — has a feral cat problem. The community is inundated with dozens of free-roaming, essentially-wild felines which have created health and safety issues galore as well as major inconveniences to property owners, businesses and tourists.
-
CONFER: Yahoo! layoffs not good for area
Last month, Yahoo! announced layoffs of 2,000 jobs. That’s their sixth layoff - and largest – since 2008. The other five ranged from 150 to 1,000 job cuts each and totaled 3,950 jobs lost. In the aggregate, the internet giant has cut 5,950 jobs (or 30 percent of its workforce) in 4 years.
-
CONFER: Take a kid fishing and hunting
The outdoor sports face an unknown future. Hunting and fishing license sales are decreasing at an alarming rate. The population of hunters could be under 10 million for the first time in 2025 after numbering 19 million just 30 year ago and 12.5 million in recent years. The average hunter is now 45 years old and that age continues to rise.
-
CONFER: Obama's policies promote outsourcing
As a manufacturer, I’ve been interested in President Barack Obama’s insourcing kick. By “insourcing,” the President refers to a reversal of the outsourcing trend by American companies; some of them — very little in number — are bringing jobs back to the US.
-
CONFER: Do yourself a favor — read newspapers
Quite often I speak to large groups — like Leadership Niagara or students at SUNY Brockport — about leadership skills. When discussing some of the more important tools for leading their organization — be it a business, a non-profit, a government agency, or even their household — I always mention that they need to read a newspaper (or a few newspapers) every day.
-
CONFER: Senator Maziarz stands his ground
Quite a few years ago I wrote a column about bringing the Castle Doctrine to New York State. The Doctrine would empower the individual by recognizing, within the confines of the home, the natural right to self-defense.
-
CONFER: It’s time to end the minimum wage
Early in this legislative session, New York senators and assemblypeople debated Sheldon Silver’s proposal to increase the minimum wage in New York by $1.25. The argument — whether to maintain the status quo or strive for $8.50 — is wasteful political rhetoric in itself, for the determination of the lowest wages is best left to the free markets, not the government.
-
CONFER: Getting schooled on new disclosure law
For years, the model citizens who engaged in their civic duty by attending and speaking at town and school meetings had faced an uphill battle in their quest to make their voice heard as best as it could be.
- More Bob Confer Headlines
-


