Posted by
Average Voter on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 8:00:13 PM
Obviously, it is a stradegy memo. The democrats have them as well and if you could get a hold of one, you could point out a hundred different things on theirs that would exagerate the point as this memo, in some cases, does.
Some of the thngs he points out are clearly exagerated. But that is the political game they play. But he leaves out so much.
Let's look at the first one.
The 4-page memo lays out a messaging approach based on the argument that cap-and-trade puts Democratic supporters of climate legislation on the side of big business and the rich, while leaving Republican opponents on the side of the poor, the elderly, and the working class. A few messagey excerpts:
By opposing cap-and-trade legislation that will have no climate benefits, Republicans are protecting American consumers from massive job losses, a lower standard of living, and higher prices for food, gasoline, and electricity.
By supporting cap-and-trade, Democrats are choosing big business over consumers, by pushing legislation that enriches several big corporations at the expense of American consumers, their jobs, their livelihoods, and their futures….
First off, they did not say the poor and eldery, even though they are included, it says the "American consumer". That is you and me and ever other upper, lower, and middle class American in the country. If you don't think this legislation or any other "green" legislation will not turn into higher prices for energy, than you must have flunked basic economics. Add to the fact that the economy is currently in the tank, regardless of who you want to blame it on, people are already struggling with making ends meet.
And then he goes on a little farther in the article about how this republican energy tax talk may work.
The argument that a fundamental transformation of the current energy system toward renewable energy sources, driven by a regulatory system that could signficantly drive up the cost of energy, with economically regressive distributive implications – i.e., that the Waxman-Markey bill is, in effect, a big energy tax on consumers – could have some pretty strong legs politically, and could bring about enough public pressure to swing a critical number of Democrats against voting for it. Even if it passes the House, the bill in anything like its current form could be essentially dead on arrival in the Senate, given the 60-vote threshold for success.
You can tell this story anyway you want, but the outcome is still the same; the reason it has legs is because it is the truth. Politicians and lefties don't like to deal in the truth.
Next, we get to the crux of his arguement: the "consequences of inaction", a favorite amoung global warming nutters. My thinking is, once we PROVE that global warming is real and not just a theory as it is now, then talk to me about action or inaction. Nobody wants to have a logical discussion on this issue. Most people either believe it or they don't. I am all for clean air, but let's not regulate something that all carbon based life forms are made of, and exhale when we breathe. We are taking it too far.
So let's look at the flip-side of this arguement. Let's look at the possible "consequences of action" on climate change. It is easy...one consequence is in the memo.
As former Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag said, "If you didn't auction the permits it would represent the largest corporate welfare program that has even been enacted in the history of the United States." Further, Orszag argued, "All of the evidence suggests that what would occur is that corporate profits would increase by approximately the value of the permits." Moreover, CBO found that "giving away allowances could yield windfall profits for the producers that received them by effectively transferring income from consumers to firms' owners and shareholders."
Consumers are left with nothing but a tax hike. Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), who has emerged as the conscience of the party on cap-and-trade, told
E&E Daily on May 14 that "giving away many of the emissions allowances for free to various industries would leave too little revenue to help aid low-income consumers facing higher costs."
Even those in their own party recognize the problems.
He also points out the arguement that the republicans are for the consumer and democrats are protecting big busniess. It seems kind of backwards but that is exactly what is happening here. It is clear that
USCAP ( United States Climate Action Partners) are involved in the bill.
These companies are being smart though. They see the writing on the wall and would rather have a hand in the writing of the bill and possibly some of the payoffs in the end than try to fight and lose.
To understand the politics of this issue, look no further than USCAP, a group of oil companies, electric utilities, large manufacturers, and environmental groups formed to lobby Congress for cap-and-trade legislation. The business members of USCAP are some of the largest corporations in America. As numerous press reports have made clear, USCAP members are engaged in blatant rent seeking—or the use of government regulation to gain competitive advantage, a practice that is, among many other things, anti-consumer and anti-market.
In a summary of the Waxman-Markey draft climate legislation on the Energy and Commerce Committee website, the bill’s sponsors boast that "the global warming provisions in the discussion draft are modeled closely on the recommendations of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP)..." As one USCAP lobbyist said, "We are literally writing the Waxman-Markey bill. They take everything we give them."
I would probably be doing the same thing if I owned one of these companies. They are simply hedging their bets.
In this unabashed quid pro quo, the corporate recipients of these allowances are in turn supporting the Waxman-Markey bill. This is unsurprising. As former Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag said, "If you didn't auction the permits it would represent the largest corporate welfare program that has even been enacted in the history of the United States." Further, Orszag argued, "All of the evidence suggests that what would occur is that corporate profits would increase by approximately the value of the permits." Moreover, CBO found that "giving away allowances could yield windfall profits for the producers that received them by effectively transferring income from consumers to firms' owners and shareholders."
You can peice meal this thing all you want, but it is clear that somebody is going to get rich off of this thing, and it won't be the american consumer. Instead, we will be the ones footing the bill...as always. There are smarter ways of doing this. Inovation and incentives are a much better way clear the air.