More fuzzy math? How GOP estimates carbon tax impact
Apr 11th, 2009 by Rick Arms
Congressional Republicans are trying to convince consumers that the White House and Democratic lawmakers will raise their taxes every time people flick on a light switch.
They’re gaining some political traction as Washington struggles to craft legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, one of the Obama administration’s top 2009 priorities.
Republicans’ main attack is a claim that climate legislation will cost U.S. households $3,100 a year. They got the number by doing some additional math based on a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, and they’re sticking with it, even though John Reilly, an MIT economist and the author of the study, told them that they misinterpreted his work and that their number is wrong.
The cost to consumers will be the top issue this month when Congress gets to work on a bill to limit greenhouse gas emissions for the first time in the U.S. Economists say the bill would raise energy prices from fossil fuels as the country makes a transition to cleaner energy sources.
Those who back emissions controls say the cost of doing nothing will be higher because of the risk of such problems as inundated coastlines, droughts and more extreme heat waves. Raising the cost of coal and oil also would create incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency.
In Congress, some Democrats and at least one Republican senator support a plan that would return all the money the government collects in the program to all Americans to compensate for the higher energy costs.
Republicans, however, say that there’s no agreement yet on how to control costs, so they didn’t factor that in.
Republicans in the House of Representatives explained on a release how they got their cost estimate, using a total of climate permit revenues from a hypothetical climate system that MIT studied two years ago:
“We took MIT’s own number — $366 billion — and divided that by the number of U.S. households. Assuming 300 million people, and an average household size of 2.56 people (or 117 million households), each household would pay $3,128.”
Figuring what households would actually pay, however, is more complex, said W. David Montgomery of the consulting company Charles River Associates, which did one of many cost estimates of last year’s climate bill. He said the Republicans’ figure was a correct calculation of how much the government could collect, divided by the number of households, but, he said, “It all depends on what the government does with the money.”
Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, said that so far the Democrats’ plan hasn’t spelled out whether there’d be any rebates for consumers.
If that’s added or Democrats promise they won’t use the funds for anything else, “then we can change our numbers,” she said.
The draft of the climate bill in the House contains a provision to limit greenhouse gas emissions known as “cap and trade.” It would require certain companies to buy permits from the government that would allow a limited amount of greenhouse gas pollution. The limit would be lowered each year. Some proposals would give some of the permits to companies for free.
It’s expected that companies would pass the costs on to consumers.
What the bill doesn’t spell out yet is how the government would compensate consumers for higher electric, gasoline and heating bills. The size of the increase is unknown because it depends on factors that are still being discussed — including how strict the limits would be.
The draft bill in the House contains no language on paying back consumers. Lawmakers are working on those provisions. Under one proposal, revenues the government collects would be returned to consumers.
Reilly, of MIT, wrote a letter to Republicans saying that their figure didn’t accurately account for the cost of the permits and that the total cost of those pollution permits would have little bearing on the actual cost to the average person.
Republicans dismissed his letter. Nonetheless, there’s some evidence that their political offensive is working.
Republican campaign committees have been sending out press releases and e-mails to districts and states represented by vulnerable Democrats.
Last week, for instance, the National Republican Congressional Committee sent 44 different press releases to media in 44 districts. Each had the same message: “(Incumbent’s name) failed to be up front with his constituents today when he supported a budget proposal that omits major details about how Congress intends to raise the money to support their new government spending.”
The release then details the member of Congress’ vote on the $3.6 trillion fiscal 2010 budget. The budget creates a “reserve fund’ for carbon emissions reduction legislation, but provides no details.
At the Capitol, Republican leaders have taken every opportunity to blast the Democrats’ plans.
Just before the House approved the budget on a largely party-line vote last week, Boehner said that the energy plan would “cost the average family $3,100 a year.”
“As we flip on a light . . . in Ohio, our electricity rates go up at least 50 percent the day this bill passes, 50 percent. And they could go as high as 100 percent.”
Senate Republicans also have used the $3,100 cost estimate. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., among others, warns of a “national energy tax.” Many congressional Democrats and some Republicans are eager to act against global warming, but seem to realize they have a political problem.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said that because rates could go up, “you must have a credit immediately, dividends, right on that same bill. . . . We can’t go forward unless we make the ratepayer whole.”
Pelosi hasn’t spelled out how that would be done, but a diverse group of lawmakers, including Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and others, are pushing a form of “cap and dividend” plans. Van Hollen, who’s Pelosi’s assistant for policy issues, would sell all the allowances at an auction and return a monthly “consumer dividend’ to mitigate higher energy prices.
Pelosi said she understands the sensitivity of the issue, and how easily opponents can use it against incumbents.
“Even if you had the votes,” she aid, “You would not want to do this unless you had consensus.”
There’s no fuzzy math here. There isn’t a darn thing the government does for you without taxing the he-ll out of you so for me I say tell the government to eat cr-ap and reduce taxes across the board by 40%. If you want to see where this country is going and know what your taxes are going to be in the future please go to www.americagonestupid.com and watch Ten trillion and counting. After you watch that one watch sick in america. Afterwards think about where the government is going to get the funds to pay for your fun. Oh yeah there soon should be a special called 70% in taxes and rising.
Tax is a Tax
Carbon tax will only increase government revenues. Income tax does not stop one from working. Sales tax does not stop people from selling. Carbon tax will not stop carbon. Currently I am taxed to death. I am sick of it. I want programs, incentives, and tax breaks for cleaner sources but not another tax for the government to increase it size and control over the people.
Look around you. See the mess we’re in? That’s the result of the malfeasance of three Republican administrations staring you in the face.
This is the most devias plan the Government could ever come up with. How stupid can people be to think this is a good idea. It does nothing but tax everybody, rich poor business energy you name it. Manufacturing cost will go up food cost will go up, living in general will cost you more all the way around. Oh and the real catch to this scheme is it does nothing to change anything other than to make taxes. It will not stop or help the so called global(lie)warming. There is nothing in this bill to cure any problems, just create more for the average John Doe. Tax Tax Tax Tax and for no other reason than to raise revenue for the Government.
midnightson: “To the first quote: where’s your evidence they’re not related?”
Since the economic melt down started before the election it’s rather obvious that the subsequent election of Obama could not have caused the prior phenomenon. The more appropriate question, since the inference that they are related came first, is where is the evidence that they are related?
“Secondly: How do you explain that some glaciers in the same latitude are getting bigger? HMMMM? ”
Give an example. Which “some glaciers”? Most glaciers are receding. In Iceland the melt rate has continued to accelerate. Ditto in most other places with significant glaciation. The existence of one or two that are not shrinking does not negate that the vast majority are. And, I ask again, why didn’t this happen during the last sun spot cycle? The reason is that the gradual warming of the earth’s climate means that the 11 year average global temperature is going up each time through the sun spot cycle.
This crap ‘n trade proposal is a tax hike to feed socialist agendas like government medicine.
The true cost to the nation will be in rapid permanent job loss resulting in lower tax revenue, more dependence on socialist programs, a weaker Amrica and greater government intrusion into your personal lives.
Most of our competitors in the global marketplace may sign treaties for cleaner air but few will participate, making the USA a sacrificial lamb at the altar of the Tear Down America greens.
The fuzzy math is in the climate numbers that this onerous legislation springs from. Kill this crap ‘n trade before it spreads.
What the Democrats fail to realize is that ‘Cap and Trade’ is NOT Worldwide/Nationwide. It will fail, because other nations will not commit to that program. Thus, WE will spend more for darn near everything, with no worldwide results. It is simply a feelgood placebo.
More change we can believe in… politicians deciding what’s good for you!
” But Obama winning the White House and the economic slump are separate phenomenon”
“then why didn’t the glaciers melt this much 11 years ago at in the last cycle”
To the first quote: where’s your evidence they’re not related?
Secondly: How do you explain that some glaciers in the same latitude are getting bigger? HMMMM?
” Obama should be impeached. He is ripping the common man off with higher power bills, higher taxes ”
Well, I just got the new Fed. Withholding tax schedules and my employees averaged a 44% reduction in fed. income tax withholding. So far that’s not something they’d be considering impeaching him for! I think it was a rather popular change.
Oh, and my electric power provider just got turned down for a rate increase. Sorry if these facts intrude on anyone’s “two minute hate”.
” They state the DOW is up by more than in any time in over 70 years, yes, true, but only because is fell by 50% since Obama won the White House. ”
This is how people use math deceptively. The 50% slide in the DOW “since Obama won the White House” infers that the slide is all Obama’s fault. But Obama winning the White House and the economic slump are separate phenomenon. There is no valid cause and effect correlation. “W” was in the White house for 2 1/2 months after that. And the crisis started before the election. But it sure sounds authoritative to say it that way doesn’t it?
If the cycle of sun spot activity is the cause of global warming and now we are about to see a period of global cooling then why didn’t the glaciers melt this much 11 years ago at in the last cycle? Sun spot cycles will contribute to normal annual variability but they do not control the longer term trend.
My Mom always said, “Figures don’t lie but liars can figure”
Looks as though are using a little fuzzy math yourself. To blame Obama for the stock market crash is also assine but if you check you will find the stock market has cwetainly not fallen 50% in OBana’s tenure. You should get your “facts” from an independent source not Fox “faux” News.
A continued low in solar activity, as measured by the appearance of irregularities on the Sun’s surface known as sunspots, may be responsible for the recent phase of cooling experienced in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere. In the opinion of many specialists, the downturn in solar activity likely marks the beginning of a prolonged cooling period.
The expected cooling will produce many hardships for a human population already stressed by a prolonged downturn in global physical economic productive capability. But the bright side may be that such bloated windbags as Al Gore and his leaner companion James Hansen, who have led His Royal Consort Prince Philip’s genocidal global warming promotion, will finally be silenced.