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 one
- Bob Confer
-
-
CONFER: Obama policies promote outsourcing
As a manufacturer, I’ve been interested in President Barack Obama’s insourcing kick.
-
CONFER: Newspapers are a tool for good
Quite often I speak to large groups — like Leadership Niagara or students at SUNY Brockport — about leadership skills.
-
CONFER: Senator Maziarz stands his ground
Quite a few years ago I wrote a column about bringing the Castle Doctrine to New York State.
-
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.
-
CONFER: Deciphering your phone bill
My phone bill is probably not very different from yours.
-
CONFER: Roy-Hart closes book on local control
When property owners in the Royalton-Hartland School District received their school tax bills late last summer, nearly all of them were taken by surprise by a new line item that indicated the district’s (read “taxpayers’ ”) financial support for the Middleport Free Library, forever adopting it as its ward.
-
CONFER: Using the police as tax collectors
America is unique in that most policing is done at the local level by county, city or village officers.
-
CONFER: The ingenuity of the Greatest Generation
Last Sunday marked the birth date of my grandfather Ray Confer, who, along with my father, had founded Confer Plastics.
-
CONFER: Your home is a bad investment
Common sentiment is that real estate — specifically the home — is one of the best investments that a family can make.
-
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.
- More Bob Confer Headlines
-
Raw Video: Deadly Bombing at Yemen Parade Preps
Professor: Chinese Activist's 'Spirit Is Good'
Ring of Fire Eclipse Seen in U.S., Asia
Golden Gate Bridge Celebrates 75 Years
G-8 Seeks Unity on Euro-debt Crisis, Iran
Prosecutors: Trio Planned to Attack Obama's HQ
Obama: G8 Unified in Stance on Iran, Syria
