@Foxfyre,
Traditionally taxes are levied to defer legitimate costs of government. Gas taxes pay for road use. Real estate taxes for schools and so on. While one can make an argument against using the latter for schools, the tax revenue on energy usage known as cap and trade has absolutely no legitimate argument. This carbon tax is just another Democratic attempt to wring more cash out of American citizens like the alcohol and tobacco taxes. The argument that the state does good because those taxes cut down on bad behavior is proved wrong by the state's own actions regarding gambling which was previously banned for that reason but now has been found advantageous since it provides the state additional revenue and not because gambling has suddenly become a good thing for private citizens to do. Advantageous for whom? Well, the State’s politicians it would seem. But in our system of government, as originally conceived, the state was formed for the well being and security of all the people not just Union members, state workers, and welfare recipients. What of the argument that justifies income and gas taxes where the citizenry gets something in return? Applying this argument as a rationale for a carbon tax we are at a loss to find a general good in exchange for taxpayer monies collected by government. All we do find is more state revenue that will be used mostly to perpetuate indirect Democratic fund raising and income and wealth redistribution to those who either don’t pay taxes or are more directly on the public dole.
To those who say the whole point is to lower carbon emissions there are many principled and learned members of global society who are still asking for scientific proof of global warming (GW). (Bjorn Lomberg’s “The Skeptical Environmentalist”
http://www.lomborg.com/ who also points out that, all in all, we could accomplish more human good with other initiatives that are cheaper and much more likely to alleviate human suffering such as clean drinking water for all humanity.) But even if we put aside this stubborn fact, science has still not ruled out other causes of cyclical global warming. Global temperatures have not risen in the last decade but many proponents of such say it (GW) has just paused for a while, well, how do they know this? Were not the 'experts' predicting Global Cooling a scant score of years ago? Even so, mankind was given a big boost by the ‘Global Warming’ of the last Ice Age (the one with Mastodons, etc, not the little one in 1560-1850). Al Gore (who has a financial stake in this) may say the (political) Debate is over but science disagrees. Again, even if we give Al his flawed conclusions, Californian or even American efforts towards preventing carbon emissions will be of little consequence with the likes of China and India not on board the carbon free wagon. When fully examined, the fantasy of preventing Global Warming by further depressing our economy is at best just an attempt to increase governmental revenues to sustain an ever increasing Big Brotherism"the government gets more money to bribe voting citizens and those working citizens paying taxes get less and less say so in decisions involving their own individual liberty and happiness. At worst, it can be argued that the environmentalist, whether actually correct or not, will have an even more difficult time convincing an ascendant Chinese/Indian economic giant (concurrent with a descendant American one) to place any carbon restrictions on their populace"arguably a situation that might actually decrease carbon output.
Those that would substitute “alternative energy sources” will find a very difficult row to hoe. Obama is, of course, on this band wagon. But, this conveyance is pulled by an absolutely insignificant percentage of our energy sector and proponents, like Obama, are either ill informed about the numbers or just disingenuous. Example: On Earth Day (April 22), the president visited an Iowa factory that builds towers for wind turbines. "We can remain the world's leading importer of oil, or we can become the world's leading exporter of clean energy," he said. The implication is that Obama wants to replace our oil consumption with windmills. Windmills produce electricity; almost 50 percent of our electricity comes from coal, 20 percent from nuclear, 20 percent from natural gas, a stranded resource available only locally. When we finally come to petroleum sources the figure is 1.6%. (
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/electricgeneration.html ) A proper examination of the figures with an eye towards energy source replacement concurrent with carbon emission reduction demands an increase in nuclear power production not government subsidized windmills with productivity ratings, at best, barely at 28% compared to nuclear’s 90%. Why not nuclear constructed plants built by Americans and American company’s? Yucca Mountain could house both Gitmo terrorist and nuclear waste for that matter. This would benefit all Americans and not just one foreign company that makes windmill generators.
Those politicians like Waxman, are merely trying to justify their vocation by appearing to do good. But, experience has shown that when government tries to do ‘good’ in the market place they do so with biased opinions based on every thing except an understanding of economics and market forces. Some would argue that governments are not businesses and their efforts are above economic considerations because the goals are loftier etc. This is nonsense, even such philanthropists as Carnegie, Annenberg, and Gates would be the first to admit their largess would be impossible without an eye towards economics, payroll, and the bottom line. But then the difference between government and such philanthropic spending is tthat he latter is hard won and has worth to those so contributing the former merely spends someone else's hard earned money. Government opinions, we have learned from the memoirs of top Chinese government officials and noted by our own press, emanate from only select powerful individuals, like Waxman who are passionate about specific issues. This, in itself, is not bad, but, more often then not, these powerful individuals feel their cause is so good, so obviously right that given any opportunity they will push it onto society without waiting for any kind of informative national debate. Waxman has been pushing this economic back breaker, well, forever. This issue has been debated but, so far, that debate has not been decided in Waxman's favor so now that we have both a Democratic Executive and Congress this Democratic dream is closer to becoming a national nightmare.
The pundits mostly feel that this (carbon tax) won't pass this year and is a dead issue but the energy companies are selling out and trying to make a deal with the Dems, --trust me it will come back and bite them and all of us in the ass. Companies are now running as far away from the TARP as they can. Those in TARP are trying to get out as quick as possible but they have made a deal with the devil. There is congressional movement Re controlling employee compensation for not only companies currently in TARP but those that were but no longer are. As I remember the very health care system that many in Congress rail against was created, inadvertently, by"wait for it"Congress!
Quote:“Our employment-based system was not the product of a carefully designed health policy. It was a byproduct of evading wage controls during World War II.
At the time it was thought that, as the nation’s drafted military personnel risked their limbs and life on foreign battlefields at low, tightly controlled pay, those who stayed behind should have their wages controlled as well.
But with the wink of the eye with which Congress routinely puts loopholes into the tax laws or regulations it imposes, the wage controls imposed in World War II did not extend to fringe benefits. And thus, employer-paid fringe benefits, including employment-based health insurance, were born.”
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/is-employer-based-health-insurance-worth-saving/?hp
On a different note:
Happy Memorial day to all and to all veterans thank you for your service.
To those that have been wounded in any way and those who risked their lives in service to this great country and to those who did so fall and their families thank you ever so much.
JM
