It Ain't Easy (or Cheap) Being Green

Kermit the Frog said it best: It ain’t easy being green.  With the Democrats in charge of Washington, being green won’t be cheap, either and, for a party that claims to be an advocate of the poor (otherwise known as “economically disadvantaged”) it will ironically be they who will pay the most to assuage big city Liberal guilt.

As surely as the sun will rise along with taxes, it looks like some form of a Carbon Tax will be coming soon to a bill near you.  Back in 1993 when Bill Clinton was president the BTU Tax wasn’t necessarily to “save the planet” but it was to help conserve resources (so they said) and, more importantly, to raise government income to the roof.  Back then the BTU Tax was explained this way:

The tax would change the way America values the environment by internalizing the cost to society arising from the use of fossil fuels.

Put into plain English, this meant that everybody would pay more to use energy because the government was going to place a “value” upon it through taxation.  The real reason for this tax is explained plainly:

The large fiscal deficit and U.S. budget concerns encouraged the Clinton Administration to look for new sources of revenue. An energy tax could be used to raise revenue to reduce the deficit and to put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis for public program.

Notice how it was “[t]he large fiscal deficit and U.S. budget concerns” that drove the Clinton Administration to propose the BTU Tax.  It sounds kind of familiar to today’s situation doesn’t it?  In 1993 the New York Times reported:

The B.T.U. tax Mr. Clinton offered would raise $72 billion of the $250 billion in additional taxes the President has proposed for the next five years. Most of the remainder would come from higher tax rates on wealthy individuals and corporations.

They probably don't want their jobs anyway.

That was in 1993.  Today, in 2009 with a different Democrat in the White House, the battle is being waged again but this time the reason is “global warming.”  Funny, similar idea, different reason.

This time instead of the BTU Tax we are getting the more friendly name of Cap and Trade which pretty much means Company A can emit X amount of CO2 and if it wants to exceed that amount (set by the government) it has to trade emissions credits from Company B that won’t need them.  According to Investor’s Business Daily:

Cap & Trade is probably the worst possible scheme, involving not only reporting of emissions, monitoring, inspection, and punishment, but also special deals for favored industries and other parties. Some in Congress therefore like the idea of Cap & Trade, which does not sound like a tax but would cost even more. The White House estimate is $650 billion over an eight-year period.

Think about that… $650 billion.  Where is that money going to come from, exactly?  Businesses will not simply absorb this cost.  Instead, if this tax costs the Acme Widget Company $50 million per year they will simply raise prices to cover it which means if you want to buy their widgets you will pay more for them.  Even if you don’t want to buy their widgets they could be an important piece of the next car you buy so, of course, the car will cost more and so will all of the other parts of the car from companies who have to pay more in taxes to the government all because somebody decided that CO2 is going to destroy the world.  Better not exhale or you might be taxed for living!

So how do poor people pay more?  According to the Wall Street Journal:

Hit hardest would be the “95% of working families” Mr. Obama keeps mentioning, usually omitting that his no-new-taxes pledge comes with the caveat “unless you use energy.” Putting a price on carbon is regressive by definition because poor and middle-income households spend more of their paychecks on things like gas to drive to work, groceries or home heating.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Americans will pay from $680.00 to $1,500.00 more per year to help “save the planet” although nobody can prove there is anything wrong with it.  But it’s not just how much you will pay, it’s how much unemployment it will create.  Think about it… coal provides over 40% of U.S. power generation needs.  Where is coal mined?  West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Illinois among the top states.  While these are fine states with many hardworking Americans, they are also not considered to be among the richest states in America.  And the jobs that mining supports, which are dirty, dangerous, but important and well paying jobs, will be put at risk if the cost of getting that coal is increased.  Common sense shows that when something is taxed there is less incentive to produce it.  In fact, we have an example from the pages of today’s news:

California passed a measure regulating CO2 emissions in 2006. CalPortland cement company has produced cement from its limestone quarry in Colton, Calif., for a century. It may not be able to afford to retrofit its Colton plant. The alternative is to close the plant and lay off its 140 workers.

Imagine this scenario happening all across the country many times over.  And President Obama says he wants to lead the U.S. back to economic recovery?

Meanwhile the lattes do taste better here!

So not only will working people lose their jobs, production will decrease, but over 40% of our electricity comes from coal so power will be much more expensive!  More expensive power will raise consumer costs and those paid by businesses which will make them less competitive because similar companies in other countries will not have to pay these taxes so more jobs will be sent overseas.  Ironic that the Democratic Party, which supposedly “champions” the working man is actually trying to make their life harder and more expensive all the while telling them that only they can help improve their lives!

Back in 1993 this was said about the BTU/Carbon Tax:

A carbon tax is also believed to be unlikely, mainly because of the opposition of lawmakers from regions where coal is produced. Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is one such lawmaker, and his support is critical to the President’s chances.

How has the situation changed in the previous 15 years?  If the Democrats went down that road before and failed why try it again?  The answer, of course, has to do with politics:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” said Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. “This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”

And we all should know what government does with the income it takes from Americans: it squanders it.  How many times did Al Gore discuss his Social Security “lock box” when he ran for president?  What did the government do with all of the money it gets from people who pay into the Social Security system?  It spends it to make the deficit look smaller, that’s why Al Gore called for the lock box to begin with because there is no money in the Social Security fund.  Do you think that the Carbon Tax income will be any different?

Once again from the Wall Street Journal:

Cap and trade, in other words, is a scheme to redistribute income and wealth — but in a very curious way. It takes from the working class and gives to the affluent; takes from Miami, Ohio, and gives to Miami, Florida; and takes from an industrial America that is already struggling and gives to rich Silicon Valley and Wall Street “green tech” investors who know how to leverage the political class.

When you pay more for energy, for food, for products and services, as you ponder your life because you’ve been laid off of your job you can at least be grateful that you have been sacrificed to “save the planet.”  Your contribution has been noted.

Did you like this article? Get new articles daily for free via RSS or Email.