Cap and trade too costly

The House of Representatives recently passed legislation mandating reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through a cap-and-trade system. Mandatory cap-and-trade will result in increased energy costs for all sectors of our economy — including agriculture — which will be among the hardest hit.

Energy is essential to growing crops and forages and raising livestock. Other farmers and I work to conserve energy, but gasoline, diesel and fertilizer are a necessity. If this legislation passes in the Senate, American farmers would face at least a $5 billion a year loss in net farm income due to increased cost for fuel, fertilizer and other inputs.

Plus, pending Environmental Protection Agency regulations would impose a tax on agriculture that could cost Missouri farmers alone more than $500 million, equal to 20 percent of Missouri farmers’ profits.

However, farmers wouldn’t be the only ones affected by this pending legislation. If passed, this will cost a Missouri family more than $3,000 each year in increased energy costs.

We must reduce our dependence on foreign oil and develop cleaner sources of energy, but our senators cannot turn their backs on those of us who depend upon affordable and reliable energy inputs.

Kevin Rawlings
Platte County Farm Bureau President
Platte City

Comments

[pmcw]

Let's see, the subject was again?? Oh yeah, cap and trade.

Has anyone here who supports this bill read even a page of it?

I kept up with it fairly well before it went into markup at around 600 pages. I took some time off then and by the time it left it was over 900 pages. The last three hundred and change got thrown in around 3AM the morning it was signed - no one read those pages before casting a vote.

However, I wanted to see what sort of stuff was slipped in - check it out for yourself. Take section 304, as amended, for example. You might have to look in section 201 to find it - that's where it was hidden the day of the vote...

This bill not only allows the federal government to favor one sector over another and grant special privileges at the sector level, it allows the government to do it at the company level. This is a government that voided the rule of law declaring legally preferred Chrysler debt holders had less rights than were given to it by law.

In addition to these unilateral rights with no proper route of appeal, the federal government usurps all sorts of state rights including immediate jurisdiction over building codes using words so ambiguous it would make a tort lawyer blush. This is what some of your state representatives voted for - you giving up your rights.

See the first post in this thread for more information.

[Pub 17]

Yes, greendeath, we've heard of the Green Tea Party. Here's a nice pic of the founder, Mary Sabaster, learning that Mitt Romney, her Chosen One, was dropping out of the race last year:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7233998.stm
I know that if I were looking for someone to lead me into the jaws of Hell Itself in search of political truth, I'd want it to be a chunky mid-30s Maryland businesswoman who goes to the same hair stylist as Sarah Palin.

[greendeath]

It's true that the cap and trade will promote only regression in our economy. Have you guys heard of the Green Tea Party protesting this stuff? I think it'll be a great way to let Congress know how against this people are!

http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/blog/9-general/132-truth-about-green.html

[Pub 17]

Thanks, Rouge. Once again, if you need a number, make it up. 50%? Why not go big? 60%! 75%! Yeah, now I feel like a Republican, or at least I would except I've got a DD214, an honorable discharge, I'm stone cold sober and I'm faithful to my wife.

Anyway, I was paying TWICE as much for gasoline when Bush was President. And that's the truth.

[pmcw]

KEE, While the claims of higher aggregate costs are clearly true, the real dangers here are that congress and the executive branch will give themselves unfettered and unilateral control over picking the winners and losers in our economy - not only by sector, but also by company. I strongly suggest taking the time (I know it's a lot of time) to read this bill. It is the biggest power grab attempt since we declared our independence from England.

[Kee]

I guess old Pubes wants to pay 50% more for gasoline, and 30% more for her utilities just so she can say she is "green".

You would know a "real" number if it bit you on the butt Pubes. I guess if you lie long enough on a topic if becomes true if you are a dumbocrat.

[Pub 17]

Just your kind of numbers, eh, Rogue? If you have to make a point, make 'em up. If you repeat bogus numbers at least three times, they're real, especially if you're a registered Republican.

Kevin, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Kee]

Good comments on a disaterous bill.

[Rmoen]

Daily I read editorials, comments and letters-to-the-editor from all over the nation. Whereas when the House passed the bill it was maybe 2-to-1 against cap and trade, opinion now seems to be at least 6-to-1 against. The Senate will be wise to heed the overwhelming lack of public support and stop this legislation from passing into law.

If instead of a complex and risky cap-and-trade system the United States had a national mandate to replace coal generation plants with natural gas and nuclear energy, plus if we replaced our commuter cars with battery-powered electric cars, we would drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce CO2 emissions faster and beyond the proposed cap and trade targets.

-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com

[pmcw]

The second greatest economic power held by government is to tax; the greatest is to selectively un-tax. With this seemingly innocuous power, Congress elicits favors from all those who are willing to pay the tab. To radically expand this power is the central goal of Cap and Trade legislation.

For months my friends and most of the pundits I follow thought there was so little chance of Cap and Trade legislation passing, they ignored the issue and, at best, humored me when I pointed to it as the greatest economic threat facing the U.S. economy today. However, with it now apparent there is real threat of this legislation passing the House; thinking people are beginning to take notice. Unfortunately, it may be too late.

Because Congress is not encumbered by truth in advertising laws, the Cap and Trade bill, which even some Democrats call "Cap and Tax," has been named the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" or, as its called inside the beltway, "ACES." This title accompanies two House Resolutions, H.R. 2454 and H.R. 2998. When writing your Senators, I suggest referencing the full title (American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009) and both of the bill numbers noted above. This is a point in time when being abundantly clear is of the utmost importance.

The important thing to understand about ACES is that it is not at all designed to do what its name suggests; as a matter of fact, when viewed on a global basis, it may have just the opposite effect; there are strong arguments to be made supporting the contention that ACES would cause higher global CO2 emissions and significantly detract from our national security even beyond the nearly unbeatable fact it would be ruinous for our economy.

There are many easy, painless and even economically positive ways we can encourage reduced CO2 emissions and stimulate the development of new technologies that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which is what is implied by the "security" part of the title. However, this bill will not accomplish these goals. What this bill will accomplish is a mechanism for massive corruption, the strengthening of the power of congressional incumbency, the establishment of a full employment act for lawyers and the debasement of the aggregate U.S. economy. Yes, those are bold words, but I can back them up.

If this bill passes, Congress will have the power to decide who gets to release CO2, how much they will get to release, how much they will have to pay if they want to release more than the congressional dictated allocation and who they must pay. Because nearly everything we do from raising cattle to growing crops to powering our electric grid to manufacturing everything we eat, wear and use emits CO2, the implication is Congress will have absolute control over not just our economy as a whole, but also in naming the winners and losers.

Make no mistake; what our Congress is trying to do is levy a huge carbon tax that will make virtually everything we do today more expensive and then give itself the ultimate and nearly infinite power to selectively un-tax without the annoying encumbrances or inconveniences of due process. Congress knows that if it is successful in this ruse, it will have industry cowering at its feet to beg for just one more bowl of CO2 credits and, with that, all the campaign contributions and perks you would expect to change hands when favors are denominated in tens or, in some cases, hundreds of billions of dollars.

When you write your Senators, which is something you can easily do today through the House web site, www.senate.gov, you should ask for two things. First, that they sign an affidavit stating they have read and understand the contents of both H.R. 2454 and H.R. 2998 and, second, to not only vote against the Senate version of ACES, but also mount a campaign to influence others to vote against them as well.

The bottom line here is that there is nothing that threatens our economy, our freedom, our state's rights, our class mobility and our security more than what is being deceitfully presented as the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009." The power it will grant Congress is absolute and its wording is so duplicitous that it will clog our courts for years, which will do nothing more than redirect what money is left in our economy to lawyers. We need legislation designed to give us more scientists, engineers and doctors, not more lawyers and avenues to corrupt our political process more than it already is.