Here’s an extraordinarily inconvenient truth the press will likely not report: a “cap-and-trade” program designed to curb carbon emissions in order to "solve" global warming will negatively impact the poor the most.
Think Charlie, Brian, and Katie will do a story on this tonight?
Regardless of the answer, the reality is that as folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his sycophant devotees recommend solutions to a conceivably nonexistent problem, few care to address the negative economic impact of such strategies.
Towards that goal, the Congressional Budget Office released a study on Wednesday that didn’t paint a very pretty picture of the financial ramifications of a cap-and-trade program proposed by Democrats (emphasis added throughout):
Regardless of how the allowances were distributed, most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would.
Hmmm. So, poorer households would be the hardest hit by this scheme. Think this will be headline news? Yet, there was more in this report that likely will be ignored:
Any policy that reduced U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide would inevitably create costs for existing workers. Job losses could occur throughout the economy but would probably be especially large (in percentage terms) in industries associated with high-carbon fuels.
And:
A cap-and-trade program for CO2 emissions would tend to increase government spending and decrease revenues. Like other consumers, the government would face higher prices for energy and other carbon-intensive goods and services. In addition, by leading to a decline in the production of such goods and services, the cap would cause a decline in the taxes collected on corporate profits. If the government wanted to provide the same level of services without increasing the budget deficit, it would have to either raise taxes or use part of the value of the allowances to cover the changes in federal outlays and revenues.
Hmmm. So, this scheme would increase unemployment, hurt the poor, result in higher taxes, drive up inflation, and increase budget deficits.
Any questions as to why this CBO report will likely get little airplay?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"World ends tomorrow - w
April 26, 2007 - 10:41 ET by Anthony Wilson"World ends tomorrow - women and children hardest hit"
Anthony,You forgot mino
April 26, 2007 - 10:57 ET by Dave RAnthony,
You forgot minorities.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-
Neal Boortz.
When did George Bush know abo
April 26, 2007 - 11:01 ET by Roger the ShrubberWhen did George Bush know about this, and why wasn't a press conference called?
Rog,Because it's anothe
April 26, 2007 - 11:18 ET by Dave RRog,
Because it's another evil Rovian plot.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-
Neal Boortz.
The mind of a democrat read
April 26, 2007 - 10:44 ET by Dave in TexasThe mind of a democrat reading the report:
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah raise taxes blah blah blah blah blah.
Noel,"Hmmm. So, this sch
April 26, 2007 - 10:50 ET by Sick-n-TiredNoel,
"Hmmm. So, this scheme would increase unemployment, hurt the poor, result in higher taxes, drive up inflation, and increase budget deficits."
Are you talking about this so called Cap and Trade Program or windfall profits taxes on energy companies?! Different programs, same outcomes. All of it for the better of the gov't and the liberal elites. And I thought they cared for the less fortunate in society....
Which brings us to the only e
April 26, 2007 - 10:52 ET by dscottWhich brings us to the only equitable means to address this (non) problem: Excess Energy Consumption Tax. Those who do the most consuming should do the most to solve "their" problem "they" created by living unsustainable lifestyles. I will propose again that those who consume more than twice the average American household per property should pay a hefty energy tax to encourage them to reduce consumption or install alternative energy production to offset their consumption. The proceeds of this tax should go directly and exclusively to setting up alternative energy research or install solar panels and wind turbines at government sites where land is available to power government activities such as national parks and military installations.
Dr. Al Gore should be paying 20 times for his electrical consumption because he uses 20 times the average. This is a potent inducement to conserve or get off the electric grid. If the problem is as bad as everyone has been led to believe, then drastic action must be forced on those who drastically use energy in a wasteful manner, this called proportionality (equitable distribution of responsibility).
There are 15 million Americans consuming at the same rate as Dr. Al Gore, they need to cut back, it's their responsibility not to shove off the consequences of their actions upon others, namely the majority (285 million). They have the means, they are therefore responsible to address their problem.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Any questions as to why
April 26, 2007 - 10:55 ET by Dave RAny questions as to why this CBO report will likely get little airplay?
Gee, could it be:
1) That many of the lefty socialist GW fanatics are supporting this fraud simply as a way to gain control of the US economy, particularly so they can go after those big, evil American corporations as well as knock the US down a few pegs on the world's economic totem pole?
2) That deep down, most of the people mentioned previously really do not care that much about the plight of the poor, as for many of them, the poor are nothing more than pawns in a much larger chess game?
3) That any economic damage that does occur as a result of this nonsense can simply be pushed off on the Bush administration?
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-
Neal Boortz.
So, this scheme would increas
April 26, 2007 - 12:47 ET by taznarSo the dems do have a plan!
Let's put a 100% tax on the i
April 26, 2007 - 12:48 ET by mattmLet's put a 100% tax on the income of APGW activists who personally emit 10 times more CO2 one week than the average consumer emits in a year.
That's a tax I can live with...
"...Al Gore and his syco
April 26, 2007 - 13:11 ET by Ten7sI say absolutely "nonexistent problem". The scientists in the following say what many of us have been saying for a long time.
...would have to raise taxe
April 26, 2007 - 13:35 ET by JDW...would have to raise taxes... So, this scheme would increase unemployment, hurt the poor, result in
higher taxes, drive up inflation, and increase budget deficits.
Like paying for Social Security benefits that will not be realized.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
If you are going to whine about spelling... get a life