The sources on this article are two Washington Times articles and an article from the Wall Street Journal, the first Washington Times article explains that people who lose their jobs because of the bill will get three years on unemployment and other benefits from the federal government (Washington Times). The second explains how the Cap and Trade bill is a political tool that will hurt the economy (Washington Times). The Wall Street Journal article (Wall Street Journal) explains the effect of the bill on corporations.
According to the Washington Times:
"Adversely affected employees in oil, coal and other fossil-fuel sector jobs would qualify for a weekly check worth 70 percent of their current salary for up to three years. In addition, they would get $1,500 for job-search assistance and $1,500 for moving expenses from the bill's "climate change worker adjustment assistance" program, which is expected to cost $4.2 billion from 2011 to 2019."
Some of the experts believe that the bill will not create serious job losses for at least five years--this could be interesting--how will the Democrats spin that one?
Unfortunately the tax and tax movement is an international phenomenon--remember the meeting earlier this year when a group of countries with high corporate taxes threatened to punish countries with lower corporate taxes so that they could collect more tax revenue?
"The tendency for political leaders - even those fairly elected - to look out more for their own personal interests rather than the greater good is not confined to America. The Organization for Cooperation and Development (OECD), whose 30 members are the major industrialized democratic countries, was formed half a century ago to promote policies to increase economic growth and free trade.
"Unfortunately, political leaders in high-tax states (notably France and Germany) have captured part of the OECD and are using it as an instrument - by creating "black" and "gray" lists - to squash tax competition from low-tax-rate countries and financial freedom and privacy (which are important for global economic growth)."
The Washington Post concludes:
"The world would be richer and more just if the low-tax-rate countries that protect taxpayer rights and privacy could penalize the states that engage in high levels of tax oppression, rather than vice versa, which is now the case."
The Wall Street Journal points out:
"Even if the law works as intended, over the next decade or two real U.S. greenhouse emissions might be reduced by 2% compared to business as usual. However, consumers would still face higher prices for electric power, transportation and most goods and services as this inefficient and indirect tax flowed down the energy chain."
If this bill passes the Senate, the cost of staying warm this winter will multiply. I believe this puts us on the road to having a monitor on your thermostat so that the government can control the temperature inside your house. California flirted with that idea last year, but withdrew it due to public opposition.
Please email your Senator and ask him not to support this bill.
Leave a comment