A Really Bad Idea

Yesterday One America News posted an article about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce‘s suggestion that the gasoline tax be raised to pay for an infrastructure bill. No. That is a really bad idea. American’s just got a tax cut, now the Chamber of Commerce essentially wants to take that tax cut away.

The article states:

The right-leaning U.S. Chamber of Commerce says a federal gas tax of 25-cents per gallon could raise more than $370 billion over the next ten years.]

It’s been a while since the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was right-leaning–they support amnesty for illegals, common core, and other things that are definitely not right-leaning.

Consider what 25-cents a gallon would mean to the average working person. That could mean between $50 and $100 a month depending on the amount of driving they do and the mileage their car gets. The abrupt rise of gasoline prices leading up to 2008 was a small part of what caused the housing bubble to burst–people who were scraping by to pay their mortgages suddenly got hit with $100 plus a month in added fuel expenses for gas and oil and could not pay those expenses. Is the Chamber of Commerce trying to slow down the growing economy by adding a new tax? It sure seems that way.

If Congress needs money for infrastructure, they need to find a place to cut spending to pay for it.

Energy Policy From Someone Who Doesn’t Understand Economics

Just for the record–I do not support dirty air or dirty water. I simply believe that extreme environmental policy does little to help the environment and a lot to damage the economy. Considering the fact that the American Gross Domestic Product went down in the first quarter of this year, now is not the time to take any action that will have a negative impact on the American economy. Evidently our President does not share that belief.

On Wednesday the Los Angeles Times reported that the U. S. Chamber of Commerce is warning that President Obama’s proposed environmental policies could cost the economy tens of billions of dollars in lost investment and millions of jobs.

The article reports:

Although the size of the proposed reduction has yet to be announced, the chamber’s report estimated that such a rule could result in an average annual drop of $51 billion in economic output and 224,000 fewer jobs every year through 2030, with the Southeast feeling the biggest pinch.

The chamber said the numbers were based on modeling from the economic research firm IHS, using assumptions that the regulation would set a 42% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels — an aggressive percentage that is close to a target previously cited by President Obama.

Today the Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel posted an article on the impact of the environmental policies announced by President Obama.

Here is a list of some of the consequences:

For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently released a study showing that the rule will cost consumers in our region $3.3 billion per year in higher electricity prices.

Another study done by NERA Economic Consultants predicted the rule will cost consumers between $13 billion and $17 billion per year. Yet another study released by the Heritage Foundation predicts the rule will cost a family of four $1,200 per year by 2023.

The article also points out the questionable impact of these changes on the environment:

The rule is expected to reduce carbon dioxide levels in the U.S. by 970 million tons by 2030. Although that sounds like a lot, it is essentially meaningless in the global scale of things.

While the EPA has us busy destroying jobs and our economy in the name of global warming orthodoxy, the rest of the world will increase carbon emissions by 4.7 billion tons over the same time period.

For those keeping score, that means other countries will collectively increase carbon emissions by 6 tons for every ton reduced by Americans under the EPA rule. So much for saving the planet.

The EPA’s new global warming rule is a lose-lose proposition for energy consumers and workers. It represents the worst kind of regulation in that it has enormous and painful costs and essentially no benefit.

We really need an administration that considers the impact of its actions on the average American. This legislation is not good for everyday Americans working hard to support their families.

Enhanced by Zemanta