The synopsis of the legislation
Details how money is collected! Does not detail how money is spent! Does not reduce requirements for environmental impact statements. Nukes and wind Does not reduce consumption except by increasing energy prices Does not restrict emitters passing on cost to consumer.
**Does not **guarantee that potential economic impacts of global warming is eliminated or even reduced.
**Does not ** give cost of bureaucratic and broker commissions overhead assume 20%
**Does not ** give net incentives benefit for green buildings, energy efficiency measures assume 80%
I can’t attach a spreadsheet or format a table but if you do the math
at the middle, forth, and highest quintile Household expenses increase by 7.5% to 9.6% respectively.
Add $309B Obama spending $309B /45M taxpayer households (forth & highest quintile) = $6866/yr increased taxes. at the forth and highest quintile Household expenses including new tax increase by 20% and 17% respectively.
I’m not quite sure how you can criticize the bill for not showing how the revenue will be spent, since your own summaries show it will be used to offset energy costs for consumers and pay for more efficient energy technologies.
And while you’re at it, perhaps you can show your math on why you estimate government overhead to be 20% of the collected revenue.
The article reports $7.5 trillion income while only identifying “$566 billion” for California and gives billions more in incentives and $800 billion in tax relief makes a total of $1.36 trillion. So there is $6.14 trillion unaccounted for.
6% commission on offset sales
7% Dept of energy ($7.1B) and EPA ($23B) and HUD ($38B) combined budgets and doubled
7% one half of 15 percent of major emitters offsets reductions through international projects
Oh, I get it. Now that Obama is the democratic candidate for president you are trying to use the standard Republican tactic of fear mongering to get people to vote for McCain because your candidate can’t stand on the issues. So first you are going to try to whip up hysteria about a bill cosponsored by Boxer (D-CA) and Warner (R-VA) that raises gasoline taxes by 53 cents over the next 22 (YIKES!!!) years as doom for the American common man (How will I be able to afford PPV NASCAR?), then you will probably attack a bill cosponsored by Bauchus (D-MT) and Cochran (R-MS) for medical insurance reform as a mandate by Obama to commence with cloning babies and aborting them in the third trimester for the stem cells…
Really, I am not feeling the love here. I don’t know the details of this carbon emission bill, but it would not surprise me if it was stupid (the government being what it is). Convince me that it is stupid with out using BOLD FACE TYPE and **INCREASINGLY LARGER TYPEFACE ** and maybe I will be on your side. Regarding the Obama connection, prove it and maybe I’ll even vote McCain (Though I doubt it. I believe the Republicans need to be punished and sent a clear message for their incompetence and corruption over the last 8-16 years - not saying the Democrats are lily-white, but they are at least an order of magnitude closer to beautification than the Pubbies). Finally, show me a plan how the current government spending and low tax rate is not going to bankrupt my very own children (who I plan on sponging of when I am older) and I will vote Republican for life!!!11OneOne!
The bill as roughed out in cites doesn’t take care of the poor!
$7.5 trillion/40 yrs divided by 113 million households is $66,000 per household cost for AGW over 40 years
45 million households in lowest and second quintile times $66,000 per household tax relief is $2.97 trillion. The bill say only $800 billion tax relief. The poor will have to come up with $2.97 trillion – $800 billion = $2.07 trillion over 40 years or $95 each and every month for increased energy costs due to the proposed AGW legislation.
No, All I am saying is that as proposed the legislation will collect $7.5T over 40 yrs but you now have to take away $2.97 trillion for tax relief (AKA EIC) to offset the increased cost of energy to the poor, and take away $1.5 trillion for government overhead and sales commissions that leaves you with only $3 trillion to spend on incentives for green buildings, energy efficiency measures or $75 billion per year.
The AGW legislation sure is a long way around to just get people to build Insulated concret forms (ICF) energy efficient homes, install ground source heat pumps (GSHP), tankless hot water heaters, reduce the EPA impact statement approval process to build nukes and wind farms, and build high speed rail to eliminate commuting in a cars in the cities.
Is not just gasoline, it is 2,100 major emitters - mostly coal-fired power plants, oil refineries, natural gas processors and chemical plants and that means price of electricity, gasoline, heating, and plastics will go up dramatically!
The proposed legislation will collect from these 2,100 major emitters $7.5 trillion over 40 yrs divided by 113 million households is $66,000 per household cost for AGW over 40 years or cost of living increase of $2798/yr for 67 million households having incomes of $34,738 per year and greater.
My concern as well. If Obama would promise to decrease government spending I would vote for him in a heart beat. But
$307 billion / 22 million households in the highest quintile or $14000 of new taxes per each household.
The highest quintile saves 35.7% of their income of $88,030 or $31426/yr. The highest quintile savings would be reduce to $28426 with the Obama tax and spend.
With Obama’s **new taxes and new spending to match **is going to bankrupt your very own children just the same. But your children will be worse off because the capital for new investment has been redistributed and is gone.
We will be worse off with Obama! Personally I like the $14000 contract to pour concrete for the highest quintile people as I expect the recently laid off truck and SUV assembly workers liked working for them as well.