THE INTERNET TAX MORATORIUM EXPIRATION

COUNTDOWN

Tell the Senate
to Make the
Moratorium
Permanent.
Click Here to Sign the Petition Before It's Too Late.
00
DAYS
00
HOURS
00
MINUTES
00
SECONDS

Todd Hollenbeck

How Cap and Tax Will Hurt Colorado


Posted by Todd Hollenbeck on Tuesday, August 18th, 2009, 12:18 PM PERMALINK


In our continuing, daily, state by state, look at the financial impact of the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Tax Bill, we will show you the projected losses in Gross State Product, Personal Income, and Non- Farm Jobs in Colorado.

Detailed information on this and other energy taxes can be found in the Americans for Tax Reform Energy Tax Analysis, May 2009.
Colorado:
 
According to a study by Karen Campbell, Ph.D. and David Kreutzer, Ph.D. at the Heritage Foundation, Colorado will suffer the following losses in 2012 as a result of Cap and Tax:
  • A decline in Gross State Product of -$2,715,880,000.
  • Total Personal Income Loss of -$3,575,970,000.
  • Non-Farm Job losses of 28,702. 
Contact your Senators today and tell them to VOTE NO on the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax.
Senator Michael F. Bennet: (202) 224-5852
Senator Mark Udall: (202) 224-5941

Top Comments


Correction: How Cap and Tax Will Hurt California


Posted by Todd Hollenbeck on Tuesday, August 18th, 2009, 12:07 PM PERMALINK


In our report about how the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax will hurt California, posted yesterday, several districts were left out of the total calculation.

We reported:
  • A decline in Gross State Product of - $7,657,260,000.
  • Total Personal Income Loss of - $8,807,930,000.
  • Non-Farm Job losses of 104,972.

The accurate numbers are much more devastating for California:

  • A decline in Gross State Product of -$20,784,610,000.
  • Total Personal Income Loss of -$26,724,270,000.
  • Non-Farm Job losses of 232,773. 
This data is from a study by Karen Campbell, Ph.D. and David Kreutzer, Ph.D. at the Heritage Foundation, California will suffer the above losses in 2012 as a result of Cap and Tax.
 
Contact your Senators today and tell them to VOTE NO on the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax.
Senator Barbara Boxer: (202) 224-3553
Senator Dianne Feinstein: (202) 224-3841

Top Comments


Australian Senate Defeats Cap-and-Trade, US Senate Should Follow Suit


Posted by Todd Hollenbeck on Monday, August 17th, 2009, 5:42 PM PERMALINK


Last week, the Australian Senate struck down their version of cap-and-trade by a 42-30 vote. Some Green Party Senators voted against the measure because they felt it wasn’t oppressive enough to industry and the economy in Australia. Some wanted to wait for more information on the economic impact. Others, such as Senator Nick Minchin, voted against it because he recognized that it isn’t wise to destroy an economy based on unsettled science and an unlikely threat. In a speech prior to the vote, Minchin said

The Rudd government arrogantly refuses to acknowledge that there remains a very lively scientific debate about the extent of and the main causes of climate change, with thousands of highly reputable scientists around the world of the view that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are not and cannot be the main driver of the small degree of global warming that occurred in the last 30 years of the 20th century… The cruel joke is that all those thousands of jobs to be destroyed by Labor’s CPRS will be in vain, because this scheme will make absolutely no difference to the global climate.”
Support for cap-and-trade among Democrats in the US Senate seems to be waning as well. A group of ten Democratic Senators recently sent a letter to President Obama demanding the bill contain protectionist tariffs for their coal and manufacturing constituents. 
 
Last week four Democratic Senators urged the Senate to abandon the cap-and-tax component of the bill and focus on renewable energy mandates. These Senators recognize that this massive tax will be a tough pill to swallow for many taxpayers.
 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Media Matters vs. Facts: Energy in California


Posted by Todd Hollenbeck on Monday, August 17th, 2009, 4:51 PM PERMALINK


Media Matters, the left-wing mouth piece of billionaire George Soros, is again trying to misrepresent the facts in ATR’s post on California. So far, we have disproved their claims about Alabama and Arizona. They claim that California, "could see a net increase of about $18.5 billion in investment revenue and 175,000 jobs based on its share of a total of $150 billion in clean-energy investments annually across the country.” These numbers come from another far-left-wing Soros funded organization, Center for American Progress.

This is the same argument they used against our previous posts, and again it doesn’t take into account that clean energy subsidies are conditional upon partnership with organized unions. Only 20.2% of the private sector construction workforce is unionized, meaning 79.8% of construction jobs are ineligible for Green Jobs Act funding.

California has been suffering because of leftist schemes for years. Is there anyone foolish enough to think this leftist scheme wouldn’t hurt it even more?

 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


How Cap and Tax Will Hurt California


Posted by Todd Hollenbeck on Monday, August 17th, 2009, 11:10 AM PERMALINK


In our continuing, daily, state by state, look at the financial impact of the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Tax Bill, we will show you the projected losses in Gross State Product, Personal Income, and Non- Farm Jobs in California.
 
Detailed information on this and other energy taxes can be found in the Americans for Tax Reform Energy Tax Analysis, May 2009.
 
California:
 
According to a study by Karen Campbell, Ph.D. and David Kreutzer, Ph.D. at the Heritage Foundation, California will suffer the following losses in 2012 as a result of Cap and Tax:
  • A decline in Gross State Product of - $7,657,260,000.
  • Total Personal Income Loss of - $8,807,930,000.
  • Non-Farm Job losses of 104,972.

Contact your Senators today and tell them to VOTE NO on the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax.

Senator Barbara Boxer: (202) 224-3553
Senator Dianne Feinstein: (202) 224-3841

Do you want your health care run like the Post Office?


Posted by Todd Hollenbeck on Friday, August 14th, 2009, 4:42 PM PERMALINK


President Obama recently defended his government run health care plan by equating it with the Post Office. He claims that the plan would not crowd out private companies just as the Post Office has not crowded out private competitors. He said:

“How can a private company compete against the government? My answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining, meaning that taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services, and a good network of doctors, just like private insurers do, then I think private insurers should be able to compete.
They do it all the time. If you think about it, UPS and Fed-Ex are doing just fine. It's the post office that's always having problems … there is nothing inevitable about this somehow destroying the private marketplace. As long as it is not set up where the government is being subsidized by the taxpayers so that even if they are providing a good deal, we keep having to pony up more and more money.” (Video)
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, wrote a fantastic article today at Mises.org. He explains how the Post Office has legal advantages that prevent competition from more efficient private companies, private companies had to struggle just to be allowed to compete, the Post Office doesn’t run like a private company, and that despite the advantages granted to the Post Office, it is still so poorly run, the private companies are able to out perform it.
 
The Post Office is subsidized with tax dollars and with legal favors. Rockwell writes, “Title 18 (I.83.1696) says that ‘Whoever establishes any private express for the conveyance of letters or packets’ can be fined and jailed. Moreover, another law (39.I.6.606) says that any letter delivered by unlawful means can be seized and stolen by the government. It is immune from antitrust action and criminal liability.”
 
For private companies to even exist, they had to find a loophole by delivering packages and not mail. The Post Office had a complete monopoly on mail, until the internet was able to chip away at that monopoly by bypassing paper mail, with e-mail. This is one example of how free markets will innovate to find more efficient and cheaper ways to provide services.
 
Rockwell explains the fallacy that health care or the Post Office will “be self-sustaining, meaning that taxpayers aren't subsidizing it,” basically running like a private company. Rockwell writes, “[I]f the goal is to get government to operate like a private service, what is the value added by having it provided by the government in the first place? The only reason for a government service is precisely to provide financial support for an operation that is otherwise unsustainable, or else there would be no point in the government's involvement at all.”
 
Finally, Obama has shown us a perfect reason to not support the government option for health care. The private sector does everything better than the government and the Post Office is a prime example (public schools are another example, which is why Obama’s daughters go to private school). Even with the legal monopoly, tax subsidies, and special treatment, the Post Office is still an abysmal failure. It is on the GAO’s high risk list, $10.2 billion in dept, and has a cash shortfall of $1 billion. 
 
This is the example that President Obama gives for what to expect from the government health care plan. A system that will be costly, slow, and impossible to eliminate once it is created. It will create burdens for the private sector and make laws to exclude them from some markets as we move closer to a single payer system.

Photo Credit: BrujaHa

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


How Cap and Tax Will Hurt Arkansas


Posted by Todd Hollenbeck on Friday, August 14th, 2009, 11:13 AM PERMALINK


In our continuing, daily, state by state, look at the financial impact of the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Tax Bill, we will show you the projected losses in Gross State Product, Personal Income, and Non- Farm Jobs in Arkansas.

Detailed information on this and other energy taxes can be found in the Americans for Tax Reform Energy Tax Analysis, May 2009.

 
Arkansas:
 
According to a study by Karen Campbell, Ph.D. and David Kreutzer, Ph.D. at the Heritage Foundation, Arkansas will suffer the following losses in 2012 as a result of Cap and Tax:
  • A decline in Gross State Product of - $1,096,020,000.
  • Total Personal Income Loss of - $1,518,390,000.
  • Non-Farm Job losses of 14,132.
Contact your Senators today and tell them to VOTE NO on the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax.
Senator Blanche L. Lincoln: (202) 224-4843
Senator Mark L. Pryor: (202) 224-2353

Top Comments


Cap and Tax...And Bureaucrats!


Posted by Todd Hollenbeck on Thursday, August 13th, 2009, 5:28 PM PERMALINK


Just when you thought there weren’t enough bureaucrats and red tape in Washington, DC, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that the Cap and Trade program would add at least $7.5 billion in new agencies and bureaucrats.

The CBO reports (Page 32):
"Several federal agencies, including EPA, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Department of State, DOE, and others would be responsible for administering programs under H.R. 2454. Major new initiatives—particularly the proposed GHG cap-and-trade program and related activities, the proposed energy-efficiency and renewable electricity standard, and rebates for low income individuals—would significantly expand agencies’ workloads. In addition, many other provisions of H.R. 2454 would require federal agencies to undertake a variety of rulemakings, conduct studies and assessments, prepare reports, and carry out other activities related to new programs authorized under the bill."
 
The CBO estimated the gross appropriations would total $540 million in 2010 and $8.2 billion over the 2010-2019 period. Some agencies such as FERC, however, would be able to offset some of the costs with fees, bringing the net outlay of funding to $390 million in 2010 and $7.5 billion over the 2010- 2019 period. The fees would still have to be paid by someone (read: you), so the real cost of these new bureaucracies is still $8.2 billion for taxpayers.
 
These are CBO projections; some have estimated the actual costs to be much higher.
 
If the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax passes, not only do you get to look forward to higher energy bills, fewer jobs, and a diminished standard of living, you also get to pay for more and more Washington bureaucrats to take your money and run your life. 
 

Top Comments


How Cap and Tax Will Hurt Arizona


Posted by Todd Hollenbeck on Thursday, August 13th, 2009, 2:56 PM PERMALINK


In day 3 of our daily, state by state, look at the financial impact of the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Tax Bill, we will show you the projected losses in Gross State Product, Personal Income, and Non- Farm Jobs in Arizona.

Detailed information on this and other energy taxes can be found in the Americans for Tax Reform Energy Tax Analysis, May 2009.

Arizona:

According to a study by Karen Campbell, Ph.D. and David Kreutzer, Ph.D. at the Heritage Foundation, Arizona will suffer the following losses in 2012 as a result of Cap and Tax:

  • A decline in Gross State Product of - $2,838,910,000
  • Total Personal Income Loss of - $3,620,930,000
  • Non-Farm Job losses of 33,190

Contact your Senators today and tell them to VOTE NO on the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax.

Senator Jon Kyl: (202) 224-4521
Senator Jon McCain: (202) 224-2235

Top Comments


Global Warming "Solutions" Are Worse Than the (unlikely) Problems


Posted by Todd Hollenbeck on Wednesday, August 12th, 2009, 4:01 PM PERMALINK


At ATR, we have told you about the devastating costs that will come as a result of the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax:

Cap and Tax is only the tip of the still very frozen ice burg. Two new documentaries show the costs, not only the financial costs, but also the devastating effects on standard of living and human lives, of the proposed “solutions” to global warming.

Marlo Lewis, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released a documentary called Policy Peril: Why Global Warming Policies Are More Dangerous Than Global Warming Itself.
 
The threats of global warming are greatly exaggerated and we will do more harm than good with these drastic proposals to stop global warming. This clip illustrates the Human costs of global warming “solutions:”

 

The full 40 minute documentary can be streamed for free here.

A feature length documentary, Not Evil, Just Wrong, will have a world wide, simultaneous premier on October 18th at 8pm EST. This film shows “the true cost of global warming hysteria.”


Pages

hidden