After the Summer of Recovery, Decades of Reversals

From the Institute for Energy Research, “New Study: Kerry-Lieberman to Destroy Up to 5.1 Million Jobs, Cost Families $1,042 per Year, Wealthiest Americans to Benefit“:

In an effort to better understand the broad consequences of the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act on the U.S. economy, the Institute for Energy Research commissioned Chamberlain Economics, L.L.C to perform an economic and distributional analysis of cap-and-trade portion of the proposal.

The following represent some of the study’s key findings:

  • The American Power Act would reduce U.S. employment by roughly 522,000 jobs in 2015, rising to over 5.1 million jobs by 2050.
  • Households would face a gross annual burden of $125.9 billion per year or $1,042 per household, with costs disproportionately borne by low-income households.
  • On a net basis, the top income quintile will benefit financially, redistributing to these households roughly $12.3 billion per year from the bottom 80 percent of earners.
  • Households over age 75 bear the largest burden at 2.3 percent of income, followed by households aged 65-74 and under age 25 at 2.1 percent. By contrast, the nation’s highest-earning households between age 45 and 54 years would bear the smallest percentage burden of just 1.5 percent.
  • Contrary to the legislation’s stated goal of reducing price volatility by excluding petroleum refiners from quarterly auctions, the Kerry-Lieberman bill is likely to significantly increase allowance price volatility from quarter to quarter, compared to an ordinary auction in which all covered industries bid for allowances.

Mark Tapscott at The Washington Examiner has more, “Study shows 522000 jobs lost by 2015 due to Kerry_Lieberman’s cap-and-trade bill”

The IER-reported findings — which reinforce analyses of other carbon-cap-and-tax bills, such as the House-passed Waxman-Markey legislation — make this week’s White House meeting on the climate/energy legislation seem baffling not just as policy but as PR. Shouldn’t ending the BP spill be a priority? Apparently not. As Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute summarized yesterday, “Obama: Spill, Schmill — Where’s My Energy Tax?

Today Roll Call reports (subscription required) that during today’s White House meeting — called by the president to try and advance his global-warming agenda by using the Gulf spill as the tail to wag that otherwise dead dog — Obama accused Tennessee senator Lamar Alexander of raising a “talking point” by seeking to discuss response measures the government might employ in the Gulf, and went on to say that the oil spill was not the topic of the meeting.

Remember, the point of the meeting was supposed to be how to pass a spill-response bill, though the substance was revealed to be how to use the Gulf spill to pass a global-warming bill calling it a spill-response bill.

A colleague notes the comments of Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) following the White House meeting and reported by Politico:

Kerry said that in the meeting with nearly two dozen senators of both parties, Obama was “very clear about putting a price on carbon” and curbing greenhouse gases. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Obama made an “effective argument that polluters should pay.”

Polluters should pay…polluters.

Does the term “polluters” apply to all the companies that employ the good people of Connecticut? And the schools and homes that burn heating oil in the winter? The Naval Submarine Base New London?

Remember, it’s carbon dioxide more than any other gas the Senators and President want to put limits on, CO2. And in those lights, pretty much every human being qualifies as a “polluter.” And polluters should pay.

Leave a Reply