Originally Posted by Burton13
I don't know about this hate crime bill but I find it odd that noone on here has brought up the dam sure socialist agenda bill that passed the house Friday and our only hope is it not making it through the senate. I am reffering to the American Clean Energy and Security Act or Cap and Trade bill. This bill is the largest tax increase ever seen. I can't wait for jr to jump in with his barry said he was gonna cut taxes for 95% of the people, when this bill is nothing but the largest tax increase ever even conceived.
[COLOR="Lime"][SIZE="6"][FONT="Century Gothic"]CREAG AN TUIRC[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]
[img]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a183/mm38nut/thkfc.gif[/img]
That bill is a disaster BUT since the worst of it will not take effect till after the Obama presadency I look for a future congress and Presadent to "Fix it"
That being said I wish that piece of garbage had never been put into play but IMHO it will be reversed before any real damage is done
Cap-and-Trade Cost Inflation
May 28, 2009
Republicans puff up the impact of a cap-and-trade program on the average family's energy costs.
Summary
Leading Republicans are claiming that President Obama's proposal to curb greenhouse gas emissions would cost households as much as $3,100 per year. The Republican National Committee calls it a "massive national energy tax." But the $3,100 figure is a misrepresentation of both Obama's proposal and the study from which the number is derived.
Republicans say they base their figure on a study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But one of the authors says that the GOP's use of the study is "simplistic and misleading" and that it ignores key provisions designed to cushion the impact on consumers. The author puts the true added cost of a cap-and-trade system at closer to $800 a year.
Obama himself once said energy costs would "skyrocket" under his plan, but the GOP's partisan claim of a $3,100 per household cost increase is far higher than figures produced by other studies. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the average cost per household to be between $98 and $140 per year, based on the Democratic cap-and-trade bill working its way through the House. Even the conservative, pro-Republican Heritage Foundation figures the average family would see its energy bill increase by $1,500 a year, less than half what the GOP claims. A Congressional Budget Office expert recently estimated the cost per household at an average of $1,600 a year, but that figure doesn't account for energy rebates Obama has proposed giving to consumers. If the government did use revenue from cap and trade "to pay an equal lump-sum rebate to every household," the CBO expert said, "lower-income households could be better off."
Analysis
As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said he would tackle climate change by implementing a cap-and-trade system to limit the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. According to the budget President Obama proposed in February, the administration would aim to "reduce greenhouse gas emissions approximately 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and approximately 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050." The proposed system would require companies emitting gases (principally carbon dioxide) above the cap to buy allowances. Companies that emit gases under the cap would then be able to sell, or trade, their allowances to other companies that need them. But the plan faces opposition from some Republicans who say it is a costly "energy tax."
How Much Higher?
Image of RNC Fundraising Message
Experts agree that the increased costs imposed by a cap-and-trade program would be passed down by companies to their consumers in the form of higher prices on energy products. But just how big of a hit would consumers take?
The Republican National Committee recently tried to scare up donations with a frightening e-mail. "President Obama and the Democrats are planning to jack up energy prices and pass the cost on to you and your family," it said, asking: "[C]an you and your family afford an additional $3,100 in higher energy taxes a year?"
The message goes on to assert that "if Obama and his liberal Democrat cohorts get their way, you and your family will be paying an additional $260 a month in energy taxes thanks to the Democrats' outrageous Cap & Trade legislation. That's $260 a month that you and your family should be allowed to spend, save or invest anyway you see fit." We've heard similar claims about the potential costs of a cap-and-trade program from other GOP members over the last few months as well.
"Simplistic and Misleading"
How do Republicans figure American households will be out $3,100? The figure is based in part on a 2007 study by the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. The study estimated that a cap-and-trade market for 2015 would be worth $366 billion in revenue. Republicans, figuring that that amount would be passed from the energy companies to consumers, calculated the average cost per household by dividing $366 billion by 117 million households (a population of 300 million divided into households of 2.56 persons) to get $3,128, or roughly $3,100.
However, one of the authors of the MIT study disputes that figure.
In a letter sent to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) on April 1, John Reilly, associate director for research at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, said that the study he coauthored had "been misrepresented in recent press releases distributed by the National Republican Congressional Committee." He said the GOP's calculation fails to account for Obama's stated intent to provide rebates to consumers to cushion the effect of increased prices: "[M]any of the proposals currently being considered by Congress and as proposed by the Administration have been designed to offset the energy cost impacts on middle and lower income households and so it is simplistic and misleading to only look at the impact on energy prices of these proposals as a measure of their impact on the average household."
Reilly at first estimated the average annual cost of implementing a cap-and-trade program to each household to be about $340, but he later wrote a follow-up letter to Boehner on April 14 correcting what he said was an error in his calculations and increasing his estimate to about $800. He said his corrected estimate "includes the direct effects of higher energy prices, the cost of measures to reduce energy use, the higher price of goods that are produced using energy, and impacts on wages and returns on capital."
Despite Reilly's objections, Republicans continue to use the $3,100 figure. An April 2 "Leader Alert" on the House Republican Leader's Web site reads: "An MIT professor has questions about the $3,100 figure but his letter makes assumptions that are factually inaccurate." Boehner disputes Reilly's assumption that revenue from a cap-and-trade program would be returned to households: "[W]e all know that Democrats have no intention of using a cap-and-trade system to deliver rebates to consumers; they want the tax revenue to fund more government spending."
Tough Sell
There's no question that curbing greenhouse gas emissions would bring about higher energy prices. Obama himself, speaking to the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle on Jan. 17, 2008, said electricity costs would "necessarily skyrocket" as a result of capping emissions levels, and that his job as president would be to convince the public and Congress that benefits outweigh costs. "If we can't make that argument persuasively enough, you can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington, you're not going to get that done."
When Obama unveiled his proposed budget for 2010, it said that revenue from the program would be used to fund energy investments and also to help consumers. "[T]his program will fund vital investments in a clean energy future totaling $150 billion over 10 years, starting in Fy 2012. The balance of the auction revenues will be returned to the people, especially vulnerable families, communities, and businesses to help the transition to a clean energy economy," the proposed budget explained. The budget also said that the administration would use the "climate revenue" from auctioning the allowances to fund the administration's "Making Work Pay" tax credit – $400 for individuals and $800 for couples.
The Republicans' claim of $3,100 per household simply ignores these features of Obama's proposal. Furthermore, the MIT study was not based on Obama's proposal specifically. It was done two years ago, long before Obama described his intentions in the budget. "We could not anticipate what he would propose, and frankly the details of any current proposal are not completely specified and will change as things go through the Congress," Reilly told FactCheck.org.
Waxman-Markey Bill
Indeed, a cap-and-trade plan that is different in key respects from Obama's is already advancing in Congress. On May 15, U.S. Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) introduced H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, in the House of Representatives. The bill recently passed in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce by a vote of 33 to 25. And it has been referred to other committees for consideration.
It would cap emissions at 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, a steeper initial reduction than the 14 percent cut proposed by Obama. Another key difference is that while Obama would have had the government sell 100 percent of the available allowances, the House bill would give away 85 percent of them to start while auctioning off only 15 percent. (Those differences are in how the program is phased in. Eventually both proposals would auction 100 percent of allowances and cap emissions at 83 percent below 2005 levels in the year 2050.)
The initial 15 percent of auctionable allowances would be used for the specific purpose of protecting consumers from higher energy costs. According to an outline of the proposed allowance allocation, "15% of allowances will be auctioned each year and the proceeds of these allowances will be distributed to low- and moderate-income families to protect them from other energy cost increases."
Other Cost Estimates
In past years, others have analyzed the possible economic impact of a cap-and-trade system and found that consumers' energy costs would increase, but that they could be lessened with the appropriate action.
Testifying before the House Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support in March, Terry M. Dinan, a senior adviser for the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, conceded that price increases from a cap-and-trade system would increase energy costs for American households. According to Dinan's testimony, a 15 percent cut in CO2 emissions could run the average household about $1,600 (in 2006 dollars). The range: $700 for the average household in the lowest one-fifth of all households, according to income, to nearly $2,200 for households in the highest quintile.
But the CBO's estimate did not include "any benefits to households from lessening climate change." And the CBO also concluded that cost increases for some families, at least, could be offset if revenues from the allowances were returned to consumers. In his testimony, Dinan said that a 2000 CBO study "concluded that lower-income households could be better off as a result of the policy (even without including any benefits from reducing climate change) if the government chose to sell the allowances and use the revenue to pay an equal lump-sum rebate to every household in the United States."
And initial analyses of the impacts of the Waxman-Markey bill have varied as well.
The conservative Heritage Foundation, which analyzed the draft version of the bill, estimated that the "typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year" by 2035.
An EPA analysis of the draft version found that "[t]he cap & trade policy has a relatively modest impact on U.S. consumers assuming the bulk of revenues from the program are returned to household[s]," and it estimates the average cost per household to be between $98 and $140 per year.
FactCheck.org
Doesn't seem so bad when lies aren't being told does it?
I never belived the $3000 per year number but IMHO the $140 Per year is equaly rediculess. But as I said before I do not see this bill remaining intact in 2020 when the real effect will be felt.
Both sides spin the truth to make there position seem right.
It's 10 bucks a month if it were to pass, nothing like Pubs are claiming. It probably won't make it past the Senate though, I don't care either way..it's not that great, but also being grossly exaggerated by "some people".
Stem cell research in the U.S. will expand under rules that allow federal government funding for scientists working with unused embryos created at fertility clinics, freeing hundreds of cell lines for study.
The final guidelines released today by the National Institutes of Health increase the number of stem cell lines available for research from the current 20, the acting director of the agency, Raynard Kington, said today in a conference call with reporters. The rules ban U.S. funding to scientists using stem cells from embryos created solely for research purposes.
Funding for new stem cell lines require documents showing the cells were donated, and stem cells already involved in research and those from other countries can be approved by a working group at the NIH, a U.S. research agency. An earlier draft of the guidelines released for public feedback in April would have excluded some existing stem cell lines that didn?t meet all requirements of the new rules.
The new guidelines are ?a big step forward,? said Susan Solomon, chief executive officer of the New York Stem Cell Foundation, in a telephone interview today. The absence of a working group option ?may well have been an oversight in the draft version.?
Read more: Bloomberg.com...
Thank goodness, a president that's standing up to Israel
MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) ? The United States is "absolutely not" giving Israel a green light to attack Iran, U.S. President Barack Obama told CNN Tuesday.
"We have said directly to the Israelis that it is important to try and resolve this in an international setting in a way that does not create major conflict in the Middle East," Obama said, referring to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden on Sunday appeared to leave the door open for Israel to attack Iran if it saw fit.
"Israel can determine for itself ? it's a sovereign nation ? what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else," Biden said on ABC's "This Week."
Obama said Tuesday that Biden had simply been stating a fact, not sending a signal.
"I think Vice President Biden stated a categorical fact, which is we can't dictate to other countries what their security interests are. What is also true is that it is the policy of the United States to resolve the issue of Iran's nuclear capabilities in a peaceful way through diplomatic channels," he said.
The top U.S. military leader, Adm. Mike Mullen, said later on Tuesday that he understands Israel's position.
"The Israelis see Iran achieving a nuclear capability as an existential threat, and that fact is tied to the rhetoric of the leadership of Iran which ? has said that they would seek to eliminate Israel," said Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
His counterparts in the Gulf also understand the Israeli stance, whether or not they agree, Mullen said.
"That gets back to the criticality ? of solving this before Iran gets a nuclear capability, or that anyone? would take action to strike them. And I think that window is a very narrow window," he said in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
He said he hoped diplomacy would resolve the issue.
"I am hopeful that that dialogue is productive. I worry about it a great deal if its not," Mullen said.
The State Department took a similar line on Monday.
"Our goal here is to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. When I say 'our' it is just not the United States ? it is the international community," spokesman Ian Kelly said. "Israel is a sovereign country. We are not going to dictate its actions. We also are committed to Israel's security and we share Israel's deep concerns about Iran's nuclear program."
Asked if this could be interpreted as the United States flashing a green light for Israel to attack Iran's nuclear sites, Kelly said, "I certainly would not want to give a green light to any kind of military action."
The Israeli government considers Iran's nuclear program to be the dominant threat facing the country.
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Obama: U.S. not giving Israel green light to attack Iran - Blogs from CNN.com
___________________________-
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - District of Columbia recognizes same-sex unions - Blogs from CNN.com
Seems vaguely familiar doesn't it? Basically every President's statements about Israel and their conflict with Iran has been that the US backs talks, but not action unless there is imminent danger.
Report: Bush denied Israeli request to attack Iran - Israel News, Ynetnews
"Call me crazy, but I want to buy the Dallas Cowboys end zone and have the star right at the foot of my bed. That way when I score, I can spike the ball right on the star!" -Woody Paige, Around the Horn 10.9.08
I remember Bush not wanting to get involved, but most presidents -including dems - would jump right in there as soon as it starts, if it did. A jewish leader called Obama "Most hostile President towards Israel".
Newsmax.com - Jewish Leader: Obama May Be 'Most Hostile President to Israel?
That was the big fuss I've been hearing about.
Is it a good thing to be hostal to the only country in the Middle east that does not burn american flags while chanting Death to America?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks