Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

...

One odd point: The document written by Jaffee includes this line: "It will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX." The Treasury Department redacted the rest of the sentence with a thick black line.

Click to expand...

Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year - Taking Liberties - CBS News

The Obama administration has previously said that the cap and tax bill would only raise taxes by about $175 per household. As mentioned in the CBS article, this Treasury Dept. report was obtained only by a FOI filing by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. This report should have been public knowledge as soon as it was released.

It would be very interesting to know what was redacted by Treasury and why they felt it was necessary to redact it.

Since the Treasury Dept. is estimating the costs at TEN times what Obama claimed, I predict this will be the death knell for this boondoggle. With healthcare reform taking a beating due to its high costs, Cap & Tax was on a downhill slide anyway.

Your thoughts?

Now, I'm confused- since Cap & Trade already passed through the House, does that mean it's a done deal, or does it have to go through the Senate?

yes, of course it must pass upper house (and be signed by the prez) to become law

cap and trade has been dead ever since it squeaked thru pelosi's place by a mealy margin of 4 votes

politics 101 has always recognized that any bill that's so problematical in the house has no chance in the much more difficult senate

indeed, to push passage pelosi had to peal at the topmost of her shrillest shriek---vote for JOBS! JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!

LOLOL!

THE GLOBAL WARMING PROTECTION ACT, according to the palsied speakeress, is suddenly an economic stimulant

not a GREEN bill, she maniacally maintains, but an employment producer

cap and trade, in truth, is a huge tax hike on energy, both production and consumption---in the middle of our national DEPRESSION

economic AND political suicide, as well as downright unAmerican

the white house, indeed, has moved OFF cap and trade

axelrod on sept 1, the day he announced the admin's NEW STRATEGY for obamacare (which turned out be not new and certainly no strategy), said as much:

Also this fall, Obama wants to slap new regulations on Wall Street firms, a goal that is now considered a higher priority than cap-and-trade energy legislation in the West Wing.

Under fire, President Obama shifts strategy - Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei - POLITICO.com

indeed, whip durbin on cap and trade said last thursday: "it's a difficult schedule," members are "anxious" enough over health care

ben nelson: "we have enough on our plate at the moment, it's questionable to open another front"

ag chair blanche lincoln: "it's a heavy lift"

sharrod brown of ohio: "there's no bill" that will pass senate unless protections are raised against cheaper imports from foreign manufactures more dollar green than environmental

"we're not real close," added brown

U.S. Senate Democrats skeptical about climate bill | Markets | Reuters

and west virginia grand wizard byrd, longest ever serving senator, has repeatedly "blasted" the bill

Byrd Blasts ?Cap and Trade? - News, Sports, Jobs - The Intelligencer / Wheeling News-Register

the climate bill is just another loser on that long list of presidential LOL's, along with---the public option, personal diplomacy with iran, closing gitmo, cutting the deficit in half, ending earmarks, prosecuting cheney, investigating "torture," blaming bush, cash for clunkers, reaching out to rogues and runts, bailing out bankrupts and bunglers, bankrolling bonuses for bums and bad guys, afghanistan, ending renditon, ending detention, ending don't ask don't tell, reversing the patriot act, not taxing benefits, not taxing those under 250G, transparency, czars, addressing schoolkids, paygo, putting legislation online, deficits at 13% of gdp...

obama is the most incompetent politician at the national level america has ever seen

as national leader and democrat figurehead, the president is Already Irrelevant

he is only pertinent now as empowerer and enhancer of his opposition's prowess

it is what it is

sorry

Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year

Click to expand...

It's going to cost the working class a helluva lot more than that. Working class Americans will lose tens of thousands of dollars every year because of Cap-n-Trade.

It was never the objective of the Libbos to improve the economy. The people can't be controlled in a booming economy.

From your own source:

""Even if a 100 percent auction was a live legislative proposal, which it's not, that math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers. It only looks at one side of the balance sheet. It would only be true if you think the Administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire.""

Yes what are they going to do with the money? Help pay off our National debt? Use it offset income taxes which are not sufficient to pay our bills now?

Right wingers are the biggest dead beats I know of.

They know for a fact we are not paying our bills yet they gripe about paying additional taxes to fund government. With this "tax" it raises revenue, helps the enviroment, and encourages energy conservation, and less dependece of foreign oil.

They're like little spoiled children....any small sacrifice whatsoever on the part of Americans to pay fully for their goverment sends them into hissy fits.

tell it to axelrod, nelson, byrd, lincoln, brown, durbin...

dragondad said:

Right wingers are the biggest dead beats I know of.

Click to expand...

Either you're saying that the welfare class is made up of Righties, or that the Democrats are the, "rich man's party". Which is it?

I don't seem to recall ACORN pushing voter registrations in up-scale neighborhoods.

dragondad said:

.

They know for a fact we are not paying our bills yet they gripe about paying additional taxes to fund government. With this "tax" it raises revenue, helps the enviroment, and encourages energy conservation, and less dependece of foreign oil.

Click to expand...

Stop killing jobs and start creating jobs. That would create more tax revenue. Gee! What a novel idea!

dragondad said:

They're like little spoiled children....any small sacrifice whatsoever on the part of Americans to pay fully for their goverment sends them into hissy fits.

Click to expand...

So we should make sacrifices to pay off the debt... and the left (unlike the right, apparently) fully understands this... public health care anyone?

dragondad said:

Yes what are they going to do with the money? Help pay off our National debt? Use it offset income taxes which are not sufficient to pay our bills now?

Click to expand...

It doesn't appear that you know what they're going to do with it. Why don't you enlighten us?

Adding an extra $150.00 in bills for the average American family during an economic recession sounds like a sound plan to me.

Hope & Change baby!

.

Grim17 said:

Adding an extra $150.00 in bills for the average American family during an economic recession sounds like a sound plan to me.

Hope & Change baby!

.

Click to expand...

Like the quote says...what do you think they are going to do with the money from the Cap and Trade program ....burn it on the WH lawn???

If you knew about macroeconomics you would know that this revenue goes right back out into the economy.

So it has no net effect of the economy. If fact! One could argue since the Government would spend 100% of the money it's likely to spur the economy more so than if consumers spent the money as they would save a small portion of it.

dragondad said:

Like the quote says...what do you think they are going to do with the money from the Cap and Trade program ....burn it on the WH lawn???

If you knew about macroeconomics you would know that this revenue goes right back out into the economy.

So it has no net effect of the economy.

Click to expand...

I must have missed this day in Econ 101, so humor me and explain exactly how you think this works.

RightinNYC said:

I must have missed this day in Econ 101, so humor me and explain exactly how you think this works.

Click to expand...

Your right NYC, the money disappears from the country and is never spent on anything.

RightinNYC said:

I must have missed this day in Econ 101, so humor me and explain exactly how you think this works.

Click to expand...

Your right NYC, the money magically disappears from the country and is never spent on anything.

JakeFromWI said:

Your right NYC, the money disappears from the country and is never spent on anything.

Click to expand...

Why don't you refrain from mischaracterizing my position and actually try to answer the question?

RightinNYC said:

I must have missed this day in Econ 101, so humor me and explain exactly how you think this works.

Click to expand...

Oh that's just me and this crazy Nobel prize winner in economics ....don't mind us!

You've got Glenn Beck on your side.


Is Obama relying too much on tax cuts? - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com


""Other things equal, public investment is a much better way to provide economic stimulus than tax cuts, for two reasons. First, if the government spends money, that money is spent, helping support demand, whereas tax cuts may be largely saved. So public investment offers more bang for the buck.""

JakeFromWI said:

Your right NYC, the money magically disappears from the country and is never spent on anything.

Click to expand...

Maybe he can tell about the Clinton years...You know when Clinton raised taxes (Which he did) and then the economy just collapsed? (Not!)

dragondad said:

Oh that's just me and this crazy Nobel prize winner in economics ....don't mind us!

You've got Glenn Beck on your side.


Is Obama relying too much on tax cuts? - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com


""Other things equal, public investment is a much better way to provide economic stimulus than tax cuts, for two reasons. First, if the government spends money, that money is spent, helping support demand, whereas tax cuts may be largely saved. So public investment offers more bang for the buck.""

Click to expand...

Thanks for proving that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

(Hint: this quote in no way supports your claim that "If you knew about macroeconomics you would know that this revenue goes right back out into the economy. So it has no net effect of the economy.")

dragondad said:

Maybe he can tell about the Clinton years...You know when Clinton raised taxes (Which he did) and then the economy just collapsed? (Not!)

Click to expand...

I could also try to explain the difference between causation and correlation, but it appears that would be a losing battle as well.

RightinNYC said:

Thanks for proving that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

(Hint: this quote in no way supports your claim that "If you knew about macroeconomics you would know that this revenue goes right back out into the economy. So it has no net effect of the economy.")

Click to expand...

Yes it's proved because you say it is!

I think I've read a version if this right wing argument five times today.

The old standby...."No! You are wrong"...argument

RightinNYC said:

I could also try to explain the difference between causation and correlation, but it appears that would be a losing battle as well.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about Clinton raising taxes spurring the economy?

I made no claims about the causation of the Clinton economic boom.

Rather it's you making strawmen.....Boom! You knocked that strawman down...feel better?

dragondad said:

Yes it's proved because you say it is!

I think I've read a version if this right wing argument five times today.

The old standby...."No! You are wrong"...argument

Click to expand...

This is the last time I'll try.

You're arguing that because the revenue from this tax is "going back out into the economy," it must thus have "no net effect on the economy." The falsity of this claim is manifestly obvious to anyone who spends 30 seconds thinking about it.

The federal budget collects revenues through taxes and "sends it back out into the economy" via spending/redistribution. If we ignore deficits for the purpose of this hypothetical, we can assume that the revenue coming in is thus going back out into the economy, much like you claim will happen with cap and trade.

Now, the million dollar question - do you really think that so long as all the money coming in via taxes goes back out in some other form, there is no way that the collection of that revenue can have any effect on the economy?

RightinNYC said:

This is the last time I'll try.

You're arguing that because the revenue from this tax is "going back out into the economy," it must thus have "no net effect on the economy." The falsity of this claim is manifestly obvious to anyone who spends 30 seconds thinking about it.

The federal budget collects revenues through taxes and "sends it back out into the economy" via spending/redistribution. If we ignore deficits for the purpose of this hypothetical, we can assume that the revenue coming in is thus going back out into the economy, much like you claim will happen with cap and trade.

Now, the million dollar question - do you really think that so long as all the money coming in via taxes goes back out in some other form, there is no way that the collection of that revenue can have any effect on the economy?

Click to expand...

Could you spare us the Socratic method and get to the point?. And either post your credentials as an economist or link to an objective source who makes your same argument? I can list scores of objective sources that show tax rates do not effect the economy one way or the another.

dragondad said:

Could you spare us the Socratic method and get to the point?

Click to expand...

I think I pretty clearly explained my point.

And either post your credentials as an economist or link to an objective source who makes your same argument?

Click to expand...

I don't think I really need to go to this length to support my incredibly basic point.

I can list scores of objective sources that show tax rates do not effect the economy one way or the another.

Click to expand...

I know they don't effect the economy, but they certainly affect it. Are you arguing that if the average tax rate were bumped to 70% or dropped to 5% tomorrow, there would be no effect on the economy?

Where's that middle class tax cut?