2009 in Review: Cap and Charade

Sometimes I think politicians believe most Americans are suckers for their annoying habit of under-labeling legislation. The Fairness Doctrine, Pro Choice, Employee Free Choice Act, Affirmative Action are all perfect examples of under or miss-labeling legislation - all nice sounding government policies and legislation, and all meaning just about nothing their names would lead you to believe.

And now we have my all-time new favorite, Cap and Trade - harmless sounding enough.

Generally defined: The Cap and Trade system involves trading of CO2 emission allowances, where the total allowance is strictly limited or "capped" by a yet to be determined, regulatory authority. No big deal, right?

Cap and Trade, according to my red neck dictionary, though, is nothing more than a tax on anything and everything that uses carbon emitting fuels. This is about 98 percent of all fuel used in America - for those of us not driving battery, solar and wind-up cars. I will call it what it is, the largest tax ever levied on working Americans.

While America sleeps, our ever diligent Congress is working at a breakneck pace to jam 1,500 unread pages of legislation, called Cap and Trade, down our throats before we awake from our slumber. (Speaking metaphorically, of course.) "Keep your hope and I will keep my change, thank you very little" as a friend of mine recently chirped.

Why are we on the precipice of one of the most regressive taxes ever passed, you say? Global warming and energy independence, we are told.

First, global warming: How do we know that there is global warming? Well because a proclamation has been made from a "consensus" of a very large group of scientists. I will pause and make a personal comment that "consensus" science, once upon a time, determined the world was flat and the Earth was at the center of the universe.

Consensus science is the bastion of quack science and scientists who feel conclusive determinations need not be made, just simply line up a couple thousand scientists who agree on something and call it settled science.

Briefly, global temperature has been stable for the past nine years, according to the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Anomaly Index. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tracks trends in global atmospheric carbon dioxide. The problem is they show an increase in CO2, but flat to declining global temperatures, over the same period. Could there be a problem with consensus science and momentous legislation super-glued to the concept that CO2 emissions are causing "global warming"? Wow, it sure looks like we have a problem, Houston.

The other leg of this two-legged stool is energy independence. Hey, I like the idea of sending boatloads of oil back to desert sheiks, as much as the next guy.

But...doesn't it make a heck of a lot more sense using more of what we know we already have, all without kicking an already critically injured economy in the privates?

France gets 80 percent of its manufacturing energy from nuclear power, we get 20 percent. We are sitting on what is called by some energy experts, as America's coal version of Saudi Arabia. Are we too good to drill for known oil fields off of the coasts of California and parts of Florida? We have some of the largest natural gas reserves in the world, and yet do-good politicians, intent on ironing out all of life's imperfections, are clamoring to pass this junk science, energy tax.

Even The New York Times says that Cap and Trade, in Europe, has led to unbridled growth of government and politicians currying favor with large industries, resulting in multi-billion dollar windfalls for select companies. And after four years it is not even clear that Cap and Trade, in Europe, has had any measurable impact on the environment. Spain alone, estimates each so-called green job has cost 2.2 jobs, 18 percent unemployment, and billions in lost GDP.

Call me a cynic but I believe Cap and Charade has much less to do with the economy and much more to do with the three evil triplets of government: power, money and control. Agencies such as the EPA are ramping up, already, to triple in size. Trial lawyers are getting sweaty palms, thinking of what this will mean in litigation billing. But most importantly, I think these billions in new tax revenue will have much less to do with the greening of America as it will to pay for President Obama's quixotic social re-engineering plans for America.

The saddest aspect of this legislative farce is the cost it will have on working class Americans. Remember, the idea of this legislation is to get us to use less carbon-based fuel. We should all pause and think of what that means. If you are in manufacturing (think cars, ships and airplanes), the bull's-eye is on your forehead. These companies will face a progressively escalating tax on energy consumption.

At some point this will mean, in escalating order, increases in product prices, reductions in production, reductions in work force, and finally...industry relocation's to countries like China and India that will have no part of this madness. Those are the options and they are not pretty. Increasingly, government will choose everything from the light bulb you use to the car you drive and the food you eat. Eric Blair, author of "1984", called this a dystopian society, I call it a bunch of bull.

So, you can continue sleeping or demand this lunacy be stopped. This legislation now only needs to pass the Senate to become law. This is not the time to let others do your heavy lifting. Get on the phone and call your senator - and remember those who voted for this insanity the next time you go to the polls.