Call Kirk, Bean

Mark Kirk is still leaning yes. His DC number is jammed. call 847-940-0202.

Melissa Bean IL-08 call her local office: 847-517-2927 and tell her to vote NO on #capandtrade #capandtax #tcot #iltcot

This is going around: Dear Congress, You cap us, we trade you.

Heritage on the costs:

It is clear that cap-and-trade is very expensive and amounts to nothing more than an energy tax in disguise. After all, when you sweep aside all the complexities of how cap and trade operates--and make no mistake, this is the most convoluted attempt at economic central planning this nation has ever attempted--the bottom line is that cap and trade works by raising the cost of energy high enough so that individuals and businesses are forced to use less of it. Inflicting economic pain is what this is all about. That is how the ever-tightening emissions targets will be met.

The only entities directly regulated by Waxman-Markey would be the electric utilities, oil refiners, natural gas producers, and some manufacturers that produce energy on site. So, the good news for the rest of us--homeowners, car owners, small-business owners, farmers--is that we won't be directly regulated under this bill. The bad news is that nearly all the costs will get passed on to us anyway.

What are those costs? According to the analysis we conducted at The Heritage Foundation, which is attached to my written statement, the higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill's provisions take effect in 2012. For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.

But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600.

Beyond the cost impact on individuals and households, Waxman-Markey also affects employment, and especially employment in the manufacturing sector. We estimate job losses averaging 1,145,000 at any given time from 2012-2035. And note that those are net job losses, after the much-hyped green jobs are taken into account. Some of the lost jobs will be destroyed entirely, while others will be outsourced to nations like China and India that have repeatedly stated that they'll never hamper their own economic growth with energy-cost boosting global warming measures like Waxman-Markey.

Since farming is energy intensive, that sector will be particularly hard-hit. Higher gasoline and diesel fuel costs, higher electricity costs, and higher natural gas-derived fertilizer costs all erode farm profits, which are expected to drop by 28 percent in 2012 and average 57 percent lower through 2035. As with American manufacturers, Waxman-Markey also puts American farmers at a global disadvantage, as other food-exporting nations would have no comparable energy-price raising measures in place.

Overall, Waxman-Markey reduces gross domestic product by an average of $393 billion annually between 2012 and 2035, and cumulatively by $9.4 trillion. In other words, the nation will be $9.4 trillion poorer with Waxman-Markey than without it.

It should also be noted that the costs are not distributed evenly. Low-income households spend a disproportionate share of their incomes on energy, and thus would be hit harder than average by Waxman-Markey. Of course, the bill has provisions to give back some revenues to low-income households, but it is likely that these rebates will amount only to some portion of each dollar that was taken away from them in the first place in the form of higher energy costs and higher costs for other goods and services. Waxman-Markey also disproportionately burdens those states, especially in the Midwest and South, that still have a substantial number of manufacturing jobs to lose, as well as those that rely more heavily than others on coal for electric generation.

More:

The Waxman-Markey bill could saddle drivers with dramatically higher fuel costs. An analysis of the Congressional Budget Office’s report says it could add as much as 77 cents to the price of a gallon of gasoline over the next decade. And according to a Heritage Foundation study, the legislation could cause gasoline prices to jump 74 percent by 2035.

U.S. jobs will be lost and contrary to the bill’s intentions, America will be less energy secure and more reliant on imports. A recent study by CRA International for the National Black Chamber of Commerce estimated a net loss of over 2 million jobs a year. Waxman-Markey will also create huge disincentives for the production of America’s abundant natural gas resources, forcing jobs and productive capacity overseas.

Democrats have limited debate on this huge tax bill to only 3 hours and only one amendment out of 224 offered.UPDATE: Placeholder in the bill---horsetrading on the House floor--unprecedented abuse of the process. Hard to watch these dumbass Dems on the floor blathering about our addiction to foreign oil--what are they doing about it? Are we drilling? No, they want us to go back to the Unabomber lifestyle.

MORE:

Peoria Journal Star, Editorial: “Risky cap-and-trade measure... there are problems with this CBO report, from its caveats to its focusing solely on the year 2020. Most of the heavy lifting comes after that. The Heritage Foundation did a more complete study and came up with a net loss for the average household 10 times the CBO's prediction in the short term. That's much closer to Great Britain's experience with carbon caps… the Midwest, with 85 percent of its electricity coming from coal, gets whacked… we can't support rushing an effort this major that flies so blind.” (6/25/09)

(emphasis mine.)UPDATE: Pin the tail on the bill. More: Steve Huntley, Sun Times:

Another issue is energy. Some of us think the emphasis should be more on energy security than green goals. Yes, we all want a cleaner planet, but our national security and economic future require the exploitation of abundant fossil fuels such as domestic coal and offshore oil as well as expansion of nuclear energy while we develop solar, wind and geothermal for the long term.