As we all know, our economy is reeling and Americans are desperately trying to recapture trillions of dollars in lost wealth. One of the essential components, if not the primary one, of this suffering is the declining value of individuals’ homes. The real estate market has plunged; this leaves many people in situations where their homes are now worth less than what is owed to the bank. This problem may get significantly worse if the American Clean Energy and Security Act (“Cap & Trade”) (HR 2454: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454) is approved by the Senate with the same provisions passed by the House of Representatives.
John Boehner, the House Republican Leader and an elected Representative from Ohio, posted the following information on his website Friday afternoon:
Homebuyers Beware. Trying to save up for a new home? You may have to save up a little longer for your purchase. The Democrats’ bill would dramatically increase new home costs by mandating California’s expensive new building codes for the entire nation. Immediately upon enactment, the Democrats’ bill would demand a 30 percent increase in energy efficiency for new construction. A couple of years later, the Democrats’ bill would require an additional 50 percent improvement. These numbers were chosen with no concern for cost to consumers or feasibility in implementation.
Homebuilders Beware. The Democrats’ bill imposes new mandatory regulations and civil penalties for homebuilders. If your state refuses to accept the stringent and costly California building codes, the federal government may assess penalties. And don’t get too comfortable with the new mandatory regulations because the Democrats’ bill allows for “consensus-based” codes to supplant those outlined in the bill. So, as soon as you’ve invested your hard-earned money to comply with the bill’s mandates, the rug could get pulled from underneath you. Translation? You’ll pony up more and more money.
Home Sellers Beware. Having a hard time selling your home? Here’s one more hurdle to jump: all homes sales are conditioned upon an energy audit and a new energy rating assessment and energy labeling program for your home that’s outlined in the Democrats’ bill. And if you thought you could improve your property with a fresh coat of paint and some granite counters? Think again! Now your home will be subjected to a new energy rating assessment and energy labeling program that will penalize you for older windows, original fixtures, and dated appliances. So the Democrats’ bill would bring down the value of your home!
(Emphasis mine) You can read his entire commentary by following this link: http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=134491).
Look closely at this information and think about it in the context of your next home purchase or sale. If you buy a newly constructed home, you will either pay more for the house or you will have to buy a smaller home to account for the increased penalties placed upon you and the homebuilder by this legislation. If you are in a home, especially an older home, and want to sell, you are faced with either placing it on the market for much less than what typical conditions would warrant or you will be required to spend a considerable amount of money just to meet government standards to sell. This bill actually requires you to hire a government worker and pay him to do the inspection. Further, you may spend money to comply with the new laws only to find changed standards after you wasted resources, including your valuable time and effort.
The costs alone are prohibitive; however, there is another, more sinister, problem with this bill. Namely, the government will intrude into your privacy. This bill forces you to allow a government inspector to enter your home, evaluate things such as your choice in appliances, and then tell you how much your home is worth or what you need to do to bring it up to code. This goes way beyond normal building codes and replaces your personal choices and preferences with those of a group of bureaucrats far removed from your everyday life and financial circumstances.
If you do not find these costs problematic when compared to your desire to curb “global climate change” and the alarmists’ claims for impending doom, then consider the potential impact of Cap & Trade. The best-case scenario, assuming all provisions work nearly flawlessly and the restrictions have maximum effect, is a decrease in global temperatures of .2 degrees Celsius by the year 2100 (go here for a thorough analysis of the numbers involved: http://www.heritage.org/Press/FactSheet/fs0028.cfm). Weigh the scales. It is hard to fathom that a bill which will, as President Obama stated, cause energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket” is justified by such a minuscule effect on the planet in 91 years. This becomes even more apparent when you view it in the context of an economy and housing market that are in the midst of a slump with no end in sight. Who can really afford to lose more wealth and see their home lose more value for what amounts to nothing more than bureaucrats getting a warm fuzzy feeling in their collective stomachs?
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Update: Sotomayor Overruled in New Haven Firefighter Case
The Supreme Court, in a split 5-4 decision, overturned the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Ricci, et al. v. DeStefano (you can read the decision here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf).
The Court held that the City of New Haven, CT. violated the Civil Rights Act when it refused to promote 20 firefighters. The firefighters in question, 19 Caucasians and 1 Hispanic, all passed a written examination given by the city to determine promotions. The city originally threw out the test and denied promotions to those who passed it out of fear that the test would run afoul of a legality called “disparate impact.” Generally, this means that something that appears neutral on its face disproportionately impacts members of a protected class[1]. The city reasoned that the test had a disparate impact since no African-Americans passed the examination. The firefighters in question challenged the city’s decision and sued. A federal District Court originally granted Summary Judgment[2] to the city on the basis that the results could be thrown out to avoid any disparate impact lawsuits. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court in a brief statement authored by Judge Sonia Sotomayor without hearing oral arguments.
Although the final decision was close, the perspective that Judge Sotomayor failed to properly dispose of the case was unanimous. All nine Justices disagreed with the way the case was handled in the appellate court. The Supreme Court felt that a full hearing on the topic was proper and Sotomayor’s brief statement avoiding a hearing was improper for a valid Constitutional claim. Further, it seems obvious that the topic deserved legal arguments at the Circuit Court level since the Supreme Court released over 90 pages of analysis and reasoning.
This makes the 4th time in 6 cases that Sotomayor has been overturned by the Supreme Court. The unanimous agreement that her legal approach was wrong is eerily similar with yet another decision where the Supreme Court deconstructed her legal reasoning as completely incorrect. This means that in 5 of 6 cases that were appealed to, and heard by the Supreme Court, Sotomayor was on the wrong side of the Constitution and federally enacted statutes.
The nomination process is ongoing and a vote is scheduled to occur within the next month. We still have time to let our Senators know that we expect more from the Supreme Court and we will not stand for Justices to legislate from the bench. Please contact your Senator and tell them to vote “no” to Sonia Sotomayor (you can find your Senators here: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm).
[1] Protected class is a term given to individuals in society who are part of a group that has been historically discriminated against or treated unfairly throughout the country over an extended period of time. African-Americans are an example of a protected class since they were the victims of slavery and ongoing discrimination after the Emancipation Proclamation. A few other examples of protected classes are females, the disabled, and the elderly.
[2] Summary Judgment is a legal motion which states that one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when there are no genuine issues of material fact. This motion is granted when the facts of a case are not in dispute; all inferences and ambiguities are to be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The intent is to efficiently move cases through the legal system and avoid trials when possible. Judges should not grant this motion when a fact-finder, either Judge or Jury, could look at the evidence presented and conclude that one participant in the case had more compelling and weighty evidence supporting their legal arguments. It is only to be used when the facts are so one-sided as to make a trial on the evidence unnecessary.
The Court held that the City of New Haven, CT. violated the Civil Rights Act when it refused to promote 20 firefighters. The firefighters in question, 19 Caucasians and 1 Hispanic, all passed a written examination given by the city to determine promotions. The city originally threw out the test and denied promotions to those who passed it out of fear that the test would run afoul of a legality called “disparate impact.” Generally, this means that something that appears neutral on its face disproportionately impacts members of a protected class[1]. The city reasoned that the test had a disparate impact since no African-Americans passed the examination. The firefighters in question challenged the city’s decision and sued. A federal District Court originally granted Summary Judgment[2] to the city on the basis that the results could be thrown out to avoid any disparate impact lawsuits. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court in a brief statement authored by Judge Sonia Sotomayor without hearing oral arguments.
Although the final decision was close, the perspective that Judge Sotomayor failed to properly dispose of the case was unanimous. All nine Justices disagreed with the way the case was handled in the appellate court. The Supreme Court felt that a full hearing on the topic was proper and Sotomayor’s brief statement avoiding a hearing was improper for a valid Constitutional claim. Further, it seems obvious that the topic deserved legal arguments at the Circuit Court level since the Supreme Court released over 90 pages of analysis and reasoning.
This makes the 4th time in 6 cases that Sotomayor has been overturned by the Supreme Court. The unanimous agreement that her legal approach was wrong is eerily similar with yet another decision where the Supreme Court deconstructed her legal reasoning as completely incorrect. This means that in 5 of 6 cases that were appealed to, and heard by the Supreme Court, Sotomayor was on the wrong side of the Constitution and federally enacted statutes.
The nomination process is ongoing and a vote is scheduled to occur within the next month. We still have time to let our Senators know that we expect more from the Supreme Court and we will not stand for Justices to legislate from the bench. Please contact your Senator and tell them to vote “no” to Sonia Sotomayor (you can find your Senators here: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm).
[1] Protected class is a term given to individuals in society who are part of a group that has been historically discriminated against or treated unfairly throughout the country over an extended period of time. African-Americans are an example of a protected class since they were the victims of slavery and ongoing discrimination after the Emancipation Proclamation. A few other examples of protected classes are females, the disabled, and the elderly.
[2] Summary Judgment is a legal motion which states that one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when there are no genuine issues of material fact. This motion is granted when the facts of a case are not in dispute; all inferences and ambiguities are to be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The intent is to efficiently move cases through the legal system and avoid trials when possible. Judges should not grant this motion when a fact-finder, either Judge or Jury, could look at the evidence presented and conclude that one participant in the case had more compelling and weighty evidence supporting their legal arguments. It is only to be used when the facts are so one-sided as to make a trial on the evidence unnecessary.
Update: “Cap & Trade” Bill Passes the House of Representatives
The American Clean Energy and Security Act (HR 2454) (2009) narrowly passed on Friday night. The final vote tally was 219 – 212. The bill will now go to the Senate for debate and an eventual vote. As of right now, the legislation does not have enough support to pass. This presents an opportunity for everyone to call, mail, or email their respective Senators and urge them to stand firmly against this economically destructive silent tax. (You can find your Senators here: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm)
It is important to note that 8 Republicans broke ranks and voted in favor of this law. Since this bill only passed by 7 votes, you can see how disastrous this was. If any of these individuals represent you, please voice your opinion and let them know how unhappy you are that they voted for this monstrosity. They are:
- Bono Mack (CA)
- Castle (DE)
- Kirk (IL)
- Lance (NJ)
- LoBiondo (NJ)
- McHugh (NY)
- Reichert (WA)
- Smith (NJ)
I also think it is important to inform you that 44 Democrats voted against ACES. If any of these individuals represent your Congressional district, please let them know that you are pleased with their good judgment on this topic. The representatives are:
-Altmire (PA) -Arcuri (NY) -Barrow (GA)
-Berry (AR) -Boren (OK) -Bright (AL)
-Carney (PA) -Childers (MS) -Costa (CA)
-Costello (IL) -Dahlkemper (PA) -Davis (AL)
-Davis (TN) -DeFazio (OR) -Donnelly (IN)
-Edwards (TX) -Ellsworth (IN) -Foster (IL)
-Griffith (AL) -Herseth Sandlin (SD) -Holden (PA)
-Kirkpatrick (AZ) -Kissell (NC) -Kucinich (OH)
-Marshall (GA) -Massa (NY) -Matheson (UT)
-McIntyre (NC) -Melancon (LA) -Minnick (ID)
-Mitchell (AZ) -Mollohan (WV) -Nye (VA)
-Ortiz (TX) -Pomeroy (ND) -Rahall (WV)
-Rodriguez (TX) -Ross (AK) -Salazar (CO)
-Stark (CA) -Tanner (TN) -Taylor (MS)
-Visclosky (IN) -Wilson (OH)
We still have an opportunity to demand that our voices be heard; please do not let this chance to defeat a poorly reasoned and written bill pass without voicing your concerns.
It is important to note that 8 Republicans broke ranks and voted in favor of this law. Since this bill only passed by 7 votes, you can see how disastrous this was. If any of these individuals represent you, please voice your opinion and let them know how unhappy you are that they voted for this monstrosity. They are:
- Bono Mack (CA)
- Castle (DE)
- Kirk (IL)
- Lance (NJ)
- LoBiondo (NJ)
- McHugh (NY)
- Reichert (WA)
- Smith (NJ)
I also think it is important to inform you that 44 Democrats voted against ACES. If any of these individuals represent your Congressional district, please let them know that you are pleased with their good judgment on this topic. The representatives are:
-Altmire (PA) -Arcuri (NY) -Barrow (GA)
-Berry (AR) -Boren (OK) -Bright (AL)
-Carney (PA) -Childers (MS) -Costa (CA)
-Costello (IL) -Dahlkemper (PA) -Davis (AL)
-Davis (TN) -DeFazio (OR) -Donnelly (IN)
-Edwards (TX) -Ellsworth (IN) -Foster (IL)
-Griffith (AL) -Herseth Sandlin (SD) -Holden (PA)
-Kirkpatrick (AZ) -Kissell (NC) -Kucinich (OH)
-Marshall (GA) -Massa (NY) -Matheson (UT)
-McIntyre (NC) -Melancon (LA) -Minnick (ID)
-Mitchell (AZ) -Mollohan (WV) -Nye (VA)
-Ortiz (TX) -Pomeroy (ND) -Rahall (WV)
-Rodriguez (TX) -Ross (AK) -Salazar (CO)
-Stark (CA) -Tanner (TN) -Taylor (MS)
-Visclosky (IN) -Wilson (OH)
We still have an opportunity to demand that our voices be heard; please do not let this chance to defeat a poorly reasoned and written bill pass without voicing your concerns.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Supply Chains and Cap & Trade: a High-Level Overview
The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) of 2009 is a piece of legislation presented to the entire U.S. House of Representatives and set for a vote on Friday, June 26, 2009. It is more commonly referred to as “Cap and Trade.” ACES is purported to be a bill to combat so-called “climate change.” The legislation places a limit on the amount of carbon dioxide (the air we, as humans, exhale and that trees convert back into oxygen) that businesses can release into the environment. ACES does allow some carbon to be emitted; however, it requires a permit from the government. These permits have a cost that amount to a tax on production. Admittedly, the bill is more complicated, but this rudimentary explanation will serve the purpose for this discussion.
The supply chain is an economic term which simply describes the process of taking raw resources, turning them into products for the economy, and then placing those products into the hands of consumers. The purpose is to illustrate the flow of materials through the economy and to include all parties involved in bringing goods to the market. Again, this concept can get more complicated, but it is unnecessary to go into that level of detail here.
These two concepts will be interrelated if Congress passes ACES into effect and the President signs it into law. ACES will affect each level of the supply chain with a tax. The additional cost will be passed on to the next link in the chain. Capitalism functions in such a manner because the purpose of risk-taking and investment is profit. Businesses will avoid decreases in profit caused by increased costs of production or purchasing materials by passing the costs down the line. The final result of this process is an increased burden upon the consumer, who happens to be the final link in the chain.
A simple illustration demonstrates this point. Let us examine something as common as the small business dairy farmer who sends milk to the market. The farmer is the beginning of the supply chain. He has the source of the raw material, the dairy producing cows, from which the process begins. The farmer must extract the raw milk from the cows. This is typically accomplished through a harvesting machine, which is used several times a day. The machine runs on electricity. Since over 50% of electricity in this country comes from coal, it is highly probable that the electricity bill for the dairy farmer will be higher. Higher utility bills mean increased cost for the farmer. Since farmers usually have tight margins, that cost will be passed to the next participant in the supply chain. Further, the farmer has to store the harvested dairy product. Again, this requires the use of a machine, this time a refrigerated machine which also runs on electricity. He will again incur more cost.
The next step is transportation of the refrigerated product from the dairy farm to processing centers and laboratories (to test the product that is being sent to market). Transportation typically occurs by means of trucking. Trucking companies require large quantities of gasoline. The gasoline will cost more, which means that the trucking company must charge more for the service. Additionally, it is possible that the trucking company will have to purchase permits for emitting carbon dioxide (this remains unclear at this point in time). If permits are required of the company, the service charge will be further increased.
Once the product arrives at the processing plant, it must go through a series of procedures including pasteurization and homogenization. Once again, this process requires energy for the machinery and the large building which houses all of it. The processor typically packages the milk as well. This involves even more machinery and ever more electricity. The processing plant also must store the milk until the next shipment is ready to go out to the distributors. Storage of a perishable item requires refrigerated equipment that yet again runs on electricity.
A shipping company will have to again transport the product; this time the milk will be taken from the processing plant and shipped to distribution points. We will assume that there are no middle-men or warehouses and that it goes straight to your local supermarket. The shipping company, as stated previously, uses gasoline that is now more expensive and must charge more to cover the increased burden.
Once the milk arrives at the local grocer, it must be stored. The storage yet again requires the use of refrigerated coolers which run on electricity that has become more costly. The end result of all these costs is a more expensive gallon of milk for the consumer. The cost added to each layer will increase the final sales price.
When you review all of the costs passed down the chain, it becomes obvious that the ultimate burden falls upon the consumer. He pays for all of the increased costs to the farmer, the transportation from farm to processing plant, the higher energy bills of the plant, a second round of higher transportation costs, and finally the more expensive energy at the supermarket. These numbers don’t even include things like the suddenly more expensive gas used by the consumer to get to the store, the increased costs of buying machines and other supplies to run the farm and the plant, or the more expensive parts used to maintain the trucking fleet. The previous sentence’s examples are but a few of the dozens of inputs necessary to keep the supply chain functioning.
Although the explanation was simplistic, it clearly makes the point that passage of the ACES legislation will significantly impact the standard of living of the American public. To make this point stronger, think about how many products you buy weekly and look to the higher costs passed through the supply chain for each of them. The price of any one is bearable; however, the aggregate cost to the consumer becomes exponentially burdensome and oppressive. What is more disturbing is the regressive nature of the proposed law; it disproportionately saddles costs to those in society with the least available means to bear the burden. Those in government must educate the public on the cumulative effect of this bill and the impact it will have on every sector of the economy. Explaining the impact ACES will have on individuals should build a groundswell of opposition to this destructive policy. As in sports, sometimes the best offense is a good defense. In this case, an educated populace is the best defense available.
The supply chain is an economic term which simply describes the process of taking raw resources, turning them into products for the economy, and then placing those products into the hands of consumers. The purpose is to illustrate the flow of materials through the economy and to include all parties involved in bringing goods to the market. Again, this concept can get more complicated, but it is unnecessary to go into that level of detail here.
These two concepts will be interrelated if Congress passes ACES into effect and the President signs it into law. ACES will affect each level of the supply chain with a tax. The additional cost will be passed on to the next link in the chain. Capitalism functions in such a manner because the purpose of risk-taking and investment is profit. Businesses will avoid decreases in profit caused by increased costs of production or purchasing materials by passing the costs down the line. The final result of this process is an increased burden upon the consumer, who happens to be the final link in the chain.
A simple illustration demonstrates this point. Let us examine something as common as the small business dairy farmer who sends milk to the market. The farmer is the beginning of the supply chain. He has the source of the raw material, the dairy producing cows, from which the process begins. The farmer must extract the raw milk from the cows. This is typically accomplished through a harvesting machine, which is used several times a day. The machine runs on electricity. Since over 50% of electricity in this country comes from coal, it is highly probable that the electricity bill for the dairy farmer will be higher. Higher utility bills mean increased cost for the farmer. Since farmers usually have tight margins, that cost will be passed to the next participant in the supply chain. Further, the farmer has to store the harvested dairy product. Again, this requires the use of a machine, this time a refrigerated machine which also runs on electricity. He will again incur more cost.
The next step is transportation of the refrigerated product from the dairy farm to processing centers and laboratories (to test the product that is being sent to market). Transportation typically occurs by means of trucking. Trucking companies require large quantities of gasoline. The gasoline will cost more, which means that the trucking company must charge more for the service. Additionally, it is possible that the trucking company will have to purchase permits for emitting carbon dioxide (this remains unclear at this point in time). If permits are required of the company, the service charge will be further increased.
Once the product arrives at the processing plant, it must go through a series of procedures including pasteurization and homogenization. Once again, this process requires energy for the machinery and the large building which houses all of it. The processor typically packages the milk as well. This involves even more machinery and ever more electricity. The processing plant also must store the milk until the next shipment is ready to go out to the distributors. Storage of a perishable item requires refrigerated equipment that yet again runs on electricity.
A shipping company will have to again transport the product; this time the milk will be taken from the processing plant and shipped to distribution points. We will assume that there are no middle-men or warehouses and that it goes straight to your local supermarket. The shipping company, as stated previously, uses gasoline that is now more expensive and must charge more to cover the increased burden.
Once the milk arrives at the local grocer, it must be stored. The storage yet again requires the use of refrigerated coolers which run on electricity that has become more costly. The end result of all these costs is a more expensive gallon of milk for the consumer. The cost added to each layer will increase the final sales price.
When you review all of the costs passed down the chain, it becomes obvious that the ultimate burden falls upon the consumer. He pays for all of the increased costs to the farmer, the transportation from farm to processing plant, the higher energy bills of the plant, a second round of higher transportation costs, and finally the more expensive energy at the supermarket. These numbers don’t even include things like the suddenly more expensive gas used by the consumer to get to the store, the increased costs of buying machines and other supplies to run the farm and the plant, or the more expensive parts used to maintain the trucking fleet. The previous sentence’s examples are but a few of the dozens of inputs necessary to keep the supply chain functioning.
Although the explanation was simplistic, it clearly makes the point that passage of the ACES legislation will significantly impact the standard of living of the American public. To make this point stronger, think about how many products you buy weekly and look to the higher costs passed through the supply chain for each of them. The price of any one is bearable; however, the aggregate cost to the consumer becomes exponentially burdensome and oppressive. What is more disturbing is the regressive nature of the proposed law; it disproportionately saddles costs to those in society with the least available means to bear the burden. Those in government must educate the public on the cumulative effect of this bill and the impact it will have on every sector of the economy. Explaining the impact ACES will have on individuals should build a groundswell of opposition to this destructive policy. As in sports, sometimes the best offense is a good defense. In this case, an educated populace is the best defense available.
A Letter to Congress on "Cap & Trade"
Congresswoman Myrick,
As a concerned citizen in your Congressional District, I implore you to stand firm and vote against the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) that is currently pending in the House. ACES is a horrific piece of legislation, based upon science that is questionable at best, which will restrict the growth of the American economy like no law in our nation’s history.
As you are probably well aware, ACES will be a burden on all Americans. It amounts to the largest tax hike in US history and will affect rich and poor alike. A tax on carbon does not give preferential treatment based upon bank accounts; it pillages from everyone. Depending on the source of the numbers (and omitting the latest statistics from a faulty and incomplete CBO report that the Heritage foundation equates to an accounting analysis or cash-flow analysis), a family of four can expect to see energy costs increase up to 90% within the next two decades. This increase in energy bills is deliberate and meant to curb the use of carbon. These numbers also fail to consider the costs that will be imposed through the supply chain of everything manufactured and purchased in this country. It also fails to consider the lost production, lost jobs, and restricted growth of the economy which will place far greater burdens on everyone from single parents to small business owners to large international corporations. This is unfathomable, even more so when we are looking at tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities and a national debt that is set to grow every single year for at least the next decade. Americans are hurting right now and are looking to save every penny they can. How is this tax bomb justified considering these factors?
The science behind this push to turn back the clock on American growth and industry makes the costs and the purpose behind ACES even more suspect. The EPA’s own numbers show that the effect on the environment will be about .2 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. Two-tenths of one degree! Our global temperature fluctuates by that number or more on a yearly basis. The so-called benefits are more dubious when you consider that other nations will not be bound by such punitive restraints. American business and consumers will have a distinct disadvantage in the global economy. Even if the entire planet bought into this modern day mysticism, the UN reports that global temperatures would only change by .4 degrees Celsius. All of these numbers assume best-case scenarios which are highly unlikely to occur. It is bordering on insanity to decrease the standard of living of our society for such a nominal number.
I am well aware that the Democrats outnumber Republicans in the House by a significant margin and that at times it may seem like you are the proverbial lone voice in the wilderness. You are not alone. Millions of Americans will stand firmly behind you and unite once again for economic growth, job creation, prosperity, and the freedom to work and live free from oppressive government taxes. I also want to appeal to you as a mother and grandmother and ask you to fight not only for yourself but for your children and grandchildren. It is unfair, and I might add un-American, to saddle future generations with debts and burdens that we ourselves did not have to bear. Think of them when you speak out against this bill and think of the millions of American children just like them that will face the prospects of a world where they will be inhibited from achieving the level of success we were allowed to reach.
Please vote against ACES and rally your colleagues in what will be one of the most important political battles of our lifetime.
Respectfully,
PoliSpice
A Concerned 9th District Voter
As a concerned citizen in your Congressional District, I implore you to stand firm and vote against the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) that is currently pending in the House. ACES is a horrific piece of legislation, based upon science that is questionable at best, which will restrict the growth of the American economy like no law in our nation’s history.
As you are probably well aware, ACES will be a burden on all Americans. It amounts to the largest tax hike in US history and will affect rich and poor alike. A tax on carbon does not give preferential treatment based upon bank accounts; it pillages from everyone. Depending on the source of the numbers (and omitting the latest statistics from a faulty and incomplete CBO report that the Heritage foundation equates to an accounting analysis or cash-flow analysis), a family of four can expect to see energy costs increase up to 90% within the next two decades. This increase in energy bills is deliberate and meant to curb the use of carbon. These numbers also fail to consider the costs that will be imposed through the supply chain of everything manufactured and purchased in this country. It also fails to consider the lost production, lost jobs, and restricted growth of the economy which will place far greater burdens on everyone from single parents to small business owners to large international corporations. This is unfathomable, even more so when we are looking at tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities and a national debt that is set to grow every single year for at least the next decade. Americans are hurting right now and are looking to save every penny they can. How is this tax bomb justified considering these factors?
The science behind this push to turn back the clock on American growth and industry makes the costs and the purpose behind ACES even more suspect. The EPA’s own numbers show that the effect on the environment will be about .2 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. Two-tenths of one degree! Our global temperature fluctuates by that number or more on a yearly basis. The so-called benefits are more dubious when you consider that other nations will not be bound by such punitive restraints. American business and consumers will have a distinct disadvantage in the global economy. Even if the entire planet bought into this modern day mysticism, the UN reports that global temperatures would only change by .4 degrees Celsius. All of these numbers assume best-case scenarios which are highly unlikely to occur. It is bordering on insanity to decrease the standard of living of our society for such a nominal number.
I am well aware that the Democrats outnumber Republicans in the House by a significant margin and that at times it may seem like you are the proverbial lone voice in the wilderness. You are not alone. Millions of Americans will stand firmly behind you and unite once again for economic growth, job creation, prosperity, and the freedom to work and live free from oppressive government taxes. I also want to appeal to you as a mother and grandmother and ask you to fight not only for yourself but for your children and grandchildren. It is unfair, and I might add un-American, to saddle future generations with debts and burdens that we ourselves did not have to bear. Think of them when you speak out against this bill and think of the millions of American children just like them that will face the prospects of a world where they will be inhibited from achieving the level of success we were allowed to reach.
Please vote against ACES and rally your colleagues in what will be one of the most important political battles of our lifetime.
Respectfully,
PoliSpice
A Concerned 9th District Voter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)