Only 24% Know What Cap And Trade Is — Tax and Ration energy

TAX and RATION

OK, so let me get this right up front and correct the record, cap and trade is an energy tax of gargantuan proportions, maybe 50% tax, and a rationing scheme on top of that. Yes that’s right, tax and ration would be a far more accurate description of cap and trade. Energy is the life blood of a modern economy, so anything that makes that more expensive is going to resort in consumers paying the bill.

In the end the whole scam is about taxes, the global warming bunk is thrown in to try and afflict guilt trip on the unwary. Sort of like the Catholic church and their ‘condolences’, pay the Catholic Church a sex tax and all will be OK.

Rasmussen:

The gap between Capitol Hill and Main Street is huge when it comes to the so-called “cap-and-trade” legislation being considered in Congress. So wide, in fact, that few voters even know what the proposed legislation is all about. Given a choice of three options, just 24% of voters can correctly identify the cap-and-trade proposal as something that deals with environmental issues. A slightly higher number (29%) believe the proposal has something to do with regulating Wall Street while 17% think the term applies to health care reform. A plurality (30%) have no idea. Heritage.org:

Many Americans find the debate in Washington over adopting a “cap and trade” program to reduce carbon dioxide a bit confusing. That’s understandable. Put simply, it’s a tax on energy consumption. In fact, it would be a huge tax. If enacted, cap-and-trade will be one of the government’s largest revenue sources within the next decade. It also would break one of President Obama’s promises. In his speech before Congress in February, he said, “If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.” Unless you use energy, apparently.

Heritage.org:

In 2007, MIT did a study on the costs of cap and trade and found that cap and trade proposals that would reduce carbon emission by 50% to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 would cost the American household $800 a year in economic losses and $3,100 a year in taxes collected by the federal government. That’s a total $3,900 cost for the average American household! How does this cost compare to other household expenses? WSJ.com: Politicians love cap and trade because they can claim to be taxing “polluters,” not workers. Hardly. Once the government creates a scarce new commodity — in this case the right to emit carbon — and then mandates that businesses buy it, the costs would inevitably be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices. Stating the obvious, Peter Orszag — now Mr. Obama’s budget director — told Congress last year that “Those price increases are essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program.”

During Obama’s January 2008 talk with the San Francisco Chronicle, he also mentions how electricity rates would “skyrocket” under cap and trade(H/T to Hot Air’s Ed Morrisey for focusing in on this):

The problem is not technical, and the problem is not sufficient mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington.

The problem is can you get the American people to say this is really important and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake, and climate change is a great example.

When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations.

That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers. You can already see what the arguments are going to be during the general election. People will say Obama and Al Gore …these folks…they’re going to destroy the economy.

This is going to cost us 8 trillion dollars or whatever their number is. If you can’t persuade the American people that, yes, there is going to be some increase on electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage and changing light bulbs and more efficient appliances, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy that the economy will benefit.

If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you can be Lyndon Johnson. You can be the master of Washington. You’re not gonna get that done.

Given how long the media buried this story, it is apparent Obama was not confident the American people were willing to buy into higher energy prices for his green agenda. Is it any wonder that people don’t know what is going on?