The future economic outlook, as the result of a government mandated “green” economy, is nothing short of horrific. When added to the current administration’s irresponsible fiscal policies, and coupled with a full frontal-assault against our domestic energy producers, the recipe for disaster is complete. The current economic recession will soon seem like a walk in the park compared to the fiscal nightmare which lies ahead.
The Heritage Foundation has published an excellent analysis, which projects the economic impact resulting from Waxman-Markey, and separates myth from reality.
About those “green” jobs touted by President Obama... It's virtually impossible to create a positive atmosphere that promotes job growth while the economy is suffering through a $9.6 trillion decline in GDP. Waxman-Markey is no exception.
-- Compared to no cap and trade, real GDP losses increase an additional $2 trillion, from $7.4 trillion under the original draft to $9.6 trillion under the new draft;
-- Compared to no cap and trade, average unemployment increases an additional 261,000 jobs, from 844,000 lost jobs under the original draft to 1,105,000 lost jobs under the new draft; and
-- Peak-year unemployment losses rise by 500,000 jobs, from 2 million under the original draft to 2.5 million under the new draft.
Though the proposed legislation would have little impact on world temperatures, it is a massive energy tax in disguise that promises job losses, income cuts, and a sharp left turn toward big government.
Let this sink in a minute… As opposed to no cap-and-trade, average unemployment will increase an additional 1,105,000 jobs as the result of the government mandated “green” economy.
The damage caused by this punitive tax and massive government redistribution will be real and tangible, and it won’t stop with job losses. Waxman-Markey is projected to adversely impact a broad spectrum of the economy as reflected by these leading indicators and real-life scenarios.
As President Obama pointed out, cap and trade can work only when energy prices "skyrocket." To force consumer-energy cutbacks, the prices need to rise to painful levels. This paper's analysis shows the results of this strategy. By 2035:
-- The typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year.
-- Pain at the electric meter will cause consumers to reduce electricity consumption by 36 percent. Even with this cutback, the electric bill for a family of four will be $754 more that year and $12,200 more in total from 2012 to 2035.
-- The higher gasoline prices will have forced households to cut consumption by 15 percent, but a family of four will still pay $596 more that year and $7,500 more between 2012 and 2035.
-- In total, for the years 2012-2035, a family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by $22,800. These inflation-adjusted numbers do not include the indirect energy costs consumers will pay as producers are forced to raise the price of their products to reflect the higher costs of production. Nor does the $22,800 include the higher expenditure for such things as more energy-efficient cars and appliances or the disutility of driving smaller, less safe vehicles or the discomfort of using less heating and cooling.
-- As the economy adjusts to shrinking GDP and rising energy prices, employment will take a big hit. On average, employment is lower by 1,105,000 jobs. In some years cap and trade reduces employment by nearly 2.5 million jobs.
-- The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception: Waxman-Markey will drive up the national debt 29 percent by 2035. This is 26 percent above what it would be without the legislation and represents an additional $29,150 per person, or $116,600 for a family of four. To reiterate, these burdens come after adjusting for inflation and are in addition to the $450,000 per family of federal debt that will accrue over this period even without cap and trade.
Using the IPCC’s projections, which reflect the implementation of cap-and-trade based on Kyoto and European models, the mitigating effect on global temperature going forward is negligible at best, 0.05° C. by 2050 and 0.2° C. by 2100.
It is not possible for President Obama and Speaker Pelosi to justify inflicting this level of financial pain, a crippling tax-burden and lasting economic hardship on the American family for an insignificant change in global temperature that may never actually happen.
The only justification for cap-and-trade that makes any sense: Progressives, like President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, believe they’ve found a massive new revenue stream that will enable the largest expansion of the federal government in history.
However, just like all of the Liberal/Progressive programs that have come before and failed, cap-and-trade is subject to the law of unintended consequences. But, unlike the countless failures of the past, cap-and-trade threatens to kill the goose and condemn the US economy to a prolonged depression. The global implications of failure are of nightmarish proportion, and responsibility for the ensuing global financial crisis will land squarely on the shoulders of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and all those who voted for Waxman-Markey.
We’ll call this completely manufactured crisis: “The Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue.”
It's a fitting epitath for a lame-duck president.