Total cost: $1.055 trillion

New Taxes: $572 billion

Cuts to Medicare: $426 billion

Not included: $247 billion needed to stop Medicare payments to doctors from decreasing, pledged to be passed in a separate bill to keep this bill “revenue neutral”

Pages: 1,990

The word regulation appears in the bill 181 times.

The word fees appears in the bill 103 times.

The word tax appears in the bill 214 times.

“As we all know, nothing says ‘affordability’ like higher taxes and fees.”

The word “shall” - as in “must” or “required to” - appears over 3,000 times. “The word, alas, is never preceded by the patriotic phrase “mind our own freaking business.” Not once.”

From Dow Jones Newswires:

“The $1.055 trillion estimate also does not include $245 billion needed to stop Medicare payments to doctors from decreasing, which the House plans to address through separate legislation introduced Thursday.

The costs of the bill are fully offset by cuts to existing spending programs– including the Medicare?Advantage and other programs–saving $426 billion through 2019, and by tax increases raising $572 billion over that time, CBO said. In fact, the combined impact of provisions in the bill would be a net deficit reduction of $104 billion in the next decade, according to CBO.”

The Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas W. Elmendorf, told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the House-passed Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade tax climate change legislation – would slow the economy and would cause “significant” job losses in fossil fuel industries:

We want to leave no misunderstanding that aggregate performance — the fact that jobs turn up somewhere else for some people — does not mean that there are not substantial costs borne by people, communities, firms in affected industries and affected areas. You saw that in manufacturing, and we would see that in response to changes that this legislation would produce.

Director Elmendorf also testified that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax would cut the nation’s gross domestic product by 0.25 to 0.75 percent in 2020 compared with “what it would otherwise have been,” and by 1 to 3.5 percent in 2050.

Elmendorf’s testimony undercuts the current position of President Obama and the Democrats’ congressional leaders, who claim cap-and-tax would help revive the economy. They make that claim despite the fact that presidential candidate Obama said his cap and trade plan will cause electricity rates to “necessarily skyrocket” and will bankrupt anyone who builds a coal-powered plant.

Congratulations to the House Democrats, and their eight Republican abettors, on the passage of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade tax climate change legislation.

Today’s victors are to be congratulated for demonstrating that by using dilatory tactics, such as posting the “final” version of a 1,200 page bill the night before the vote, issuing a 300 page amendment to the 1,200 page bill after 3:00 a.m., and allowing only five hours of debate, it is possible to pass a cap and trade tax plan. A plan that presidential candidate Obama said will cause electricity rates to “necessarily skyrocket“ and will bankrupt anyone who builds a coal-powered plant. And show that it is possible to pass such a plan with a whopping seven vote margin - 219-212, with less than 4% of the favorable votes coming from the loyal opposition and more than 20% of the negative votes coming from the majority party.

It does make wonder what is hidden in all those pages that no Representative really had a chance to read, let alone study, that made the Democrats so determined to avoid a real honest to goodness debate.

During the campaign, President Obama said plans similar to the Waxman-Markey energy tax bill would cause electricity rates to “necessarily skyrocket” and costs will be “passed on to consumers.” Creating new taxes that kill jobs is never a good idea and it’s even worse during a recession. Moreover, a dramatic increase in utility bills would disproportionately hurt the poor, disadvantaged and those who have lost their job.

Throughout this debate, some Democrats have asserted that the cap and trade energy tax scheme will not make much of a difference on the average family’s utility bills. However, a study conducted for the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission estimates Missouri rates could increase as much as 40 percent by 2015 due to these policies.

Read More →

This week, as the stock market continues its perilous slide towards an unknown abyss; the House Energy and Commerce Committee will begin hearings on a national energy tax bill that will cost every American household $3,128 a year for the “right” to emit carbon dioxide.

The discussion draft of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) has four primary objectives (a renewable energy production mandate; improving energy efficiency; a cap and tax on carbon emissions; and creating “green collar” jobs) with one common thread tying them all together—central government planning.

ACES is nothing more than a veiled attempt to bring more of the private sector underneath big government’s tent while creating a $1.3 trillion slush fund for liberal social agendas under the guise of environmental do-goodism.

Most importantly, for a cap and tax bill to be effective and produce the goals of carbon emission reductions outlined in ACES (83 percent reduction of 2005 levels by 2050); energy is going to have to get expensive—oppressively expensive. Even President Obama admitted cap and tax bill would cause electricity prices to “necessarily skyrocket.”

The entire premise behind a cap and tax energy proposal is to punish those who produce, thereby punishing those who consume, which by my quick math amounts to everyone in the United States. Unfortunately, the sadistic nature of radical environmentalism is the disproportionate impact on the poor. While there are some families in this country who can afford to be burdened by a $3,128 energy tax—the vast majority cannot.

Worse, ACES’s provisions to create a new green economy will steal jobs from many low to middle class Americans. In fact, a recent study of Spain’s renewable job program found that the U.S. can expect 2.2 jobs to be destroyed for every 1 “green” job manufactured and subsidized by the government. Ironically, the Institute of Energy Research notes that “according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Spain’s annual emissions of carbon dioxide have increased by nearly 50 percent since the nation began its aggressive push to subsidize and support ‘green jobs.’”

The questions one should ask when thinking about global warming legislation are: Can I afford a $3,128 tax? Can I afford 60-144 percent increase in gas prices? Can I afford to have my job shipped overseas because my employer can’t afford to stay in business with a 77-128 percent increase in electricity prices? My guess is, the answers to all three are “no”—I know I can’t and neither can my constituents, which is why I’ll be working to defeat this devastating legislation.

Clive Crook reminds us that our tax code is one of the most progressive in the developed world. And the Democrats want to take even more from the wealthy:

Mr Obama intends to squeeze the rich, but the scope for this may be more limited than US liberals would wish. Few Americans seem aware that the US income tax code, as a recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study showed, is already one of the most progressive.* Even before the rise in top marginal rates promised by Mr Obama, the US income tax collects 45 per cent of its revenues from the highest-income decile. Compare that with Britain at 39 per cent, Canada at 36 per cent, France at 28 per cent, Sweden at 27 per cent and an OECD average of 32 per cent.

I’ll need to remember this one if I ever have issues with my own state taxes:

Bronx Rep. Eliot Engel calls Maryland home for tax break

Bronx Rep. Eliot Engel may call himself a life-long Bronx resident, but he has also called Maryland his primary residence for years to get a local tax break that state officials have just squashed.

Engel, who rents an apartment back in his district, also owns a $1 million house with his wife in the well-off Washington suburb of Potomac, Md. - a property that has been afforded $7,000 in tax breaks since he bought it in 1993, The Associated Press reported.

The NYDN article goes on to give Engel’s claim that he wasn’t trying to defraud anyone - which is interesting, given this New York Times article on the subject:

Read More →

To add to Moe’s info, here is some on one of the groups that actually planed and ran several Tea Parties last week…

After a successful Chicago Tea Party on Friday, February 27, the Dontgo movement is surging forward to gather more like minded people to oppose this tearing down of America sponsored by President Obama and his Euro-styled Democrat Party.

Dontgo has launched TaxDayTeaParty.com as an online HQ for all the coming April 15th nationwide tax day tea party rallies.

Thus far, April 15 rallies are scheduled in Montana, Nevada, Texas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Tennessee. If you want to help organize a rally in your state, or want to be kept updated on the plans as they develop, be sure and go to http://www.taxdayteaparty.com/.

Follow dontgomovement on Twitter.