I’m not opposed to change. Change can be good, but I’m becoming increasingly paranoid about just what-in-the-hell our government is doing. Not even a full year into his administration, Obama has caused more controversy over his policies than his predecessor managed in eight. Not that the executive branch is solely to blame. After almost ten years of Republican legislative majority, the Democrats seem to want to make up for lost time after their narrow margin of victory in 2007 with a glut of reform. Change for the sake of change. Health care has been the loudest debate and it’s doubtful that Roe vs. Wade polarized the country in a more dramatic division. Enough so that the White House asked all despot fearing citizens to report their neighbors for speaking out against Obama care. There is little doubt why no lasting bill has managed to make it’s way safely across the floor yet. Let’s forget the fact that regardless of what Washington wants you to believe, the money has to come from somewhere. There have been a number of ideas of how this is to happen but the bottom line is that inevitably this is going to lead to higher taxes. So ignore the fact that you, gentle reader, will be footing the bill for someone else getting sick; how do you feel about paying higher taxes to reimburse the rest of the world for ‘causing’ global warming?
What I’m talking about is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In a nutshell what this treaty states is that all nations who sign will be measured as to their carbon footprint, and those that are above the limitations specified by the treaty will pay a tax on that overage to this commission. That money then is supposed to get turned over to those countries that are below the set limit. Roughly this translates into “the haves must pay the have nots.” Now who do you suppose will be paying a lions share of that tax? Here’s where it gets fun, kids. As a part of the regulations, any member wishing to leave the treaty will only be permitted by a vote of the other member countries. Now, put two and two together and what you have is a binding contract that will never let America out. You might think that it’s just a matter of simply not paying, but there’s this lovely little supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution that “establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. TREATIES as the supreme law of the land.” Theoretically this means that a treaty could supersede our constitution. Do you see where this could be a bad thing? This is HAPPENING on December 7, 2009; that’s little more than a month away. There is more information available at http://www.globalclimatescam.com/ which includes the following video that expresses the problem far more eloquently than I can. Lord Christopher Monckton presented this address in St. Paul, MN on October 14th of this year.
I wish that was the end of it. Doing my due diligence I wrote my congressmen about my concerns to what can best be phrased as an utter catastrophe. I received a rather canned response from Mark Warner which was little more than a generic plea equating to ‘environment good.’ Gerry Connelly’s rejoinder at least had a little more meat to it promising…
net savings as a result of this bill will rise to $750 per family by 2020 and continue to go up thereafter. Some have claimed that this bill would create a “tax.” Such claims are wholly inaccurate: this bill contains no new taxes or tax increases. In fact, by statute this bill prohibits power companies (in the case of Northern Virginia either Dominion or the Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative) from raising utility bills to pay for the value of allowances distributed under H.R. 2454. Moreover, this bill devotes allowance values to oil refineries to prevent spikes in gas prices.
I fear that Mr. Connelly must have missed the analysis of the Heritage Foundation when it…
broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.
But don’t take the word of a conservative third party research organization. A Treasury Department document, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, concludes that the law, if enacted, would cost the American public up to $200 billion a year. An article on the subject by Declan McCullagh states that cost translates to a 15% increase in personal taxes. There is good news though! Connelly goes on to point out that all kinds of new green jobs will be created. In fact the democrats are so certain of the positive economic impact that they’ve built in an unemployment package to protect those who are likely to be affected by the bill.
What?
That’s right, according to this Washington Times article:
Adversely affected employees in oil, coal and other fossil-fuel sector jobs would qualify for a weekly check worth 70 percent of their current salary for up to three years. In addition, they would get $1,500 for job-search assistance and $1,500 for moving expenses from the bill’s “climate change worker adjustment assistance” program, which is expected to cost $4.2 billion from 2011 to 2019.
Of course I’d like to know where the money to pay those benefits is going to come from, though I’m quite certain I already know. Who is this designed to help anyways? It certainly doesn’t seem to help some of our neighbors:
Coal provides more than half of U.S. electricity, and 25 states get more than 50% of their electricity from conventional coal-fired generation. In Ohio, it totals 86%, according to the Energy Information Administration. Ratepayers in Indiana (94%), Missouri (85%), New Mexico (80%), Pennsylvania (56%), West Virginia (98%) and Wyoming (95%) are going to get soaked.
All of this is dependent on the idea that as consumers our carbon footprint has significantly contributed to global warming. The problem is that there are just as many studies that disprove as prove the idea that humans are responsible for the drastic changes in climate. The long standing climate model used by the U.N. predicts that radiation is trapped in the atmosphere as temperature rises. Richard Lindzen, of MIT, recently published findings of a study over the last 15 years which shows that the reverse is actually occurring. There is certainly enough evidence being published to be skeptical of the global warming scare that has been hyped for at least the last decade. Perhaps the most famous of these documentaries, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, has been banned from being shown in British schools due to 9 inconsistencies. If global warming truly has nothing to do with human contribution, or at least cannot be conclusively proven, why is there a need for any such bill, and where is the money really going to?
It’s galling to me that a government of, for, and by the people can actually care so little for for the people they represent. Friends, I am truly frightened by the socialist agenda our country is being led down. I do not want to discount the need to be a more environmentally responsible nation. I don’t want to see American citizens go without necessary medical care. However, this country has managed to survive on the systems we currently have in place for a number of years, and I believe decisions of this magnitude warrant more time than has been granted.
It is my most sincere hope that Americans reading this will take action and contact their legislative representatives and inform your friends and family about what’s going on with our government. Sign a petition opposing cap and trade. This unreasoning ill-conceived policy of change for the sake of change must stop. Please don’t sit idly by and let this country become the United Socialist States of America.
