• In the Spotlight:
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

What does the WSJ say about cap and trade?

Hit hardest would be the "95% of working families" Mr. Obama keeps mentioning, usually omitting that his no-new-taxes pledge comes with the caveat "unless you use energy." Putting a price on carbon is regressive by definition because poor and middle-income households spend more of their paychecks on things like gas to drive to work, groceries or home heating.

The Congressional Budget Office -- Mr. Orszag's former roost -- estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That's about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of income. The rich would pay 1.7%. Cap and trade is the ideal policy for every Beltway analyst who thinks the tax code is too progressive (all five of them).

 
Anonymous

Asked by Anonymous at 7:19 PM on Mar. 9, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

This question is closed.
Answers (5)
  • ... You know, I could see some sense in all this if they were targetting actual toxins to be reduced. But ... Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant! ... We EXHALE it for crying out loud ... and it is what plants "inhale".

    I am amazed that they don't get laughed off the podium every time somebody talks about reducing carbon emissions - but I guess reporters are actually THAT ignorant!

    Yeah, I know - "Carbon dioxide causes global warming". ... And those who stand to make billions from the con game of "carbon credits" are pushing hard to get things enacted before many more years pass and their predictions are proven false. After all, we've had a warming of a whole 2.5 deg F over the past FORTY years, and it's now getting colder.
    waldorfmom

    Answer by waldorfmom at 7:54 PM on Mar. 9, 2009

  • 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.

    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 7:19 PM on Mar. 9, 2009

  • I can only say that all those Ohioans who helped with ACORN and putting A$$hole in office, should feel the effects first and pay more for energy. Good for them.
    akinbottom2

    Answer by akinbottom2 at 8:20 PM on Mar. 9, 2009

  • Yep so my electric bill that is already high will go up even more.Like paying a small mortgage..THANKS A$$HOLE!
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 8:37 PM on Mar. 9, 2009

  • oops that was me the anon.
    tnmomofive

    Answer by tnmomofive at 8:42 PM on Mar. 9, 2009