Fuzzy Facts

Last month, House Republicans (based on an MIT study) announced that President Obama's cap and trade proposals would end up costing the average household roughly $3100 a year. Shortly thereafter, Polifact interviewed the author of the MIT study where he contradicted that information. He said that it would only cost the average household $215 a year extra. Well that lead to all sorts of derision from the left. Well the worm has (as they say) turned yet again.

During a lengthy email exchange last week with THE WEEKLY STANDARD, MIT professor John Reilly admitted that his original estimate of cap and trade's cost was inaccurate. The annual cost would be "$800 per household", he wrote. "I made a boneheaded mistake in an excel spread sheet. I have sent a new letter to Republicans correcting my error (and to others)."

It is nice to see that MIT professors fall prey to the same mistakes (in relying on spread sheet calculations and typos) as the rest of us do. It is comforting in some small way. However, the mistake gets even bigger as the interview with Weekly Standard goes on.

While $800 is significantly more than Reilly's original estimate of $215 (not to mention more than Obama's middle-class tax cut), it turns out that Reilly is still low-balling the cost of cap and trade by using some fuzzy logic. In reality, cap and trade could cost the average household more than $3,900 per year.

The $800 paid annually per household is merely the "cost to the economy [that] involves all those actions people have to take to reduce their use of fossil fuels or find ways to use them without releasing [Green House Gases]," Reilly wrote. "So that might involve spending money on insulating your home, or buying a more expensive hybrid vehicle to drive, or electric utilities substituting gas (or wind, nuclear, or solar) instead of coal in power generation, or industry investing in more efficient motors or production processes, etc. with all of these things ending up reflected in the costs of good and services in the economy."

In other words, Reilly estimates that "the amount of tax collected" through companies would equal $3,128 per household--and "Those costs do get passed to consumers and income earners...

So in other words, the House Republican Caucus was RIGHT...cap and trade will cost the American taxpayer $3128 a year IN ADDITIONAL TAXES!!!!! Michele Bachamann was right - someone alert Eric Ringham (Star Tribune editor)!

Now there is some debate on what will happen with those tax dollars....

...Reilly assumes that the $3,128 will be "returned" to each household. Without that assumption, Reilly wrote, "the cost would then be the Republican estimate [$3,128] plus the cost I estimate [$800]."

In Reilly's view, the $3,128 taken through taxes will be "returned" to each household whether or not the government cuts a $3,128 rebate check to each household.

That is a big assumption given that we are talking about a government that already takes more (in the form of taxes) than it gives back to the people. However, that is only one of many assumptions that this MIT professor makes when he makes this statement. First off, who is going to get that money from those that collected it? The state government or the Feds? It should be the states since they most closest regulate the energy companies, but I think we can safely assume that since this is federal cap and trade that it will go to the feds. The next assumption is that there is a mechanism in the bill to give that money back which there currently is not! Then there is the assumption that the average citizen thinks like an MIT professor....

The average citizen does not think like an MIT professor. They see the additional expenses in their monthly bill as just that. IF they get anything back from the government, they will not think of it as a "repayment" of that monthly expense - because that has already been spent. The Republicans presented this cap and trade increase in a way that the average bill payer is going to see it - as an upfront expense which is going to hurt those on fixed incomes the most!

The fact that Democrats are out to over tax everyone - rich and poor alike is no surprise to those of us in the "loyal opposition". Whether it is raising taxes on every day expeditures like food and clothing, to the occasional "luxury" like alcohol and cigarettes (more on this later), to electricity and heat, the Democrats are out to over tax everything that moves in order that they can force their lifestyle choices on the rest of us. It is time for the average citizen to say "Enough is enough". The Tax Day Tea Parties were just the beginning. Now is the time for every citizen to make sure that their legislator (state and federal) hears from them regularly - whether they agree with you or not! Make sure that the will of the voters are known in St. Paul, Salt Lake City and Washington DC! Make sure that your cap and trade supporting governors like Pawlenty and Huntsman know that you are NOT PLEASED with their signing on to a scheme that will take more and more of your hard earned tax dollars away from the more important things like private charity and your own family. That is the beginning....more to come.

Earth Hour

So were you one of the "millions" who took part in Earth Hour last night? If you were, raise your hand......

Congratulations on being one of the "millions" who have mastered the art of symbolism over substance. Let me ask you a few questions to see how committed you really are to cutting greenhouse gasses. What temperature is your thermostat set at? Closer to 60 or closer to 70 degrees? How many lights are on in your house right now? In the rooms where the lights are on, is there anyone in that room or is it empty? Do you have a gas or electric lawn mower, or did you go back to an old-fashioned non-motorized mower? How hot and how long is YOUR daily shower? What do you personally give up in order to minimize your use of fossil fuels in your home? What do you do without?

If you are global warming icon Al Gore, the answer is not a thing!

Even during Earth Hour. President of the Tennessee Center For Policy Research Drew Johnson takes a Saturday drive by Al Gore’s during the time most environmentalists went dark:

I pulled up to Al’s house, located in the posh Belle Meade section of Nashville, at 8:48pm – right in the middle of Earth Hour. I found that the main spotlights that usually illuminate his 9,000 square foot mansion were dark, but several of the lights inside the house were on.

In fact, most of the windows were lit by the familiar blue-ish hue indicating that floor lamps and ceiling fixtures were off, but TV screens and computer monitors were hard at work. (In other words, his house looked the way most houses look about 1:45am when their inhabitants are distractedly watching “Cheaters” or “Chelsea Lately” reruns.)

The kicker, though, were the dozen or so floodlights grandly highlighting several trees and illuminating the driveway entrance of Gore’s mansion.

I [kid] you not, my friends, the savior of the environment couldn’t be bothered to turn off the gaudy lights that show off his goofy trees.

Somehow this does not surprise me at all.

When the greedy enviro advocates decide to make the same kinds of sacrifices that they demand of every day Americans, well I might just be interested in what they have to say. In the meantime, I will be following the advise of Ed Begley Jr a little more closely. His ideas are certainly a heck of a lot more practical that anything that Al Gore has suggested.