The Cap and Trade Smoke Screen

By: Jacob Bodnar

On the campaign trail Barack Obama repeatedly said that he would not raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000. He’s already thrown that promise out the window once by signing an increase to the sin tax (an increase on the price of tobacco), but he’s about to break that promise again if he signs Cap and Trade into law.

Many people don’t know cap and trade outside of the media spin zone. The media, and the Obama administration, would like you to believe that cap and trade is a market based initiative to reduce America’s carbon footprint, sounds so environmentally conscious.

The fact of the matter is cap and trade is the exact opposite of market based, the only thing market based about it is the massive regulation it imposes on the free market. As for reducing American’s carbon footprint, that’s not very likely either. An analysis of an earlier cap and trade bill, the Lieberman-Warner bill, showed the program would only reduce CO2 levels by 1.4% by 2050. Then there’s the European cap and trade which actually increased CO2 levels.

However, the glaring issue with cap and trade is the cost to businesses and consumers. To understand this component of cap and trade you have to grasp how it works. So let’s dive in to a quick cap and trade crash course.

Currently if a business wants to emit carbon dioxide they can, they don’t have to pay the government to do so and they don’t need permission from anyone. Under cap and trade this would all change, business who want to emit carbon dioxide would have to purchase a permit from the government.

For some bizarre reason the government believes they own the troposphere (fun fact, they don’t, actually I wouldn’t be surprised if Britain still owns it, after all at one point they basically owned the entire planet). As the self proclaimed owner for the air above our country, the government, under cap and trade, will grant permission to businesses to pollute that area.

However, it will come at a cost; this is where the cap comes in. Under the Waxman-Markey bill the government will begin the program charging $28 per ton of carbon. Each year that price will go up. The idea is that the high price of emitting carbon dioxide will create a massive disincentive to pollute and businesses will curtail their pollution.

So, where the heck is the trade at? This is the part that Washington calls “market based.” If a company purchases too many carbon permits they can trade, or sell, those permits to another business. This way business will not have wasted money on carbon they didn’t emit.

Now, anyone that passed second grade can see that this will increase costs for business. Whether they pollute thousands of tons or just one ton, it will cost them more money. And those added costs will be paid by the consumers through higher energy prices and high prices for basic goods.

The Heritage Foundation found that by 2035 this cap and trade bill will increase electricity costs by 90%, gasoline by 58%, and natural gas by 55%. All told a household of four can expect to pay $1,241 more for energy each year.

Oh, but it doesn’t stop there. Think for a minute, what delivers bread to the grocery store and Snuggies to the local Wal-Mart? It’s not the magic delivery fairly; it’s a massive gas guzzling diesel truck. If gasoline prices go up so will the cost of delivery for nearly every good on store shelves. If the price for delivery goes up, the price stores buy it for goes up. And finally, if the store has to purchase it at a higher price, they will sell it for a higher price. It’s basic economics.

Cap and trade is obviously a bad idea. History tells us it won’t reduce the amount of carbon in the air, and a third grade economics course tells us that it will cost consumers a pretty penny, and in this economic time pennies are looking a lot prettier. So why is the left so hell bent on jamming this massive tax down our throats?

Many will say it’s to further infringe on our civil liberties and businesses freedom to emit carbon dioxide. While that will be the product of cap and trade, I don’t think that’s the reason for the legislation. I also don’t think it has anything to do with saving the earth, after all carbon will barely be reduced.

The one thing this legislation does well is generate revenue. Businesses will be forced to purchase carbon credits; the government will make billions of dollars. They say this money will be reinvested in “green” projects and “green” research, but who actually trusts the government to appropriate money? Revenues from cap and trade will be used for universal health care and all the other socialized programs the left wants to impose upon us.

Think about it, Obama is going to have to raise taxes to pay for universal health care, but people aren’t exactly receptive of higher taxes. However, if he hides it behind a smoke screen like “saving the earth” people don’t notice it. They’ll see their energy bills and grocery bills go up, but most won’t connect the dots back to the government.

When Obama said he wasn’t going to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000 he knew he was lying through his teeth. He had every intention of raising everyone’s taxes to pay for all his lofty socialized fantasies. He was just planning on hiding those taxes behind an environmental smoke screen, and hope we were all too stupid to notice.

Cap and Trade: The Wrong Way

Additional Cap and Trade Commentary
The Cap and Trade Smoke Screen

By: Ameek Sodhi

When it comes to the environment, I am a tree hugger. I believe man’s carbon imprint on God’s Earth is both immoral and unsustainable. I also happen to be, however, a fiscal conservative. I am skeptical whenever government tries to meddle with my pocketbook or interfere with market equilibriums. I do so because they have a reliable record of being inefficient, wasteful, and just plain stupid. Having these beliefs has caused me to come to a conclusion: Cap and Trade will not work – but that doesn’t mean we can’t save the environment.

The idea is that the government sets a price for a carbon permit to be traded on a market. They would limit the amount of permits given out, and the permits would be traded among companies and individuals. Tax revenues would be collected by the government, where the geniuses in Washington would figure out how to fund the next coolest green innovation. It sounds simple, but there are many flaws in this model. Ultimately, I believe it would defer at best the cause of helping the environment. The key problem with Cap and Trade is that it relies on government’s judgment, not a scientist or engineer’s ingenuity.

It seems reasonable at first thought that government would be funding specific areas of the energy sector – like wind, solar, or bio-fuels – from this tax revenue collected from Cap and Trade. But how would Washington figure out which alternative energy source makes the best sense to reward tax breaks? The way they figure everything out – by listening to the most influential special interest. The company that has the loudest lobbyist that writes the fattest check to senators working on this legislation will win tax benefits, not the company that deserves it.

Apart from the debacle of government choosing our energy sources, the idea of Cap and Trade itself is flawed. The MIT report that came out a few months ago said that Cap and Trade would cost the average family a sizable dollar amount in expenses, emphasizing that the poor would be hit the hardest. The report stated the obvious as well – that jobs would be cut if not shipped overseas to some extent.

Not to mention, it’s Global Warming that’s the problem, not American Warming. Even if we conserve, say 10% of carbon emissions by this taxation, the flood of people who will be driving new cars and opening coal mines in India and China will more probably cancel these reductions out. That’s the problem with conservation – it doesn’t fundamentally change our energy needs from fossil fuels to energies that do not hurt the environment. It’s just a redistribution of wealth. Understanding all of this, I propose an alternate route.

Instead of taxing carbon or hoping Joe Biden can figure out which alternative energy will replace fossil fuels, I propose tax benefits for research in this field – big ones. Let the free market work by giving it an incentive to shift in the direction of clean energies. Some scientist will figure out how to make the energy grid gather wind energy and solar energy together efficiently. Engineers will be able to test and innovate these discoveries with real life applications to our energy needs. Then, when we figure out which alternative energy makes the most sense to invest in, give the free market a reason to produce it. Give the victor of this research effort massive tax breaks, and the market will take advantage of it. This way, there is a clear, methodical, and practical approach at reducing carbon emissions.

This approach will work a lot better than the Cap and Trade proposals coming out of Washington. It cuts government out of the process as much as possible, while embracing basic Supply-Side principles that have proven to work. That is why tax incentives are needed, to give the free market a nudge in the green direction. Also, I think realistically in order for there to be real green effort, it needs to be profitable. The economy will not turn green unless fuel efficient cars, solar panels, and wind turbans are profitable. Otherwise, no one would start a small business to make any of this. Just mindlessly funding an alternative energy source that the government picks cannot fundamentally change how we use energy. It needs to be a long term and comprehensive plan, not one based in short term, political motives. The transition may take a few years to implement, but I think the process of funding research and then acting on that research can work. In doing so, we can create sustainable growth while saving the planet. Not a bad deal.

Obama’s Illegal Firing of Inspector General Walpin

By: Jacob Bodnar

When Alberto Gonzales fired a couple of U.S. Attorneys the left went nuts called his actions politically motivated and demanded an investigation into the firings be held.

When Barack Obama fired an inspector general, a position that is above politics, the media didn’t even report it. I’m guessing this is the first time you’ve heard of it.

Let’s start from the beginning. Before being fired, Gerald Walpin was the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service. As the Inspector General he oversaw AmeriCorps.

During this time AmeriCorps gave an $850,000 grant to a Sacramento based organization called St. Hope. The organization is run by Kevin Johnson, a former NBA basketball player and the mayor of Sacramento. Not surprisingly Johnson is also a well-known Obama supporter.

When the organization received the grant, they wrote the rules, and there were only three of them. They were:

-Providing one-on-one tutoring to [Sacramento] elementary and high school students
-Managing the redevelopment of one building a year in Oak Park [the Sacramento
neighborhood in which St. HOPE operates
-Coordinating logistics, public relations, and marketing for the Guild Theater and Art
Gallery events, as well as hands-on workshops, guest artist lectures, and art exhibitions
for Sacramento High School for the Arts and PS7 Elementary School [in Sacramento]

Furthermore the grant funds could not be used to “pay all or part of the salaries of its employees or the costs associated with its administrative or management structure.” Put simply, if the funds were being used on an activity not listed in the above three goals, they were being misused.

The California State Commission caught some irregularities and notified the office of irregularities at St. Hope. That sparked the investigation by the Inspector General. The two investigators on the case were Jeffrey Morales and Wendy Wingers.

The agents spent a great deal of time investigating the allegations. They made five trips out to Sacramento and conducted 26 interviews. However, Johnson refused to be interviewed. The investigators inquired twice and both times were told that Johnson’s schedule was too jam packed. You’d think Johnson would have liked to speak to the investigators to clear his organizations name, but he refused.

On September 24, 2008 St. Hope was officially suspended from any federal procurement or nonprocurement activities. The suspension detailed six violations of the organization:

-Using AmeriCorps members to recruit students for St. HOPE Academy
-Using AmeriCorps members for political activities in connection with the Sacramento Board of Education election
-Taking grant-funded AmeriCorps members to New York to promote the expansion of St. HOPE operations in Harlem
-Assigning grant-funded AmeriCorps members to perform services “personally benefiting . . . Johnson,” such as “driving [him] to personal appointments, washing [his] car, and running personal errands
-“Supplementing staff salaries by converting grant funds designated for AmeriCorps members,” by enrolling two St. HOPE Academy employees “into the AmeriCorps program for the 2004-2005 grant year” without changing their duties, thereby improperly using grant funds so that one St. HOPE employee’s “salary was then paid through the AmeriCorps program,” plus she “received an [AmeriCorps] living allowance and an education award,” and the other employee’s salary, which was not paid from the grant, “was supplemented by both an AmeriCorps living allowance and an education award
-Improperly using AmeriCorps “members to perform non-AmeriCorps clerical and other services” that “were outside the scope of the grant and therefore were impermissible” for “the benefit of St. HOPE”

But that wasn’t the end. The U.S. Attorney in Sacramento declined to file criminal charges against the organization or Johnson. It should be noted that when this investigation began Johnson wasn’t the mayor of Sacramento. As a matter of fact when the suspension to St. Hope was handed down he wasn’t even the mayor, he was elected in December 2008.

Clearly Johnson wanted all of this to go away. It would be terrible if the newly elected mayor of Sacramento was slapped with criminal charges only five months into his tenure. So there was a settlement. The U.S. Attorney’s office settled for half of the money to be returned, around $400,000.

And here we are, early June and Obama has fired Walpin. And for what? A bum investigation? That can’t be the case the U.S. Attorney’s office settled. The only logical answer is that Johnson is a big supporter of Obama, and Walpin came very close to getting criminal charges slapped on him.

So why does all this matter? Why would Obama want to fire Walpin for simply getting in the hair of one of his good friends? While I think fiddling with Obama’s buddies was probably reason enough for Obama to justify firing Walpin (at least in his own mind), there seems to be a little more to the story, and it goes hand-in-hand with Obama’s economic stimulus package.

See when St. Hope was put on the list banning them from receiving federal aid, so was Johnson. The city was worried that because Johnson was on the Excluded Parties List the city wouldn’t be allowed to receive federal dollars, including stimulus funds. So the city hired attorney Frederic Levy to make sure that was the case, and after five hours of work and a $20,000 plus bill, Levy determined that it was highly likely Sacramento couldn’t receive stimulus dollars because of Johnson’s banning.

The good news for the Sacramento government was that Johnson settled, and was taken off the Excluded Parties List. But as we’ve seen with Obama thus far, messing with the stimulus is a no-no. He’s been very critical of states that have refused stimulus dollars, couple that with Johnson being a strong supporter and it seems very likely that Obama would fire Walpin.

Okay, so Obama fired an Inspector General for political and personal reasons, why is that illegal? It’s illegal because Obama made it illegal.

Enter the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008. A bill introduced by Claire McCaskill of Missouri and co-sponsored by 11 other people, including Barack Obama.

The act puts Inspector Generals above politics. Furthermore it requires a 30 days notice, including a written statement as to why the firing is taking place, has to be presented to Congress. Walpin claims that the Obama administration gave him a mere one-hour to make his decision to either resign or be fired. And it wasn’t until after Walpin said he wasn’t going to resign that the Obama administration finally sent notification to congress with this pathetic reason, “It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general. That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general.”

Why doesn’t Obama have full confidence in Walpin anymore? Who knows, apparently that messily one sentence is reason enough to fire a guy.

Walpin is already off of the Inspector General’s website; his page is replaced by the acting IG Kenneth Bach. The Obama admin says Walpin is on paid leave and will be fired at the end of a 30 day period, but that still doesn’t provide us with a good reason as to why he was fired.

And don’t hold your breath for a reason. You could if you wanted to, but my guess is you would die seven times over from suffocation before the media questions Obama about it. If they do, I’m sure Robert Gibbs will have some Jedi mind trick answer up his sleeve.

I guess you could say Walpin is a victim of “politics as usual.”

Obama’s Nationalization Fever

By: Louie Glinzak

Once again, nationalization of private industry by the federal government comes into the picture. Federal spending to “save” private industries began with Amtrak; a company that began on the backs of the American taxpayers in 1971 with $40 million in direct federal aid and $100 million in federally insured loans. Congress eventually would appropriate $1.4 billion to Amtrak in the fiscal year of 2004-2005 and another $1.4 billion in 2006.

Today, we see even more government interference with the private sector by bailing out the auto industry and banks, and with rumors of the potential re-introduction of the Fairness Doctrine, one wonders where the line is and if the federal government has finally crossed it, having too much of an active role in the private industry.

Once out of bankruptcy, the government will own 60% of General Motors, but they have already begun to exercise their large ownership of GM by making many of its business decisions. The federal government had former CEO Rick Wagner step down from his position. Now that it is a large shareholder in GM, it exercised its political influence and used its legislative power to write in the TARP legislation a $7,500 tax credit for consumers who purchase the Chevy Volt. This is explicitly discriminating against Ford Motor Company, who has not received any federal funds, and even Chrysler, a recipient of federal funds.

Even though Chrysler owners are currently not receiving a tax credit for their purchase, Chrysler is still under the thumb of the federal government. The executive branch has ordered the most profitable Chrysler dealership, Fury Chrysler Dodge, to close. The decision was made so Chrysler can reduce its worldwide inventory by 25%.

It comes with little surprise that with the nationalization of GM and Chrysler that the federal government may attempt to enact a massive regulation on the broadcasting industry. Yes, rumors of the government enacting the Fairness Doctrine continue, and if enacted, the broadcasting industry will just be added to an ever growing list of industries over regulated by the Obama Administration.

Many conservative leaders oppose the Fairness Doctrine based on their belief that it will severely damage conservative talk radio. Despite this fact, the Fairness Doctrine is an overarching move by the federal government that will place enormous restraints on businesses.

The Fairness Doctrine directly interferes with the decisions business owners must make. It requires the equal airtime of all political ideals and forces businesses to cover all sides of opinions, even making sure that their advertisements do not violate the Fairness Doctrine. Business owners in the broadcasting sector will spend a large amount of unnecessary time, energy, and money to ensure they do not violate the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine forces businesses to sell a product that is not appealing to their customer base. If a broadcasting company thought their listeners or viewers would be interested in different political views or opinions than those they are already broadcast, then business leaders would already be broadcasting those views or opinions. If it were profitable for a business to equally air political opinions then it would have already done so.

Businesses owners have certain inalienable rights, and when sole ownership rests in the private hands, it is the private owners who have the right to make the decisions affecting their business not the federal government. Equal airtime may be reached under the fairness doctrine, but if our government ever hopes to fix the economy, equality should not be what the federal government is after. Instead, the federal government should strive to ensure that people have the freedom to choose.

The freedom to choose is the driving factor in the free-market. The consumer dictates what is produced by their wants and successful businesses produce what the consumer wants. Private industry only exists when it makes a profit. When private industry no longer makes a profit it is forced to file for bankruptcy and close its doors. Private industry must produce what the consumer wants or it will no longer exist. The government, however, will always continue to exist and is not forced to produce what the consumer wants. If the government controls private industry, it will produce goods that advance its political agenda, even if the products are not what the consumer desires.

However, if the government continues to nationalize industry and expand the influence it has on the decisions made by private industries, it will only prolong the economic downturn we are currently experiencing. We need the government to create an environment that will foster the private industry and allow private industry to grow and prosper. The consumer will purchase not just out of necessity from the private industry but also out of want. Whereas, if the government is producing goods that push a political agenda instead of what the consumer desires, then the consumer will only purchase out of necessity and not out of want.

With the government taking over GM, you can expect the production of automobiles that will advance the Obama Administration’s political agenda, and as a result, we will have an influx of cars produced by GM that the consumer does not want. Furthermore, if the Fairness Doctrine is re-enacted, the number of listeners for talk radio will decrease because broadcasters will be forced to have an equal balance of political opinions for their shows.

The Right Ideas

By: MaryKate Carter

As President Obama nominates a frighteningly liberal Justice to the Supreme Court and rushes towards a health care plan that reeks of socialism, it is very easy for us conservatives to get angry.

It is true that our government has never been bigger and the executive branch has never been so instantly influential. Our economy is a mess, as jobs are lost and the market is anything but free. The direction our President is taking this country clashes with our core principles and the very foundation upon which America was built. Still, let us remember, whether we voted for these representatives or not, this government is after all our government. He is our President, and we still have our right to use our voice to change his mind. So let us work together to react to his actions and policies with respectful and constructive disapproval.

How will we win in the future if all we offer is whining and empty complaints? Right now we need to attract the American public. This doesn’t mean we need to bend our values. Republicans have great ideas, and our platform is founded upon undeniable values and truths.

However, we have kept our ideas a secret for too long. Republican ideals benefit Americans of all walks of life, not just church going wealthy whites. Why have we still not effectively changed this stereotype and misconception? Obama is out of control; now is the time to offer our truly appealing alternative. Karl Rove wisely teaches, “You can’t win an argument if you don’t make an argument.” If we want to spread our ideas, we must share them. Let’s stop complaining. Let’s dwell on the positive and show America what Republican policies have to offer.

Get excited about the victories we do experience, like Proposal 8 in California. Embrace the adoption of grass roots movements, like the various tea parties taking place across the nation. The Republican Party is not a dead party. We still have much to offer and solutions for this country. However, until we, as a party, clarify the relevance of our message, until we market ourselves better, we will continue to preach to the choir. It’s time that the Republican Party stop acting like the best kept secret in town.

Let’s band together and use our frustration to fuel passion and to brainstorm real solutions. Let’s use this time of minority to regroup, not reconstruct the party. There is talk of a third party. The suggested solution seems to be a more center-right platform, but this is not what America craves. McCain was a very center-right candidate, and look at how well that worked; it didn’t. The values we hold dear are worthwhile and appealing. So let’s dress them up right. Let’s more effectively advertise what we believe, not hide what we believe.

The manner in which information is presented is often more influential than the message itself. Even though Obama has spent with an open checkbook, this wasn’t his story during the campaign. Obama preached fiscal responsibility before election, and so did we, but Obama marketed much better. Let’s be honest. We aren’t happy with the President, but we should not be surprised he made it to office. The Democrats made it very clear that liking Obama was the cool thing to do. Have you ever seen more appealing and approachable literature and campaign wear? His campaign paraphernalia sold. It looked more like concert merchandise than political jargon.

We as Republicans have rethinking to do, but not on our platform. Let’s learn from Obama’s people. They may not know how to correct a recession, but they sure know how to merchandize.

We’re a little early to be making t-shirts for 2012, but we can never be too early for sharing our ideas. Be actively informative about Conservative ideals in your community. Don’t hide in the corner while the Democrats enjoy their temporary control. Don’t get so defensive in your debates that you fail to offer anything constructive or enlightening to the conversation. Answer honestly to your liberal peers. Many of your Obama groupie neighbors are closet conservatives who don’t know that what they believe matches up to the Republican platform. They consider republicans too unapproachable and old-fashioned to venture over and explore our ideas; therefore, they don’t discover that they agree with conservatives on some issues.

It is time that we let go of our pride enough to gratefully recognize when the Democrats make a wise decision. Each community offers a plethora of debate opportunities. Whether it be a soccer practice, lunch date, or movie night, there is always a minute to explain why you believe so adamantly in the conservative values. Defend your thoughts tactfully and intelligently, and you can be a part of re-educating America on the right ideas.