FREEDOMSITE.US

Cap & Trade

 

 The “Cap and Trade” Criminal Conspiracy


by F Eric Saunders

 
In order to encapsulate this issue in one short editorial, the following is necessarily very summary in nature.  The facts stated are supported in the links on this page.  We hope you care enough to go to them.  Or, better yet, do your own research.  All the information is there on the web. 

When I was in college, there was much concern about disastrous “global cooling”, supposedly being caused by the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Indeed, years later, at the first “Earth Day” gathering, the concern was still about global cooling. Somewhere in there, that theory became discredited, and today most “Earth Day” celebrants are blissfully unaware that their gurus have pulled a one-eighty on them. Sometime, roughly 15 years ago, the talk began to be of GLOBAL WARMING which was, according to the self appointed pundits, an imminent disaster. Even more recently the talk has turned from “global warming” to that of “global climate change”. This later term is no more accurate, but it is more difficult to disprove. And a theory that is immune to rational counter argument is exactly what is needed by that bunch. More and more people realize, or at least are beginning to, that “global warming” is a steaming pile of something unmentionable.

 

The motivation behind the desperate quest for a more bullet resistant slogan is twofold. Firstly, the old one was not only susceptible to attack, it was scheduled, from the start, for self annihilation. If the world was, indeed, not warming beyond expected statistical and cyclic variation, then sooner or later that fact was going to become obvious to even the most dim. Secondly, the “high level” protagonists of this movement have far more lofty ambitions than to allow themselves to be subject to trivial restraints, such as truth.

 

Anyway, when rumors of the cooling/warming shift first started to appear, I found myself being somewhat skeptical – not of the idea that such a phenomenon could occur, but only of how all these people could be all so certain when, just a few months ago, they had all been equally certain of exactly the opposite “fact”. So I looked into it. I found that the hundreds of “scientists” who signed that original paper supporting the theory of global warming, were trumped by the thousands of more qualified real scientists who could not produce models that fit that theory. (Indeed, we now know that even those scientists who did support the theory had to concoct their own data out of thin air – only a small pun intended. I reference the University of East Anglia vanishing records, and the “Climate Gate” email collusion to falsify records, among several other such scandals.) But, I also almost immediately realized that this was not so much science as it was religion, at least to many. That would explain the eagerness to fabricate data, and such.

 Then came ALGORE. Near the end of the “global warming” era, he decided that there was a buck to be made in becoming its champion. But, just as he had invented the Internet some years after it was in use, he was just a bit late in the “global warming” life cycle to be taken seriously by any thinking person. Very fortunately for him, the world is not populated entirely by thinking people. There are a lot of the “masses” out there, eager to be duped. And I guess we will have to number among them all the school teachers that have been indoctrinating their charges with this bunk, and the Nobel prize committee (not the first time they were fooled, nor the last), and the few remaining, otherwise respectable, scientists who are clinging to his cause. One would think that this list of minor scholars, and such, would be a roll of thinkers. But the facts must speak for themselves. They are converts to the religion, and religious doctrine will out, over even logic and reason – at least in the short run. Almost everyone does come to their senses eventually. But for many it is too late.

 

Al Gore made a very appealing case. He appealed to those who want to help – who want to feel like they are contributing to society. And he supported his arguments with FACTS. The fact that those facts were not factual didn't seem to faze him, nor his audience. By the way, in case you have been living in a cave, or have only been listening to the so-called main stream media to get your news, you should know by now that Gore had his day in court, in England, and lost. A judge there ruled, after extensive fact finding, that at least 9 of the approximately 40 “factual assertions” on which the movie is based are downright lies, and thus, showing the movie to school children in England violates their law against propaganda. In fact, at least 35 of those assertions were obvious, blatant falsehoods, but the judge did not have to examine and decide on more than just the first 9 to reach his conclusion. For more on this, you can go to Gore Loses! Bottom line is this, “An Inconvenient Truth” was anything but that – it was all a pack of lies – but a lot of people were suckered into believing it. And Gore got rich. (We are aware that Algore donated the proceeds from the movie to charity, but he kept the small fortune made from his public speaking engagements, and the large fortune made from his other “green” projects, about which more will be discussed later herein.) Gore, like Jim Jones, David Koresh, and all the other phony evangelists that came before him, is an expert at what he does, even though he is obviously, to me at least, certifiably insane, as well. As just one funny example of this religious zeal, have you seen the ass that James Cameron has been making of himself about this? He is clearly as goofy as Algore. Check out James Cameron Loses It!
 
 

But, so far, we have been talking just about Global Warming. That is the evil that Cap and Trade is supposed to combat. If Global Warming is not the terrible imminent threat that the Goreites would have us believe, then there is no excuse for crippling our economy, putting millions of people out of work, raising everyone's taxes, drastically raising everyone's utility bills, and otherwise diverting resources from the REAL problems that we face. BUT, let's just suppose I am wrong about Global Warming – that it is a threat. Then is Cap and Trade the way to address it? Only in some bizzaro universe, where making a few political Goombas rich while doing nothing at all about the supposed problem is an answer.

 

Let's look at how Cap and Trade works. Very briefly, every business (and, someday, even every household) is assigned a maximum amount of carbon (or other emissions) that it should be putting into the atmosphere. This allotment is issued in the form of “carbon credits”. If you don't use all of yours, you can sell them to someone else – through a “carbon exchange” – and the buyers WILL use them to emit more carbon, without thereby incurring a fine from the government. Of course, the owners of the Carbon Exchange make a profit – billions according to the presently proposed plan. But is the amount of carbon released into the air reduced? Certainly not inherently. Given these simple facts, it is a wash. Exactly the same amount of carbon is emitted, but the middle men got rich in the mean time. Indeed, many people, myself included, believe that this sort of arrangement will actually INCREASE pollution. It seems rational that those people who want or need to pollute more than their allotment might find a way to cut back, if the alternative (to continue polluting) were very expensive – for example, if there were substantial fines for polluting. And, by the way, even Cap and Trade does depend on there being such fines, as an incentive to use the Cap and Trade program. But if there is a cheaper alternative to those fines, which Cap and Trade does provide, then there is not as much incentive to try to pollute less. So, just on the surface of it, Cap and Trade is stupid on a monolithic scale.

 

But, while I am not denying that the proponents of Cap and Trade might be dim, they are not so dim as to be unable to work their way through, at least, the above part of the equation. This is where the impending hoard of bureaucrats comes in. Once the system is in place and working, then the plan is to gradually lower the assigned maximums. Did you stop to think how those maximums got set in the first place? Boy, if ever there was an opportunity for millions of bureaucrats to get cushy jobs setting around throwing darts at a board to determine every single individual's maximum allowable carbon credits, this is it!! And not only do they have to set them initially, they have to monitor each person’s output, monitor their given allotment and if that allotment has changed due to carbon exchanges, and impose the fines if the amount of output the bureaucrats monitor exceeds the individual's allotted output as adjusted by any exchanges. Have I died and gone to bureaucrat heaven, where blood sucking bureaucrats have lifelong guaranteed jobs at inflated salaries while contributing absolutely nothing to the economy or the well being our nation, and while the taxpayers pay doubly – once for the resulting skyrocketing energy prices and again for the army of bureaucrats that caused them?

 

But, anyway, now that I have calmed down a little, let's examine what happens when that bunch of scum sucking, bottom feeding, worthless, low life, bureaucrats......   No, there I go again.    I have to be calm.    Let's examine what happens when those dedicated public servants do begin to lower the maximums. Since it can safely be assumed that, at any given time, all the carbon credits issued will be used, either by the original recipient or by a purchaser, then any reduction in the carbon credits will mean that large fines will ensue, and will continue until such time as the industries can find a way to cause less pollution. That will often take years, as new construction, and even new research and development, may be needed. Of course, wise entrepreneurs will be preparing for this in advance, which will certainly shorten the lag time by some degree. Those fines will be passed on to energy users as increased energy prices (just as were the previously smaller costs of purchasing carbon credits). It is expected that these may double energy costs to the consumer, or even more. Then, when things settle out, or when the government needs money again, it can lower the maximums again, just a bit. I hope you see the main problem with this scheme. Anytime the government needs money, it can simply administratively lower the carbon maximums. No need for congress to embarrass itself by raising income taxes. But, the problem is, it is a regressive “tax”. It hits hardest those who spend a significant portion of their income to heat their homes, and buy gas to get to work. Do you remember that Obama promised that the health care bill would not cost taxpayers anything? But then we found out that a large part of it will be paid for by greatly reducing income tax deductions for medical expenses! That, of course, hits the working poor the hardest. Worse than that, it hits the working poor who are also sick the hardest. Now, this is the same thing. Once again, Obama is trying to place a crushing burden on the poor and middle class.

 

So, as you can see, it doesn't take a genius to see that Cap and Trade deserves to be in the bad idea hall of fame. But Obama is a smart guy. Why, then, is he pushing it as his number one goal? To understand that, you have to go back to his days as a member of the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation, when he pushed the Foundation to donate 1.1 million dollars, as seed money, to start the Chicago Climate Exchange. I won't bore you with the whole tawdry tale here. But you can read the whole story at a number of sites on the net, including, for example at CLIMATE EXCHANGE. Suffice it to say here that the Chicago Climate Exchange will have an EXCLUSIVE right to profit from the Cap and Trade, and it is privately owned – by Al Gore and several other Obama cronies. If Cap and Trade is passed, these guys will make billions (that's right billions with a 'B') almost overnight. Now, I have no proof that any of these vast riches will filter back to Obama, himself. But I do know that he already has a lot more money than he could possibly have made legitimately, given that he has never held a really high paying job – but has held a number of the sort of jobs wherein kickbacks are de rigueur.

 

Get the picture?


P.S.  On the Home Page introduction to this article, I teased the name Maurice Strong.  So I guess I had better tell you more about him.  He is one of Obama's old cronies, and was the motiviation and instigation for Obama's pressing to fund the Chicago Climate Exchange.  Aside from Algore, he is the largest shareholder in that Exchange.  Although he is an American (Canadian born), he lives in China.  The reason that he lives in China is that he has become a billionaire riding the wave of China's success at overtaking the U.S. as the most vibrant economy on the planet.  Even the Chinese give him the credit for being the "brains" behind their success.  He has made all this money partly from direct payments from the Chinese government but, mostly, from having a financial stake, himself, in the success of many Chinese enterprises.  You can be absolutely sure that he has not, and would not, press for anything like "Cap and Trade" in China, because stifling the Chinese economy like that would hit him directly in the purse.  Why, then, is he in collusion with Obama to force it on us?  It is because he would profit doubly thereby.  Not only would he make another billion or so from his direct profits derived from the Exchange, but also, the more he can criple the U.S. economy, the more he will profit by the comparitive advantage given to the Chinese economy.  I don't know about you but, to me, this sort of collusion with our own president for this sort of evil enterprise makes anything the Cosa Nostra ever did look like a kids game.  Wake up people!


P.P.S.  Nothing in the above should be construed to mean that we are against sound environmental policies and, in general, "cleaning up" the planet.  But Cap and Trade simply goes way too far, for all the wrong reasons, to solve a problem that simply doesn't exist. 

Addendum:  I realized, after publishing the above article, that I had been remiss in exclusively discussing the new proposed Cap and Trade law, without even mentioning that we already have a watered down version in place.  And even the present, relatively innocuous, system is prone to graft, corruption, and downright fraud – just a sample of things to come, if the “real” Cap and Trade law gets through.  One interesting example of this sort of corruption is in the news, as I write.  But if you only listen to the “main stream media”, then you will have heard only the “good” parts.  The good parts, as reported by your favorite local evening news, are as follows:  Hillary Clinton just announced a major new program to bring “clean and safe” cook stoves to poor people in Africa who, up until now, have cooked mainly on charcoal stoves.  Even better than that, the government is not paying for it.  Instead, JP Morgan Chase has, out of the generosity of its corporate heart, agreed to absorb 100% of the cost.  Isn’t that wonderful?  At last, Chase is finally showing some compassion in payback for the massive taxpayer funded bailout that we gave them! 


But, dear reader, I am afraid that there is more to the story.  That is, although the government is not PAYING for those stoves, it IS giving Chase CARBON CREDITS for each one.  The carbon credits are worth more than the RETAIL price of the stoves.  This means that for every stove that Hillary can foist off on those poor Africans, Chase will make a substantial profit.  And what is the effect of those carbon credits?  Of course, Chase will sell them to American companies that will do their polluting right here in the good old USA, thus transferring the pollution from Africa (where it is no big deal, since there is little other pollution there anyway) to here.  And, not only that, but the COST of those carbon credits, like all such, will be passed directly to consumers.  As discussed in the article above, not only is this a tax, but it is a regressive tax that hits our poor and middle class especially hard.  In short, poor US citizens will be paying for new stoves for poor Africans, while Chase gets richer and Hillary garners votes and support from her dim witted sycophant supporters for doing such a wonderful thing. Everybody wins!!!

 ______________________________________________

 

 

 If you want to learn more, here are just a handful of the hundreds of sites that discuss this topic.

 
Global Warming debunked by children!

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=62598

 

Junk Science!

http://www.junkscience.com/

 

Skeptic’s guide to Global Warming alarmism.

http://philvalentine.com/SkepticsGuideToGlobalWarming.htm

 

Prominent scientists debunk global warming.

http://www.thelandofthefree.net/conservativeopinion/2008/03/07/prominent-scientists-debunk-global-warming/

 

Scientists debunk UN “global warming” report.

http://www.infowars.com/scientists-debunk-un-global-warming/

 

Climate change news and analysis.

http://www.globalwarming.org/

 

CATO institute takes on the subject.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-329es.html

 

 

Newsweek editor debunks Newsweek story on ‘global warming’ deniers.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2007/08/12/

 

Global warming global myth.

http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2008_09/contoski-warming.html

 

 

500 scientists debunk global warming

http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2007/09/500-scientists-debunk-global-warming/

 

 

Myths about Global Warming debunked

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2007/05/19/green-myths-on-global-warming-—-debunked/

 

 

Scientists debunk 'fairy tale' of Global Warming

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/14/161152.shtml

 

 

 
To get the most from freedomsite.US, please return to the home page after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.

 BACK

 

 

 














 

 

 Let’s Cut the Deficit!

By F Eric Saunders

Vice President Cheney once famously remarked that the deficit is not important.  I understand his point – that it should not be the determining factor in decision making IN SOME SITUATIONS.  But deficit is never a good thing.  And I must respectfully disagree with his conclusion.  While the deficit may be of lesser importance in some situations, it is always important, and it is downright critical when it becomes a significant portion of GNP, as it is now.  Witness Greece and Spain, for example.  In a few years, you will be able to add the USA to the list of examples of countries that were destroyed by their profligate spending habits, unless we take drastic and immediate action NOW.

Of course, there are two logical ways to cut a deficit:  (a) increase revenue or (b) decrease spending.  But there is really only one practical way.

While President Obama was encouraging Congress to enact the so-called “stimulus bill”, he said, “If we don’t act now, this recession could linger on for years.”  Of course, that statement is diametrically opposed to truth.  If, indeed, the “stimulus” did anything at all, other than waste money, it has been to temporarily alleviate some of the pain felt by the populace right now.  It has been an absolute disaster in that regard, as will be all such government programs.  The inefficiency, waste, corruption, greed, and downright foolishness have completely overwhelmed any possible good effects.  But that is not my concern here.  The point that I wish to make here is that, no matter how much one might have believed that stimulus was a good idea to alleviate temporary angst, one certainly had to realize that it was being bought dearly – the cost being that the debt thereby incurred will take years, probably decades, to pay off.  Temporary relief was supposedly being procured as a tradeoff against the protraction of the problem.  Instead of taking our punishment for our fiscal misdeeds, we are stretching out the pain – all the way into succeeding generations.  But, even as bad as that sounds, it would not have been an entirely unreasonable approach IF we could have expected an efficient and fair trade – for instance, if we could quarter the instant pain by making it last four times as long.  But given that every dollar in debt incurred by the government only results in scant few pennies being trickled down to actual accomplishments, the real result is more like little or no pain relief at all in exchange for decades, maybe generations, of future suffering.

So, that is how we got here.  How do we get out?  I have heard some pundits opine that we must have some combination of increased taxes and decreased spending, the problem is so severe.  I can’t deny that may be true.  But if it is true, it is unfortunate, and we MUST make any tax increases both small and of short duration.  Otherwise, we will only make the long-term problem worse.

Let’s look, for a moment, at the revenue side of the problem.  There are several other articles on freedomsite.US discussing various aspects of this issue.  For example, Net Loss or Net Gain addresses whether tax cuts can increase revenue and concludes that, while tax policies may have relatively little effect on short term revenue (which is usually what the controversy is all about), the effect on long term revenue is the real important factor – and it is far from trivial.  In short, it is an absolute no-brainer that an excessive tax burden will drive businesses either out of the country or out of business.  When that happens, there will be no “rich” folks to tax.  And, the tax burden is already excessive – even before the upcoming increases.  How do I know that?  I could offer a comparison of the tax burden in other, more prosperous, countries.  But that is not necessary.  For proof here I need only rely on our present circumstances.  Businesses ARE either moving overseas or shipping jobs overseas.  Businesses ARE either shutting down or refusing to expand.  Business revenue IS down, and therefore so IS tax revenue.  Look at California as an example.  In California we have already succeeded in driving most of the prosperous businesses and people out of the state.  Therefore, no matter how high we make the tax rate, it matters little.  There is no one left to pay that high rate.  So, here we are.  Jerry Brown is STILL campaigning against Meg Whitman claiming that her pro-business proposals “favor the rich”.  Don’t you get it, Jerry?  That is the point!  We had BETTER favor the rich – enough to keep those few we have left here and even attract some others back – or the “poor” will be on their own.  When there is no one left in California except the welfare recipients and a few “middle class”, will a 100% tax on the middle class be enough to pay all those welfare checks?  I don’t think so.  Bottom line is this:  If we intend to thrive as a country, we had BETTER find a way to reduce taxes – not increase them.

So now let’s look at the other logical alternative – reducing expenditures.  Some would have this believe that this is nigh impossible.  BS!  This myth is perpetuated when politicians openly challenge their opponents thus:  “Oh, if you are for cutting costs, then you need to say what costs you would cut.  Come on now, tell these fine people which of them you will be taking money from!  Ahah!  I thought so!  You don’t have a plan.”  Of course, that is all politics.  Such confrontations are disingenuous tricks designed to put opponents “on the spot”, rather than to get at the truth.  In fact, there is SO much waste in government that any chimpanzee could be assigned to the task, and would do a better job than is being done along those lines now – which is nothing (excepting, of course, for the cuts in those “fully paid for” spending measures, that will be discussed below).  How about this:  Cut EVERYTHING by 10%?  Couldn’t be more simple!  It would eliminate the deficit in just a few years.  Everyone would still find a way to get by.  It would work!  Now, I am not advocating that plan.  There are some programs that could stand cutting more than others.  But the fact remains, if that simple plan would work, then why can’t our leaders come up with an only slightly more complicated plan that will also work?

As an example of how to cut costs, I always refer to P.J. O’Rourke’s solutions offered in one chapter of Parliament of Whores.  Of course, his example, just like my idea of cutting everything by 10%, is meant only to demonstrate that it CAN be done.  But then why hasn’t it been done?  The answer is that doing so would be a step back, away from socialism, and there are those in power who don’t want to see erased all of the fine and tireless work they have done in moving us toward their Socialist Utopia.  (I want to take this opportunity to recognize that P.J. O’Rourke is a genius.  He has a wonderful gift of being able to condense a complex problem into a simple truth.  And, by the way, it is a little known fact that, as rare as geniuses of his caliber might be, at least one other was born on the very same day as was he.) 

One other myth that I would like to dispel is this:  A very recent invention in Washington has been the absurd assertion that some spending bills are “fully paid for”.  What?   Apparently, what that ridiculous averment is intended to mean is that, within the bill, there is some offset of costs made by cutting costs in some other program.  That’s like me saying that I just bought a new Corvette, but it’s fully paid for because I had intended to buy a Ferrari instead, and have decided to forego that future expense.  Indeed, given that the Corvette costs less than the Ferrari, I made money on the deal.  At this rate, I shall soon be quite rich!!!  Well, if those costs could have been cut in that other program, why wasn’t it done a long time ago?  Why does it have to depend upon and wait for some new spending to offset it?  Instead of being, as alleged, an offset of spending, this is more like Congress feels a need to offset cost cutting with a new spending measure.  Of course, this is entirely in keeping with the Cloward-Piven stratagem.  According to that tactic, under no circumstances can the Government be allowed to become smaller or less intrusive – the plan is for an unceasing and relentless series of baby steps in the other direction.  But the real truth is that a spending bill is a spending bill – it is not “fully paid for” until the taxpayers fork their money over to the IRS.  Nor, as recent house members have alleged, is an expenditure “fully paid for” if it comes out of an existing stimulus fund.  We still have to pay it.  Indeed, in a recent battle over extension of unemployment benefits, Democrats tried to besmirch Republicans by alleging that they were holding out against such extension.  In fact, all the Republicans wanted was that it be paid for out of the existing stimulus fund that was setting there unused, rather than creating a new debt.  But, of course, Democrats, even though they had not yet found a way to waste all of the stimulus fund, would not be deprived of the opportunity to do so in future – so they insisted on incurring yet a new debt.

In summary, we have to cut spending.  And the longer we wait, the harder it will be.  But that runs contrary to the blood of politicians.  How can they get reelected without handing out more goodies to their ignorant little constituents?  There is a, now classic, book that touches on this subject, called The Power Elite.  It was written in 1956 by C. Wright Mills.  Bottom line is, if we the people don’t wake up and start electing leaders that understand these simple principles, then the answer is that they can’t – and so they won’t do anything to cut costs – and so we shall all go to hell together for the injustice that we are perpetrating not only on future generations of this country, but of the world.

Addendum:  The above discussion is about the “deficit”.  That is generally the way the problem is stated in political discussions, and we conformed to that standard here.  But, although I risk insulting your intelligence by mentioning it, I would be remiss if I did not remind you that deficit only addresses the question of how much MORE in debt we get each year.  If it were your budget, you would be alarmed if you could not see some horizon, some distant future, in which you could envision yourself being out of debt.  But that is not even being discussed, it is so far out of the question right now. Even, a few years ago, when there was a modest surplus for a short time, there was a lot of fighting in Congress over how to spend that surplus.  Should it be spent on new social programs?  Should it be returned to the taxpayers?  But not a word about trying to use it to get us out of debt.  The reason is simple.  It was so paltry a sum, in relation to our debt, as to be totally insignificant for that purpose.  We are the biggest debtors IN THE WORLD in terms of foreign debt.  One of the reasons it is so difficult to lower even the annual deficit is that so much of our revenue goes to pay the interest on our debt.  This is a desperate situation, folks.  Let’s act like it!   

 
To get the most from freedomsite.US, please return to the home page after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.


BACK 

 

Website Builder