Texas on the Potomac welcomes guest opinions from across the political spectrum. Today, we offer you a post from the blog of Houston Rep. John Culberson. It is republished with the congressman’s permission.
Although millions of Americans have expressed their strong opposition to the cap and trade bill passed by the House in July, we have seen no slowdown in the effort to get a cap and trade bill to the president’s desk. Last week, Senators Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and John Kerry, D-Mass., introduced a cap and trade bill entitled “The Clean Jobs and America Power Act.”
The Boxer-Kerry Bill is based on the premise that taxing polluters is an effective way to reduce carbon emissions, but studies have shown the staggering costs of a cap and trade program will stifle our domestic energy and manufacturing sectors and raise electricity rates on consumers. The cap and trade plan should really be called “the light switch tax,” because if this bill becomes law, you will pay a tax every time you flip your light switch.
Recently, President Obama’s own Treasury Department admitted that this policy will result in major rate increases for consumers. Treasury’s analysis, obtained by CBS News through the Freedom of Information Act, shows cap and trade would result in $100 billion to $200 billion a year in new taxes. Treasury also estimates the cost per household would be $1,761 a year, while American families are struggling to make ends meet.
As the epicenter of America’s oil and gas industry, Houston’s economy is particularly vulnerable to these dangerous bills. A study from the Texas Comptroller’s office estimates that within the first year of their enactment, 2012, there could be 135,000 to 277,000 fewer jobs for hard-working Texans.
The federal government has already intruded in our lives far beyond what our Founding Fathers envisioned when they laid the foundation for this republic with the adoption of our Constitution. The government’s steady advance into our lives continues with the Boxer-Kerry Bill, which makes the government the official arbiter of our energy options.
Americans deserve a well-balanced approach to energy production, which is why I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 2828, the American Energy Innovation Act. This fiscally responsible approach encourages innovation by investing in renewable energy technology, promotes conservation by providing incentives for reducing energy demand, and increases production of American energy by utilizing available resources and streamlining burdensome regulations. These steps will make America energy self-sufficient and improve our environment in the process.
Posted by Richard Dunham at October 5, 2009 12:00 PM
blogs.chron.com
Dear Congressman John Culberson,
Taxing the polluters is very necessary. The major polluters for many years have collected profits without putting enough into R&D to develop clean technologies. How come all major refineries have not gone flare less even though this technology is easily available. The polluters only want to take away from the environment and not try to do anything voluntarily as their social responsibility. The taxes collected from polluters can be utilized for R&D into renewable energy resources thru proper appropriations.
I am in oil and gas industry myself and do not believe that Houston will lose all these jobs. The comptroller’s office generates the statics mostly based on private company data. This is just another scare tactic by the major polluters to gain more concessions. Indirect case in example is of a Houston oil and gas equipment company which had to lay off hundreds people to save less than hundred million dollars, but in turn I believe in less than two months added a division to its corporate structure at a purchase price of over a billion dollars. Now how does that work? The great people of Houston are never without hope. Let’s make Houston as a capital of renewable energy by putting more synergy in it. Has anybody bothered to investigate as to what exactly will cause all these losses and how can we devise a mitigation plan may be thru legislation, for example how can we use the tax money to move the endangered human capital to be utilized in renewable energy industry. If we do our home right we will have the necessary infrastructure in place before the deadline will hit. May be a legislation is for capable companies to have a mandatory renewable energy departments to be created in exchange for tax credits. Most of the people that are on this so called list of layoffs are technical, administrative and support staff, what is to say that with a little bit of training these people cannot contribute in making renewable energy also a Houston success story. After all if we do not pay the pollution tax at this rate today then our kids and grand kids will be left to pay much higher taxes. Is this what we want? The tax burden will be somewhat contributed thru developing renewable energy industries, which in time shall generate much more by the time our kids and grand kids are in the work force. Let’s not leave our coming generation to pay for our inability to tax the polluters. This step will also make our international standing look more ethical when at various forums we ask major polluter countries like China and India to change their habits while we our self cannot do anything because of various internal economic factors. Think in time how much revenue we can generate if we start developing advance renewable energy technologies now. After all oil is a finite commodity.
I do agree that we deserve a well balanced energy plan, but achieving this balance must tip largely in favor of American people first while we still maintain our social responsibility. The convenient thinking of trickledown effect means peanuts for the hard working American worker and rest for someone else. Yes we must invest in renewable energy technologies and resources as this is the only future that we have. I somewhat do not see making a major dent by coming up incentives for reducing energy demand. We should not try to reduce energy demand as it will also lower our output; instead we should become more efficient in how we use our energy and produce the same energy with less resource utilized. For example we should support more natural gas utilization then oil as it will reduce carbon emissions. Lots of countries around the world have been utilizing natural gas for transportation Brazil being a big example, but we as the technology leader of the world still uses refined petroleum to power our transportation. We have plenty of natural gas in our country. While we should definitely utilize our internal resources to increase the production but we should do it in a socially responsible manner and streamlining regulation will not mean free hand and the destruction of the natural beauty that our nation has been bestowed. I also do not see how scientifically speaking these steps will make us energy self sufficient in near future unless this was meant several decades.
Keep up the good work.
Sincerely,
M. Sadiq
I am totally against letting wall street get involved in the cap and trade. I do support efforts to reduce carbon release into our atmosphere. And, a tax that penalizes polluters is good and necessary. And, “yes”, most of us contribute in one way or another to this carbon release and we should all pay to clean it up and to reduce it. No one should expect this to be free.
I agree that there needs to be Health Care industry reform. I do not want my right of choice taken away though. There are many areas that need to be “fixed” such as health care for people who are not citizens. When we pay for maturnity and labor and delivery for foreigners we condone and encourage this to continue. Why can we not charge that expense back to the native country? I also think the being charge an extra $150. p/mo for an existing condition is a way for the insurance company to take advantage of the misfortune of others. I agree we should be able to get a reasonable deductable, mine is $5,000 and unless I am most unfortunate in a year I will not satisfy that big amount. I feel like I am being taken advantage of by the insurance company and I have shopped around for the best “deal”. There aren’t any “best deals”. If you want to change companies they put you though the wringer with documentation red tape that makes your head spin.
I am a 58 year old single working woman who pays $452 p/mo for my medical insurance. I make around $40k p/yr. I am willing to do this because I believe it is my responsiblity. It is not my responsiblity to pay for other people who do not pay into our system. If we stop trying to take care of people who are citizens of other countries we would be taking a big step toward making our health care system better for the citizens of the U.S.A.
Do your best to make this better for the American people. Follow your constituients direction and listen to the people. We “people” what a system that is reasonable and afordable for the majority. The majority of the citizens that is, not the choice of the politians.
There is 2 cents worth. Sherrilee Withington
Dear Congressman:
Carbon Credits are not now required in order to produce, manufacturer, or service any product. Thus, requiring a carbon credit in order to engage in business is nothing more than a PSUEDO COMMODITY, and a direct tax. Two things will evolve from this; first, I will have to pay more for any product that I buy. Secondly, the Lehmanns etc will all engage in the trading of these credits, and they will be shorted, longed, swapped, etc there on Wall Street, and soon it will be just like the oil contracts — about 10 times the carbon credits being traded than what is being used, when the idea was to reduce the carbon. And I will add a third item that will evolve — MORE CORRUPTION. Add an amendment that carbon credits can only be bought and sold between “end users” and the bill will disappear.
glenn miller