Opinion
Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill stuffed full of unpleasant surprises
Examiner Editorial
-
May 22, 2009
Congress is considering the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation and guess what? It’s stuffed full of unpleasant surprises for the unwary. But thank goodness for the eagle-eyed folks at the American Energy Alliance, who spotted this little gem on page 781 of the mammoth 946-page bill:
“Title IV, Subtitle B, Part 2, Section 426, of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 states: ‘An eligible worker (specifically, workers who lose their jobs as a result of this measure) may receive a climate change adjustment allowance under this subsection for a period of not longer than 156 weeks…80 percent of the monthly premium of any health insurance coverage…up to a maximum payment of $1,500 in relocation allowance…and job search expenses not exceed[ing] $1,500.’”
If cap-and-trade is an energy and global warming bill, why is a three-year package of unemployment benefits, job training and relocation expenses buried deep within its fine print? And why is a federally subsidized “job bank” needed if laid-off workers would quickly be rehired for higher-paying “green” jobs? The fact that generous unemployment benefits are buried in the bill means that “green jobs are bunk,” the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Ben Lieberman told The Examiner.
If cap-and-trade is an energy and global warming bill, why is a three-year package of unemployment benefits, job training and relocation expenses buried deep within its fine print? And why is a federally subsidized “job bank” needed if laid-off workers would quickly be rehired for higher-paying “green” jobs? The fact that generous unemployment benefits are buried in the bill means that “green jobs are bunk,” the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Ben Lieberman told The Examiner.
A Heritage analysis also found that Waxman-Markey is the largest, most intrusive energy tax increase in American history. It would reduce the nation’s GDP by $7.4 trillion, raise electricity rates 90 percent and gasoline prices 74 percent. Apparently, the authors of this legislation were unaware that a recent poll found six out of 10 Americans oppose energy policies that raise their electricity bill by even one cent, much less practically double it. And the final kicker is that the bill’s effect on greenhouse gases emissions would be just barely measurable.
It stands to reason that forcing companies and individuals to switch from using relatively cheap, abundant energy sources like oil, coal and natural gas to more expensive “alternative” sources will be a huge drag on the nation’s economy, especially during a deep recession. There’s no getting around it: Higher energy costs will inevitably lead to higher consumer prices and fewer jobs. And any new “green” jobs created will likely be lower-paid manual labor and service jobs, not higher-paid manufacturing positions. Any way you look at it, throwing millions of Americans out of work is an unacceptably high price to pay for a paltry two-tenths of a degree difference in temperature by the end of the century.
