The latest from the NRCC, an ad, as Hot Air points out, that is virtually written by the left.
The initial estimate of cap and trade's cost to American's was pegged at just under $4,000 per family. Since then, the CBO has come out with a ridiculously low ball estimate of $175 per household. That seems to be utterly ridiculous actually, given not only the direct effects of this tax, but the indirect effects that will be equally as problematic. The Heritage Foundation released their take on the CBO estimate a few days ago:
Last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released their analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill that had proponents of the bill claiming Americans could save the planet for just $175 per household. That was the figure CBO estimated cap and trade would cost households in 2020 alone.
Both the CBO's analysis and the subsequent legislation are troubled: The analysis grossly underestimates economic costs while the legislation will have virtually no impact on climate. Overall, there are a number of basic problems with CBO's analysis:
- Their allowance cost numbers do not add up;
- They ignore economic costs such as the decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) as a result of the bill; and
- The analysis is an accounting analysis, not an economic analysis. . . .
Read the entire article. (H/T Terry Trippany)
Looking at the whole mosaic of what will be impacted by the cap and trade bill - which is every good, service and person that uses energy, plus the costs we will incur from a declining domestic energy industry - I am inclined to see the $4k estimate as much more realistic. It is good to see the NRCC ad on this most ill advised of legislative proposals. Republicans should be beating their chests over this on a daily basis.