The Death to America Act

Obama draws a bead on your family -- behold what he does (and even what he says)

By Wes Vernon

Grassroots Americans need to use the Fourth of July congressional recess to contact their senators and urge them not to take the Waxman-Markey tax-grabbing lemon handed them by their counterparts in the House. It is the biggest tax hike in American history.

While you looked the other way

As TV newscasts heavily focused on the unfortunate passing of Michael Jackson, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi were taking full advantage of your distraction by picking your pocket while you were looking the other way.

This is not to take anything away from the late Mr. Jackson, but this column submits that when our public servants whom we hire to look out for our interests are instead voting to give away the store, that is more pressing than the fate of a pop star.

Blackout?

Americans were gathering around their TV sets Thursday anticipating — for example — a promised explanation on Brett Baier's Fox News Special Report as to what the Waxman-Markey "Cap and Trade" bill would do to the family's bottom line.

The program was barely underway when interrupted by a bulletin that Jackson was rushed to the hospital. Ok, that's news, keep us posted. But no, that wasn't enough. What we got was a near complete blackout of the significance of one of history's great assaults on the family as the House debate was underway.

Instead of the discussion of the ground-breaking (in a harmful sense) legislation, Baier brought in Greta Van Susteren to lead a non-stop bio of Jackson before he died. Van Susteren is an excellent reporter, but she was not doing the evening's most important story in terms of the impact on American families.

Assault on the family?

There is no way you can define the Waxman-Markey bill (which passed the House on a slim 219-212 vote) other than as an assault on the family. Millions of Americans saw through it and drove the Capitol switch board into overload as they tried — often in vain — to reach their representative and beg him or her to vote down this monstrosity.

Americans are waking up to this stab in the back, notwithstanding the disingenuous eyewash they were asked to swallow. That is why Pelosi wants it rushed to the White House as quickly as possible before enough Americans wake up in time to shoot it down.

One e-mail this column received serves as Exhibit A of the Beltway play on words that is an insult to one's intelligence: It reads "...the simple facts are that there is no government levied tax associated with the [Cap and Trade] legislation as the word is defined [italics added]."

The letter-writer seemed to think he was scoring points big-time with that comment.

Actually he served (perhaps unintentionally) to make the very point that drives the more honest analysts up the wall. He spotlighted what is the exact trouble with Washington politicians.

They enact vaguely worded regulatory laws and leave the politically radioactive details up to the faceless bureaucrats in the agencies — thus giving the politicos an out to hold up their hands and tell their constituents — "Don't look at me. They zapped you with an unfair ruling. Certainly I didn't do it. I'll even write a letter on your behalf."

In this case, they are finagling an indirect tax so that it will fall on the utility and energy companies and companies that use energy — who of course will pass it on to you and me. Pelosi, Henry Waxman, and Ed Markey (the latter two are the bill's co-sponsors) want to hide the tax because they think you're too stupid to figure it out. They are setting it up so that when you're socked with higher utility bills, they can — like the arsonist who puts out the fire — rush to your side and wail — "Why those evil corporations! Look what they're doing to you! Surely, I wouldn't do a thing like that." They might even add that the huge increase in your bill is not a tax "as the word is defined."

The lowdown

This column is indebted to skilled analysts who have done the math for the family kitchen table. Below are figures publicized by the Heritage foundation and the Cornwall Alliance:

Conservative estimates are that direct energy costs will raise the average American family's energy bill by $1, 241 each year by 2035. That's more than $100 per month. And since higher energy costs will hike the price of everything else, we're looking at a steady climb to $3000 extra per year by then — on top of whatever inflation may have done to the dollar by that time.

The economy will shrink by an average GDP loss of $383 billion from 2012 (the legislation's starting point) to 2035. That translates into job shrinkage — higher unemployment.

The measure, if passed by the Senate and signed by President Obama — as it surely will be if it gets to his desk — will raise the cost of all goods and services produced with energy — in other words, virtually everything. It will affect the cost of your food, housing and transportation.

And lest we forget: this will have a disproportionately adverse effect on the poor. President Obama omitted that little factoid from his weekly radio/internet address. And yes, this will hurt the "95 percent of Americans who [the president assured us during the campaign] won't get a tax increase" — as those words "are defined" — right, Mr. President?

In their own words

Anyone who doubts the president knows exactly how your family will be affected by Cap and Tax might be interested in comments made by candidate (and then-Senator) Obama on January 17, 2008 (italics added in the quotes below):

"You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal — uh, you know — under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket....So if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it's just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

Here's commissar Pelosi January 22, 2009.

"I believe we have to [pass a cap and trade bill] because we see that as a source of revenue."

From Dr. Peter Orzag (April 24, 2008) then director of the Congressional Budget Office — now director of the White House Office of Management and Budget:

"Under a cap-and-trade program firms would not ultimately bear most of the costs of the allowances, but instead would pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices."

And this moment of candor from Rep. Charles Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways and Means (tax-writing) Committee:

"Whether you call it a tax, everyone agrees that it's going to increase the cost to the consumer....It might be difficult to fight Republicans who call this a tax."

More bad news for you

Author Steven Milloy (whose Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Ruin Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them is must reading) writes that — contrary to predictions, this bill "will not improve the environment one iota."

Even if you accept the notion that carbon dioxide emissions are bad (a point of considerable debate), you can bet the situation will get worse — not better — under Waxman-Markey.

The wealthiest nations have the cleanest environments. Consider dirty China and India, for example. If Waxman-Markey becomes law, it will — as noted above — shrink wealth creation. That means less money for environmental protection by individuals and society at large. Meanwhile, China — which already holds a huge chunk of U.S. debt — gets a competitive advantage over us in the world marketplace.

What Waxman-Markey does not do

The supposed aim of Waxman-Markey is to encourage the spread of "clean" energy. Yet nowhere is there a provision for the most logical of clean energy sources — nuclear. America's liberals are head-over-heels in love with Europe, yet strangely there is one thing that France does that they do not seek to emulate: nuclear power — the most effective "clean" energy, if we are really serious about the environment. But no.

Instead, Waxman-Markey steers us into a fruitless pursuit of its favorite "green" sources — wind and solar — "renewable," incredibly expensive, and requiring huge taxpayer subsidies — 100 times greater than fossil fuels, Milloy notes.

Speaking of which:

There is yet another part to a real energy independent equation: drilling for more oil right here in the United States. But then, you may remember that last year, commissar Pelosi shut the lights out in the House chamber when members took to the floor to urge more oil exploration on American soil.

It is not a case of either/or. We can have all of the above. Nuclear, coal (with clean technology), drilling for oil in the U.S., and yes — continued research and where effective, the so-called "renewable" sources.

The enemies of free speech are on the march (Part 19)

This bill is a power grab. This crowd means business, as clearly shown in the fact that an objective and credible senior analyst with the EPA (38 years) has just been fired for writing a critique of the agency's current direction. Alan Carlin disputed the agency's position on "climate change" — the new euphemism for the discredited "global warming."

Back to square one

In the next few days, your senator is likely to be home — perhaps giving patriotic Independence Day speeches. This would be a good time to remind him that if we are to maintain our independence, it is important that the Waxman-Markey bill be blocked in the Senate. That will be the "do or die" battleground.

© Wes Vernon