Obama Administration Admits Target Dems Vote for National Energy Tax Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year

FYI, a version of the release below went out to the following districts: Tim Bishop (NY-01); Sanford Bishop (GA-02); John Boccieri (OH-16); Leonard Boswell (IA-03); Rick Boucher (VA-09); Allen Boyd (FL-02); Bruce Braley (IA-01); Dennis Cardoza (CA-18); Ben Chandler (KY-06); Gerry Connolly (VA-11); Henry Cuellar (TX-28); Steve Driehaus (OH-01); Bob Etheridge (NC-02); Gabby Giffords (AZ-08); Bart Gordon (TN-06); Alan Grayson (FL-08); Martin Heinrich (NM-01); Baron Hill (IN-09); Jim Himes (CT-04); Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15); Steve Kagen (WI-08); Paul Kanjorski (PA-11); Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15); Ron Klein (FL-22); Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24); Frank Kratovil (MD-01); Dave Loebsack (IA-02); Dan Maffei (NY-25); Betsy Markey (CO-04); Michael McMahon (NY-13); Jerry McNerney (CA-11); Dennis Moore (KS-03); Patrick Murphy (PA-08); Tom Perriello (VA-05); Gary Peters (MI-09); Collin Peterson (MN-07); Chellie Pingree (ME-01); Loretta Sanchez (CA-47); Kurt Schrader (OR-05); Mark Schauer (MI-07); Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01); Heath Shuler (NC-11); Vic Snyder (AR-02); Zack Space (OH-18); John Spratt (SC-05); Bart Stupak (MI-01); Harry Teague (NM-02); Dina Titus (NV-03); Tim Walz (MN-01); and John Yarmuth (KY-03).

Obama Administration Admits Space’s Vote for National Energy Tax Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year

Obama Rolls Space Under the Bus, National Energy Tax Equivalent to 15% Income Tax Increase on Each American Household

Washington– With newly released information surfacing on the National Energy Tax, Ohio families should be warned: Zack Space’s negligent “yes” vote could cost them thousands of dollars. Despite numerous distortions by Democrats claiming that the National Energy Tax would create jobs and save money, a damning analysis by the U.S. Department of Treasury proves otherwise:

“The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

“A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.” (Declan McCullagh, “Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year,” CBS News, 9/15/2009)

“Zack Space’s reckless decision to support Nancy Pelosi’s National Energy Tax will cost middle-class Ohio families thousands,” said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain. “Every time Ohio families hand over their hard-earned money to pay their overpriced energy bills, they will have Zack Space to blame. Space’s ongoing attempts to pass his party’s reckless agenda and pass the massive costs onto the backs of Ohio taxpayers is a testament to his blatant disregard for the people he is supposed to represent.”

Democrat leaders promised economic recovery from the National Energy Tax:

“[Rep] Waxman argued that pitting economic growth against clean energy ‘is a false choice’ used by Republicans to scuttle climate legislation. The redirection of the nation’s energy policies ‘will revitalize our economy,’ create clean energy jobs, reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil and address climate change, he maintained.” (Associated Press, “Democratic support for climate bill broadens,” 05/18/2009)

But according to a study by the National Association of Manufacturers, Democrats’ negligence could cost Americans another 2.4 million jobs.

BACKGROUND:

Impact on Jobs: By 2030, as emission reduction targets tighten and other W/M provisions phase out, U.S. jobs decline by 1.8 million under the low cost case and by 2.4 million under the high cost case.

Decrease in Disposable Household Income: Higher energy prices would have ripple impacts on prices throughout the economy and would impose a financial cost on households of $118 to $250 by 2020 and $730 to $1,248 by 2030.

Impact on Energy Prices: Most energy prices would rise under W/M, particularly coal, oil and natural gas. By 2020 gasoline would increase between 8.4% and 11.1%, electricity between 5% and 7.9%. By 2030, gasoline prices increase between 20% and 26.1%, natural gas by 56.3% and 73.5% while electricity prices increase by up to 50%.

Factors Contributing to Higher Electricity Prices: W/M would reduce GHG emissions from all sectors of the economy (transportation, residential, commercial, and industry); however, as the largest emitter of GHGs, the primary impact would fall on the electric sector. W/M would result in the electric industry shutting down most carbon-based generation and/or using expensive, as yet unproven technology, to capture and store CO2. To meet the stringent goals of W/M, the electric industry would also have to substitute high cost technologies, such as biomass and wind, for conventional generation.

Impact on Economic Growth: High energy prices, fewer jobs, and loss of industrial output are estimated to reduce U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by between $419 billion and $571 billion by 2030.

Impact on Industry: Several major economic sectors will be affected by W/M’s provisions. By 2030 manufacturing output decreases by 5.3% to 6.5%, primary metals output falls by 23% to 29% and stone and glass decrease by 14% to 17%. Other industries experiencing significant declines are motor vehicles, computer and paper. In addition, the general shift away from coal would result in a 76% reduction in coal production and electricity production would fall by 13.7% to 16.9% by 2030. These losses will have a lasting effect on the economic base of the United States.

Impact on Low Income Families: The impacts of W/M will be felt especially by the poor, who spend a greater share of their income on energy and other goods than other income brackets. By 2030, higher energy prices mean that low income families (with average incomes of $18,500 will spend between 16% and 17% of their income on energy under W/M compared to a projected 14% without W/M. Others on fixed incomes, such as the elderly will also suffer disproportionately.

 
To view the study in its entirety, click here: http://www.accf.org/media/docs/nam/2009/National.pdf

###