You sure wouldn’t know that from all of the extra money the Democrats want to take out of the pockets of hard-working people!
Cleaner, costlier climate bill slips past House
Obama, Democrats face difficult test in upcoming Senate vote
msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 41 minutes ago
WASHINGTON – In a triumph for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives narrowly passed sweeping legislation Friday that establishes the United States’ first limits on pollution linked to global warming and aims to usher in a new era of cleaner, yet more costly energy.
The vote was 219-212, capping months of negotiations and days of intense bargaining among Democrats. Republicans were overwhelmingly against the measure, arguing it would destroy jobs in the midst of a recession while burdening consumers with a new tax in the form of higher energy costs.
At the White House, Obama praised the bill.
You have to get down into the article before you come to the important part: the costs:
Supporters and opponents agreed the result would be higher energy costs but disagreed vigorously on the impact on consumers. Democrats pointed to two reports, one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency, that suggested average increases would be limited after tax credits and rebates were taken into account. The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year.
Republicans questioned the validity of the CBO study and noted that even that analysis showed actual energy production costs increasing $770 per household. Industry groups have cited other studies that predicted much higher costs to the economy and to individuals.
Emphasis mine. Note what was said here. The CBO analysis showed actual energy production costs increasing $770 per household. The CBO then said that it would cost the average household $600 less than that after tax credits and rebates were taken into account. That means that yes, the average household would have to come up with the roughly $770 a year for increased energy costs, but they’d get tax credits and rebates to offset much of that.
Thing is, my electric bill comes once a month; tax credits and rebates will come when, once a year? The average household will have to come up with roughly $64 every month to pay their electricity and other energy bills, but, you’re not to worry, you’ll get about $600 back!
So, what does $64 a month mean? Well, if we assume that people work four weeks a month, that’s $16 a week. For someone working 40 hours a week, a 40¢ per hour net pay increase would be needed to cover the added costs. Of course, to get 40¢ per hour net, you need a bigger increase in your gross. Social Security and Medicare taxes of 7.65% mean that you’d need a 43¢ per hour raise. If you live in Pennsylvania, with a 3.07% state income tax — which our esteemed governor wants to raise to 3.57% — your raise would need to be 44.3¢ per hour. But wait, that’s not all! In most Pennsylvania localities, there is a 1% local wage tax. Better make that 44.7¢ an hour. And we haven’t said the first word about federal income taxes!
So, in these rough economic times, how many people are getting 45¢ an hour raises? And if you do get that 45¢ per hour raise, how do you feel knowing that you’re going to be giving it all back into increased energy costs?
That, of course, isn’t the end of it. As the government needlessly and mindlessly increases energy costs, the cost of everything you buy increases: producers of goods have to make up that increased energy cost, the companies which transport the goods from the producer to the retailer have increased energy costs to recoup, and the retailers have to recoup their increased energy costs.
What is $16 a week? Well, for some people, it might be dinner for the family one night. Perhaps the Democrats think that American families ought to miss supper one night a week. For others, it might be lunches at work for three days; isn’t it great that President Obama is so concerned about your weight that he wants you to miss lunch thrice a week?
A very simple, very basic economic lesson: nothing is free. You have to pay for everything. The Democrats think that this bill is a good one, that these things need to be done, but the fact is that to do what the Democrats want will cost the American people money, cost them a lot of money. For President Obama, a millionaire, $64 a month really isn’t much. For congressmen earning $174,000 a year — and the congressional leadership is paid more — perhaps coming up with $64 a month isn’t an unbearable expense. Of course, having gotten raises iof $4,700 for 2009 — something rather more than 45¢ an hour¹ — perhaps the honorable gentlemen never considered that some people don’t get quite as large a raises.
For the better part of a century, the Democrats have painted themselves as the party of the working man, and they’ve been pretty successful in selling that idea. But I’d think that a party which looks out for the working man would think twice about increasing the burdens on working people, on working-class families, I’d think that a party which looks out for the working man would understand a little bit more about how the people they supposedly protect actually live their lives and manage their finances.
Apparently if I did think that, I’d be wrong.
¹ – For a full time employee, without overtime, 45¢ an hour translates to $936 a year.