Harmful Implications from Cap and Trade
By Rep. Denny Rehberg
The Montanans I represent are willing to take reasonable steps to ensure that the world we leave for our children is clean and safe. I've also found that the people in our neck of the woods don't like it when lawmakers play dishonest word games instead of shooting straight.
I've warned about the implications of cap and trade for the energy industry and America's families. Any policy that boasts hundreds of billions in new federal revenue has to get that money from somewhere. Under the cap and trade plan, the average American family is looking at an annual increase in energy costs of $3,100. But for states like Montana, where more than 60% of our electricity comes from coal - it could be even more. That's why the Montanans I've talked to are expressing more concerns about cap and trade every day.
The powerful special interests that support cap and trade were already worried when the public started asking questions. They outright panicked when the Chairman of the House Energy Committee John Dingell – a Democrat – warned that “no one in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax, and it's a great big one.” Calling cap and trade for what it was - a tax - wasn't in their talking points.
After that, the spin-misters went nuts, firing off a flurry of damage control memos. But rather than fixing the flawed policy, they instead decided to change the name. “Cap and trade,” they suggested, should be renamed “cap and cash back” or “cap and invest.” Anything to hide the policy for what it really is – “cap and tax.” Americans, they hope, will be too naïve to recognize a ruse by another name.
Fortunately, most Americans are smart enough to see through the spin. They know bull when they hear it, and when it comes to cap and trade, the bull is being dumped by the truckload.
Rep. Denny Rehberg is a NetRight Nation contributor.