Bolstering the argument Congressman Shuster made in his recent editorial, the Brookings Institution released a report titled "Consequences of Cap and Trade" that outlines how the national energy tax supported by Speaker Pelosi and President Obama would lower economic output, increase unemployment and make lighting, heating and cooling our homes and running our cars more expensive.
The report notes that Speaker Pelosi’s new national energy tax would:
- Reduce total personal consumption by 0.3 percent to 0.5 percent, or about $1 trillion to $2 trillion in from 2010 to 2050;
- Reduce the level of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by around 2.5 percent relative to what it otherwise would have been in 2050;
- Reduce employment levels by 0.5 percent in the first 10 years alone.
The tax could cost American families up to $3,100 per year, will send countless American jobs overseas to China and India at a time when U.S. workers can afford it least, and place an enormous burden on everyone any time they flip on a light switch, drive a car, or when buy any product manufactured in the United States. At a time when gas prices have risen 41 days in a row, as today’s New York Times reports, do the Democrats really think now is a good time to be punishing the American people with higher taxes on energy?
House Republicans have a better solution: an “all of the above” energy strategy that will clean up the environment, create jobs in America, and lower energy prices – without raising taxes on a single American family or small business. Led by Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-IN), the GOP American Energy Solutions Group has outlined the cornerstones of the House Republican approach to energy:
- Increasing environmentally-safe energy production on remote lands and far off our shores;
- Promoting the use of alternative fuels that will reduce carbon emissions, such as nuclear, clean-coal, and renewable energy technologies; and
- Encouraging increased efficiencies and cutting edge technologies to maximize America’s energy potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment