Plenty of Reasons For Mistrust
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Those who have had business dealings with the U.S. federal government have learned that counting on them as a reliable business partner is not the pathway to a successful business model. Reports abound on how the auto dealers who have been involved in the “cash for clunkers” program have endured an endless morass of bureaucratic hassles getting their money for the autos delivered.
Part of the promise of the Climate Change Tax legislation is that to offset the carbon tax impacts agricultural producers would be able to receive payments for their practices for sequestering carbon. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified, that if the version of the legislation that passed the House were to become to law, a sizeable amount of acres now dedicated to growing food would be used to grow trees, cashing in on the economic opportunity created by the government’s inspiration to invent a system that’s not necessary. Growing trees instead of food would have a consequence of higher food prices (to say nothing of all the other explosive costs we will be paying because our elected representatives thought it would be a good idea).
To resolve the potential of higher food prices, this Las Vegas Sun editorial (in the spirit of all who believe that government is a solution to everything) suggest that the feds should just make some more rules that would prohibit benefits from going to this purpose. Building lose-lose options, with just a bigger hammer is always the approach favored by those who think that centrally-controlled systems should be implemented. Freedom and incentives don’t get them where they want to be (even though going to those places ought not be considered in the first place).
If there needed to be any more of a reason to press the U.S. Senate to reject passage of the Climate Change Cap and Tax bill – this logic should be factored in…trusting the federal government is not a good idea.
Those who have had business dealings with the U.S. federal government have learned that counting on them as a reliable business partner is not the pathway to a successful business model. Reports abound on how the auto dealers who have been involved in the “cash for clunkers” program have endured an endless morass of bureaucratic hassles getting their money for the autos delivered.
Part of the promise of the Climate Change Tax legislation is that to offset the carbon tax impacts agricultural producers would be able to receive payments for their practices for sequestering carbon. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified, that if the version of the legislation that passed the House were to become to law, a sizeable amount of acres now dedicated to growing food would be used to grow trees, cashing in on the economic opportunity created by the government’s inspiration to invent a system that’s not necessary. Growing trees instead of food would have a consequence of higher food prices (to say nothing of all the other explosive costs we will be paying because our elected representatives thought it would be a good idea).
To resolve the potential of higher food prices, this Las Vegas Sun editorial (in the spirit of all who believe that government is a solution to everything) suggest that the feds should just make some more rules that would prohibit benefits from going to this purpose. Building lose-lose options, with just a bigger hammer is always the approach favored by those who think that centrally-controlled systems should be implemented. Freedom and incentives don’t get them where they want to be (even though going to those places ought not be considered in the first place).
If there needed to be any more of a reason to press the U.S. Senate to reject passage of the Climate Change Cap and Tax bill – this logic should be factored in…trusting the federal government is not a good idea.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 8/23/2009 7:09 AM 
Categories: Climate Change
Tags: Global Warming Cap-and-Trade Taxes Congress
Categories: Climate Change
Tags: Global Warming Cap-and-Trade Taxes Congress
Comments