Saturday, April 19, 2008

Congressional Energy Diet Also Reduces Waistlines and Pocketbooks (Don't Even Ask About Global Warming!)

From David Almasi:

The liberal leadership in Congress came to power in 2006 saying they had a solution to rising gas prices. Did that solution involve prices continuing to go up and taking the cost of food with them?

When Americans decided to clean up the environment in the 1950s, there was a lot of trust in the American people. There were regulations to clean things up, of course, but voluntary action, anti-littering campaigns and appeals to our better nature went a long way.

But the trust factor has been eviscerated, and it's to no one's benefit.

As National Center Senior Fellow Dana Joel Gattuso points out in a Townhall column:

Congress doesn't trust consumers to make the right decision when it comes to selecting the right source of energy. Congress knows better. That's why legislation out of Capitol Hill is all about weaning us off oil and putting us directly on a "renewable energy" diet.

Witness the energy tax bill the House passed in February that slaps $18 billion in taxes on oil production to fund wind, solar, biofuels, and other "alternative" sources. Witness the new energy law passed in December mandating that Americans increase the use of ethanol and other biofuels at the pump to 36 billion gallons by 2022, up from 7 billion gallons required now. And witness the new farm bill that gives corn growers $10.5 billion in subsidies over the next five years, no matter how fast the price of corn rises - which, incidentally, has gone from $3.50 a bushel to a record $5.50 over the past three months.

Commenting directly on mismatched concerns over abundance and price when it comes to food and energy, Dana writes:

Even with oil topping $109 a barrel [on April 15], it is still relatively abundant. As the U.S. Geological Survey reports, there are 3 trillion billion barrels of oil reserves still available globally. For perspective, since the first automobile rolled off the assembly line, we've consumed only one trillion barrels.

Conversely, ethanol and other biofuels are extremely limited resources requiring enormous amounts of water, energy, and land otherwise used for growing food. The new energy law's requirement that Americans use 15 billion gallons of corn for fuel by 2015 - that doesn't include the other 21 billion gallons to come from non-food sources like switchgrass and corn husks - will consume an astounding 30 million acres of cropland. That means unless the mandates are repealed, more than a third of our corn crops will be diverted from food to fuel in just seven years.

U.S. policies forcing biofuel usage already are creating food shortages in third world countries, elevating food prices to historic levels.

It's worth it to combat global warming, right? Wrong.

Two independent studies in the journal Science report that the clearing of forests, grasslands, and other ecosystems throughout the world to grow corn, soybean, and other food-for-fuels will double greenhouse emissions over the next 30 years. Because plants and soil hold enormous quantities of carbon, destroying existing plants and tilling the soil releases the stored carbon.

Still in a mood to celebrate Earth Day this coming Tuesday?

To read Dana's commentary in its entirety, click here.

_____

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:52 PM

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Fox News Reports on New Anti-Global Warming Gas Tax Poll

Fox News' William La Jeunesse has reported several stories on the National Center for Public Policy Research's just-released poll measuring the public's willingness to pay more for gasoline to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

The clip above is one that appeared on the Fox Report with Shepherd Smith on March 19. Click the picture to view the clip with poll graphics or read the transcrip below:

Michigan Congressman Wants 50-Cent Tax Hike on Every Gallon of Gas

A Michigan congressman wants to put a 50-cent tax on every gallon of gasoline to try to cut back on Americans' consumption.

Polls show that a majority of Americans support policies that would reduce greenhouse gases. But when it comes to paying for it, it's a different story.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., wants to help cut consumption with a gas tax but some don't agree with the idea, according to a new poll by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

The poll, scheduled to be released on Thursday, shows 48 percent don't support paying even a penny more, 28 percent would pay up to 50 cents more, 10 percent would pay more than 50 cents and 8 percent would pay more than a dollar.

"I don't want to pay more, I don't think anyone wants to," said Karen Deacon, a motorist.

"I think that wouldn't make any sense," said Frankie Hoe, a motorist. "Ugh ... who's making the money from all this and where is that money going? Is it going to go green? I don't see any green things anywhere."

The automobile is the nation's biggest polluter; Americans use more gas than the next 20 countries combined.

Some environmentalists and economists say pain at the pump may be bad for Americans, but good medicine for a sick planet.

But others say it wouldn't change much. Even if Americans abandoned their cars, global emissions would fall by less than one percent.

"A tax on gas is a way to reduce dependence on import oil, reduce traffic congrestion and reduce carbon emissions," said Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute.

The Earth Policy Institute proposes raising the gas tax 30 cents per gallon each year over a decade and offset with a reduction of income taxes, Brown said.

David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, said the proposal wouldn't help long term.

"I think when you are talking about raising gas prices, there may be short-term reduction, put off vacations, but bottom line is over long term, that isn't going to have much of an effect," Ridenour said.

While Dingell's idea will likely lie dormant until after the 2008 election, the idea of carbon taxes is not. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all support some type of system that either directly or indirectly will raise prices to penalize polluters.

_____

Labels: Business, Climate, Conservatives, Environment, Liberals, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:34 PM

Americans Cool to Action Against Global Warming, New Poll Finds

Today the National Center for Public Policy Research will release the results of its new nationwide poll asking Americans how much more they would be willing to pay in gasoline taxes to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight global warming.

Our press release follows; you can go straight to the poll results here (pdf):

Americans Cool to Global Warming Action, New Poll Finds Nearly Half Wouldn't Be Willing to Pay Even a Penny More for Gasoline; Opposition to Taxes Especially Strong Among Minorities

For Release: March 20, 2008
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Washington, D.C.: Forty-eight percent of Americans are unwilling to spend even a penny more in gasoline taxes to help reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new nationwide survey released today by the National Center for Public Policy Research.
The poll found just 18% of Americans are willing to pay 50 cents or more in additional taxes per gallon of gas to reduce greenhouse emissions. U.S. Representative John Dingell (D-MI), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, has called for a 50 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, transportation accounts for 33% of the U.S.'s man-made carbon dioxide emissions. Over 60% of these emissions - or about 20% of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions - result from burning gasoline in personal automobiles.

"With one-fifth of all U.S. CO2 emissions coming from light trucks and cars, any serious effort to significantly reduce U.S. emissions would have to encourage fuel conservation in personal automobiles," said David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. "But almost half of all Americans oppose spending more for gasoline, despite polls indicating wide public concern over global warming. These results suggest Americans' concern may not be as deep as we've been led to believe."

Opposition to increased gasoline taxes was especially strong among minorities, with 53% of African-Americans indicating they are unwilling to pay higher gas taxes in any amount. Eighty-four percent of blacks and 78% of Hispanics opposed paying an additional 50 cents or more for their gasoline.

"It's not surprising that minorities oppose higher gas taxes in large numbers, as such taxes are sharply regressive, harming the economically-disadvantaged disproportionately," said Ridenour. "An extra $300 per year in taxes means little to someone making $100,000 annually. When you're just getting by, it can mean not having enough for food, rent or utility bills."

Voters were told: "Congress is currently considering legislation that would raise the tax on gasoline in an attempt to motivate Americans to conserve fuel and reduce greenhouse gas emissions." They were asked to indicate how much more they'd be willing to pay on top of what they already pay in gasoline taxes. They were given seven choices: nothing, less than 50 cents, 50 cents, one dollar, two dollars, five dollars, eight dollars or more.

Eighteen percent indicated they are willing to pay an additional 50 cents per gallon of gas or more; eight percent indicated they're willing to spend a dollar or more and just 2% said they're willing to spend $2 or more.

"Congressman Dingell's proposal to raise gas taxes by 50 cents per gallon appears to be dead-on-arrival as far as the public is concerned. Even if it wasn't, Dingell's proposal is too modest to encourage any meaningful fuel conservation," said Ridenour. "Europeans routinely pay between $4 and $5 per gallon of gas in taxes and their fuel appetite continues to grow nevertheless. Just 1% of Americans are willing to spend an additional $5 dollars or more. Republicans are willing to do so by a 3 to 1 margin over Democrats."

Opposition to any gas tax hike was strongest in the Great Lakes, home of the automakers and Congressman John Dingell, at 56%, followed by New England (51%) and the Farm Belt (50%).

Opposition grew once respondents were informed that eliminating passenger cars in the United States altogether would only reduce world emissions by a fraction.

Among those who indicated they are willing to pay more for gasoline to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 58% indicated that they are less willing to do so, and 42% much less willing, when informed their sacrifice would produce little positive results.

"Many global warming polls ask the wrong questions," said Ridenour. "We shouldn't ask Americans if action is needed on global warming, but how much more they’re willing to pay for that action. We need to also ask whether people would still be willing to pay more, given the almost certain futility of it."

The poll was conducted February 24-26 by Wilson Research Strategies, which surveyed 800 registered voters who are likely to vote in the 2008 presidential election. The poll has a margin of error of 3.46% at a 95% confidence interval.

Full poll results may be found at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NCPPR_Global_Warming_Poll_Questions_0208.pdf

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-partisan, non-profit educational foundation established in 1982 that supports commonsense, market-based solutions to environmental problems.

-30-

_____

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Liberals, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:44 AM

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

A 20,000 Percent Tax increase

Professor Bainbridge has the details.
_____

Labels: Congress, Health Care, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:06 PM

Friday, June 08, 2007

"A Unique Opportunity for Federal Money"

Rarely is a green politician so straightforward about one of the main motivators of green advocates:

Just a day after announcing that he had the support of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is presenting his plan for a green New York at the first in a series of state hearings today.

The mayor kicked off his testimony at the first in a series of State Assembly hearings in Midtown by going straight to the heart of the matter, urging lawmakers to approve his controversial congestion pricing plan.

'Time is running out on us,' he told Assembly members. 'We have a unique opportunity for federal money... Now is the time to do this.'

The article goes on to explain how taxpayers in all 50 states would be required to pony up $225 million so the city of New York could charge cars $8 and trucks $21 to enter Manhattan.

This brings me to my second bit of praise for Mayor Bloomberg: His admission that some taxes cost money.

If only Mayor Bloomberg realized that requiring people in Kansas and Alabama to pay for a local New York City initiative is a BAD thing, not an "opportunity."
_____

Labels: Environment, Government Spending, Regulation, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:57 PM

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Fourteen-Year-Old Worker Fined $352 for Not Filing Tax Return on $3.16 Paid in Taxes

A Pennsylvania tax collection bureau fined a teenager $352 and threatened her with arrest for not filing a local income tax return on $316 of work.

Fourteen-Year-Old Worker Fined $352 for Not Filing Tax Return on $3.16 Paid in Taxes

Laurie Hanniford, a 17-year-old high school junior in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, was mystified by the certified letter she picked up at the post office in May, 2003.

Was it her senior driver's license, or perhaps something from a college?

Unfortunately, no. It was a criminal complaint threatening her with arrest.

Hanniford called her parents from the post office. According to the Associated Press, Hanniford's mother said Laurie "couldn't drive, she was crying so hard."

When she was 14 years old, Hanniford had worked part-time as a swim instructor. That summer, she made $316. The $3.16 she owed in taxes was deducted from her paychecks. Three years later, the letter said, she was being fined $352 - more than she had made - for not filing a local tax return in conjunction with the $3.16 she had paid in taxes.

The Capital Tax Collection Bureau, which collects taxes from 75 localities and school districts, said it had sent her three notices informing her that she had to file a return. It took legal action when she did not respond. The Hannifords said they never received the letters, and the CTCB's own bureau director admitted that the notices are often mistaken for junk mail.

"It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of to fine her - she was 14 at the time - for taxes that have already been paid," said Hanniford's mother Sarah.

Even though Hanniford had paid her taxes on time, she still paid a heavy price for not filing the paperwork. The teenager was forced to appear in front of District Justice Susan Day to defend herself, where she pleaded no contest. Her fine was then reduced to $77.

According to the Associated Press, about two dozen other teens received letters similar to Laurie's.

Sources: Pittsburgh Post Gazette (June 6, 2003), CBS News (June 6, 2003), Associated Press (June 8, 2003)

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**

_____

Labels: Regulatory Victims, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:28 PM

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Bad News For The "Tax Cuts Cause Deficits" Crowd

From David Hogberg:

A new report (pdf) out by the GAO looks at how two different simulations affect future budget deficits. The first one assumes that spending continues at the same rate of recent years and the Bush tax cuts are extended. The second assumes that the Bush tax cuts expire after 2010 and that increases in discretionary spending is held to increases in inflation, a rate much lower than recent years.

Unfortunately for the tax-cuts-cause-deficits folks, the reports states, "Although the timing of deficits and the resulting debt build up varies depending on the assumptions used, both simulations show that we are on an unsustainable fiscal path."

Looks like spending is the number one culprit of deficits. And the two biggest culprits, based on numbers in the report, are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

The lesson: Entitlement reform, not tax increases.

-David Hogberg

_____

Labels: Government Spending, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:09 AM