I think we all understand how devastating Cap and Tax would have been had it passed in Washington DC but it’s still on the table. Take a look at California to see how bad it would be if passed on national level.
Just because Cap and Trade did not pass on a federal level does not mean it doesn’t exist on a state level.
What is Proposition 23 in California? Proposition 23 would have dismantled California’s AB32/Cap and Trade, a global warming initiative passed in 2006. Presently, the state has a 12.4% unemployment rate. On November second, Proposition 23 did not get the votes and AB32/Cap and Trade continues legislative implementation in California. When Proposition 23 gained national attention, the news talked about environmental groups against oil tycoons. The bigger story are the people within the state; businesses, individuals concerned for their family and jobs and activists in many organizations including the Tea Party have studied AB32 and understand Cap and Trades long term negative effects on the California economy. The movement against AB32 was not enough against the environmental “CooCoo” groups and Democrat run welfare state.
Who stands to gain in the implementation of Cap and Trade in California. The Heartland Institute summarizes it best:
“Why would Wall Street be lining up to support a law that supposedly reins in “big polluters”? Not some altruistic desire to save the planet from an unsettled climate. Those companies and investors have business model that rely on state subsidies and rules mandating use of incredibly expensive “alternative energy” over cheaper, traditional power sources.
That isn’t altruism; that’s good, old-fashioned rent-seeking—which is itself a euphemism for legalized extortion.
Second, the promise of “green jobs” cannot make up for the loss of traditional manufacturing and tech jobs that will be lost if AB 32 regulations take effect next year as planned. Says who? Not “out-of-state oil interests,” but the state government.
A little-noticed draft report by a special advisory panel to the California Air Resources Board in December noted matter-of-factly how AB 32’s policies “can be expected to raise the price of fuels and these price increases will be reflected in higher prices of consumer goods.”
Basically, California can look forward to increased fines, fees, energy prices and taxes under the name of global warming to fullfill pet projects for the state and Wall Street. Do we see a trend? We learned about what is happening in New Jersey a couple of weeks ago. If a state has no more money in the “till”, then the states, in this case, California, finds creative ways, like global warming, to create more revenue since state tax revenue is not enough. Interesting……….
Here is the funny part, Jerry Brown has been reelected governor. A man, who forty years ago opened up the doors to increased state spending that put California in financial despair. He was attorney General helping to sign and implement Cap and Trade under Governor Schwarzeneggers leadership. Now, Jerry Brown can follow through on his long term goals with Wall Steet, Enviromental groups, and other small selected groups who financially gain from Cap and Trade to continue to make California a bigger welfare state than ever before.
Are there any next steps to combat Cap and Trade In California. YES!!! There are attorney generals from four states; North Dakota, Texas, Nebraska, and Alabama planning to file a lawsuit. (The article is below) I do not feel this will be enough to stop Cap and Trade in California but there are states concerned and taking action. There should be more people involved.