In A Second Term, Obama Will Make Good On His Pledge To Continue Increasing Energy Costs

IF OBAMA IS REELECTED, THE EPA’S ASSAULT ON THE ECONOMY WILL CONTINUE

Obama Says The EPA Will Reassess Ozone Standards In 2013, If He Wins Reelection. ”He clearly understood the scientific, legal and political implications. He told Ms. Jackson that she would have an opportunity to revisit the Clean Air Act standard in 2013 – if they were still in office. We are just not going to do this now, he said.” (John Broder, “Re-Election Strategy Is Tied To A Shift On Smog,” New York Times, 11/16/11)

• Obama Suspended His Promise To Tighten Ozone Regulations To 2013. “Mr. Obama personally said he would jettison the EPA rule that would have reduced smog-forming ozone levels. He said the EPA would consider the rule again in 2013. The decision came after an aggressive industry-led push to oppose the rule, which the EPA estimated would cost as much as $90 billion per year. Chief of Staff William Daley, who was brought in to help smooth relations with business, and Cass Sunstein, who heads the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, are said to have been sympathetic to the industry point of view that the rule was unnecessary and could impose too many costs in the midst of a struggling economy, according to people familiar with the matter. Central to their thinking was that EPA is to reconsider ozone standards again in 2013.” (Deborah Soloman, Carol Lee, and Thomas Catan, “Jobs Focus For Regulations,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/6/11)

Obama Will Be Regulating Oil Refinery Greenhouse Gas Rules After 2012 Election. “The Environmental Protection Agency is acknowledging it will not complete first-time greenhouse gas standards for oil refineries in 2012. The agency had already delayed the planned mid-December 2011 rollout of draft rules, and is now confirming that the rules will not be issued in final form this year. The confirmation that the rules won’t be completed in 2012 is not a surprise, given the missed date to float them in draft form. But it nonetheless underscores the stakes of the upcoming elections for climate change advocates because President Obama’s main GOP rivals oppose EPA greenhouse gas regulations. EPA, as part of a late 2010 settlement with several states and environmentalists, had initially hoped to complete the rules by mid-November of 2012.” (Ben German, “EPA Won’t Finish Refinery Greenhouse Gas Rules In 2012, The Hill’s E2 Wire, 2/29/12)

“[I]n The Pipeline Are Restrictions On Emissions Of Greenhouse Gases, New Rules Regarding Cooling Water And The Possible Declaration Of Coal Ash As Hazardous Waste, From Which A Stream Of New Requirements Would Flow.” (“Tangled Up In Green Tape,” The Economist, 2/18/12)

Obama’s EPA Standards Will Stifle The Economy

 “Unprecedented” New EPA Rules Are “Most Expensive” In The Agency’s History. “The EPA is currently pushing an unprecedented rewrite of air-pollution rules in an attempt to shut down a large portion of the coal-fired power fleet. Though these regulations are among the most expensive in the agency’s history, none were demanded by the late Pelosi Congress. They’re all the result of purely bureaucratic discretion under the Clean Air Act, last revised in 1990.” (Editorial, “An EPA Moratorium,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/29/11)

The EPA “Firehose” Of Regulations Increase Direct Costs To Utilities, Force Plant Closures And Lead To Job Losses And Higher Prices For Consumers. “A utility, for instance, might be able to comply with a single new rule, but under the EPA firehose it might be forced to retire some of its operations.  Beyond the direct costs to the utility, plant closures would lead to job losses and higher prices for consumers and business, with their own knock-on effects.” (Editorial, “The Cost Of Lisa Jackson,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/3/11)

• “This Cluster Of Overlapping Rules Will Cause Far More Cumulative Damage Than Merely One Or Another Rule Would By Itself.” (Editorial, “The Cost Of Lisa Jackson,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/3/11)

Expensive New EPA Rules Are A Threat To Consumers, Economy, And National Security. “In practice, this will mean blackouts and rolling brownouts, as well as spiking rates for consumers. If a foreign power or terrorists wiped out 8% of U.S. capacity, such as through a cyber attack, it would rightly be considered an act of war. The EPA is in effect undermining the national security concept of ‘critical infrastructure’—assets essential to the functioning of society and the economy that Mr. Obama has an obligation to protect.” (Editorial, “An EPA Moratorium,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/29/11)

Job Creators Say Proposed Ozone Regulations Are The Greatest Threats To Economic Growth And Job Creation. “Business leaders identified the proposed ozone regulations as one of the greatest threats to U.S. economic growth and job creation now coming from the executive branch rulemaking.” (“American Businesses Single Out Proposed EPA Ozone Regulations As Major Threat To Jobs, Economy,” The Business Roundtable , 7/19/11)

• “The Agency Estimated That Complying With The New Standard Would Cost $19 Billion To $90 Billion A Year By 2020, To Be Largely Borne By Manufacturers, Oil Refiners And Utilities.” (John M. Broder, “E.P.A Seeks Stricter Rules To Curb Smog,” The New York Times, 1/7/10)

The Business Roundtable: The Final Ozone Rule “Promises To Be The Single Most Expensive Environmental Regulation Ever Imposed On The U.S. Economy.” “Prior to Friday’s meeting, the Business Roundtable – a coalition of major U.S. companies – sent a letter to White House chief of staff Bill Daley asking EPA to back off of its plans, arguing that the final rule “promises to be the single most expensive environmental regulation ever imposed on the U.S. economy” and could cost up to $90 billion annually.” (Robin Bravender, “Industry: EPA Hurts Obama in 2012,” Politico, 7/15/11)

National Association Of Manufacturers: “The Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Ozone Standards Would Cost 7.3 Million Jobs By 2020 And Add $1 Trillion In New Regulatory Costs Per Year Between 2020 And 2030, According To A Study Released By The Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI.”(National Association Of Manufacturers, “Ozone Regulations,” NAM.org, Accessed 3/5/12)

IF REELECTED, OBAMA WILL BRING BACK CAP-AND-TRADE

Obama Had To Shelve Cap-And Trade, A Top Priority Of His Agenda. “Cap-and-trade legislation also stands out as something that’s been placed on the permanent back burner in part because of how Obama handled the issue. Once the subject of countless white papers and bipartisan compromise talks, Obama’s failure to get the measure across the finish line has resulted in angry screeds from the likes of Gore, who wrote in a Rolling Stone essay this summer that the president ‘has never presented to the American people the magnitude of the climate crisis.’” (Darren Samuelsohn, “Obama’s Green Losing Streak,” Politico, 9/21/11)

But Obama Would Bring Back Cap-And-Trade If Reelected. “We have to have an even more robust energy policy if we’re going to create the kind of jobs in this new energy sector that are needed and we’re going to deal with climate change in a serious way.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, San Francisco, CA, 2/17/12)

Obama’s Cap-And-Trade Would Increase Costs For American Households

Obama: “Under My Plan Of A Cap-And-Trade System, Electricity Rates Would Necessarily Skyrocket.” OBAMA: “When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, you know, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Interview With The San Francisco Chronicle’s Editorial Board, San Francisco Chronicle, 1/17/08)

Cap-And-Trade “Is Likely To Be The Biggest Tax In American History.” “Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can’t repeal that reality.” (Editorial, “The Cap And Tax Fiction,” The Wall Street Journal,4/27/09)

 In 2009, The Obama Administration Pushed A Cap-And-Trade Plan That Would Cost Taxpayers “Up To $200 Billion A Year, The Equivalent Of Hiking Personal Income Taxes By About 15 Percent.” “The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent. … These disclosures will probably not aid the political prospects of the Democrats’ cap and trade bill.” (Declan McCullagh, “Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year,” CBS News, 9/15/09)

• “A Previously Unreleased Analysis Prepared By The U.S. Department Of Treasury Says The Total In New Taxes Would Be Between $100 Billion To $200 Billion A Year.” (Declan McCullagh, “Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year,” CBS News, 9/15/09)
• “At The Upper End Of The Administration’s Estimate, The Cost Per American Household Would Be An Extra $1,761 A Year.” (Declan McCullagh, “Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year,” CBS News, 9/15/09)

A CBO Study On Cap-and-Trade Shows $845.6 Billion In Tax Burden On Americans Through 2019. (“American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” Congressional Budget Office, 6/5/09)

Billionaire Warren Buffet Says National Energy Tax Will Hurt Poor Americans. “I think if you get into the way it was written, it’s a huge tax and there’s no sense calling it anything else.  I mean, it is a tax.  And it’s a fairly regressive tax.  If we buy permits, essentially, at our utilities, that goes right into the bills of the utility customers and an awful lot of people in Iowa, in Oregon, and Utah, and places where we are, very poor people are going to pay a lot more money for electricity...” (Warren Buffett’s Live Lunch Interview on CNBC, CNBC’s Power Lunch, 6/24/09)

Then-OMB Director Peter Orszag Said Cap-And-Trade Will “Absolutely” Lead To Higher Energy Prices. ABC’S GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: “So you’re not disputing that the cap and trade on its own will increase prices for most Americans but they’re going to be getting other benefits in the budget?” PETER ORSZAG: “Absolutely.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 3/1/09)

Cap-And-Trade Will Hurt The Economy

The CBO Says “Cap-And-Trade” Would Lead To 3.5 Percent Decrease In GDP By 2050. “[T]he Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concludes that the cap-and-trade provisions of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA), if implemented, would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) below what it would otherwise have been–by roughly 1/4 percent to 3/4 percent in 2020 and by between 1 percent and 3.5 percent in 2050.” (“The Economic Effects Of Legislation To Reduce Greenhouse-Gas Emissions,” Congressional Budget Office, 9/17/09)

Cap-And-Trade Would Lead To GDP Losses Of $9.4 Trillion Between 2012 And 2035. The Heritage Foundation: “Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035.” (David Kreutzer, et al., “The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey: An Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” The Heritage Foundation, Center For Data Analysis Report #09-04, 8/6/09)

Cap-And-Trade Will Create Higher Prices For Consumers, Fewer Jobs Created Or Higher Unemployment, And Some Companies Will Move Their Operations Overseas. “The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.” (Editorial, “The Cap And Tax Fiction,” The Wall Street Journal, 4/27/09)