Calling for a necessary transition to a low carbon energy economy, 83 CEOs sent a letter to President Obama demanding movement on cap and trade legislation to create green jobs. According to the press release, “the letter was signed by 83 CEOs from some of the nation’s largest electric power, manufacturing, clean tech, technology and consumer facing companies.”
Imagine that. The politically invested companies that stand to gain the most from cap and trade and spent millions to lobby this bill through Congress want to see it passed at the expense of American energy consumers and the American economy. This is no different than Archer Daniels Midland sending a letter to the president asking for an increase in the ethanol mandate. Robert Bradley Jr. calls cap and trade the Enron Revitalization Act. He even includes a memo from Enron lobbyist John Palmisano about the Kyoto agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:
If implemented, this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States. The potential to add incremental gas sales, and additional demand for renewable technology is enormous.”
Other than the direct beneficiaries, cap and trade is a raw deal for Americans, but that’s certainly not how the letter reads. The CEOs’ letter says, “This legislation will spur a new energy economy and with it create 1.7 million new American jobs, many in struggling communities across the country.” With enough subsidies and government mandates in place, cap and trade could ostensibly create 1.7 million jobs. But according to calculation from Heritage Foundation economists, cap and trade legislation would destroy far more jobs than the policy would create. The Center for Data Analysis study on the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill found net job losses (after green job creation) approach 1.9 million in 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035. Manufacturing loses 1.4 million jobs in 2035.
One example where this already happened is Spain. The country spends about $8 billion a year on green energy subsidies. The result is that for every green job created, 2.2 jobs were lost because so much money was taken out of viable parts of the economy and put into a more unreliable green market.
The free lunchers forget to take into consideration that subsidies and government handouts for renewable projects diverts those workers and resources away from more productive use. Moreover, a cap and trade policy will destroy more jobs than it creates. Because cap and trade is a tax on energy, the cost of producing goods for businesses increases, and consumer demand falls for two reasons; price hikes on goods reduce demand and people have less disposable income due to higher energy prices.
Higher energy prices force businesses to make production cuts and reduce labor. Furthermore, as we see in the current recession, reduced consumer spending only exacerbates this. The overall result is increased unemployment and slow economic growth. Jobs will either mover overseas or cease to exist. Smaller businesses that can’t absorb the costs or afford lobbyists will simply disappear.
And we’re not the only ones projecting losses. At a recent Heritage event on the costs of cap and trade, not one of the 6 speakers representing groups who modeled the bill, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, discussed economic benefits from cap and trade – it was all about the magnitude of the losses.
The letter goes on to say, “We need strong policies and clear market signals that support the transition to a low-carbon economy and reward companies that innovate.” Take out the words “support the transition to a low-carbon economy and” and you have sound energy policy that would lead increase production, create jobs, and lower energy prices.
Earlier today, the American Medical Association (AMA) released a letter that Politico describes as an endorsement of “Obama-style health reform.” Adding that the White House is sure to use this letter to “undermine the GOP response.” Based on that description, the AMA must have really come out strong in favor of Obamacare, right? Wrong.
The Open Letter to the President from AMA President J. James Rohack MD reminds us of the long-running sitcom Seinfeld, because it is a letter about nothing. It offers no specifics, offers no endorsement and mostly offers rhetoric all sides completely agree with. In honor of football’s return this week, let’s break the letter down John Madden-style:
The Coin Flip: They remind the President he has a historic opportunity and urges him to seek an agreement on reform that includes “critical elements.” So far, a very cordial introduction. This is the obligatory handshake before the game and everyone is smiling.
“Provide Health Insurance Coverage for All Americans”: On the ensuing kickoff, everyone goes to the kitchen to grab snacks because everyone in America has already agreed that the goal is to get more U.S. citizens insured. This team has no opponents.
“Enact insurance market reforms that expand choice of affordable coverage and eliminate denials for pre-existing conditions”: On the opening drive, the AMA fumbles. They are asking the President and lawmakers to expand “choice”, except the President’s current plan only limits it. In fact, under his current plan, millions of Americans would have no choice but to be knocked out of their current private coverage and forced into a government-run plan. That certainly does not represent an expansion of “choice.”
“Assure that health care decisions are made by patients and their physicians, not by insurance companies or government officials”: Conservatives score. This line clearly demonstrates that the AMA is NOT endorsing the President’s plan, since his plan is fundamentally built around government officials making health care decisions. And what is the easiest way to achieve the goal of less government intervention? Pretty easy. Don’t create a government-run health care system to start with. Period. This play was definitely not designed to show support for President Obama’s plan.
Incentives, reforms, streamlining: The AMA does not advance the ball here. They use vague language to say that reform of the current health care system is necessary, costs must be reduced and administrative burdens should be eliminated. We agree. Does the AMA believe that adding a government bureaucracy will reduce costs or eliminate administrative burdens? Has any government program ever achieved this benchmark? No.
“The [AMA] and our individual members are working hard to improve health care delivery…”: The AMA misses the trade deadline, not noticing that many of their members are vocally opposing President Obama’s health care plans. As Forbes magazine put it best: “If the AMA can’t squelch this grassroots rebellion, it might be less able, in the future, to claim to represent doctors in public policy debates.”
“We reaffirm our commitment to work with each of you…”: And the game is over. The AMA said nothing. They did not endorse Obamacare, nor did they promote the general principles which are rooted in Obamacare.
Medical practitioners and members of the AMA must be upset today, because Dr. Rohack sent them into the game without a cohesive strategy for success and without representing the interests of his membership. Rohack merely offered a laundry list of vague pleasantries. President Obama will undoubtedly brag of this “endorsement,” but what did they actually endorse? Nothing.