RGA zings Michaud over pro-carbon tax vote

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Republican Governor’s Association (RGA) criticized U.S. Rep. Michael Michaud on Monday over the Democratic candidate for governor’s vote in favor of a “Cap and Trade” carbon tax scheme.

“Maine, like many other parts of the country, has been gripped by freezing weather and soaring heating costs. If U.S. Congressman and Democrat candidate for governor Mike Michaud had his way, the cost to heat your home would be even more expensive,” RGA Communications Director Gail Gitcho said in press release.

Gitcho said Michaud voted in 2009 to pass Cap & Trade, “a national energy tax that would have been like increasing Mainers’ personal income taxes by 15%, costing the average household an additional $1,761 per year and would have caused an increase in electricity prices by 90%.”

“Maine can’t afford Mike Michaud’s failed policies,” said Gitcho.

Here’s the rest of the RGA press release:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Passage. “Passage of the bill that would create a cap-and-trade system for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and set new requirements for electric utilities. The EPA would be allowed to auction emission allowances to permit the buyer to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases. Under the bill, three-quarters of emission allowances would be provided to polluters free of charge, based on formulas, when the cap-and-trade program would begin in 2012. Remaining allowances would be sold at auction. By 2030, 75 percent of the allowances would be sold to polluters by EPA. The bill would limit emissions at 17 percent below current levels in 2020, 42 percent in 2030 and 83 percent in 2050. Companies such as electric utilities, refineries and factories could buy and sell pollution allowances and get credit for funding special projects to reduce emissions on farms and in forests. It would require utilities to produce 15 percent of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020, with another 5 percent energy savings from efficiency. States could petition to bring the renewable mandate down to 12 percent, with 8 percent from efficiency. It would set new emissions standards for coal-fired power plants, and new energy efficiency and water use standards for buildings and products. It would establish programs to assist energy consumers with higher utility bills as a result of the system. It also would create programs for electrical transmission lines, smart grid technologies, modernizing electricity infrastructure to respond to changing conditions, reduction of emissions, increased energy efficiency, and carbon capture and sequestration.” (H.R. 2454, Vote #477: Passed 219-212: R 8-168; D 211-44, 6/26/09, Michaud voted Yea)

Cap & Trade Is A National Energy Tax

The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman Wrote “Cap-And-Trade” Supporters Don’t Use The Word Tax, “Even Though It Amounts To One.” “Advocates of cap-and-trade argue that it is preferable to a simple carbon tax because it fixes a national cap on carbon emissions and it ‘hides the ball’ — it doesn’t use the word ‘tax’ — even though it amounts to one.” (Thomas L. Friedman, “Show Us The Ball,” The New York Times, 4/8/09)

Warren Buffett Said Cap & Trade Is A “Huge Tax And There’s No Sense In Hiding It.” “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)

In November 2008, Buffett Was Named To Then-President-Elect Barack Obama’s “Transition Economic Advisory Board.”  “Preparing to inherit a deep economic and financial crisis, President-elect Barack Obama is meeting today with members of his economic advisory team. His advisers range from mega-investor Warren Buffett to Google CEO Eric Schmidt.”  (Robert Reich, “Obama’s Transition Economic Advisory Board: The Full List,” U.S. News & World Report, 11/7/08)

Cap & Trade Is A “Great Big” Tax Increase

Representative John Dingell (D-MI): “Nobody In This Country Realizes That Cap And Trade Is A Tax.  And It’s A Great Big One.” (Rep. John Dingell, House Energy and Commerce Committee and House Science Committee, Joint Hearing, 4/24/09)

The Obama Administration Concluded Cap & Trade Could Cost Taxpayers $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.”  (Declan McCullagh, “Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year,” CBS News, 9/15/09)

Cost Per American Household An “Extra $1,761 A Year.” “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. 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)

Cap & Trade Would Cause An Increase In Electricity Rates

According To An Analysis By The Heritage Foundation, “Electricity Prices Will Rise 90%.”  “In particular, the Heritage analysis projects that by 2035 the economic impacts (in constant 2009 dollars) of this bill are: . . . Electricity prices will rise 90 percent.”  (David Kreutzer, “Heritage Analysis Of Waxman-Markey Hits Where Others Miss,” The Heritage Foundation, 8/6/09)

Barack Obama: “Under My Plan Of A Cap And Trade System, Electricity Rates Will Necessarily Skyrocket.”  (Catherine Richert, “Pence Claims That Obama Said Energy Costs Will Skyrocket With A Cap-And-Trade Plan,” PolitiFact, 6/11/09)

Cap & Trade Would Cause An Increase In Gasoline Prices

According To An Analysis By The Heritage Foundation, Gas Prices Would Increase 58%, Or $1.38.  “In particular, the Heritage analysis projects that by 2035 the economic impacts (in constant 2009 dollars) of this bill are: . . . Gasoline prices will rise 58 percent (or $1.38).”  (David Kreutzer, “Heritage Analysis Of Waxman-Markey Hits Where Others Miss,” The Heritage Foundation, 8/6/09)