-
WHY YOU SHOULD BECOME A MEMBERBy becoming a member of The Heritage Foundation with your tax-deductible gift of $25 or more, you will join hundreds of thousands of conservatives around the nation in supporting our work to build an America where freedom, prosperity, opportunity and civil society flourish.
Since 1973, we have been working to advance the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
Our hard work has paid off time and again. Since our founding, we have seen substantial gains for the conservative agenda and The Heritage Foundation has swelled to include nearly 400,000 members. In fact, our work would not have been possible without our members’ support.
» Read more about Heritage’s achievements
-
Cap and Trade Energy =
Zap and Fade Economy5/18/2009Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) have proposed a “cap and trade” bill to purportedly help fight global warming. Though the proposed legislation will have little impact on world temperatures, it is a massive energy tax in disguise that promises job losses, income cuts, and a sharp left-turn towards big government.
President Barack Obama described the plan best when he said “[u]nder my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” And skyrocket they will. In total, a typical family of four will see its energy costs rise by over $22,800 from 2012-2035.
But it gets worse. When energy costs increase, the costs of all goods and services increase. Businesses have to pay a higher overhead, and they pass that on to consumers. Manufacturers, an energy-intensive industry, will have to pay more to produce their products, so the price of their products will rise to reflect the higher costs of production. The $22,800 does not include this higher cost of living, nor does it include the higher expenditure for such things as more energy efficient cars and appliances or the disutility of driving smaller, less safe vehicles or the discomfort of using less heating and cooling.
Because almost every industry and American uses some form of fossil fuel-based energy, the impact of an energy tax of this level will be disastrous to the American economy. For example, The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has found that by 2035 the Waxman-Markey bill will have the following economic impact:
- Reduce aggregate Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $9.6 trillion
- Destroy up to 2.5 million jobs in some years
- Raise electric rates 90%, gasoline prices by 74%, and natural gas prices by 55% after adjusting for inflation
- Raise a typical family’s average annual energy bill by $1,500
With unemployment at 8.9%, now is not the time to subject our economy and American families to such a burdensome tax. The impact of Waxman-Markey on the next generation of families is thousands of dollars per year in higher energy costs, over $116,600 of additional federal debt (above and beyond the unconscionable increases already scheduled), a weaker economy, and more unemployment. And all for a change in world temperature that might not be noticeable.
Question 1 Last year, President Obama swept into office on a promise to confront tough choices--and then released a budget proposing the largest debt-and-spending spree in American history. With Washington having committed itself to more government than its taxpayers could realistically afford, basic fiscal responsibility demands that the President scale back his expensive proposals. Instead, this year's budget is even more fiscally irresponsible.
Question 2 
Mark from Long Beach, CA asks: “What is the percentage of the national budget being spent for defense? I see the number given as a percentage of the GDP, but how does that compare to the actual budget?” OUR ANSWER: Defense is about 17% of overall federal spending, or less than one-fifth of the budget. To learn more about defense spending, check out our book of charts on the subject here. Page 5 of this special report shows the breakdown of the federal budget, including defense funds.Question 3 The spending and "jobs" proposals outlined by President Barack Obama in his State of the Union Address last week would not have the economic and budget-cutting effects the President intends.
Please leave this field empty
