In a shocking twist of events, it appears that the authors of a cap-and-tax climate bill wrote a lot of special perks into the bill for their states! Say it ain’t so!
From The Washington Times:
The EPA estimates provided to Mr. Feingold showed that utilities in coastal states would get the most free allowances handed out to comply with the House bill. California and New York would, under the House bill, be in line to get more than they needed, the EPA estimated. Massachusetts would get nearly all it needs.
The losers under the House-backed bill would be those states whose senators are leery of backing a similar bill by Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, and Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, based on fears that the bill will mean higher electricity prices to their constituents.
States like Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Missouri, the Dakotas, Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana get at best just 75 percent of the allowances they would need. The House bill would give allowances to utilities, factories, refiners and others to help them offset energy price increases expected under the law and to pay for renewable energy development.
Needless to say, the findings are sure to lead to massive infighting between states and legislators who want more handouts for chosen industries. The government is fundamentally unable to pick winners and losers in an impartial manner. Therein lies the problem with massive government redistribution – it’s impossible to please all the people all the time (particularly the ones that get the short end of the stick.)
The solution? Don’t give such power to the government in the first place. Allow consumers decide what utilities they want to consume and if they want to buy from companies with renewable portfolio standards. Forcing consumers to pay more for utilities against their will (even if the government thinks it’s “for the best”) demonstrates a flagrant disregard for Americans.