Yesterday, Paul Krugman attacked The Heritage Foundation and other opponents of cap and trade.
Are the opponents of cap-and-trade relying on different studies that reach fundamentally different conclusions? No, not really. It’s true that last spring the Heritage Foundation put out a report claiming that Waxman-Markey would lead to huge job losses, but the study seems to have been so obviously absurd that I’ve hardly seen anyone cite it.
The problem there, as Heritage points out in their response, is that their study has been cited plenty..
And if Krugman hasn’t seen anyone cite our numbers perhaps he should check: USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, CNN, Roll Call, The Washington Times, The Detroit News, The National Review, The Examiner, Congressional Quarterly (9/18/09), The Chicago Sun Times, CBSNews.com, USAgNet, Denver Post, McClatchy-Tribune, Chattanooga Times-Free Press, Debeque Tribune Herald, Investors Business Daily, Greenville SC News, Richmond Times Dispatch, Charleston Post & Courier, Manchester Union Leader, Seattle Times, International Business Times, Florida Times-Union, Omaha World-Herald, Cincinnati Inquirer, The Hill, Grand Rapids Press (7/12/09), The Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Daily Independent, The Tennessean, or the National Journal – to name a few on a much more exhaustive list.
There have also been plenty of references made to the study in Congress. Then there is inconvenient truth that Heritage isn't the only think tank or organization that has found that cap and trade will raise taxes or cost jobs. The Brookings Institution says it would cost 1.7 million jobs. The National Black Chamber of Commerce projects even higher job loses (2.3-2.7 million jobs a year through 2030 even after taking into account the creation of the so-called "green jobs." A study by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation, found similar adverse effects on the economy.
Of course just last week, the Obama administration even admitted that the caps and trade could cost families $1,761 a year. So, why are we even talking about this anymore? It shouldn't even be an issue anymore, especially in this economy.
Despite plenty of data from plenty of sources, there are some still determined to make a case for bad legislation that, when all is said and done, won't make any significant positive impact on the environment. Even if there was Americans just aren't willing to pay more money as a result of legislation claiming to fight global warming.
So, why waste taxpayer dollars and American jobs for a lost cause? The Czech president was bold enough to declare the U.N. Climate Summit propaganda, we need more members of Congress to stand up against cap and trade. We're winning tho health care debate, we can win this one too...
....no matter how much Paul Krugman wants to deny the facts.