Climate bill to pay hundreds of dollars in rebates to low income families

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Low-income families will receive hundreds of dollars a year to help pay higher energy bills if Congress enacts the first-ever limits on the gases blamed for global warming, according to a new analysis.

But it is unclear just how much more those families will have to pay for energy.

A Congressional Budget Office analysis of the cost of global warming legislation working its way through the House estimates that low-income families could initially receive $161-$359 in credits or rebates, if the bill becomes law. That amount could rise to $282-$628 by 2019, depending on the family's size.

The money would come from the government auctioning off pollution permits to companies that release climate-altering gases. The amount of permits that will be sold will increase over time and they will become more expensive, generating $846 billion from 2010-2019, the analysis says.

The bulk of that money — $693 billion — would be given away as free permits to companies and states to ease costs. The remainder will pay for research, the energy tax credits and rebates, and a worker assistance program that will provide benefits including lost wages and health insurance to people who lose their jobs because of the limits placed on global warming pollution.

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who is sponsoring the bill along with Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., called it a win-win Monday, pointing out that it could actually reduce the federal deficit by a total of $24 billion over the next 10 years. Over that decade, however, the deficit is expected to total $9.3 trillion.

"The Waxman-Markey bill will get our planet out of the red, while helping to put our budget back in black," Markey said in a statement.

President Barack Obama has repeatedly said that any effort to control the gases blamed for global warming should provide relief to lower-income households. His budget proposal called for the auctioning of 100 percent of the permits to companies, with most of the money going to poor and middle-class families to ease higher energy prices.

The bill before Congress would only return revenues directly to families from the sale of 15 percent of the permits. It is unclear just how much of the additional cost in energy and other goods the resulting rebate or credit will cover.

Various studies by the federal government, universities, and think tanks have found that the average household could pay an extra $98 to $1,600 a year for electricity, gas and other goods that need energy to be produced if the government requires mandatory reductions in heat-trapping gases. Lower-income households are likely to feel the burden more because they spend a greater percentage of their income on energy.

The price increases are expected to come as companies pass on the cost of buying permits and reducing the emissions linked to global warming.

The legislation calls for a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020, and an 83 percent cut by mid-century.

It will achieve that reduction by giving away and selling pollution permits to companies operating 7,400 facilities nationwide, including power plants, refineries and factories. Those companies can then reduce pollution to meet limits, or purchase excess permits from companies that have already met the threshold.

Republicans immediately said the analysis confirmed that energy prices would rise as a result of the legislation. They also said the tax credit — which would only apply to individuals making less than $23,000 and families earning less than $42,000 — means some working-class families will be left out.

"Increasing Americans' fuel and utility bills in this recession is not only bad policy, but it completely ignores the hardships millions of Americans are already facing," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., the top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, which plans to take up the bill this month. "This is dangerous legislation in desperate need of closer review."

___

On the Net:

Congressional Budget Office: http://www.cbo.gov

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090608/ap_on_...imate_bill_cost

[mawilson 2,133]

Republicans immediately said the analysis confirmed that energy prices would rise as a result of the legislation. They also said the tax credit — which would only apply to individuals making less than $23,000 and families earning less than $42,000 — means some working-class families will be left out.

Naturally - the guys in the middle always get screwed.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Republicans immediately said the analysis confirmed that energy prices would rise as a result of the legislation. They also said the tax credit — which would only apply to individuals making less than $23,000 and families earning less than $42,000 — means some working-class families will be left out.

Naturally - the guys in the middle always get screwed.

Not just that, but the benefits will go disproportionately to low-cost regions of the country where higher percentages of the population make that much money. I would much rather see money distributed to the states by population and then let the states decide who is low-income in their state. Who the ** makes less than 23k in the NY metro? Geez!

Edited June 8, 2009 by Randomizer

[NickD 203]

Let's take a look at just this statement:

"A Congressional Budget Office analysis of the cost of global warming legislation working its way through the House estimates that low-income families could initially receive $161-$359 in credits or rebates, if the bill becomes law."

"The money would come from the government auctioning off pollution permits to companies that release climate-altering gases."

Which for all practical purposes would be energy companies that if forced to buy permits would more than double that credit paid to low income families, making those families even poorer.

Wish I could think like a congressperson, probably could if I started smoking crack.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I got a $10 rebate on a bag of fertilizer.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

More welfare.

[nowhereman 1]

How about rebates for people who are energy efficient?

[Ban Hammer 13,703]

How about rebates for people who are energy efficient?

tough - you gotta be poor. no word yet if you are poor and energy wasteful.

[GaryC 7]

Let's take a look at just this statement:

"A Congressional Budget Office analysis of the cost of global warming legislation working its way through the House estimates that low-income families could initially receive $161-$359 in credits or rebates, if the bill becomes law."

"The money would come from the government auctioning off pollution permits to companies that release climate-altering gases."

Which for all practical purposes would be energy companies that if forced to buy permits would more than double that credit paid to low income families, making those families even poorer.

Wish I could think like a congressperson, probably could if I started smoking crack.

This is the part that gets me. If the idea is to reduce the dreaded CO2 poison then why sell permits to emitt it? It's just a scam to make money for the government. And guess who is going to pay for it? The much lauded and often screwed middle class. What a joke.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

How about rebates for people who are energy efficient?

That means you are successful. Success will be punished (taxed).

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's a .pdf of the bill. I'm trying to find a version for dummies...apologies to the scientifically challenged.

[natty bumppo 297]

Let's take a look at just this statement:

"A Congressional Budget Office analysis of the cost of global warming legislation working its way through the House estimates that low-income families could initially receive $161-$359 in credits or rebates, if the bill becomes law."

"The money would come from the government auctioning off pollution permits to companies that release climate-altering gases."

Which for all practical purposes would be energy companies that if forced to buy permits would more than double that credit paid to low income families, making those families even poorer.

Wish I could think like a congressperson, probably could if I started smoking crack.

This is the part that gets me. If the idea is to reduce the dreaded CO2 poison then why sell permits to emitt it? It's just a scam to make money for the government. And guess who is going to pay for it? The much lauded and often screwed middle class. What a joke.

wonder how much the gov't will be taxed for releasing all that climate-altering gas out of Washington?

[one...two...tree 2,762]