Why Would It Take a Freedom of Information Act?

[rushmc 23]

From the article

Quote

The previously unreleased Treasury Department analysis, which CBS News reported this week, says the new law would require new taxes between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. That’s how Treasury analysts arrived at the $1,761 per household figure.

Quote

Cap-and-Trade's Cost to Americans: $1,761 per Household

Thursday, September 17, 2009 1:07 PM

By: Dan Weil Article Font Size





The Obama administration has concluded privately that a cap-and-trade law would cost every American household $1,761 a year — or a national total of nearly $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.


The previously unreleased Treasury Department analysis, which CBS News reported this week, says the new law would require new taxes between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. That’s how Treasury analysts arrived at the $1,761 per household figure.


"Given the administration's proposal to auction all emission allowances, a cap-and-trade program could generate federal receipts on the order of $100 to $200 billion annually," according to the document, which was written by Judson Jaffe, who joined the Treasury Department's Office of Environment and Energy in January.


Because personal income tax revenues bring in around $1.37 trillion a year, a $200 billion additional tax would be the equivalent of a 15 percent increase a year. A $100 billion additional tax would represent a 7 percent or 8 percent increase a year.


That finding has been echoed by other internal Obama administration documents on the subject.


"Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation," according to a second memorandum that was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election.


CBS reported these figures based on documents that the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and released on Tuesday.

Other figures developed in studies for a new cap-and-trade law have been even more prohibitive.

House Republican Leader John Boehner has estimated that the additional tax bill would be at least $366 billion a year, or $3,100 a year per family. The Heritage Foundation says that, by 2035, "the typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year."


Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who filed the FOIA request, told CBS, "Heritage is saying publicly what the administration is saying to itself privately. It's nice to see they're not spinning each other behind closed doors."


Democrats pushing such legislation, meanwhile, have relied on estimates from MIT's John Reilly, who put the cost at $800 a year per family. They insist that tax credits to low-income households could offset part of the bite.


And responding to release of the document, The Environmental Defense Fund issued a statement insisting that the figures ignore the cost savings to consumers from cap-and-trade legislation.


“Even if a 100 percent auction was a live legislative proposal, which it's not, that math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers,” the environmental fund’s statement said. “It only looks at one side of the balance sheet. It would only be true if you think the Administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire.”


The Democrats are “not telling you the cost — they're not telling you the benefit," says Horner, who wrote the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. "If they don't tell you the cost, and they don't tell you the benefit, what are they telling you? They're just talking about global salvation."


© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/cap_and_trade/2009/09/17/261416.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[councilman24 37]

Because is was a 'private' analysis. I don't expect every analysis of every concept considered by every elected or appointed member of government to be made public routinely. In addition. the FOIA process puts controls on the inappropriate release of information. Example, releaseing a police report concerning one party to their ex-spouse when it had nothing to do with the ex-spouse, any children or their welfare. We upheld that denial of a FOIA. Appeal is to the court system, as a check and balance.

And I don't much understand the article. It talks about a 'tax' But I guess they are considering the 200 billion dollar "federal receipts" from the auction as being passed on to the consumer in higher energy costs, and being the equivalent of a 7 to 15 % tax increase paid through higher costs. Calling it a tax is deceptive IMHO.

And rightly pointed out, this is money that would either not need be collected in taxes or spent on expanded programs.

Sometimes FOIA seems to actually get in the way. In order to be fair to all it needs to be followed by all. Sometimes it is abused, sometimes it gets in the way of comon sense. In this case it appears to have done it's job. Allowed access to a 'private' analysis used in policy deliberations when access would not normally have been given.

Quote

From the article

Quote

The previously unreleased Treasury Department analysis, which CBS News reported this week, says the new law would require new taxes between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. That’s how Treasury analysts arrived at the $1,761 per household figure.

Quote

Cap-and-Trade's Cost to Americans: $1,761 per Household

Thursday, September 17, 2009 1:07 PM

By: Dan Weil Article Font Size





The Obama administration has concluded privately that a cap-and-trade law would cost every American household $1,761 a year — or a national total of nearly $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.


The previously unreleased Treasury Department analysis, which CBS News reported this week, says the new law would require new taxes between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. That’s how Treasury analysts arrived at the $1,761 per household figure.



© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/cap_and_trade/2009/09/17/261416.html

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[rushmc 23]

So, through ommision, he was lieing to us again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[councilman24 37]

Not publishing, or publicizing, every analysis of every potential policy is not lying, whether it's Bush/Cheney or Obama/Biden.

And yes, neither set is going to tell you up front everything they considered during policy debate. Get over it. It's now available if you ask. Didn't used to be.

Does something in this analysis actually surprise you? Other than people calling passing on the cost of governement regulation a tax. Is the mandate for seat belts in all cars a tax? Some may say yes. If you want to think of every dime out of our pocket associated with being governed as a tax, I guess so.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Not publishing, or publicizing, every analysis of every potential policy is not lying, whether it's Bush/Cheney or Obama/Biden.

And yes, neither set is going to tell you up front everything they considered during policy debate. Get over it. It's now available if you ask. Didn't used to be.

Does something in this analysis actually surprise you? Other than people calling passing on the cost of governement regulation a tax. Is the mandate for seat belts in all cars a tax? Some may say yes. If you want to think of every dime out of our pocket associated with being governed as a tax, I guess so.

Sheesh sir. I really don’t have anything to get over. I just wondered why it takes the FOIA to get some data from the newly elected most transparent and open admin of all time

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[councilman24 37]

The lieing comment seem to me 'something'. But aside from that.

Here is a copy of the Freedom of Information Act that I am subject to and hear appeals about as a member of a City Council. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/Publications/OpenMtgsFreedom.pdf

As far as I can tell the FOIA's have had two consequences. One, you can get a whole lot more than before. Must be a reason for ' no you can't have it' now. Two, everyone needs to jump through the same hoops in order for the laws to be applied fairly to all. Actually a third result is an additional cost to the governmental entity complying with the requests. Even though fees are generally allowed they do not and can not cover the entire cost of staff research and other overhead. We've had two towing companies in town using FOIA requests to try to find dirt on a third that has a contract with the City. They have been onerous, over reaching, abusive and simply for competitor information. Even with the allowed fees here in MI we estimate the request over the last year or so have cost the City $100,000 in overhead. Not insignificant in a budget of $70 million, including enterprise funds not part of the general budget.

I am some time amazed at the things we ask people to submit FOIA requests for. But now that it's there we need to apply the law to all evenly and fairly.

Again, this is a private report analyzing a protential policy. Pre FOIA you would have had to find a 'Deep Throat' leak if the owners of the report didn't want it out. Now you have the FOIA and can get it.

Sometimes I don't like the FOIA. Sometimes it limits what I put in an email or other communication. Emails are subject to FOIA, phone calls are not. I freely admit sometimes I don't want the public to see me calling another councilman an idiot. (none of my present collegues)

But it is good. I'm often accused of making back room deals, being in bed with developers, etc. etc. Sometimes those critics run for and are elected to Council. They quickly find out that these things are not true. The last time (one of only one or two times in 12 years) that I talked to a developer about a project was to tell him he could talk to me at the Council meeting the next week.

BTW I have little use for partisan politics. It gets in the way of representatives trying to do what they truely believe is best for their City, County, State or Country. The city council is non partisan in it's election. I could never run for higher office because then I'd have to put a D or R behind my name and I won't do that. Independents have little chance at any level.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

Not publishing, or publicizing, every analysis of every potential policy is not lying, whether it's Bush/Cheney or Obama/Biden.

And yes, neither set is going to tell you up front everything they considered during policy debate. Get over it. It's now available if you ask. Didn't used to be.

Does something in this analysis actually surprise you? Other than people calling passing on the cost of governement regulation a tax. Is the mandate for seat belts in all cars a tax? Some may say yes. If you want to think of every dime out of our pocket associated with being governed as a tax, I guess so.

Sheesh sir. I really don’t have anything to get over. I just wondered why it takes the FOIA to get some data from the newly elected most transparent and open admin of all time

Typical righty codswallop.

When presented with facts that destroy their trumped up outrage, they backpedal furiously and announce "I wasn't really claiming that stupid stuff it sounds like I was claiming. I meant something completely different."

Same bullshit, different subject.

[rushmc 23]

Huh?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln