Cap and Trade? Cap and TAX is more like it!

Bill Flores: The cost of "user fee" = $1500 per family

He Calls Energy Security Family Security

Conservative Congressional Candidate Bill Flores decried the
passage of a new "Cap and Trade" bill in the House of
Representatives.

Many "think tank" economists have called the "Cap and Trade"
initiative a naive attempt to persuade other governments to
follow America's suit and stop their smokestacks from
belching particularates and acids into the skies.

The desired goal: To reduce the potential for global
warming.

So, the new law uses a complicated scheme to reward American
industries with a certain amount of credit toward having to
comply. It allows a net reduction of high carbon
"footprint" if industrialists agree to comply with
stringent and costly new government requirements as to how
much and what kind of fuel their businesses burn.

Most hardheaded realists call it a "user fee" for burning
fuel industrialists have already purchased, fair and square.

It's a modern form of taxation without representation,
something coming at the working man and woman with kids, a
mortgage and lots of bills to pay out of high-flown places
like the inner chambers of the United Nations, the Council
on Foreign Relations and the board rooms of international
banks worldwide.

They say it's an extreme example of the intrusive and
incisive government regulation to which many business
leaders object.

Cost To Families

The new House bill increases the average family's annual
energy bill by at least $1,500, according to calculations
available to Mr. Flores, who is recently retired after more
than 30 years in the offshore petroleum exploration and
drilling business.

Acording to The Heritage Foundation, "the net effect on jobs
is a gain of 261,000 green jobs and a loss of between
844,000 and 1,105,000 current jobs.

Net Loss of Jobs

"Only in Washington, D.C., would this be considered a good
trade off."

He speaks with many years of experience behind him as a
C.P.A. who pulled trial balance and profit and loss
statements on multimillion dollar corporations on a routine
basis.

"Here's some straight talk from the real world. After
spending about 30 years in the private sector developing
American energy, this proposed Cap and Trade scheme would do
three things."

* Make energy more expensive for consumers;

* Decrease America's global competitiveness;

* Do very little to improve the environment.

"One of my Texas A&M economics professors taught me, 'The
more you tax something, the less you get of it.' Thus, by
taxing current energy sources, Cap and Trade will reduce our
energy security."

Chet Edwards' Back-handed Support of Cap & Trade

Mr. Flores lambasted the performance of incumbent
Representative Chet Edwards (D-Waco), a ten-term veteran of
U.S. House District 17.

According to the accounts of insiders, Mr. Edwards voted for
a procedural resolutioin that would allow a rule change
resolution that allowed Cap and Trade to come to a vote on
the floor of the House.

After that resolution passed, Representative Edwards
obtained the permission of the Democratic leadership to vote
against the bill, thus leaving his voting record unsullied
by not voting for an apparent liberal agenda item.

A Call For A New National Energy Policy

Mr. Flores called for development of a new and
comprehensive, long-term national energy policy.

"We need the political will and courage to develop a
national energy policy for our country that makes sense not
just for the next five years, but for the next 30 years. As
I often say, we cannot have national security or economic
prosperity unless we have energy security."