Lisa Jackson, EPA head, recently asked to a Senate committee "Can anyone honestly say that the head of an American household would not spend a dollar a day to safeguard the well being of his or her children?"
I for one can say I don’t want to spend a dollar a day, since I don’t believe it will safeguard the well being of my children. Mrs. Jackson was arguing that carbon-cutting legislation would, well the article didn’t state how my children would be protected, somehow make my children safer.
The $1/day she is quoting could spell disaster for my children. Personally the $1/day would cost my family $5,475 (not accounting for any interest earned) from now until my oldest child enters college. This money could be used to help pay for her education, paying down the debt (national or personal), donations to non profits or other beneficiaries that would actually help safeguard her future. Collectively the nation will spend $41,452,320,000 per year (that’s $41.5 Billion, based on 113,568,000 households in America) which is just under the $45 billion budget for the Department of Education. Maybe that’s chump change to Mrs. Jackson, but I consider that cost a major drain on the nation’s finances.
This cost would be in addition to all of the other taxes I pay for. Using the Tax Freedom Day from the Tax Foundation, I calculate I pay around $63/day in taxes. I think I pay more per day since I live in a high tax State and it probably excludes the payroll tax paid for on my behalf. If feel this is already too much.
If anything during this severe downturn in the economy the Government should be finding ways to reduce costs on families not increase them.
Well this turned out to be more of a rant than a well thought of argument, but I thought I should stand up and say I won’t fall for empty threats against my children’s future. Especially when the Government can’t seem to get it’s financial house in order which would do more to safeguard my children’s future than any carbon-cutting legislation ever could.
2 comments:
I wish I felt it would stop at this.
Bad science/bad economics will take far morte from our pockets in years to come.
Ya know, I was gonna correct that typo in the last para - but it just seems appropriate ~chuckle~
Yep, I'm still waiting for the cost differential for "green" energy to be fully explained to the public. Just because the Government subsidises the power doesn't make it cheaper. Or I guess the green means more $$$, not saving the environment. I find it funny hearing the Sierra Club saying they support wind power as long as it doesn't kill birds. How is a power company supposed to build green if they are threatening to kill the project financially after the first few months of it being in operation?
Post a Comment