So, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation modeled the economic impacts of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill — “the most significant revenue generating proposal of our time,” said Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md.) . . . but don’t worry, it don’t cost nuthin’!
They found that under this bill, the economy in 2030 would have between 1.8 and 2.4 million fewer jobs (and a lot of other bad things). In English, the bill kills a couple million jobs.
So naturally Team Soros hails the conclusions, “NAM/ACCF Forecasts 20 Million New Jobs Under American Clean Energy And Security Act”. Implication: it’s some sort of job creator. Here’s their announcement’s lead, with emphases added to highlight the implied claim:
A new analysis of the economic impact of clean energy legislation forecasts powerful job and economic growth through 2030. The analysis of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), commissioned by the right-wing National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), finds that 20 million new jobs will be created in the United States by 2030, even under high-cost assumptions.
The logic, you see, is because it wouldn’t kill EVERY new job between now and then. Ha! It’s a good thing . . . new jobs occur “under this bill”! (Where’s my giggle emoticon? Had it here somewhere . . . )
Such transparent flailing — if X good happens after intervention Y then X happens because of, not in spite of, Y — represents a failure even to make an effort to lay a glove on the study’s conclusions or assumptions of the NAM/ACCF study. This is a still weaker strain of the feeble arguments made in defense of Bill Clinton’s enormous tax hike: but the tech boom followed! The implication is that innovation and related economic prosperity resulted from, as opposed to in spite of, the wealth transfer. OK, tough guy — then propose even more tax hikes to bring about a more heavily Gilded Age. Oh. Yeah. Oops. Maybe they really do believe this stuff.
The most charitable read on that de rigueur rear-guard action defending tax hikes is that, no, it didn’t snuff out all innovation or economic activity. Which may be why no one said that it would. Cue Chris Rock, “What do you want, a cookie?! You’re not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having [DELETED]!”
Since Team Soros has reprised this weak tactic in the context of cap-and-trade, I take this to mean they accept the study’s conclusions. And that they’ve run out of arguments.
There will be no vote in the Senate. BTU II. You heard it here.