Have you seen this Cap and Trade doozy?

[kyfanatic]

Sorry Dems,this was too good to let pass......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thinking about selling your house - A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill)

This is unbelievable! ! Only the beginning... ..

Wow! home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!!!
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act.

H.R. 2454, the "Cap & Trade" bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced. The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded. However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.

But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it.

Probably the worst one is this: A year from now you won't be able to sell your house.

Yes, you read that right. The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabri cated homes ("mobile homes") are included.

In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.

To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements. Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a "label" in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner. If you don't get a high enough rating, you can't sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.

The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009") and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines to be in the government's best interest. Requirements are set low initiall y so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year. The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time.

Sect. 202 Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America . Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements if you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants. You should expect requirements such as "can't have an income of more than $50K per year", "home selling price can't be more than $125K", or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that's YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants. Most of us won't get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more "change you can believe in."

Sect. 204 Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for "at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act." This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year. Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often - maybe every year. But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program.

Sect. 304 Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d) that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.

[DJD]

WOW! Keep on beating us aweful, evil middle class down and someone is gonna get hurt! Gonna have to write the state boys again and tell them what I think.

Wonder how this will effect home sales? Hows this "change" working for everyone? Does the future look bright?

[psprowler]

With any luck my last move will be to the grave, so I shouldn't have to sell my house and retrofit.

[bassiusmaximus]

Anyone wanna bet that the number of structural fire incidents will increase substantially? Wonder how them fires will help reduce global warming.

[pontooner]

Clean up on aisle 7, Here I fact checked it for you.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/ene...xisting-homes/


"We’ve combed through the portion of the House-passed bill pertaining to residential buildings and found no point-of-sale mandates for owners of existing homes. Major trade groups representing home builders and real-estate brokers also say these claims are false."

[kyfanatic]

Is that like Obama's fact check about the fine for not having health insurance won't be a new tax?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090921/...tax_fact_check


FACT CHECK: Coverage requirement enforced with tax

WASHINGTON – Memo to President Barack Obama: It's a tax. Obama insisted this weekend on national television that requiring people to carry health insurance — and fining them if they don't — isn't the same thing as a tax increase. But the language of Democratic bills to revamp the nation's health care system doesn't quibble. Both the House bill and the Senate Finance Committee proposal clearly state that the fines would be a tax.

And the reason the fines are in the legislation is to enforce the coverage requirement.

"If you put something in the Internal Revenue Code, and you tell the IRS to collect it, I think that's a tax," said Clint Stretch, head of the tax policy group for Deloitte, a major accounting firm. "If you don't pay, the person who's going to come and get it is going to be from the IRS."

Democrats aren't the first to propose that individuals be required to carry health insurance and fined if they refuse. The conservative Heritage Foundation called for such a mandate in the 1990s' health care debate, although its proposal differed from the ones pending in Congress. Heritage has since dropped the idea and now favors using tax credits to encourage people to buy coverage — carrots and not sticks.

During the 2008 political campaign, Obama opposed making coverage mandatory because of the costs. His position has shifted now that it's becoming clear such a requirement will be part of any legislation that Congress sends him. Conservative activists are calling it a violation of his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class.

"This is exactly what George Bush Sr. did when he said he wouldn't raise taxes, and it cost him the next election," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "Obama is doing the same thing, but he's insulting people by telling them that if you don't call it a big purple banana, somehow it wouldn't be a tax."

Some liberals acknowledge that Obama might be vulnerable on the insurance requirement. But they say most people will understand as long as the legislation provides enough of a subsidy to make the coverage affordable. That's a central issue this week as the Senate Finance Committee starts voting on legislation.

"I think it's a metaphysical question as to whether it's a tax or not," said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future. "The real question that will determine whether people are upset is whether the insurance is affordable."

In an interview that aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Obama insisted that the insurance requirement is not a tax.

"For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," the president said. "What it's saying is...that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore.

"Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance," Obama added. "Nobody considers that a tax increase.

"You just can't make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase," he added.

But a Democratic staff description of Sen. Max Baucus' bill calls the proposed fines an "excise tax." Penalties of up to $950 for individuals and $3,800 for families would be imposed on those who don't get coverage.

The House bill uses a complex formula to calculate the penalties, calling them a "tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage."

The coverage mandate is part of a political bargain under which the insurance industry would agree to take all applicants, regardless of prior medical history.

"If we're going to have coverage without regard to pre-existing conditions, it makes sense," said economist Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center. "Otherwise people will come in the door the day they get sick." He sees no distinction between the requirement to get coverage and the fines themselves.

"The fact that it is imposed on people and they have no choice in paying it, and the fact that it's administered through the tax system all make it look like a tax," Williams said. The center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.

It wouldn't be the first asterisk added to Obama's campaign pledge on taxes. Earlier this year, he signed a tobacco tax increase to pay for children's health insurance. Even that can be read as a violation of his expansive campaign promise.

"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12, 2008. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

He repeatedly promised "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

[pontooner]

Is that like Obama's fact check about the fine for not having health insurance won't be a new tax?

What does that have to do with what you orginally posted not being true? The old bait and switch maybe? I'll look at your newest claim later when I have time and honestly it wouldn't suprise me if it was ture (Obama is a politican) but again no relevance to your orginal topic.

[bassiusmaximus]

Thought this was interesting reading.

http://www.americanissuesproject.org...ction-304.aspx

[GeoFisher]

Clean up on aisle 7, Here I fact checked it for you.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/ene...xisting-homes/


"We’ve combed through the portion of the House-passed bill pertaining to residential buildings and found no point-of-sale mandates for owners of existing homes. Major trade groups representing home builders and real-estate brokers also say these claims are false."

This WEBSITE is hardly non partisan.......they are OWNED by the anneburg foundation. I guess being in OBAMA's back pocket makes this a legitimate site to use.

I used to use it, until I started tracing back the funding.

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008...rg-foundation/

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/obama.ayers/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elec...ip-with-ayers/

So, please USE a different website to legitimize your facts.........UNLESS you think Ayres and the Annenberg Foundation are non issues.......BTW.....they are BOTH tied into ACORN, but lets not go there......

Later,

Geo

[slippedcork]

Do you guys believe everything someone writes? I put this topic right up there with Obama gonna traumatize all the little school children. Wake up, the house always puts the junk in(if its in there) and the senate takes it out. Been working that way a long time now.

[pontooner]

This WEBSITE is hardly non partisan.......they are OWNED by the anneburg foundation. I guess being in OBAMA's back pocket makes this a legitimate site to use.

I used to use it, until I started tracing back the funding.

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008...rg-foundation/

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/obama.ayers/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elec...ip-with-ayers/

So, please USE a different website to legitimize your facts.........UNLESS you think Ayres and the Annenberg Foundation are non issues.......BTW.....they are BOTH tied into ACORN, but lets not go there......

Later,

Geo

Geo sounds like your playing Six degrees of Kevin Bacon with factcheck.org.

I don't use them as my sole source for fact checking, I'll usually google ,read and compare that to what factcheck.org has to say and I've found factcheck.org to be very fair and balanced, so use what you want to fact check but I'll continue to use factcheck.org for the most part.

Also see what your fact check site has to say about the original topic at hand here.



And to respond to kyfanatic's last post "is it a fine or a tax" well it's a fine that will be administered thru the tax system (IRS) so arguing whether it is a fine or a tax is just political bickering.

[RoadToad]

Why not just read the actual letter from GBO, then compare it to the claims made in the email:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Pres...xmanmarkey.pdf

Some people have raised some legitimate concerns about cap-and-trade, but this isn't one of them.