Whether you believe the global warming moonbats or not, whether you think that energy company’s make too much money or not, there is one thing that is settled in the President’s new budget… we are going to be paying more for energy. And if you are paying more for energy so are the companies that manufacture the products you use at home and the retail outlets that sell those products, which mean in the end you are going to be paying more for everything. If this sounds familiar it should, because that is exactly what happened just before the housing bubble burst.

The budget includes a shot across the congressional bow, telling Congress either you regulated “greenhouse gasses” or the EPA will.

EPA’s fiscal year 2011 budget plan seeks $43.5 million in new funding for climate-related regulatory efforts, which comes as the agency is determining how to impose requirements on power plants, factories and other sources of heat-trapping emissions.This includes $25 million in grants to states to help them address greenhouse gases in their permitting activities under the federal Clean Air Act. It also includes $13.5 million for development and implementation of emissions standards for cars and light trucks the agency plans to finalize this year.

The auto standards – part of a joint emissions and mileage rulemaking with the Transportation Department – are not hugely controversial, but their completion will trigger a legal requirement that EPA begin taking steps toward regulating stationary sources as well.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Funds also will support EPA’s assessment and potential development, in response to legal obligations, for other mobile sources and for assessment and potential development of New Source Performance Standards for several categories of major stationary sources through means that are flexible and manageable for business,” EPA’s budget plan states.

Climate change legislation is a question mark in Congress this year, but advocates of emissions curbs are hopeful that the prospect of EPA regulating under its current Clean Air Act powers will help prod lawmakers.

Obama administration officials have said they want Congress to approve a cap-and-trade plan but will move ahead with EPA rules if Congress does not complete a bill. The House approved climate legislation last June but Senate prospects are murky.

These regulations will raise costs in a big way, costs that will be passed along to the consumer. But there is more. The proposed budget calls for the end of nearly $40 billion in tax beaks for oil, gas and coal companies. Last year’s budget plan called for cutting $31.5 billion in oil and gas industry incentives, including a repeal of the industry’s ability to claim a domestic manufacturing tax break, but it was blocked by congress.

The move is designed to slow down domestic exploration and development. Which means the President is not only raising costs to the energy companies which will be passed to the consumers, but by slowing down domestic oil, gas and coal development, he is making the country more dependent on foreign oil, which in itself raises prices.

The Energy Industry was quick to comment:

“With America still recovering from recession and one in ten Americans out of work, now is not the time to impose new taxes on the nation’s oil and natural gas industry. New taxes would mean fewer American jobs and less revenue at a time when we desperately need both. A robust U.S. oil and gas industry is essential to the recovery of the nation’s economy,” said API President Jack Gerard of the White House fiscal year 2011 budget plan unveiled Monday.

The President doesn’t really care about the facts, the science or what it will do for the economy, for him its a matter of world wide redistribution of income.