fact that he is trying to balance two inconsistent positions.
During last weeks Tea Parties, Obama said that his tax plan will not
affect 95% of the population. However, during his cap and trade speech
in Iowa, he called for government regulation of CO2. The regulation
would require companies to buy the right to emit CO2 thus raising
their costs. To pay for this, companies are going to pass that cost to
consumers creating a de facto tax. As consumers, a larger part of our
pay check, on top of our normal taxes, is going to pay for government
Obama also said that we need cap and trade because we have to close
the CO2 loophole. Using the term loophole is an interesting literary
choice. He is trying to frame the argument from the stance that using
CO2 is overlooked technicallity that can be fixed by tweaking the law.
The tweak though would be no tweak at all. It would be a major
legislative initiative that will end up costing business and consumers
much more than we pay now. That is a tax that affects 95% of us.
But be warned, if you oppose cap and trade your ideas are dangerous
and you are a threat. Another smart literary choice - anticipate the
opposition and label it as dangerous. This is going to a long
presidential term for me because my ideas are dangerous and radical.
In other words, I choose to disagree.