1. First of all, you would have to believe that global warming actually exists, not just that temperatures have become warmer over recent history which is definitely a measurable item, but that it is absolutely not a naturally occurring process that is repeated throughout the earth’s history.

2. Then you would have to know with certainty that it is definitely caused by carbon emissions.

3. Then you would have to be convinced that any scientifically proven temperature rise is without question due to man’s voluntary carbon emissions (energy creation), thereby excluding any and all natural events beyond man’s control such as breathing, volcanoes etc.

4. Then you must believe that America can affect the outcome by a statistically significant amount taking into account that China and India do not seem interested in constraining their economies to participate. Take into consideration the fact that most of the manufacturing base of the future will be in those countries.

5. Then you would have to believe that America can really afford to shoulder the cost on our economy being that we are currently the biggest debtor nation in history, and that debt is increasing dramatically which will only weaken us more in the years to come.

6. Then you would have to be confident that American jobs will not just be sent to another country in order to circumvent the added regulation. These countries that refuse to participate may become the largest beneficiaries of factories that are burdened with the costs of our legislation.

7. Then you would have to be comfortable with the projected cost estimates per household, and be certain that they will not add to the hardships of the lower-income segment since this program will prove regressive thus hitting this segment the hardest.

8. Then you would have to trust that our Government has the ability to solve the problem considering they never solve anything, their history consistently shows they become the problem at every turn.

9. Then you would have to be confident that our politicians would truly be motivated to do the right thing for America and not just use it as a political bargaining chip for their own benefit, thus horse-trading the bill until it is rendered unrecognizable and ineffective.

10. Then you would have to believe the debate is really about climate change for the politicians, or is it more likely about raising money and providing another instrument of control for the Government to continue building power? These are people that have continually shown a lack of respect and contempt for our nation when their own best interest is not being served, thus anything they say can not be trusted as the truth instead of political expediency.

As you can see, it is extremely difficult to get through this list and honestly concur with all the points without any reasonable doubts. Any number or combination of these statements can be viewed as believable, but they should all be seen as such before our Government saddles us with the huge consequences of this plan. This could be an easy decision if the outcome were a few billion dollars here or there, but if we are going to make a bet of hundreds of billions of dollars on this plan as a nation then we certainly should be convinced that this whole list is realistic. The cost estimates for this are all over the place depending on the bias being presented, but it is important to realize that it will affect everything that is purchased and not just your monthly utility bill. Would anyone honestly bet the farm that all the above statements are believable? This should be the standard we apply before such a massive program is unleashed on us, or it will go down as another huge policy mistake that puts another nail in our coffin as a nation.

IOUs are not a solution to this issue as they are just another way to avoid the difficult choices that must be made. Plus, IOUs are nothing more than a form of debt which is in violation of the will of the people that voted to end this practice going forward. How is it that state officials do not seem to understand that the voters want the spending reduced, no more searching for ways to keep financing unsustainable budgets with taxes or debt which should include the use of IOUs? It makes you wonder if these IOU issuances may prove to be a ploy in which the state never honors, they can be conveniently extended into the future to be dealt with at another time by someone else. This will make the state Government either disingenuous with the voters or dishonest with the recipients of the IOUs. There is really only one way out of this crises and it is to bring the expenditures in line with the revenue of the state. No amount of political deception, avoidance, or any other attempt of bypassing this reality is going work. Simply, IOUs are a form of debt in which voters clearly rejected, they should not be used and expenditures should be reduced instead.

This is something we should all watch carefully throughout the country because it is going to be the fate of our nation as well. Our Federal Government is travelling down the exact same road of irresponsibility as the state of California did, and our future will soon be bringing us a dreadful message as well. They say as California goes, so goes the country. The only difference is California can not print its own money and the day may come that we are going to wish the same of our Federal Government as well.

The ridiculous part of this are the very biased views being presented in this dispute with both sides wanting to paint it in their favor. The Democrats want to paint it as a creator of green jobs and climate enhancement which both sound appealing at this time, particularly the job creation part to combat unemployment. The Republicans see it in much simpler form as a huge tax increase at the worst possible time that will cost jobs instead of creating them. As expected they are both partially correct, if you throw endless sums of money at a project it is likely to create some amount of jobs, but it is also very much a tax. The basic definition of a tax is simply a fee levied by a Government on a product, income, or activity. If such fee is levied on personal or corporate income, then it is a direct tax, if levied of the price of a good or service, then it is an indirect tax. Simple enough, without any doubt this certainly qualifies as a tax, an indirect tax to be specific. However, what is not known is whether this will create more “green jobs” than what it eliminates throughout the economy due to the tax that will be levied. The real question we should ask ourselves as Americans is our willingness to pay hundreds of billions of dollars, maybe a trillion over time, in taxes to possibly create some incremental jobs and to combat global warming that may turn out to be as fictitious as global cooling was in the 1970’s. Plus, will any real reduction in carbon emissions prove statistically significant considering the massive cost associated to travel down this rabbit hole? This is the crux of the issue when you eliminate all the posturing, but do not believe the rhetoric stating that this will not be a tax extracted from each of us during a very challenging time in our economy. A tax it will be, so all that is left to be determined is do we think it is worth it?

If you think about it, our Government is forcing a backdoor tax increase on us without any public or political debate. Instead of embracing this debate in an honest and open manner, they merely circumvent it by just borrowing the money needed with full knowledge that taxes must be increased sometime in the future to pay for it. Once that time comes, then the American public will have no choice but to face the music and pay up without any opportunity to have their voice heard. It is a dishonest approach that our Government is choosing to employ with us, and the worst part is how unbelievably immoral it is for there to be an expectation that future generations will be happy to pay for our indulgence. We know what revenues are being raised, and we should be required to fit our expenditures within that budget, if we do not have the revenue, we absolutely should not spend the money. This is not only the responsible thing to do, but it also brings the added benefit of forcing an open and timely discussion about Government spending and tax revenues since the two are required to reconcile each and every year. Our current system allows these discussions to be eclipsed hence presenting our Government boundless authority to spend recklessly because they can always borrow more on the taxpayer’s behalf without any consent or approval.

It is hard to understand why it is so difficult for us Americans to live within our means as a nation, and what is it that gives us the misguided thought that it is acceptable to consume more than we can afford anyway? We often exhibit overspending in our personal lives aided by the usage of credit cards, the difference is that we expect to pay off our own credit cards and not presume it to be a future generation’s responsibility. Creating some fiscal discipline would be a shocking adjustment at first, but it needs to be done for the sustainability of our nation and to force our Government to be accountable for their spending on a yearly basis. If spending exceeds revenue, then they must justify why and adjust for its repayment in the next year’s budget. Once the shock of the initial adjustment occurs, it will become much simpler from that point on and the benefits of doing so will start becoming apparent to our nation. Carrying on with the current irresponsible policy that is trashing our future, our currency, and our standing in the world should no longer be acceptable, and the cure begins with balancing our budget which should be seen as common sense.

Anybody that proposes increased taxes to be paid by others, while excluding themselves or some other segment, is simply doing nothing more than freeloading in our society. Apparently, their upbringing never offered the lesson that they should pay their own way in life and not pass it on to someone else. A better message would be to encourage individual responsibility that does not expect the Government to provide a living for one by the fleecing of another. This simple change of philosophy will have the astonishing outcome of reducing governmental expenditures by converting dependent payees into productive payers into the system, which then reduces the need for more taxes. Limiting the size of our Government is the only viable solution that will be sustainable, because no amount of other people’s income will ever be sufficient to pay for the ever expanding crowd that just prefers to be a sponge.