Sen. Graham Cap-and-Tax Double Talk Continues

Graham’s World

Real World

“This administration is not going to allow offshore drilling for oil and gas unless it’s part of some bigger deal,” Graham said in a conference call with South Carolina reporters. “I don’t think you’ll ever have offshore drilling for oil and gas until you marry it up with emissions controls.” – The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room, Wednesday, October 28, 2009

“…climate change legislation is an opportunity to get serious about breaking our dependence on foreign oil.” – Senator Graham’s co-authored op-ed in the New York Times, October 10, 2009

Senator Graham should be working to convince the Administration to act on the public’s call for increased offshore energy exploration, which could create thousands good-paying jobs in South Carolina and strengthen U.S. energy security. Instead, he continues to attempt to convince South Carolina voters that working to open the outer continental shelf for responsible energy development, and accepting the cap-and-trade policies, that will increase their energy costs, drive jobs overseas and weaken the United States, are mutually exclusive. He seems more interested in massaging his message than working to bring jobs and affordable energy to South Carolina families and small businesses.

Graham’s World

Real World

Senator Graham says he supports a “reasonable cap-and-trade system.” – FOX News, October 22, 2009.

Cap-and-trade endeavors to tax the way we get our most affordable, secure and reliable energy. This massive energy tax, and the enormous expansion of government the bill calls for, would only contribute to the economic pains and unemployment our nation is now facing.

As Representative John Dingell (D-MI) has said, “Nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one.”

Graham’s World

Real World

“[Senator] Graham was not specific as to how his plan would specifically regulate carbon emissions.” – The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room, Wednesday, October 28, 2009

The reason Senator Graham hasn’t been specific about how his bill will regulate carbon emissions is simple: There is no good way to do it without drastically increasing the cost of energy across the board. A host of independent analyses – from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, to the Brookings Institute, and from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – all agree that cap-and-trade reduces economic output and standards of living. Most also find that cap-and-trade is economically harmful.