Marco Rubio - U.S. Senate - 2010

Friday, June 26, 2009
Contact: Alex Burgos (305) 389-3594

Miami, FL (June 26) U.S. Senate candidate and former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio today issued the following statement regarding the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax legislation currently being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives:

As a U.S. senator, I would oppose this national energy tax on American consumers, farmers and business owners. At a time when our economy is struggling, a national energy tax would further strain family budgets and destroy jobs.

Creating jobs in the energy sectors and becoming more energy efficient requires entrepreneurial innovation, not big government mandates. Instead of higher energy bills and job losses, the American people deserve a comprehensive, job-creating energy policy that promotes energy efficiency, alternative energy production and the development of our own natural resources. I would fully support a plan that encourages nuclear energy, exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and environmentally safe leasing of oil and natural gas fields in the outer continental shelf and on federally owned lands with oil shale in the West.

This issue highlights a fundamental difference in this campaign for Senate. Whereas my opponent has pursued California-style environmental mandates, I opposed them because of the burden they would have imposed on Floridians while making our state a less competitive place to do business.

As senator, I will stand for policies that make us more energy efficient, less reliant on foreign sources of oil, create jobs and ease the burden on family budgets. Based on his record in Florida, my opponent will stand with the Democrat Congress and the Obama Administration in their financial assault on consumers, farmers and business owners.

THE NATIONAL ENERGY TAX’S IMPACT

Over $1200: Annual Tax Increase For Average American Household From Cap-And-Trade. “The study shows that a cap-and-trade system designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent would place an annual burden of $144.8 billion on American households. The average annual household burden would be $1,218, which would be approximately 2% of the average household income.” (Andrew Chamberlain, “Who Pays for Climate Policy? New Estimates of the Household Burden and Economic Impact Of A U.S. Cap-And-Trade System,” Tax Foundation Working Paper #6, 3/16/09)

$2 Trillion: Total Tax Burden Under Obama Cap-And-Trade Proposal Over Next Eight Years. “It now looks like the White House low-balled revenue estimates (actually costs to business and consumers) from his cap-and-trade carbon plan. Instead of $646 billion over eight years, it may cost $2 trillion.” (James Pethokoukis, “Will Cap-and-Trade Cost You $2 Trillion?” US News And World Report’s “Capital Commerce” Blog, www.usnews.com, 3/18/09)

WHO WILL BE MOST AFFECTED BY THE NATIONAL ENERGY TAX?

CBO Says The National Energy Tax Will Hit Consumers, Not Corporate Profits. “Under a cap-and-trade program, firms would not ultimately bear most of the costs of the allowances but instead would pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices. Such price increases would stem from the restriction on emissions and would occur regardless of whether the government sold emission allowances or gave them away.” (Terry Dinan, CBO Senior Advisor, “The Distributional Consequences of a Cap-and-Trade Program for CO2 Emissions,” Testimony before the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support House Committee on Ways and Means, 3/12/09)

LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS: “Price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program because they would be the most important mechanism through which businesses and households would be encouraged to make investments and behavioral changes that reduced CO2 emissions. Those increases, however, would impose a larger burden, relative to their income, on low-income households than on high-income households.” (Terry Dinan, CBO Senior Advisor, “The Distributional Consequences of a Cap-and-Trade Program for CO2 Emissions,” Testimony before the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support House Committee on Ways and Means, 3/12/09)

SENIORS AND YOUNG ADULTS: “In total, households would face an annual burden of roughly $144.8 billion per year with costs disproportionately borne by … those under age 25 and over 75 years …” (Andrew Chamberlain, “Who Pays For Climate Policy? New Estimates of the Household Burden and Economic Impact of a U.S. Cap-and-Trade System,” Tax Foundation Working Paper #6, 3/16/09)

AMERICAN FARMERS: “Worst of all is what happens to farmers’ net income. Farmers live off their gross income; what they earn in addition to that is their net income or marginal income. Waxman-Markey significantly shrinks farmers’ net income pie. Farm income is expected to drop $8 billion in 2012, $25 billion in 2024, and over $50 billion in 2035. These are decreases of 28%, 60% and 94% from the baseline, respectively.” (Nick Loris, “For Farmers, Cap and Trade is a Permanent Drought Season,” The Heritage Foundation’s “The Foundry,” 6/9/09)