The hidden (and usually unspoken about) costs of Obama policies

Susan Dudley and Jeff Rosen, on the essential truth:

"Unlike spending and associated taxes, which are subject to approval by both the legislative and executive branches and are visible to the public, regulatory decisions don't face the same checks and balances and their effects are far less transparent. They represent a hidden tax, not easy to measure and track, but borne by American taxpayers, consumers, and workers nevertheless.

And often, regulations benefit vocal, well-organized interest groups at the expense of the broader public....

....Some of these new regulations may have merit, but one would be hard-pressed to argue that any are urgent. The new administration's number one priority should be getting our economy back on track, and the costs and consequences of competing objectives should be as visible to the American people as the stimulus spending programs that have received so much attention.

Under the circumstances, actions that impose sizable hidden taxes on American citizens should be put on hold, or at least exposed to much more careful evaluation to be sure their merits outweigh their costs and burdens on our struggling economy."

As well we know, the campaign rhetoric of "no tax increase on the middle class" was a carefully crafted lie.

Where should we start the list of policy initiatives whose costs and burdens clearly outweigh their merits?

-- Obamacare?
-- Cap 'n Trade?
-- Porkulus?

It's difficult to choose which of theses incredibly short-sighted and worldview agenda-fulfilling disasters is worse.

Cap 'n Trade implementation alone is likely to raise a middle class family of four's effective tax rate by more than 50%:

"The Congressional Budget Office estimates that reducing the level of CO2 to 15 percent less than the total level of U.S. emissions in 2005 would require permit prices that would increase the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. To put that $1,600 carbon tax in perspective, a typical family of four with earnings of $50,000 now pays an income tax of about $3,000.

The tax imposed by the cap and trade system is therefore equivalent to raising the family's income tax by about 50 percent. (Some advocates of a cap and trade program argue that the cost to households could be much less than $1,600 if the government uses the tax revenue to finance transfers to low income households and tax cuts to others, but since there is no way to know how the future revenue would actually be used, the only number we have to consider is the $1,600 direct increase in the burden on households.)"

Feldstein's $1600 figure is likely WAY too optimistic on the low side, perhaps on a factor of two-three times less than the eventual reality.

#