Romney: SEN. MCCAIN: PAY AT THE PUMP

Sen. McCain's Energy Legislation Would Hit Florida Consumers

"What is not widely understood is that [Sen. McCain] is currently sponsoring legislation that, in the name of fighting global warming, would dramatically raise the tax on all carbon-based fuels, including gasoline, home heating oil, coal, and to a lesser extent, natural gas." (Roy Cordato, "McCain's Costly Tax On Energy," National Review, www.nationalreview.com, Posted 1/10/08)

McCain-Lieberman Energy Legislation Would Hike Taxes On Consumers:

McCain-Lieberman Would Dramatically Raise Taxes On All Carbon-Based Fuels, Like Gas For Your Car And Home Heating Oil. "What is not widely understood is that [Sen. McCain] is currently sponsoring legislation that, in the name of fighting global warming, would dramatically raise the tax on all carbon-based fuels, including gasoline, home heating oil, coal, and to a lesser extent, natural gas." (Roy Cordato, "McCain's Costly Tax On Energy," National Review, www.nationalreview.com, Posted 1/10/08)

McCain-Lieberman Would Lead To Higher Gas Prices, Anywhere From 26 Cents To 50 Cents To 68 Cents Per Gallon:

American Council For Capital Formation Study: McCain-Lieberman Could Hike Gasoline Prices By 50 Cents Per Gallon. "A study by an economic research institute, the American Council for Capital Formation, underscored these findings, estimating that under S. 139: … By 2020, gasoline prices would increase 30 to 50 cents per gallon." (H. Sterling Burnett, "Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions," National Center For Policy Analysis, 11/18/04)

The EPA Estimated Sen. McCain's Plan Would Hike Gas Prices By 68 Cents Per Gallon. "The EPA has estimated what the McCain energy tax would mean to consumers. Since the bill’s provisions are phased in, the full cost of the tax would not be felt for a number of years. But in a letter to Senator McCain dated July 2007, the EPA estimated that the tax will be about $.26 cents in current dollars per gallon of gasoline by 2030 and $.68 cents per gallon by 2050." (Roy Cordato, "McCain's Costly Tax On Energy," National Review, www.nationalreview.com, Posted 1/10/08)

U.S. Energy Information Administration: McCain-Lieberman Would Hike Gas Prices 19%. "The increases in gasoline prices projected to occur (is) 9 percent in 2010 and 19 percent in 2025.” (“Analysis Of Senate Amendment 2028, The Climate Stewardship Act Of 2003,” Energy Information Administration, 1/6/07)

Florida Gasoline Consumers Could Face $250/Year In Higher Costs:

Assuming A 50-Cent Per Gallon Gas Increase, McCain-Lieberman Could Cost The Average Floridian Almost $250 Extra Every Year:

Floridians Used 207,482,000 barrels of Motor Gasoline (or 8.7 billion gallons) in 2005 (Energy Information Administration Website, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/, Accessed 1/27/08)
8.7 billion gallons x 50 cents = $4.35 billion in higher gas costs
$4.35 billion ÷ 17,789,864 Floridians (2005 est.) = approx. $244.52 in higher gas costs per person (U.S. Census Website, www.census.gov, Accessed 1/27/08)
McCain-Lieberman Would Lead To Higher Utility Costs For Consumers:

Under McCain-Lieberman, Consumer Electricity Bills Would Rise By Nearly 20%. "Electricity prices across the main S. 280 cases are 6 percent to 14 percent higher than the reference in 2020 and 16 percent to 25 percent higher in 2030 as the allowance prices rises throughout the forecast. Consumers’ total electricity bills in 2020 in the S280 Core case are $18 billion (5 percent) higher than in the reference case, with a range of 2 percent higher in the Fixed 30 Percent Offsets case to 8 percent higher in the No International case. By 2030, the increase in consumer bills above the reference case ranges from $33 billion (8 percent) to $75 billion (18 percent)." ("Energy Market And Economic Impact Of S. 280, The Climate Stewardship And Innovation Act Of 2007," Energy Information Administration, 8/07)

McCain-Lieberman Would Increase Natural Gas Prices By Sixteen Percent. "A new analysis by the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows the McCain-Lieberman bill will increase naturalgas prices 16 percent over the next seven years." (Bonner R. Cohen, Op-Ed, "Drilling For Natural Gas," [Baton Rouge, LA] Sunday Advocate, 7/13/03)

U.S. Government Analysis Shows That McCain-Lieberman Would Harm The Economy:

According To Energy Information Administration Figures, Manufacturing Jobs Would Decline 300,000 By 2030 If S. 280 (McCain-Lieberman) Were Enacted.

If S. 280 were not enacted, manufacturing jobs would stand at 12.5 million in 2030. (Energy Information Administration Website, www.eia.doe.gov, Cell AB1768)
If S. 280 were enacted, manufacturing jobs would stand at 12.2 million in 2030. (Energy Information Administration Website, www.eia.doe.gov, Cell AB1768)
U.S. Energy Information Administration: McCain-Lieberman Would Decrease United States GDP By $776 Billion In The Short Term. "The cumulative losses in actual GDP are about $776 billion (1996 dollars) in the SA.2028 (McCain-Lieberman).... The peak, single-year impact on actual GDP under SA.2028 occurs in 2025, with a loss of $76 billion (1996 dollars), or about 0.4 percent of GDP. The largest percentage change in actual GDP, 0.5 percent, occurs in 2011, where the estimated loss in actual GDP that year is $57 billion…" ("Analysis Of Senate Amendment 2028, The Climate Stewardship Act Of 2003," Energy Information Administration, 5/04)

The EPA Estimates Sen. McCain's Plan Could Reduce United States GDP By As Much As $5.2 Trillion By 2050. "The effect on the economy of the McCain tax would be similar to any other broad-based tax. In the EPA’s own words: 'The present value of the cumulative reduction in real GDP for the 2012-2030 period ranges from $660 billion to $2.1 trillion…the cumulative reduction in the present value of real GDP for the 2012-2050 period ranges from about $1.6 trillion to $5.2 trillion.'" (Roy Cordato, "McCain's Costly Tax On Energy," National Review, www.nationalreview.com, Posted 1/10/08)

McCain-Lieberman Has Been Rejected By The Senate Before:

McCain-Lieberman Was Introduced In 2003, And Sought To Require A Reduction In Greenhouse Gas Emissions By All Power Plants And Industries. "Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) will unveil a plan this week to require all U.S. power plants and industries to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, setting the stage for a conflict with the Bush administration and the new chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee." (Eric Pianin, "Fight Ahead On Emissions," The Washington Post, 1/7/03)

In 2005, McCain-Lieberman Was Reintroduced – And Was Soundly Rejected By Senate Republicans And Democrats, 38-60. 49 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted against McCain’s "greenhouse gas" amendment to the energy bill. (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #148: Rejected 38-60: R 6-49; D 31-11; I 1-0, 6/22/05, Lieberman and McCain Voted Yea)

McCain-Lieberman Was Reintroduced In 2007, And Is Known As Bill S. 280. "Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) reintroduced the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (S. 280) today with his longstanding ally, Senator John McCain (R-AZ)." (Sen. Joe Lieberman, "Lieberman, McCain Reintroduce Climate Stewardship And Innovation Act," Press Release, 1/12/07)

Criticism Of McCain-Lieberman:

Climate Expert Fred Singer Called McCain's Legislation "Worse Than Kyoto." "The McCain-Lieberman proposal is also clearly contrary to the clear mandate delivered by the Senate in 1997. In reality, McCain-Lieberman would be worse than Kyoto since it would require a unilateral reduction of emissions, even if Kyoto fails to go into force -- a situation that appears increasingly likely since Russia, an essential country, appears to be leaning against ratifying it." (S. Fred Singer, Op-Ed, "Energy-Rationing By Another Name Still Spells 'Kyoto,'" Investor's Business Daily, 10/31/03)

McCain-Lieberman Is "Kyoto By Another Name." "Who does Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) think he is fooling? McCain's Climate Stewardship Act, cosponsored with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D., Conn.), is a political roadmap back to the Kyoto Protocol, the United Nations global-warming treaty that the Senate preemptively rejected by a vote of 95-0 in July 1997." (Marlo Lewis, "Kyoto By Another Name," National Review, 6/16/04)

Detroit News Columnist Thomas Bray: 2005 McCain-Lieberman Plan Would Ultimately Result In A Huge Indirect Tax On The American People. "Aside from the crucial question of whether a government bureaucracy is smart enough to do so, even environmentalists confess that Kyoto or McLieberman measures would have been a small first step in clamping a huge indirect tax on the American and world economy." (Thomas Bray, Op-Ed, "Public Rejects Giving Control Of Energy Use To Government," The Detroit News, 6/26/05)

Sen. McCain's Energy Policy Could Devastate The Auto Industry. "Higher energy costs will, among other things, raise the cost of manufacturing big-ticket items in American factories. And higher gas prices will likely raise demand for those classes of automobiles that tend to be manufactured overseas. Somehow, I think Michigan voters will be less than thrilled about this, should anyone bother to inform them." (Roy Cordato, "McCain's Costly Tax On Energy," National Review, www.nationalreview.com, Posted 1/10/08)