2+2=5

If the legislation for cap-and-trade is such a good idea, why did it barely pass the House of Representatives by a slim margin that required a full-court-press from the White House and various lobby groups? The answer may that cap-and-trade is the legislative equivalent of 2+2=5.

Newt Gingrich used this illustration recently to explain why cap-and-trade is such a tough sell. To put it simply the arguments don't add up and are contrary to common sense. You don't have to know anything about the scientific claims being made about climate change to see that this legislation is based upon many a false premise.

Gingrich reminded us that during the Polish Solidarity freedom movement, the rallying cry was 2+2=4. It meant that even though the government would try to tell the people that 2+2=5, the people knew that to be free they had to tell the truth.

The proponents of the cap-and-trade bill tell us that this legislation will not only save the planet from climate change, but it will produce all sorts of green jobs. In other words, cap-and-trade will be a win-win for everyone. That's an example of 2+2=5.

Just look at some of the analysis of job loss. The Heritage Foundation predicts annual average job losses in the near term of over one million. After 2035, 2.5 million jobs are lost each year.

Cap-and-trade proponents also suggest that once the U.S. imposes these energy costs on itself, developing countries like China and India are sure to follow. But most of us know that won't happen. The rulers of these countries aren't going to be convinced by our example. Instead, they will welcome the jobs that move from the U.S. to their countries. Once again, 2+2=5.

You can look at all the questionable science and the claims and counterclaims. But all you have to know is that 2+2 does not equal 5. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.