Contact FreedomWorks

400 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 765
Washington, DC 20001

  • Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
  • Local 202.783.3870


Huntsman on Cap-And-Trade

Is he just pining for votes?

Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman takes back his support for cap-and-trade as the race for the GOP presidential nominee presses on. Cap-and-trade ultimately places significant limits on the amount of greenhouse gases companies can emit. Companies are issued permits for every ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere and are allowed to sell their permits to other companies if not used. Huntsman completely supported the bill, and back in 2009 said that he is, “doing a very Republican thing to incentivize and develop technologies that are going to fuel our economy."

Is cap-and-trade really considered a “Republican thing to do”? Will it really fuel our economy?

What many people do not realize is that businesses make major adjustments when regulations are imposed on them by the federal government. They adjust so that consumers bear most of the costs through higher prices. The Wall Street Journal points out that, “Democrats are hoping in particular that no one notices who would pay for their climate ambitions.” Businesses have no choice but to raise prices or to suffer immensely.

The class affected the most by this program would be the middle class. Middle class families spend more of their paycheck on heating, fuel for their vehicles, air-conditioning, etc. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that even a smaller 15% cut in emissions would raise costs in the average household to $700 in the lowest quintile and $2,200 in the highest quintile.

Even more serious would be the jobs situation. A lack of demand for energy-intensive goods will cause businesses to downsize. A cap-and-trade program will increase the unemployment rate, which America could not afford with unemployment hovering at 9.1%.

Although Huntsman has a conservative history that includes tax reform and creating a pro-business atmosphere, can we trust a man that supported a program such as cap-and-trade to get America’s private sector rolling? Huntsman now says he does not support cap-and trade, but in such a critical time America cannot afford potential broken promises.

Kenneth Graham

By denying 1/4 of a million charities, all at once, the ability to exist; the IRS is making it very clear that they will be aggressively enforcing solicitation of funds registration compliance. According to the IRS there is a significant underground/off the books economy unacceptable use of fundraising dollars in the nonprofit sector.

By aggressively enforcing compliance with the IRS 990 form; the IRS will now use that form to compile data on each nonprofit organization with tax exempt status. A major focus on the data regarding funding sources will allow the IRS to track where every donation or source of funding came from right down to the individual person. For example it is required that you report how much income you received from your "donate now" button on your website, fundraisers such as "auctions" and "raffles". This is not reported in one lump sum; itemized Income from each separate source. So if you have an auction you report the income from the auction and who was the winning bid that paid the nonprofit for the auction item. Information about that individual would simply be name and address. That data is then compared to where your organization has solicitation of funds registration permits. If the winning bidder of the auction lives in a state where your organization does not have a solicitation permit, unfortunately now your organization has violated that states solicitation of funds regulations and you will now receive a substantial fine.

Of course all organizations should have a solicitation of funds registration permit in the states where the organization solicits funds. Here is the dilemma; because the definition of "ONLINE PRESENCE" (website) now means that because your website can be viewed in that particular state (residence ability to view site is not a violation) if a resident of that state simply just uses your donate now button to support your organization your organization has now violated solicitation of funds regulations and will now be issued a substantial fine; violating Florida's regulations will cost $15,000 for each donation. When you have a website how do you stop financial transactions coming into your organization from areas where you do not have a solicitation permit? Government regulators have openly admitted that was an oversight on their part.

This is not an exaggeration of the consequences for not acquiring a solicitation of funds permit. Regulators and the IRS have publicly stated that this will be a serious setback for nonprofit organizations in the beginning and will just take time to work itself out. Serious fines and possible revocation of tax exempt status has been put in place to ensure compliance.

I am bringing this to everyone's attention because of the serious nature of these violations, and so that you could take measures to protect your organization and warn others. There is a solution but I am not going to bring that up at this time;