If not, too bad. You might be getting it anyway...and it may not be what you had in mind to combat global warming.

The following are excerpts from Monday's Wall Street Journal. The editorial is entitled Cap and Spend and it describes what "is easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax." For those of you who are not familiar with this bill, here is how Congress proposes dealing with the matter of global warming:

The Senate, this week, is opening debate on its mammoth carbon regulation program. The bill, sponsored by Joe Lieberman and John Warner, "would put a cap on carbon emissions that gets lowered every year. But to ease the pain and allow for economic adjustment, the bill would dole out 'allowances' under the cap that would stand for the right to emit greenhouse gases. Senator Barbara Boxer has introduced a package of manager's amendments that mandates total carbon reductions of 66% by 2050, while earmarking the allowances."

These "allowances will be auctioned off to covered businesses, which means imposing an upfront tax before the trade half of 'cap and trade' even begins. It also means a gigantic revenue windfall for Congress.

"Ms. Boxer expects to scoop up auction revenues of some $3.32 trillion by 2050. (Yes, that's trillion.) Her friends in Congress are already salivating over this new pot of gold. The way Congress works, the most vicious floor fights won't be over whether this is a useful tax to create, but over who gets what portion of the spoils... Massachusetts Senator John Kerry explained that he was disturbed by the effects of global warming on 'crustaceans' and so would be pursuing changes to ensure that New England lobsters benefit from some of the loot.

"Of course most of the money will go to human constituencies, especially those with the most political clout. In the Boxer plan, revenues are allocated down to the last dime over the next half-century. Thus $802 billion would go for 'relief' for low-income taxpayers, to offset the higher cost of lighting homes or driving cars. Ms. Boxer will judge if you earn too much to qualify.

There's also $190 billion to fund training for 'green-collar jobs,' which are supposed to replace the jobs that will be lost in carbon-emitting industries. Another $288 billion would go to 'wildlife adaptation,' whatever that means, and another $237 billion to the states for the same goal. Some $342 billion would be spent on international aid, $171 billion for mass transit, and untold billions for alternative energy and research -- and we're just starting.

"Ms. Boxer would only auction about half of the carbon allowances; she reserves the rest for politically favored supplicants. These groups might be Indian tribes (big campaign donors!) or states rewarded for 'taking the lead' on emissions reductions like Ms. Boxer's California. Those lucky winners would be able to sell those allowances for cash. The Senator estimates that the value of the handouts totals $3.42 trillion. For those keeping track, that's more than $6.7 trillion in revenue handouts so far.

"The bill also tries to buy off businesses that might otherwise try to defeat the legislation. Thus carbon-heavy manufacturers like steel and cement will get $213 billion 'to help them adjust,' while fossil-fuel utilities will get $307 billion in 'transition assistance.' No less than $34 billion is headed to oil refiners. Given that all of these folks have powerful Senate friends, they will probably extract a larger ransom if cap and trade ever becomes law.

"If Congress is really going to impose this carbon tax in the name of saving mankind, the least it should do is forego all of this political largesse. In return for this new tax, Congress should cut taxes elsewhere to make the bill revenue neutral. A 'tax swap' would offset the deadweight taxes that impede growth and reduce employment. All the more so because even the cap-and-trade friendly EPA extimates that the bill would reduce GDP between $1 trillion and $2.8 trillion by 2050.

"All of this helps to explain why so many in Congress are so enamored of 'doing something' about global warming. They would lay claim to a vast new chunk of the private economy and enhance their own political power."

Sorry this was so long -- just thought you might want to know what your elected representatives are working on to reduce global warming.

Barbara