That is not at all accurate-reclassifying fraud and neglect of fiduciary responsibility as "stupidity" is the current Party Line but it is a lie. Excluding a few exceptions such as Madoff, pretty well every "stupid" person involved in hurting the USA economy at a high level has done very very well indeed (and continue to thrive). Fuld, Greenspan, Bernanke, Geithner, Paulson, etc. etc.-the list is a very long one. You could label both Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan as "stupid" organizations as they needed taxpayer money to continue operations, but the players are thriving nonetheless.

This isn't a new phenomena. From the time the very first emission rules were promolgated in California putting rules on manufacturers while permitting the import of the same products from locations without rules condemns the local manufacturers.

I find it difficult to tell if all the world's legislatures are filled with blithering idiots or they are simply bought and paid for. Maybe both.

The Climate Bill (H.R. 2454) includes allocations for products which are imported, as I understand it. There is also mention of exemption for exported products. This is a very big bill and I don't claim to have complete grasp of it yet.

But, I was trying to focus only on transport fuels, which are most often consumed by individuals or small companies, who would not be directly covered by the cap-and-trade system in the climate bill, in which the allocations are only issued to entities which produce electricity or with produce emissions in excess of 25,000 tons per year. One needs to study the definitions under SEC. 312, which modifies Sec 700 in Title VII of the Clean Air Act, especially sub paragraph (13), COVERED ENTITY.

The direct allocation of transport fuels thru rationing would be difficult to game. This would be especially true if the allocations had a limited lifetime. There would thus be no way to accumulate the allocations. The Cap-and-Trade proposal allows banking of allocations. The rationing system would need a white market to smooth out the bumps in the allocations and would be a place for excess allocations after the expiration period. Again, it would be difficult to game such a system, as the official trading system would provide a floor on the value of allocations and the allocations would go directly to individual consumers.

As for the long term effectiveness of this Act, I think that the resulting consumer revolt would allow the Repugs to repeatedly pound in the notion that all the increases in cost of living over the next 4 years are the result of Cap-and-trade. The Repugs could blame the inflation from the Fed and Treasury's efforts to re-inflate the debit bubble on this, since the average 'Merican won't be able to see the difference. I think this could push the Democrats out of control after the next Presidential Election cycle...

E. Swanson