ABC’s Jake Tapper might’ve just finished Cap and Trade’s chances of passage by reporting on this memo:

Advice in an Obama administration interagency review memo to the Environmental Protection Agency warns that government regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (CAA) will hurt the economy, and questions whether such a “precautionary” move would too expansively open up the door for government regulation.

“Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the CAA for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities,” says one comment in the memo, which was officially sent by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. “Should EPA later extend this finding to stationary sources, small businesses and institutions would be subject to costly regulatory programs such as New Source Review.”

The Supreme Court, ruling in the 2007 case Massachusetts v. E.P.A., ordered the EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases endangers public health and welfare.

If that isn’t bad enough, this information will hurt Cap and Trade worse:

That nine-page memo voices “a concern that EPA is making a finding based on (1) ‘harm’ from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects, such as respiratory or toxic effects, (2) available scientific data that purports to conclusively establish the nature and extent of the adverse public health and welfare impacts are almost exclusively from non-EPA sources, and (3) applying a dramatically expanded precautionary principle.”

In other words, President Obama is pushing a bill that will hurt the US economy while it’s at its weakest point since the 1970s while limiting the creation of “substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects.”

TRANSLATION: This is a tax increase that pushes us towards a green economy, an economy which financially benefits GE and Al Gore. Not coincidentally, GE’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, is a major supporter of President Obama and serves on President Obama’s Economic Advisory Board. GE is heavily invested in clean energy schemes, too.

Al Gore also stands to benefit financially from Obama’s Cap and Trade programs. Here’s how:

Last May, we also noted that on March 1, Gore, while speaking at a conference in Monterey, Calif., admitted to having “a stake” in a number of green investments that he recommended attendees put money in rather than “subprime carbon assets” such as tar sands and shale oil.

He also is co-founder of Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offsets that allow rich polluters to continue with a clear conscience. It’s a scheme that will make traders of this new commodity rich and Bernie Madoff look like a pickpocket. The other founder is former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood.

In other words, Cap and Trade is an elaborate way of paying off pro-Obama ideologues. It’s also a huge tax increase that the Obama administration admits will hurt the economy. Other than the patronage to Obama’s cronies, what benefit will come of this legislation? President Obama’s bill benefits his wealthy friends while hurting every family across America.

Explain what’s so good about that. Explain why this isn’t cronyism of the vilest sort. Marginal benefits at a major price sounds like a worthless investment to me.

UPDATE: Ed has posted video of Sen. John Barrasso questioning EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson:

Technorati: Taxes, Cap And Trade, President Obama, Al Gore, Jeffrey Immelt, David Blood, Goldman Sachs, EPA, Cronyism, Bernie Madoff, Corruption, Environment, Greenhouse Gases, Clean Air Act, Global Warming, Tax Increase

Cross-posted at California Conservative