Costs and Benefits of AB 32--Global Hysteria Act

Since my wife obstinately refuses to see that the investment and jobs induced by AB 32 should be counted as costs let me TRY to clarify with an analogy.

When the government contracts to build military airplanes, Boeing (or whoever wins the contract) INVESTS money to build the planes and creates JOBS to build the planes. Does anyone really think that the money invested for capital and labor are a benefit for taxpayers? The contract creates (or should) net income for Boeing and its workers but these are COSTS of building the airplanes paid for with taxpayer money.

In the case of AB 32 implementation the investment would mostly come from the private sector. But this makes no difference. Investment money comes from households, just like taxes do. So households are still paying for the capital investment necessary to implement AB 32. Hence, investment and the jobs created by that investment are a COST shouldered by (mostly) California households. Investment money does not grow on trees. Now, if the government is paying for military planes necessary for national defense you might say, "Well, that's worth it." And even if the cost was to mitigate global warming you might say it's worth it. But here's the problem: CARB is not saying this is a cost and asking you if it's worth it, they are saying it is a benefit! It is simply insane!

If government always conducted economic analysis like this there would never be a regulation rejected based on cost/benefit concerns. The government would always say, 'Look at all the jobs we made!" Consider Sarbanes-Oxley, the corporate accounting law: there are many workers, products and capital put to work but nobody in their right mind considers the money spent on this as a benefit. These are costs that reduce corporate profits. The benefits for investors may outweigh those costs (highly unlikely) but nobody counts those costs as benefits!