Is a Carbon Tax a Good Idea? >
A Carbon Tax Makes the Democrats' Overspending Problem Worse
A carbon tax would have a negative ripple effect across the economy
December 10, 2012
About Christopher Prandoni:
Christopher Prandoni serves as a federal affairs manager of Americans for Tax Reform and handles energy policy for the organization.
After Democrats spent the past four years creating trillion dollar deficits, they are now asking the American people to foot the bill. Even with Obamacare's trillion dollar tax hikes set to kick in on January 1, Democrats are still telling the American people that they are undertaxed.
Creating an entirely new revenue stream, a carbon tax would be a boon for Democrats looking to sustain inordinately high levels of federal spending. While many carbon tax proponents argue for a "revenue-neutral" carbon tax—where the federal income tax or payroll tax is reduced by an identical amount—such a bill is unlikely to ever emerge from the halls of Congress. Even if an ostensibly "revenue-neutral" carbon tax were to become law, it would only be a matter of time before tax and spend politicians ratcheted up the carbon tax, payroll tax, and income tax. Opening up another front in the battle to restrain growth of government would be disastrous.
[See a collection of political cartoons on energy policy.]
With the economy crawling along at 2 or 3 percent growth and the unemployment rate stuck around 8 percent, a carbon tax would only exacerbate our economic hardship.
Knowing this, Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana and Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas just introduced a resolution opposing a carbon tax. Highlighting the undeniable damage a carbon tax would have on the American economy, Vitter and Pompeo write:
Energy costs affect the price of every product. Because a carbon tax would jeopardize the affordability of the most widely used and available energy sources, the result would be a ripple effect across the economy that would increase the cost of consumer goods for all Americans while simultaneously decreasing the competitiveness of America's global exports.
[See a collection of political cartoons on the economy.]
Luckily for the American people, congressional Republicans have rejected a carbon tax. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky sponsored the Vitter resolution and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton of Michigan is introducing his own resolution opposing a carbon tax.
Enabling Democrats' penchant to overspend through a carbon tax revenue does nothing to address the problem at hand—America has an overspending problem.
- Join the debate on Facebook.
- Follow U.S. News Debate Club on Twitter.
- Check out U.S. News Weekly: an insider's guide to politics and policy.
- Other Arguments
-
#135770
Yes — Carbon tax would help solve climate change and spur economic growth
RICHARD CAPERTON, Director of Clean Energy Investment at the Center for American Progress.
-
#228864
Yes — Revenue from a carbon tax could fund clean energy innovation and deficit reduction
MARK MURO, Director of Policy for the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings
-
#326057
Yes — A carbon tax will address greenhouse gas pollution and bring in revenue
CHAD STONE, Chief Economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
-
#420260
Yes — A carbon tax could extend the payroll tax holiday while spurring clean energy innovation
CHARLES KOMANOFF, Director of the Carbon Tax Center
-
#572251
No — A carbon tax in the U.S. will have no impact on emissions in the rest of the world
PAUL C. KNAPPENBERGER, Assistant Director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.
-
#778258
No — Carbon tax would harm the economy and would not impact global warming
THOMAS PYLE, President of the Institute for Energy Research
Reader Comments (