FEBRUARY 18 / Where did "cap-and-tax" come from?

 

 

 

LET'S PROGRAM the Dr. Peabody's WABAC machine for minus twenty months. 

The chief political virtue of cap-and-trade -- a complex scheme to reduce greenhouse gases -- is its complexity. This allows its environmental supporters to shape public perceptions in essentially deceptive ways. Cap-and-trade would act as a tax, but it's not described as a tax. It would regulate economic activity, but it's promoted as a "free market" mechanism. Finally, it would trigger a tidal wave of influence-peddling, as lobbyists scrambled to exploit the system for different industries and localities. This would undermine whatever the system's abstract advantages.

. . . .

[Here's] how cap-and-trade would tax most Americans. As "allowances" became scarcer, their price would rise, and the extra cost would be passed along to customers. Meanwhile, government would expand enormously. . . . Think of today's farm programs -- and multiply it by 10.

. . . . A straightforward tax on carbon would favor alternative fuels and conservation just as much as cap-and-trade, but without the rigid emission limits. A tax is more visible and understandable. If environmentalists still prefer an allowance system, let's call it by its proper name: cap-and-tax.

(Robert Samuelson, "Just Call It 'Cap-and-Tax'," Washington Post, June 2, 2008)

Comments

[Trudy]

As always, interesting commentary and lots of food for thought.