In the Tank for the Left Think-Tank Thinking

Posted on March 4, 2013


This insanity should scare the hell out of you. The Washington Post reports on  Recent report from that In-the-tank for the Left think tank, the Brookings Institution. The WaPo editorial board article starts with this:

WHAT IF THERE were a policy that could cut future deficits, slash taxes, eliminate wasteful government spending and reduce climate change? As sequestration kicks in, you’d think every politician in Washington would be desperate to embrace such a win-win-win-win.

Wow! That is a lot of winning. How are we going to do that?

Last week the Brookings Institution’s Adele Morris laid out what an intelligent tax on carbon emissions could accomplish, and the results will astonish anyone — seemingly much of Congress — who hasn’t given the idea the consideration it deserves. Ms. Morris proposed starting with a $16-per-ton charge on carbon dioxide, setting it to rise by 4 percent annually and using most of the money to cut corporate taxes and the deficit.

Here we go again. Global warming has turned out to be a hoax so now the Left is rallying around climate change; as if man could actually change the climate. In spite of that, WaPo finds at least six ways America would win by making Americans pay through the nose for their energy use. Let’s take a look:

Want to slash government spending? The tax would replace the inefficient web of clean technology subsidies that overspend the country’s wealth on electric cars and biofuels. Ms. Morris reckons that would save about $6 billion a year.

At least they admit that government “overspends” the country’s wealth on alternative energy nonsense. But, since when is a reduction $6 billion per year out of $3.5 trillion considered “slashing”?

Want to get rid of government regulations? A carbon tax could justify suspending the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon dioxide program, which will proceed if Congress continues to refuse to establish better policy.

In other words, the government is going to screw us anyway.

Want to cut the deficit? The plan would decrease it by $815 billion over two decades. That’s not enough to put the country on comfortable financial footing, but it’s serious money.

So, instead of adding $24 trillion in deficits over twenty years, by the plan Ms. Morris has developed we would only add $23.2 trillion. Wow, that’s a relief!

Want to reduce carbon emissions? Ms. Morris calculates that, though energy prices would hardly skyrocket, the tax would lead to 12 percent fewer emissions over two decades, relative to what’s likely to happen. Capital would flow into cleaner energy because consumers would demand it.

Really? Hardly skyrocket? Yes, I can see it clearly. Americans marching in the streets demanding more higher cost energy.

Want to cut taxes? The plan would finance a seven-point drop in the corporate tax rate, the most economically distortional on the books. By encouraging more investment in the United States, this tax swap would produce immediate economic benefits.

Here is a thought. Since the Left apparently agrees that the corporate taxes are “economically distortional”, why not reduce them without making Americans to pay through the nose for energy?

Want to protect the poor? The Brookings proposal would raise electricity, gasoline and heating oil prices by only 5 to 6 percent early on. But it would still reserve 15 percent of the carbon tax revenue to enhance the safety net for low-income Americans, with the money perhaps devoted to the earned income tax credit or Medicaid. This way, Americans in the bottom 20 to 30 percent of the income scale wouldn’t pay anything more to the government, on balance.

You knew that no Leftist plan would be complete if it didn’t include a way to redistribute wealth from the productive class to the non-productive class.

So, how long do you think it will be before there is a bill on the floor of the House or Senate fashioned on the Brookings Institution’s plan? My guess is you can go ahead and hold your breath without any worries. The bill is probably already being drafted.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

About these ads