Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

A huge tax increase?

The GOP disinformation machine settles on an angle

Posted by Ryan Avent (Guest Contributor) at 2:31 PM on 20 Jun 2008

It seems that another way that the GOP will try to win on this issue is by painting carbon pricing as a massive tax increase. This is just dishonest, though politically it's their best bet (assuming a complete lack of regard for actual outcomes). Let's all think back to the Lieberman-Warner debate, when Bush did his best to scare the crap out of everyone by arguing that L-W would increase gas prices 53 cents-per-gallon by 2030. In fact, it's difficult to imagine that the increased energy costs associated with cap-and-trade will be anywhere near as painful as the rise in gas prices has been.

That doesn't mean the public will love the idea of carbon pricing. Democrats will be able to argue, however, that energy prices are going to go up regardless, but that with cap-and-trade part of the money from the extra expense goes to the government rather than the sovereign wealth funds of Gulf nations, and at least some of those proceeds can be used to assist consumers with the additional cost burden.

Manzi notes that whatever energy prices are, they'll be less without pricing. Ok, fine. But the alternatives are that Republicans are honest about the expected potential energy price increases, which are then unlikely to be scary to voters (and which will also represent, in part, a simple diversion of money from energy producers, including oil exporters, to the treasury, and thence in part to voters). Or Republicans can be dishonest about the expected price increases. But why would they be, except to try an improve their electoral fortunes? And is that really worth the downside? And Republicans can say or do whatever they want, but gas will never again be $1.50 a gallon. Electricity, under the best of circumstances, isn't going to get cheaper.

And once it's clear that the resulting price increases from cap and trade will not, in fact, be massive, the GOP is left to argue that pricing, "will never create present value of benefits greater than costs." That's not correct, but even if it were, it makes a pretty poor rallying cry.

Manzi also thinks I'm wrong to suggest that scary headlines are going to have an impact. I strongly beg to differ. This is how people think, and this is how the media works. Now I think it's clear that the weather is going to get freakier and more economically devastating, in a steady fashion. It's true that not every 500-year flood in some part of the country is attributable to warming. But some are, and so all anomalies will frighten people. And noise machine or no, the GOP will ultimately find themselves asking people, who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

The sad thing is, this isn't a political battle. I don't want the GOP to lose this because they're the GOP. I want them to lose this issue because they're wrong. And so one thing Democrats need to work at is finding ways to help the GOP win on this issue with Democratic policies. Because if stupid partisanship pushes Republican politicians into contrarianism and misinformation, all for the sake of winning, then we're all in trouble.

But to repeat: This is not a massive tax increase. It's just not.

Gas Tax

If Lewis Carroll, Terry Southern, and Ionesco were to somehow able to work together on an absurdist movie plot, it would go something like this: the Government can't find any more ways to tax people, so they decide they will tax people on an orderless, colorless gas produced mostly by breathing and peat bogs.  

It would be the coolest movie ever.   Maybe even more cool than James Coburn in "The President's Analyst"

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/39071/The-President-s-Ana ...

confederacy of dunces

Repubs will hawk this line in a desperate attempt to find a populist position.  Not enough when there is a war and bad economy, but looks like a lifeboat to them.

Worst, the Dem Energy Comm will hawk this line as an argument for safety valve and weaker 2020 caps.

Look for it.

false proof will be easy to come by.

  Since the prices of all fossil fuels are going to go up dramtically anyway, the R's are guaranteed to have rapidly rising prices to point to. They will simply claim ALL the increase was due to cap&trade, and with the public being terribly innumerate (and pundits echoing the message) the false charge will stick.

Jabailo

Jabailo,

You may be interested to know that every single scenario for a carbon tax I have ever heard of also includes a REDUCTION in payroll taxes, so that it is revenue neutral.

Everyone from Al Gore to Thomas Friedman has been publicly advocating a revenue neutral carbon tax.  Where do you see this not being proposed?

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks