Let’s start out with the notion that American Conservatism is rooted in Classical Liberalism, which notes that the government that governs least governs best. Furthermore, there is an aversion amongst Conservatives when it comes to empowering the federal government with more and more power. A strong belief in the 10th Amendment states that all powers not reserved by the Constitution to the federal government are reserved for the States and the People. Period. Furthermore, Classical Liberalism, and American Conservatism, wants government out of economic matters as much as possible. So, here we go
(The Hill) The House voted Friday to condemn a potential carbon tax, closing the door on a climate change policy popular in some conservative circles.
Lawmakers passed, by a 237-163 vote, a GOP-backed resolution listing pitfalls from a tax on carbon dioxide emissions and concluding that such a policy “would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States.â€
Six Democrats voted with the GOP for the resolution. No Republicans dissented.
If it’s popular in “some conservative circles”, then they aren’t Conservatives. A carbon tax would be a big government solution, injected into the economy, and has nothing to do with the free market. More like the socialist market.
A group of think tank leaders from the Niskanen Center, R Street Institute and elsewhere, along with some scholars from the American Enterprise Institute, wrote to Congress opposing the resolution this week.
“We are concerned that this resolution offers a limited perspective on carbon taxes and is blind to the potential benefits of market-based climate policy,†they wrote.
One of those non-Conservatives, Catrina Rorke, Direction of energy policy at R Street, was given a platform at the Daily Caller to make her pitch
But there’s also a right way to do it. R Street supports a revenue-neutral price on carbon that cuts or outright eliminates other taxes on capital and income; that can be adjusted at the border for imports and exports; and that’s accompanied by preempting existing EPA, Interior and DOE carbon regulations. A properly designed price on carbon could be used to eliminate some of the most harmful taxes and regulations that restrain economic growth. If designed correctly, a carbon tax might be excellent for American families and businesses and in the best interest of the United States.
These are conservative ideas. Economists like Art Laffer, Greg Mankiw, Doug Holtz-Eakin, Irwin Stelzer and Alan Viard – people conservatives trust to guide good decisions in tax and economic policy – all have supported a revenue-neutral carbon tax, if designed correctly. It behooves no conservative to treat these ideas unfairly and distort the debate by conceding as fact something that is not necessarily true.
If you’re proposing the implementation of a program and tax that requires massive influence and involvement of Big Central Government, this is neither free market based (notice that those who are pushing this have recently dropped the word “free” whenever you run across this) nor Conservative. Any sort of carbon tax or cap and trade program is inherently a Big Government, counter-free market, anti-Conservative initiative.
