You heard that right. AP:
Reps. Bob Inglis of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona on Wednesday became the first Republican lawmakers to introduce legislation imposing a carbon tax on producers and distributors of fossil fuels.
The bill, co-sponsored by Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois, would set a tax of $15 a ton of carbon dioxide produced in its first year in effect, with the tax rising to $100 a ton over three decades.
This is a Very Good Thing. More below...
They've even included the obvious, sensible, and efficient offset to correct for progressivity:
Inglis and Flake call their measure "tax neutral" because it would reduce payroll taxes by however much revenue the carbon tax raises, with employers and employees splitting the payroll tax cut equally.
This is a good thing because:
A carbon tax is better than cap and trade. Same effect (the 'pubs are perfectly and obviously correct; cap and trade is a tax), with more transparency, less management, and less opportunity for gaming by the assorted powers that be.
The only reason for cap and trade is because it's more palatable to the masses (left and right; this means you) because it doesn't include the word "tax," and thus it's easier for craven politicians to pass.
Next reason: The 'pubs are proposing it. It may be just an attempt to game the process (it needs to ramp up much faster), but we can play that game too. Obama and the house/senate leadership should take them right up on it, and use the 'pubs own language to drive it through. Okay, the 'pubs might pick up a few political points which might help in a few elections, but with near-zero plus a few points, they're still nowhere.
Even if they do pick up points, we get some too for both A) adopting efficient, market-based good-governance solutions wherever we find them, and B) engaging in bipartisanship.
And while our visceral, emotional selves may want to see them crushed and cowering, what we really should want is for them to act sanely, right? In this case they may be manipulating, but the result is sanity, and they're taking risks as well:
Inglis, whose district around Greenville, S.C., is among the most conservative in the country, acknowledged that it's a huge political risk for him, as a Republican, to propose a new tax.
When they act sanely, shouldn't we reward that (like training a dog), in the political currency they understand? Especially if we win at the same time?
This opening could be played to everyone's advantage. I'm curious to see whether our win-win gamesman-in-chief makes the play.