Skip to main content

By Bo Cutter, originally posted on Next New Deal.

Click here to subscribe to the Roosevelt Institute's weekly newsletter.

The debate over taxes is trapped in the past. We need new revenue sources, and a carbon tax is a good place to start.

Two big points emerged from the conventions: the horse race became clearer; the actual policies became murkier.

Romney received no convention "bounce," while Obama received a moderate bounce. (The "distraughtness" index of conservative columnists has reached an all time high. This index is best measured by the degree to which George Will and Charles Krauthammer depart from anything remotely definable as reason. Mr, Krauthammer just set a whole new standard by writing a column that saw Michelle Obama's speech as a new sign of the apocalypse. Mr. Will wrote a column yesterday blaming the ills of college football on progressives and by implication Democrats.)  The bounce will go away, but Governor Romney now faces a tougher uphill climb. The FiveThirtyEight blog now gives President Obama an 80 percent chance of winning. The last plausible remaining chance for Mitt Romney is the debates, and maybe he can turn around that 80 percent number, but Governor Romney's convention speech is reasonably good evidence that he won't.

So President Obama really will have to fashion a set of policies and a governing strategy for the next four years. And there's the problem. Neither convention offered a shred of useful policy. The ideological core of both parties see returning to the 1950s as the direction to take. Both conventions and both parties have already rejected the idea that there actually are hard choices.  I developed my own theory years ago that the more any candidate congratulated himself or herself on their willingness to make hard choices, the less they were actually willing to make any such choices. 

And neither of the conventions offered up any view at all of the future beyond the election. Neither party can come to grips with real policy or choices about the future because they are both caught in a struggle to the death about, in essence, the past.

Taxes and revenue are illustrations of all of this. The right hates the idea of more revenue because it sees government as enemy number one (except for Russia). The left wants more revenue but wants even more to whack via the tax code whomever it currently dislikes. Neither side seems to care much about what ought to be the goal -- equitable, sustainable growth.

Some realities about the current tax system: It is vastly overly complex, it is inefficient, and it doesn't raise enough revenue, which will be necessary even after you make allowances for substantial changes in today's entitlements. But the big, hidden-in-plain-sight point is that we have reached a dead end with the income tax. The Romney tax plan, which simply assumes there is a free lunch out there somewhere, won't happen, and would make matters worse if it did. The Obama tax plan doesn't come close to a solution, even after you assume that the affluent pay more, as we should. We are not going to change the big deductions very much, so the base-broadening strategy won't work. And not even Paul Ryan is willing to put out the details his budget glosses over. So we are going to need new revenue sources -- and as it happens, I have a suggestion.

We should consider a carbon tax. (I have also argued that we should enact a low-level value added tax, but that's another day's argument.) A carbon tax would raise substantial revenue -- MIT's recent study estimated such a tax at about $30 per ton of carbon would yield $1.2 trillion over the next decade. At the same time, a carbon tax would be the single most important step we could take to slow global warming.  And now is a perfect time, as the energy revolution America is going through provides some actual pricing flexibility for a tax. We can make this change and still be a cheap energy platform for the next American economy.

Would such a tax solve our debt/deficit problems? Of course not;  we are still going to have to cut the growth of spending and raise revenues. But such a tax would put a dent in the problem, make economic growth much more sustainable, and provide some lubrication for a possible bigger fiscal deal. There is no other idea out there I know of that does these things, taxes "bads" rather than "goods," and raises $1.2 trillion.

(Disclosure: I chair Resources For the Future, an economic think tank in Washington, D.C. that focuses on energy, climate, and the environment and is carrying out substantial research on the carbon tax.)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Bo Cutter is formerly a managing partner of Warburg Pincus, a major global private equity firm. Recently, he served as the leader of President Obama‚Äôs Office of Management and Budget (OMB) transition team. He has also served in senior roles in the White Houses of two Democratic Presidents.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  OK, I'll bite (0+ / 0-)

    How does such a "carbon tax" work?

     At what point is it levied?

    Where does it fit in the pool of tax levies - i.e. where does it go?

    How visible is it?

    It sounds like it might drive the basic costs of living up, which would be hard on lower income households.

    You say both sides are light on the detail, (quite true.), So,  how about some particulars?

    I"m not against it - I live in a wood-heated house with solar panels, so I'm aware of the "carbon issue". But I have no idea how a "carbon tax" would work.

    Thanks for filling in the details.

    Araguato

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site