No Hope in Washington

See the original, http://www.ydr.com/opinion/ci_18392144 then read the rebuttal:

Appropriately, whether knowingly or not, Jon Clark, in his commentary of July 3^rd, used quotation marks around the words “effective and fair” when referring to a policy that will institute a carbon fee and dividend. The use of quotation marks sends the message that the policy will be neither effective nor fair.

Mr. Clark explains this plan by telling us that, “This approach would place a steadily rising fee on carbon-based fuels and return all the revenue to American citizens in the form of a monthly dividend payment. Most families would receive more of a dividend than they would pay for in increased energy costs, depending on their consumption. This proposal would not increase the size of government, as it is revenue neutral, and would send a clear price signal to markets to shift investments away from polluting, fossil fuels and toward clean energy and energy efficiency.”

The flaws in this theory make it both laughable and downright scary. It is a policy that could have come directly from Ayn Rand’s classic “Atlas Shrugged.” Punish the producers and reward the looters. Seriously, the more you produce for the benefit of society, the greater your use of carbon fuels will be and, under this policy, the greater your punishment. The less you produce, the lower your use of carbon fuels and the greater your reward.

While the above point is reason enough to oppose such a policy, I also must question his logic in stating that ‘most families would receive more of a dividend than they would pay for in increased energy costs.” The dividend might more than offset increased energy costs, but does Mr. Clark really believe that corporations paying this carbon tax (sorry, fee, not tax) are going to absorb that cost? Of course they aren’t. They can’t if they want to remain in business. This new tax will be passed on to the consumer through higher prices for everything we need. Therefore, what good would a monthly check do you if it doesn’t offset the increased cost of living?

This brings me to my next point, which concerns Mr. Cark’s assertion that “this proposal would not increase the size of government.” This comment calls for another use of the word seriously. I mean, seriously? It won’t increase the size of government? Please explain how that is possible. The government will be collecting this ‘fee’ and distributing monthly checks to 115 million households every month without increasing the size of government? Not likely. It’s much more likely that the federal government would create the Department of Carbon-Fuel Fees. Politicians would appoint family and friends to these jobs, paying them six-figure salaries and then this new bureaucracy would redistribute the funds minus the 80 or 90 cents per dollar initially collected. Please explain how the collection and distribution of this money can be done at zero cost. It can’t.

Mr. Clark concludes that he was pleasantly surprised at the positive response he received from Republican lawmakers as he presented this plan to members of Congress. Obviously Mr. Clark had a preconceived idea about the GOP. However, I believe Mr. Clark placed his concerns with the wrong group of representatives. A supposedly revenue neutral plan is going to receive serious consideration from Republicans. However, history shows us that it is the liberals in Congress who would have a difficult time with this. Good luck convincing the leaders of the Democrat Party to collect tax dollars from citizens and then return it without utilizing that money as a tool to gain favor with one group or another. Democrats have shown us time and again that they believe they know better how to use our money than do we.

While Mr. Clark’s goal is noble, his strategy for achieving it is counter-productive. The government should not be mandating our lives to that extent. We must let the natural laws of a free-market society play out. Already, through education, improved technology, and the rising cost of fuel we see society shifting its use of carbon fuels. More people are choosing, of their own free will, to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles. Solar panels on private homes are becoming more common. It is not unusual to see windmills as you travel. All of this has happened without government interference. Adding the fees as suggested by Mr. Clark will only result in a higher cost of living, fewer jobs, and less investment in new technologies. This plan will only delay the inevitable, which is a world in which we can all drive to Washington in electric cars charged with power made from wind.