Posted on 11/20/2014 9:51:14 AM PST by Rusty0604
Fresh off their legislative victory against the Keystone XL pipeline, Democratic senators are pushing a bill that would tax carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels that would rise every year.
Democrats argue it would raise $2 trillion, which could be used for things like paying down the national debt or funding green energy production. The tax would be levied on fossil fuels produced domestically or imported in the U.S. and cover large emitting facilities, possibly power plants or refineries.
“Right now we are subsidizing big polluters to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars annually by allowing them to pollute for free,” said Whitehouse. “We all pay the costs of this subsidy through higher health costs, property damage from rising seas, warming waters that affect our fishing industry, and more.”
The carbon tax bill would follow the Obama administration’s “social cost of carbon” estimate, or SCC, which puts a monetary value on the costs to society per ton of carbon dioxide emitted. The idea is that the more carbon dioxide that is emitted, the more the world warms and impacts human health and the environment.
“With this bill we can take control of our economic future,” said Schatz. “This is one of the most straightforward solutions to climate change, and has growing support across the ideological spectrum.”
“Republicans in the Congress are going to take some time to warm up to this proposal, but I am confident that they will listen to their consciences and their constituents, and join us on the right side of history,” Schatz said.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Aren’t taxes supposed to originate in the House? I’m so confused these days.
....Umm
I thought all legislation regarding taxes is to originate in the House.....
(not that it matters to Justice Roberts....)
And that tax would reduce carbon emissions by making too expensive to drive?
Haven’t they done enough damage to the economy? Good Lord, they want to tax us back to the Stone Age!
Can someone explain which items require 60 votes in the senate and some a majority?
It would make everything more expensive. The carbon tax hurt the economy so much in Australia they voted in a conservative that promised to repeal the tax.
I had to check to see if this story was from a satire site.
“Right now we are subsidizing big polluters to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars annually by allowing them to pollute for free,”
If it’s something Harry Reid wants to pass, it only requires a simple majority. (1/2 sarc)
They won’t be happy until all manufacturing moves to China.
It’s the Clintoon BTU tax all over again.
satire?
It’s so hard to tell these days.
Sounds like Gruber is still on the payroll.
>>>...which could be used for things like paying down the national debt...<<<
That’s the usual ‘Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown’ trick that sucks in some budget hawks and garner their support.
Yes, that gave me a chuckle.
If someone is filibustering, 60 to get it heard. If not, a majority
Having only 41 votes is hardly a victory!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.