Why A Price On Carbon (Dioxide) Is Nothing More Than A Great Big New Tax

With talk of a price on Carbon, (in reality Carbon Dioxide) just what is the scope of this, and when you see, it then becomes patently obvious that this whole so called debate is not about the environment. It’s just about the money, and just how much money is involved. At the proposed $25 per ton, and there are CO2 emissions of 3.25 billion tons just to produce the electrical power we all need to have access to, then that amount comes in at nearly $82 Billion. Electrical power emits one third of all emissions, so now the total comes in at nearly $250 Billion, and that’s for each and every year. See now why the Government so desperately wants to pass this legislation.

From 1993. See how many catch phrases, lies and commie one-liners you can find...

Clinton Retreats on Energy Tax in Fight Over Budget
By Paul F. Horvitz
Published: June 9, 1993

WASHINGTON— President Bill Clinton and his allies in Congress confirmed the obvious on Tuesday: There will be wholesale revisions in his five-year budget plan, including major changes in a proposed energy tax.

Negotiations are continuing with dissident Democrats in the Senate over the details as the president fights to collect enough votes from his own party to pass his plan.

Despite the impending changes, which will include more spending cuts and fewer taxes, none of the Senate's 43 Republicans is expected to vote for the plan, their leaders said.

On the chopping block is Mr. Clinton's proposal to tax the heat content of fuels - the so-called Btu tax. Democratic leaders have indicated that it may be scaled back by one-quarter to one-third from its current level of $72 billion. In addition, congressional leaders and the president himself signaled Tuesday that the tax would be shifted away from a heat-content tax. An value-added tax or a similar variant of a sales tax appears more likely, according to one Republican who met with the president.

Under withering pressure from business lobbyists and sympathetic senators, White House officials already have agreed to provide numerous industry exemptions to the energy tax. A Senate leader said Tuesday that officials were certain to trim the tax further to maintain competitive international prices on U.S. products that are exported.

More cuts in Medicare, the huge health insurance program for the elderly, appear likely. But lobbyists for the elderly are mobilizing.

In addition, negotiators will have to find another way to save the $9 billion it will cost to postpone by six months the effective date of higher personal and corporate income taxes envisioned in the plan.

What makes the talks doubly difficult is that Mr. Clinton's effort to meet the demands of moderates and conservatives in the Senate may undermine the support of more liberal Democrats in the House of Representatives. Although the budget plan narrowly passed the House, changes in the Senate will have to be approved in the House before final passage.

Senator George J. Mitchell of Maine, the Democratic leader in the Senate, said Tuesday: "There will be less in the way of tax increases, more in the way of spending cuts, and the energy tax would be modified and reduced as part of the first point of less in the way of tax increases."

Before meeting with Democratic and Republican congressional leaders at the White House, Mr. Clinton acknowledged: "There will be some changes in the Senate, and that is fine."

But the president said certain "principles" must be retained in the final legislation: It must contain $500 billion in deficit reduction. It must include a "trust fund" to ensure that new cuts and revenues reduce the deficit. The tax burden must fall more heavily on the wealthy. It must retain incentives for job-creation and for individuals to move off of welfare. And the energy tax ought to encourage conservation and the use of cleaner fuels.

Mr. Clinton pointedly declined to call it a "Btu tax."

The president's goals are open to broad interpretation, and the battle of public perceptions between Mr. Clinton and his opponents continued Tuesday.

Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, the Republican leader, repeated his contention that the Senate budget bill, as now constructed, contains $6 in tax increases for every $1 in spending cuts. A few months ago, his analysis showed the ratio of taxes to cuts to be 2 to 1. Later, he adjusted it to 3.25 to 1. Now he is up to 6 to 1. Democrats put it at 1 to 1, with more cuts coming.

Mr. Dole also noted that the Republicans had picked up a Senate seat in a special election in Texas, and he added: "If you didn't get the message you'd better get a hearing aid, because it was pretty loud and clear. People want to cut spending first, and they don't want more taxes."

Mr. Clinton frequently sketches a far more complex message about the need for investment in the economy at the same time that the deficit is reduced. On Tuesday, he repeated his contention that interest rates had fallen "because there's a serious attempt to reduce this deficit through a combination of cuts and tax increases."

In the Senate, Mr. Clinton's key battle is with a Democrat, Senator David L. Boren of Oklahoma, whose on-again, off-again support is crucial. Mr. Boren is a member of the Senate Finance Committee, where the loss of a single Democratic vote could doom the budget bill. The quixotic Mr. Boren has said talks are "moving in the right direction," but he has withheld firm support.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/09/news/09iht-plan_1.html

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.