Skip to comments.GOP senior statesmen making push for a carbon tax
Posted on 02/08/2017 7:59:54 AM PST by Olog-hai
A group of Republican senior statesmen is pushing for a carbon tax to combat the effects of climate change, and hoping to sell their plan to the White House.
Former Secretary of State Jim Baker is leading the effort, which also includes former Secretary of State George Shultz. In an opinion piece published Tuesday night in The Wall Street Journal, they argued there is mounting evidence of problems with the atmosphere that are growing too compelling to ignore. [ ]
Carbon taxes are designed to raise the cost of fossil fuels to bring down consumption. Baker and Shultz detailed in the opinion piece their plan for a gradually increasing carbon tax, with dividends being returned to people, as well as border adjustments for the carbon content of exports and imports and the rollback of regulations.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
What happened to free markets ?
Globalists have not given up on their plan to cripple the US with carbon taxes.
These idiots have a death wish and should be tarred and feathered in the highest carbon way possible.
RINOs want to saddle the economy with more taxes and regulations.
Statesman is generally defined as “A dead politician.”
These guys are not dead yet so they are politicians.
Two more fossils from the Bush era trying to gain attention. They probably invested in Carbon Credits, as did Al Gore. If climate change is debunked, they’d lose their bet.
The madness persists. President Trump must make short shrift of this sickness.
To hell with these RINO left-overs from the failed George H. W. Bush Administration.
Tone deaf morons, thy name is GOPe.
Not senior statesmen. Senior-moment dinosaurs who have no relevance.
Carbon tax credits are a cause célèbre for globalists. It’s the future currency for a globalists economy.
Bastards. They are working for someone who will benefit from this. They have always been in the Saudi and globalist pocket. God I hate the Republican establishmen for exactly things like this.
What, free markets and the Uniparty? Just incompatible, or so they remind us.
AP writing what they hope for. This will be ridiculed by the current admin.
Propaganda pure and simple.
And they still don’t understand that few believe them. And libtards still believe the media drives opinions and narratives.
Maybe, just maybe they’ll begin to see the light after 2018 midterms gives 60+ senators...
I wonder how much money they figure to make on this. They’re obviously jealous of Algore.
So, I have an idea, there is a carbon tax and it is called TARIFFS!
These same people accuse Trump of working for Putin but then come back favoring Russia and China in profound tax language
I am sick of these communist moles
To avoid an undue burden on the poor from the higher energy bills that would result, the projected $200 billion to $300 billion in annual revenue would be redistributed to households in the form of quarterly checks from the Social Security Administration. Families of four would see an average annual payout of $2,000 under the plan.
Duh Phuk dey would.
You will never see an increase of any money.
The plan is for social security recipients? A family of 4 will see an additional $2,000 per year?
There are generally not families of 4 using social security.
By the time someone uses social security they are down to one or two people in the house and they both receive social security checks.
This is a crazy azz plan to eventually give the U.N. taxing power, which is where this money will end up.
“They would then redistribute tax proceeds back to consumers on a quarterly basis in what they call “carbon dividends” that could be approximately $2,000 annually for a family of four.”
Great! This should cover the cost of the gasoline price increase!
Do these people know there is only one CO2 molecule for every 10,000 in the atmosphere??? Their real “enemy” is the sun, not man. And, if the hoopla is to be believed, they have a problem with a longer growing season? Which would cut down on use of petroleum (they are not really “fossil fuels”) because of transportation costs?
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.