Cap And Trade Is A Tax, Pure And Simple

I really can't believe that people like Sean and Clark are as dense as they pretend.  Part of the problem is based on an appeal to authority - lefty bloggers tend to believe if it's written in the New York Times, or comes from CAP, or Think Progress, that it's the truth.  They set aside their critical thinking faculties and let other people do the work, because they're not really interested in debate - they're interested in shutting everyone else up by pretending we're stupid.

Case in point:  Cap and Trade.   Clark argues in my comments, and Nicholson argues on the Carnahan family blog that Cap and Trade only costs a postage stamp a month because the money is returned.  They actually believe that taking hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy each year, and then "returning" it to the public proves that Cap and Trade is basically budget neutral.  The argument was first aired by John Reilly of MIT, whose study on a cap and trade system showed a tremendous cost to the average consumer.  Reilly said that in an economic sense, there was no cost, since consumers received benefits for the money taken from them.

Arguing in that same manner, you could say that you don't actually pay any income tax, because you derive a benefit from the taxes you pay (a stable government). Raising property taxes have no economic impact because you get more money spent on schools, or firetrucks, or pensions for municipal workers.  Raising sales taxes has no economic impact because you get more street lights.  Raising gas taxes has no economic impact because you get more orange barrels.

It's a pathetic argument, but folks like Clark and Sean cling to it because someone smarter they them says it's true.  There is no nuance - the argument claims money taken from your pocket doesn't hurt you because you get something in return.  But it's not a tax, it's a regulatory fee to the government.

This kind of sophistry would be cute in a three year old asking for a cookie, but when bloggers attempt to use this kind of logic to insult their political opponents, you can safely write them off as "useful idiots."  Unable to grasp even the basic tenets of logic and reason, they simply parrot what they read from political groups.

CBS news covers this story, by the way.  They get the Environmental Defense Fund to come up with a quote you'll recognize.

Even if a 100 percent auction was a live legislative proposal, which it's not, that math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers. It only looks at one side of the balance sheet. It would only be true if you think the Administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire.

This quote comes almost directly from the argument of John Reilly, who believes the only way that the federal government can waste your money is to burn it on the front lawn of the White House.  Using his logic, no money taken from you is ever wasted.  No money taken from you has an economic impact.  No tax cuts or tax increases ever have any impact. 

As I said - I don't believe they are this stupid.  Instead, I think they are desperately insecure people who want very badly for the rest of the world to think they are smart.  They parrot what they hear because it makes them feel like a part of something bigger, something important.  And as their hopes and dreams are crushed by economic realities, expect them to get nastier and nastier.

Comments

[Clark]

Oh dear Lord. You obviously haven't read the CBO report.

And your last paragraph describes you and your blog to a tee. Stop projecting.

[-Jim Durbin]

Oh Clark. You cannot continue to cite information without thinking first.

The CBO report covers Waxman/Markey, which gives away a bunch of the permits for a few years, because they couldn't pass it without paying off huge corporations and Democrats in coal states. What happens when those permits are no longer given away?

The Treasury report covers what the Obama administration is discussing internally. The mere fact that they're discussing it is based on the idea of generating revenue for the federal government. Why would they do that?

Here's your question. If I pass a 100% tax on all left-wing Missouri bloggers, but promise to give you 100% in permits for 2009 and 2010, what are you going to do in 2011? Would you be a little nervous

Again, you demonstrate how you cannot argue, but instead simply read a left wing blog's analysis, then pretend you've done the hard work yourself.

How's that public option going? Hey, do you think cap and trade will pass the Senate this year? Especially since it's "budget neutral," that should be pretty easy!

[Benjamin]

What are the odds that Clark actually read the bill, as opposed to left-wing talking points from the CBO report?