Over the weekend one of my favorite columnists (Tom Friedman) wrote about one of my favorite SC politicians (Lindsey Graham). The subject is the Energy Party-certified energy/climate change compromise that Sens. Graham, Kerry and Lieberman are working on. The result is worth reading. An excerpt:
We start with politics. The Republican Party today has a major outreach problem with two important constituencies, “Hispanics and young people,” Graham explains:“I have been to enough college campuses to know if you are 30 or younger this climate issue is not a debate. It’s a value. These young people grew up with recycling and a sensitivity to the environment — and the world will be better off for it. They are not brainwashed. … From a Republican point of view, we should buy into it and embrace it and not belittle them. You can have a genuine debate about the science of climate change, but when you say that those who believe it are buying a hoax and are wacky people you are putting at risk your party’s future with younger people. You can have a legitimate dispute about how to solve immigration, but when you start focusing on the last names of people the demographics will pass you by.”
Another:
Remember, he adds: “We are more dependent on foreign oil today than after 9/11. That is political malpractice, and every member of Congress is responsible.”
And one more:
“We can’t be a nation that always tries and fails,” Graham concludes. “We have to eventually get some hard problem right.”
As for the part where he said, “I am now semicool,” well you’ll just have to read the piece to find it.
Related Posts
> Sens. Graham, Kerry and Lieberman
Also know as Moe, Larry, and Curly.
OK, Doug, if it’s not too much of a strain for you, please name three U.S. senators YOU respect…
Here’s five…
Jim DeMint (SC)
Jim Webb (VA)
Scott Brown (MA)
Evan Bayh (IN)
Jeanne Shaheen (NH) (key quote: “George (W.) Bush has taken us in the wrong direction. He misled us into war in Iraq. That war has not made us safer and more secure at home… You know, we have not stabilized Afghanistan. We have not stabilized Iraq. There is no plan to win the peace.””
—
Hey, not even I have five.
As for Jeanne Shaheen — rather than come up with a “key quote” of her own, sounds like she went with a rental from moveon.org…
Oops. What I just said sounded as cynical as one of Doug’s typical comments. Sorry.
Seriously, though, I’m glad you have five you like.
Trying to be positive myself, I just made a list of all the senators regarding whom I have a generally positive impression:
1. Lamar Alexander
2. Sam Brownback
3. Robert Casey
5. Lindsey Graham
5. Joe Lieberman
6. Richard Lugar
7. John McCain
If he were still in the Senate, I would have included Barack Obama. (Also, Hillary Clinton would have been borderline. I certainly RESPECT her, but “generally positive impression” might be a stretch.)
And it’s not that I have a NEGATIVE impression of the rest; it’s just that I’m sort of neutral about them.
After compiling it, it strikes me that the list is light on Democrats, but that’s to be expected on the national scene. It’s why we always ended up with Republican in presidential endorsements, even when we endorsed slightly more Democrats here in South Carolina. SC Democrats are very different from national Democrats. (Whereas SC Republicans are pretty much like national Republicans, only in some cases a bit more so.)
And you’ll note that I’m endorsing the entire Independent caucus…
I read a Politico story earlier today about the good working relationship between Lindsey and Rahm Emmanuel.
Since the Clinton days, I’ve respected Rahm for his effectiveness and pragmatism. It probably won’t do Lindsey a bit of good, but I like to see the kind of working together the story describes.
Brad, your challenge is too much of a stretch for me. I do have some nominees (mostly now departed) for senators I have respected in the past. In no particular order, they include:
1. Richard Lugar (was my senator in the early 80s)
2. Sam Nunn
3. William Proxmire (was my senator in the mid 80s)
4. Kay Bailey Hutchison
5. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
6. Mark Hatfield
Well, now, if you’re going to cheat and bring in senators past — I certainly would have included Sam Nunn and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, absolutely.
Scoop Jackson, too. Maybe Howard Baker.
These young people grew up with recycling and a sensitivity to the environment — and the world will be better off for it. They are not brainwashed. … From a Republican point of view, we should buy into it and embrace it and not belittle them. You can have a genuine debate about the science of climate change, but when you say that those who believe it are buying a hoax and are wacky people you are putting at risk your party’s future with younger people. You can have a legitimate dispute about how to solve immigration, but when you start focusing on the last names of people the demographics will pass you by.
Bingo.
And thank you Sen. Graham for supporting a Carbon Tax over Cap and Trade.
David,
How much extra are you personbally willing to pay for the carbon tax? $100 a year? $1000? $5000?
Give us a number that you are confident will solve the problem without having unintended consequences in other areas of the economy.
Give us a number that you are confident will solve the problem without having unintended consequences in other areas of the economy.
$453.86.
Seriously, what makes you think I could answer that? I’m not an economist. Does that mean I can’t have an opinion on the matter?
What gives someone the right to impose real costs to the environment without paying for them?
And how much are you willing to damage the environment to keep that extra money in your pocket? I believe there should be some balance.
Further, since I said very little on the matter how do you know I don’t believe we should offset the carbon tax by reducing income taxes? Or use it to reduce deficits and pay down debts? What’s so bad about that?
I am really becoming quite smitten with Senator Graham.
My choices:
1. Teddy Kennedy
2. Al Gore
3. Hilary Clinton
4. Fritz Hollings
5. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
6. Olympia Snowe
7. Barack Obama
Okay, so only one is still in office….
David,
You may want to reduce taxes to offset the carbon tax but there is no evidence to suggest Congress would do the same. So would you support the carbon tax without tax offsets?
If you don’t want to think about the economic impact of the carbon tax, leave it to the people who are willing to do the research.
I’ll be interested in seeing how much support an increase in the gas tax would have from the working class. How much extra per week do you think they can afford to pay? and how much more will every single item that is transported increase when the tax is implemented? Remember the impact $4 gasoline had on the economy? It’s a recession waiting to happen.
You make a good point that Congress isn’t going to offset a carbon tax by reducing the income tax. I would still support a carbon tax though. If you really want to talk about the reality of what Congress will do in the future, the carbon tax plus other tax increases will be necessary anyway because they aren’t going to be reducing spending in any significant manner anytime soon.
Like I said before, I believe in a balance between doing what’s good for the environment and what’s good for the economy. The GDP should not be the bottom line for everything we do as a society.
Yeah, the working class would be hurt by a carbon tax. You make an good case for a more progressive income tax system. Maybe they could expand the EITC or come up with a new income tax credit to offset the effect the carbon tax would have on the working class. It probably wouldn’t be that hard.
And I asked you before and did not get an answer:
What gives someone the right to impose real costs to the environment without paying for them?
And how much are you willing to damage the environment to keep that extra money in your pocket?
An issue with the working class is that they frequently drive vehicles like trucks and older cars that are far more polluting. They do not pay a lot of income taxes, despite what they might think.
Look, we all have wrecked the climate. We ought to figure out exactly how to equitably pay for the remedies–not just gore the ox of whoever is the weakest…
David,
You’re making my point for me. If you raise one tax and then have to cut another tax or create another tax credit for lower income people, all you are doing is creating a jumbled mess. This is how we ended up with our current tax code. Push here, pull there, tweak here, loophole there… so much wasted effort on meaningless stuff.
As for your questions:
>What gives someone the right to
>impose real costs to the
>environment without paying for
>them?
How do you measure the costs? It’s impossible. Should I be charged a penalty if I DON’T recycle a plastic bottle?
Rather than deal with the issue with taxes, I would prefer to see it dealt with simply by government regulation or tax incentives. No new taxes – because new taxes never seem to make it to the place they need to go.
> And how much are you willing to
>damage the environment to keep
>that extra money in your pocket?
It shouldn’t be about money, it should be about doing the right thing. But you’re talking about using the taxing power of the government to alter peoples’ behavior. I don’t think that is a good idea. It rarely works as planned.
They do not pay a lot of income taxes, despite what they might think.
I’m confused. Who said that?
not just gore the ox of whoever is the weakest…
I’m confused. Who said that?
“How do you measure the costs? It’s impossible. Should I be charged a penalty if I DON’T recycle a plastic bottle? ”
East answer: yes—many states have bottle bills, requiring deposits. Your choice on whether to return the bottle for the deposit, but it sure creates an incentive not only to recycle, but to reduce use (buy the larger container or make your own tea, say), and for third parties to collect containers–not just the homeless, but the Boy Scouts, et al. We lived in Maine. There were machines in the front of every grocery store that would suck up your bottles and spit out change.
Rather than deal with the issue with taxes, I would prefer to see it dealt with simply by government regulation or tax incentives.
My head just exploded. You worried how the poor could afford a carbon tax and I proposed giving them an offsetting tax credit. You shot that down because it would add to our jumbled mess of a tax code.
And now you are talking about “tax incentives”? Like that won’t create more of a “jumbled mess” too? Read your comment back and tell me how it makes sense.
And then you go on:
But you’re talking about using the taxing power of the government to alter peoples’ behavior. I don’t think that is a good idea. It rarely works as planned.
Yeah, I am talking about using the taxing power of the government to alter peoples’ behavior. Along with “tax incentives” (same effect of behavior-altering) you proposed “government regulation”. You’re worried about the government “altering” behavior and yet you go and propose that government enforce a certain behavior. That seems even worse if you’re worried about that sort of thing.
David,
The difference between a tax incentive and a tax credit is that the tax incentive requires a specific positive action that can be tracked. Your idea of giving all the poor people a tax break doesn’t stop them from continuing to pollute. In fact, they will continue to do so because the net cost would presumably be the same. Also, you would be giving money to people who may not be driving cars. And can you imagine the government trying to come up with a formula to figure out how much the poor should be compensated for a carbon tax? You’d have all sorts of new bureaucratic agencies set up to administer the money.
Compare that to tax incentives that reward people for positive behavior instead of trying to punish everyone. Carpool lanes, solar energy credits, giving tax breaks to companies that allow employees to telecommute, etc. Much easier to administer, more specific with guaranteed results, minimal disruption to the economy.
Think about how a carbon tax might be implemented. We would see immediate inflation across the board of every product. The auto and airline industries would be hammered. Travel and tourism would be hammered.
There are plenty of ideas that
don’t require establishing a new tax to collect and redistribute…
how about redirect the money spent on NASA toward solving the energy independence issue? What’s more important? How about cutting a big chunk out of the defense budget that we use to protect the oil producing nations in the Middle East and instead funnel that money toward engineering solutions that make the Middle East irrelevant?
A tax isn’t the answer. Redirecting the priorities of the government is.
If we don’t do something about the climate, tourism will be moot. Recent storms have already hurt the economy, and with increasing hurricanes and the like, tourism will take a lot of hits.
Now, my house might end up beachfront, or at least riverfront, if we don’t get really serious, so….
I missed your response to this way back, Doug. So I doubt you’ll see this. But anyway…
The difference between a tax incentive and a tax credit is that the tax incentive requires a specific positive action that can be tracked.
We’re getting off track. You’re comparing a tax incentive not to pollute with a tax credit meant to alleviate the burden of the carbon tax on the working poor. You should be comparing a tax incentive not to pollute with the carbon tax itself. Both of which can be tracked. I only mentioned giving a tax credit to the poor as a way of relieving the burden a carbon tax would have upon them. This was your concern, not mine.
Your idea of giving all the poor people a tax break doesn’t stop them from continuing to pollute. In fact, they will continue to do so because the net cost would presumably be the same.
That statement only makes sense if you don’t think about it too hard. The tax credit would not be dependent on the amount of carbon each person consumes, only the carbon tax would. Think about it this way: If my income goes up by $100 a month and my cost of, say, eating out goes up by $100 a month, I’m probably going to eat out less despite the fact that the net change would be $0. A better argument from you would have been that the poor probably have fewer options in changing their carbon consumption so they would continue to pollute at approximately the same amount. Although I suspect their pollution would go down by some amount.
Also, you would be giving money to people who may not be driving cars.
Yes, you are correct. Score one for Doug. Nothing’s perfect. In the same manner, your carpool lanes, solar energy credits, and giving tax breaks to companies that allow employees to telecommute would be giving free tax breaks to those who already do those things before your incentives. And yet I do not find that to be a reason to necessarily oppose those ideas.
And can you imagine the government trying to come up with a formula to figure out how much the poor should be compensated for a carbon tax? You’d have all sorts of new bureaucratic agencies set up to administer the money.
Yes, you’d probably need a new agency. Again, nothing’s perfect. But you seem to want to make the idea of a carbon tax more complicated then it would have to be because it helps your argument. You wouldn’t need all sorts of new agencies.
Think about how a carbon tax might be implemented. We would see immediate inflation across the board of every product. The auto and airline industries would be hammered. Travel and tourism would be hammered.
Yes, obviously the costs of those products would increase. I don’t deny that. But I find that fact, as an argument against a carbon tax, to be unconvincing. The point of a carbon tax is to make those involved in the transaction pay for the environmental costs of the transaction. To oppose a carbon tax on the basis that the costs of these products and services will increase across the board is to support a form of welfare to airline companies and their passengers. That is, unless you don’t believe the social costs of pollution are worth worrying about in the first place. But if that were so, why would you argue the alternatives to a carbon tax such as various tax incentives.
There are plenty of ideas that
don’t require establishing a new tax to collect and redistribute…
how about redirect the money spent on NASA toward solving the energy independence issue? What’s more important? How about cutting a big chunk out of the defense budget that we use to protect the oil producing nations in the Middle East and instead funnel that money toward engineering solutions that make the Middle East irrelevant?
I’m definitely ok with doing those two things. How about taking that money and returning it to the treasury? If you believe that pollution and greenhouse gases negatively affect society like I do, then I think it is reasonable to seek to reduce them. And if you believe that the parties responsible for those pollutants should be responsible for redressing the negative effects to society of greenhouse gases, then a carbon tax also makes sense.
Further, wouldn’t you need to set up a new beuraucratic agency to use those redirected funds to find energy solutions? If so, that’s something you specifically used against my argument but ignored in your own.
And, as an aside, I think the carbon tax would lead to more of a “market”-based solution than energy credits and appropriated funds from NASA and the Defense Dept. Tax credits have specific hoops to jump through. And I’m assuming that the NASA/DOD money is still to be used within a government agency, or paid to a group determined by the government or at the very least come with federal strings attached. With a carbon tax, it is up to the individual to find a way to cut their carbon use in a cost efficient manner. Again, not the crux of the issue, but I find it worth noting.
And I might add that I am referring to a carbon tax which would directly tax the production of energy based on CO2 emissions and therefore only indirectly tax the consumer who didn’t recycle a plastic bottle — since you were worried about such a thing.
FYI, David, I did read your response… thanks for the detailed analysis from your point of view. Probably a better conversation to have in person.
Yes, probably so.