The Carbon Tax Explained in Language Even a Conservative Can Understand

Dr. Arthur Laffer was the author of the famous 'Laffer Curve' that promotes the theory that lowering taxes will increase spending, thereby keeping the economy afloat.

Those great economic wizards, George Bush and Jim Flaherty followed the Laffer curve, but no one's laughing now.

However, the good doctor appeared on an episode of Bill Mahr this past winter, and when hammered about his theory, which many believe contributed in part to the economic crisis; he defended himself by saying that the Bush Administration (and Harper Government) only followed his theory in part.

You need to reduce taxes, but you also must reduce government spending, he stated. OOPS! I guess they should have read the rest of the book.

Another economist's name that is being bandied about recently is John Keynes, and the term 'Keynesian' has become part of our vernacular. However, again only a portion of his theory is being used. That of borrowing to spend on infrastructure to create jobs and stimulate the economy.

But Mr. Keynes also said that war should be largely financed by higher taxation, rather than deficit spending. Another OOPS! Modern wars are being funded with massive debt, because heaven forbid a Conservative would swallow his pride and bring out the 'T' word.

And speaking of the 'T' word, Dr. Laffer is also promoting a Carbon Tax, as the best solution to fight climate change. He is a conservative, who believes that all conservatives should be on board with this because it puts money back in their pockets, rather than taking it out with a hidden 'Cap and Trade' tax, that only helps big business.

An Emissions Plan Conservatives Could Warm To
New York Times
By BOB INGLIS and ARTHUR B. LAFFER
December 27, 2008

CONSERVATIVES don’t support tax increases that are veiled as “cap and trade” schemes for pollution permits. But offer us a tax swap, and we could become the new administration’s best allies on climate change. (Mr. Dion offered a tax swap called the 'Green Shift' and our so-called Conservatives made him out to be the devil)

A climate-change bill withered in Congress this summer because families don’t need an enormous, and hidden, tax increase. If the bill’s authors had instead proposed a simple carbon tax coupled with an equal, offsetting reduction in income taxes or payroll taxes, a dynamic new energy security policy could have taken root.

Even if the United States extracts more of its own oil — something it needs to do — it will still have only 3 percent of the world’s known oil reserves, and OPEC will still be the cartel with 70 percent of the world’s known oil reserves. Conventional discoveries and unconventional extractions (like shale oil) would improve our standing somewhat, but OPEC’s easily extracted oil makes its members the undisputed kings of crude.

If they’re the kings, we’re the vassals. As long as national security risks aren’t factored into the cost of gasoline and as long as carbon dioxide can be emitted without penalty, oil will continue to have an advantage over emerging fuels in the marketplace, and we’ll continue our ruinous addiction to it.

We need to impose a tax on the thing we want less of (carbon dioxide) and reduce taxes on the things we want more of (income and jobs). A carbon tax would attach the national security and environmental costs to carbon-based fuels like oil, causing the market to recognize the price of these negative externalities.

Nuclear power plants would then compete with coal-fired plants. Wind and solar power would have a shot against natural gas. Trains would compete with trucks. We would clean the air, create wealth and jobs through a new technology boom and drastically improve our national security.

The market-driven innovation that brought us the Internet and the personal computer could quickly bring us new, cleaner fuels. A carbon tax that was fully offset (with payroll or income taxes cut by a dollar amount equal to the revenues generated by the new tax) would be as bold as the threat that we face.

Conservatives do not have to agree that humans are causing climate change to recognize a sensible energy solution. All we need to assume is that burning less fossil fuels would be a good thing. Based on the current scientific consensus and the potential environmental benefits, it’s prudent to do what we can to reduce global carbon emissions. When you add the national security concerns, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels becomes a no-brainer.

Yet the costs of reducing carbon emissions are not trivial. Climate change may be a serious problem, but a higher overall tax rate would devastate the long-term growth of America and the world.

It is essential, therefore, that any taxes on carbon emissions be accompanied by equal, pro-growth tax cuts. A carbon tax that isn’t accompanied by a reduction in other taxes is a nonstarter. Fiscal conservatives would gladly trade a carbon tax for a reduction in payroll or income taxes, but we can’t go along with an overall tax increase. (Not our Conservatives)

The good news is that both Democrats and Republicans could support a carbon tax offset by a payroll or income tax cut. Former Vice President Al Gore has argued for eliminating all payroll taxes and replacing them with “pollution taxes.” He said in a speech at New York University’s law school two years ago: “It would be, in other words, a revenue-neutral tax swap. But, instead of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees, it would discourage business from producing more pollution.”

The United States can’t solve climate change alone. The Kyoto climate treaty was rightly rejected by the Senate because China and India weren’t subject to its provisions. If China and India join the United States in attaching a price to carbon, their goods should come into this country without a carbon adjustment. But if they do not, every item they place on our shelves should be subject to the same carbon tax that we would place on our domestically produced goods, again offset by a revenue-neutral tax cut.

If World Trade Organization rules entitle members to an unwarranted exemption from such a carbon tax, then we should change them. Outliers should not be allowed to frustrate the decision-making of the countries that are trying to prevent the security and environmental train wrecks of this century.

As president, Barack Obama, by working with conservatives as well as the members of his own party, can at once clean the air, create jobs and improve the national security of the United States — a triple play for the next American century.

Bob Inglis is a Republican representative from South Carolina. Arthur B. Laffer was a member of President Ronald Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board from 1981 to 1989.

I, Me, Stephen Harper, and Don Martin's Bad Hair Day

Continuing to break through the crap on the Ignatieff Me site, I see their first entry is a very brief column by Don Martin, that may have triggered this initiative.

It was kind of a catty piece, not the usual quality of Mr. Martin, so I even questioned for a moment, it's validity. Was he just having a bad hair day, or maybe an 'I'm losing my hair' day?' Or is he like some journalists, a little envious of Michael Ignatieff's career?

Ignatieff has covered many modern conflicts from the ground, reporting back to major news sources, while Martin is stuck writing opinion pieces for the likes of the National Post. (So, who's being catty now? Meow)

Actually, I usually enjoy reading Don Martin's columns, which though often attacking the left, will still make me smile and grimace at the same time. But he will also go after the Conservatives when they do something he doesn't like, and it was he who first broke the story of the 200 page manual that Stephen Harper and his caucus use to make sure that Parliament doesn't function, hoping to show Canadians that he needs a majority to get things done.

A recent poll suggests that Canadians agree with the majority idea. Just not for Harper and the Conservatives.

But now with the piece that may have started it all. Excerpts from an interview given to the press by Michael Ignatieff concerning the future of the government, that got Don's shorts in a twist. I will interject with an almost identical one between Stephen Harper and Evan Solomon of the CBC, soon after the 2004 election; discussing Harper's attempt to form a coalition with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton.

I, Michael Ignatieff, Am All About Me.
By Don M (I notice he only signed it Don M. I wouldn't have used my full name either. Will their be a senate seat in his future?)
May 26, 2009

There’s something singularly irritating about the Liberal party leader. Whenever he opens his mouth, out comes ‘I’ after ‘I’. If not ‘I’, he’s full of talk about ‘me’ or ‘my’. It’s often harder to find a party-friendly ‘we’ in his statements than a “Wii” electronic game in Future Shop.

Consider the typical statement delivered by Michael Ignatieff on Monday as he held court with reporters, preening and pretending he holds the fate of this parliament in his hands. This conveniently overlooks the minority math that requires both the New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois to bring down the Conservative government, but “I, Michael” doesn’t let that enter the equation.

Ignatieff: “The difficulty I'm having is I'm trying to make Parliament work, right? I'm here to get improved EI for Canadians, period. And the difficulty I've got at the moment is every time we put a proposal forward, we get it systematically misdescribed, I will - that's polite language. And so we have a problem but we're still trying to make Parliament work for Canadians and that's my position. It's been my position since January.”

Now Harper in a similar situation:

Evan Solomon: "Parliament opens on Monday, and in a sense you're the most powerful Opposition Leader in a generation and people want to know how you're going to use your power. So the fundamental question is: under what circumstances would you call a vote of non-confidence?"

Stephen Harper: "First of all, I can't forget my first responsibility - which is to be the Leader of the Opposition and that's to provide an alternative government. We've always said we'll support the government when they do things that we can accept, which you know the health accord. I supported the health accord, I called for the government to end the pay increase, they're going to do that, I'll support that, but in general my obligation is to provide an Opposition. It's the government's obligation to look really to the third parties to get the support to govern.

The question asked of both men uses the words 'can you' so a natural response would be 'I'.

Question to Liberal Leader: Can you foresee introducing a confidence motion on this during an Opposition Day?

Ignatieff: “I can certainly foresee it. I use your word. I can foresee it.”

Question: In the near future? (a continuation of the question above)

Ignatieff: “I can foresee it and I can foresee it in the near future. But I repeat the word foresee. Let me say it again so it's perfectly clear: I am trying to make Parliament work for Canadians, number one. Number two, I am trying to get EI improved for all Canadians. That's what I'm trying to do.”

Back to Don Martin: This scrum exchange clocks in at 168 words. There are 16 references to himself and only four references to ‘we’ as in his party. In other words, almost 10 per cent of the word count are devoted to Iggy referring to Iggy. Gosh. No self-absorbed attitude here at all.

It must have been a slow news day because Martin's entire piece makes him sound like a moron, and I know for a fact that he is not. I suppose if Michael Ignatieff had answered the reporter when he asked 'can you?' with 'we', Martin would have called him an idiot because he wasn't asked what they (we) were going to do but what he (I) was going to do.

Shame on you Don. I thought you were above the petty.

I, Me, Stephen Harper, Will Never Stack Up

In an attempt to answer the ridiculous Ignatieff Me website set up by the Conservatives, I think its important to elaborate on the nine second spot of Mr. Ignatieff calling America his country.

It was part of an interview about his book, The Lesser Evil, which was an attempt to seek a balance in the aftermath of 9/11. He recognized that sometimes force is necessary, which he refers to as the 'lesser evil', but cautioned against the use of excessive force.

The book received great reviews; and apparently was even read by Barack Obama. But more importantly, it opened a necessary discussion on how to deal with terrorism, and what rights we were willing to sacrifice in the name of dealing with that terrorism.

To have his work diminished to cherry pick a few words to use in attack ads, is disgraceful. We should be proud that a Canadian made such an impact on those wishing to understand their lives after that life altering day.

The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror
Michael Ignatieff
Finalist for the 2004 Lionel Gelber Prize

Must we fight terrorism with terror, match assassination with assassination, and torture with torture? Must we sacrifice civil liberty to protect public safety?

In the age of terrorism, the temptations of ruthlessness can be overwhelming. But we are pulled in the other direction too by the anxiety that a violent response to violence makes us morally indistinguishable from our enemies. There is perhaps no greater political challenge today than trying to win the war against terror without losing our democratic souls.

Michael Ignatieff confronts this challenge head-on, with the combination of hard-headed idealism, historical sensitivity, and political judgment that has made him one of the most influential voices in international affairs today.

Ignatieff argues that we must not shrink from the use of violence--that far from undermining liberal democracy, force can be necessary for its survival. But its use must be measured, not a program of torture and revenge. And we must not fool ourselves that whatever we do in the name of freedom and democracy is good. We may need to kill to fight the greater evil of terrorism, but we must never pretend that doing so is anything better than a lesser evil.

In making this case, Ignatieff traces the modern history of terrorism and counter-terrorism, from the nihilists of Czarist Russia and the militias of Weimar Germany to the IRA and the unprecedented menace of Al Qaeda, with its suicidal agents bent on mass destruction. He shows how the most potent response to terror has been force, decisive and direct, but--just as important--restrained. The public scrutiny and political ethics that motivate restraint also give democracy its strongest weapon: the moral power to endure when the furies of vengeance and hatred are spent.

The book is based on the Gifford Lectures delivered at the University of Edinburgh in 2003.

Reviews:

"In The Lesser Evil, Michael Ignatieff addresses the ethical problems faced by liberal democracies. . . . [H]e soberly deals with permanent problems of American foreign policy, not only those specifically provoked by the Bush administration's war on terror: the problems of attempting to rule without demonstrated legitimacy, the prudential problem of choosing the lesser evil, the expedient choice of deliberative abuse or suspension of rights considered defining qualities of democracy, the limits of acceptable violence and coercion, and the problems of arbitrary detention, torture, assassination and disregard of the rule of law--all the subject of policy choices made in Washington since September 2001."--William Pfaff, Los Angeles Times

"Michael Ignatieff assesses America's war on terror and tries to determine what security measures a society can tolerate and still consider itself virtuous."--New York Times Book Review

"We need calm, reasoned advice on how to balance the interests of security and liberty. We have it now in a remarkable book. Michael Ignatieff brings history, philosophy, law, and democratic morality to bear on the problem. That may sound daunting, but Ignatieff is such a forceful writer that it is a fascinating book. . . . Reading him is a bit like having a conversation with an eminently reasonable but convinced and powerfully convincing man."--Anthony Lewis, New York Review of Books

It's no wonder Stephen Harper is so afraid of Michael Ignatieff. A brilliant man and a Canadian who has done us all proud. Michael Ignatieff: The 23rd prime Minister of Canada has come home to roost.

And Stephen is just leavin'!

I, Me, Stephen Harper. It's All About Me

So the 'Ignatieff Me' site has been up and running for a little while now, with very few new items added. Most of what you find there has been cut and pasted from the Conservative website. Same old, same old.

'He wants to raise your taxes ... out of the country for 34 years .... Just Visiting'.

Like we didn't hear enough of that from the TV ads and the taxpayer funded literature that they have been distributing. (Of course Kingston's own 'also ran', Brian Abrams had to have Mike Wallace and Blake Richards do his dirty work for him. I guess he's hoping to get elected so he can start abusing our tax money all by himself).

I suspect that the Harper supporters love the site, but I doubt it would change any one's mind about how to vote. In fact, if anything, it's juvenile appearance would probably turn you off the Party who feels the need to stoop to this kind of nonsense.

The only thing semi-original is a mock magazine cover and the immediate spoken words of Mr. Ignatieff, about 9 seconds from a C-Span interview, discussing Michael Igantieff's book, 'The Lesser Evil'. We don't get to hear the rest of the interview, but I'm not sure how that means he can't be our Prime Minister. He was teaching at Harvard at the time, so would have felt some kinship.

With the focus on those nine seconds and a handful of words, the message has been distorted. Ignatieff's book dealt with a post 9/11 world, and how America would have to find a balance between knee jerk revenge and justified force.

"We need calm, reasoned advice on how to balance the interests of security and liberty. We have it now in a remarkable book. Michael Ignatieff brings history, philosophy, law, and democratic morality to bear on the problem. That may sound daunting, but Ignatieff is such a forceful writer that it is a fascinating book. . . . Reading him is a bit like having a conversation with an eminently reasonable but convinced and powerfully convincing man."--Anthony Lewis, New York Review of Books

Instead the Conservatives have reduced an important message to some kind of hidden love of America, over his love for Canada. After 9/11 everyone was American for awhile. That was until George Bush made even Americans ashamed of being American.

Ironically, this interview was given about the same time that Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day were writing to American newspapers indicating that they were opposed to Chretien 's decision to keep us out of the Iraq War. And Jason Kenney: '... echoed his Canadian Alliance party's view that Canada should do more to support its Anglosphere allies. "In the last couple of weeks, for the first time I was not proud to be a Canadian."'

Now if this was used in a Conservative style attack ad, we would cut out Kenney's "not proud to be a Canadian." and repeat it over and over and over and over again. Then take the line from Harper and Day's letter: "But we will not be with the Canadian government" and do the same. I guess they forgot that as the Opposition Party they were part of the Canadian Government. So were they waging war on their own?

June 10, 1991 Was the Most Important Date in Canadian History

I'll bet if you went out on the street today and asked Canadians what they were doing on June 10, 1991; they would remember in vivid detail the day the North stood still.

Or would they?

Sadly, they probably would not, and that's a shame; because it was such a monumental date in our history and indeed that of the entire world.

No I'm not referring to the devastating volcano in the Philippines, the collapse of the Soviet Union or the death of the mullet as a favourite hairdo for men.

I'm referring to the day that the Kingston Whig Standard quoted Michael Ignatieff as saying "Taxes have to rise; there is no other way”

OH THE HORROR!!! Even after more than 18 years, the memory of that ominous statement still haunts me.

Gawd!!

I just visited the ridiculous website set up by the Conservative party to bash Michael Ignatieff and I'm feeling a little nauseous. Is this what Canadian politics has been reduced to? It's absolutely horrible. I knew that Harper had a mean streak, but this goes beyond mean to borderline insanity.

However, while it's clear that the Conservatives are desperate, having to dig up stuff from 18 years ago; the site also reveals that they're not terribly bright. They have been campaigning on two basic points. That Mr. Ignatieff will raise taxes, something that most Canadians know is inevitable given the state of our economy; and the fact that he spent 34 years outside of the country.

Yet, the revelation from the Kingston Whig Standard piece (Kingston is in Ontario, which is in Canada for those Conservatives not aware of that ... I could see Jason Kenney or Luc Harvey maybe having a problem, so I'll wait while they catch up .... ), shows that he still had an impact on our news. But what was this in reference to?

We have to look back to 1991, when Mr. Ignatieff's opinion was being sought. We were in the middle of an energy crisis and a global recession. Brian Mulroney was racking up the largest deficit in our history (his record was recently broken by Jim Flaherty. Yeah! Go Jim) and OPEC had us all in a choke hold. It was also at this time that we were beginning to take a serious look at our environment and how we were impacting it. All of the brightest minds were being put to use to chart a course toward stability.

Hmmm ... energy crisis, global recession, record breaking deficit and environmental Apocalypse. Sounds like deja vu all over again, and those things are still foremost on Mr. Ignatieff's mind; only this time he has an opportunity to do something about them.

In 1991, when Stephen Harper was sitting on Deb Grey's lap as her assistant, reading his latest edition of the National Citizens Coalition Bulldog magazine, no one was looking to him for solutions to international or even national problems.

Now it's 2009, and we are still not looking to him for solutions, because we've realized that after 3 1/2 years, he clearly has none. Instead he is busy trying to discredit those who do.

Mr. Ignatieff may have been out of the country for 34 years, but he was not in a Turkish prison. He taught at universities like Oxford, Harvard and Cambridge. He was a respected journalist, author and sought after academic. MacLeans magazine named him among the "Top 10 Canadian Who's Who" in 1997 and one of the "50 Most Influential Canadians Shaping Society."

I need to repeat that: one of the "50 Most Influential Canadians Shaping Society." Not just shaping Canadian society but a Canadian shaping society at large.

Is it wise for the Conservatives to allow Michael Ignatieff to let Canadians know what he was doing for those 34 years?

If he had brought this up, it would have looked like bragging, but now that the Cons have, he will just be defending himself. Gee, for a smart guy, Stephen Harper sure is dumb da dumb dumb.