OPINION:
A few days ago, four Republican senators joined four Democrats and Sen. Angus King, Maine independent, to introduce legislation that would set the federal government down the path of imposing a tax on carbon dioxide — which as a practical matter means a tax on everything made, moved, consumed, heated or cooled.
In response, The Washington Times correctly noted that the proposed legislation would require the Biden administration to determine the amount of energy used and carbon dioxide emitted by various countries in the production of everything that makes modern life possible, such as aluminum, iron, steel, plastic, crude oil and so on.
That determination would be used to impose tariffs on those countries who — in the view of the Biden administration — emit too much carbon dioxide while creating those products.
Before such tariffs could be imposed, however, the federal government would need to set a price for carbon dioxide in these United States. It is the only way the whole scheme can comply with our trade obligations.
That means the imposition of nationwide tax on carbon dioxide, which is really, of course, a tax on energy.
This is not particularly complicated. Whatever one calls it — a tax, a tariff, an adjustment or whatever — it will mean higher prices on everything that energy touches, which, of course, means everything. Such a tax will damage households and the larger economy and fall hardest on the working class.
Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, who appears to be the leader of the Senate Republicans who want to raise your energy taxes, knows this. In introducing the legislation, he made it clear that we are talking about an energy tax.
In case you missed it, he went to Thursday’s Washington Times pages to seek absolution. “We spend so much time as Republicans saying hell no to people who want to tax carbon … this is the low-hanging fruit of climate policy or trade policy or whatever you want to call it.”
Here’s what those who tell the truth should call it: a national energy tax.
In an effort to tidy up the messaging, an essay by Mr. Cramer (or his press team) includes the following: “I echo what former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer stated … “I would want to see people come together and have some kind of a carbon border adjustment, not a carbon tax — I’m not for that — but a carbon border adjustment.”
A “carbon border adjustment mechanism” is the same thing as a tax and will ultimately have the same effect — higher energy prices — on American consumers. Mr. Cramer knows this, which is why he is eager to distract you by waving the bloody shirt of Chinese economic aggression in his essay.
Mr. Lighthizer, perhaps the most accomplished trade negotiator of his generation, knows this as well — which is why he stopped in midsentence to try to create a distinction between an “carbon adjustment” and an energy tax. He wants to preserve the chance that he might be treasury secretary in the next Republican administration.
If you have any doubt about what this is really about, take a look at who is working on the legislation. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who sets the far leftward post in the Senate with respect to climate change and has for years introduced legislation that would impose a national energy tax on consumers, is the Democratic lead.
Not enough? The Climate Leadership Council, a longtime supporter of carbon dioxide taxes, helped write the legislation. The leftist Citizens’ Climate Lobby is already lobbying for the legislation.
When one lies down with dogs, one tends to wake up with fleas.
George Orwell once described political speech largely as the defense of the indefensible. He said: “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
He was speaking to our present moment and the present issue. When elected officials are unable or unwilling to clearly explain the mechanics and consequences of their proposed policies, voters should prepare for the worst.
There appear to be only two possibilities in this instance. One is that the Republican senators in favor of this tax don’t actually understand the mechanics of how an “border adjustment mechanism” would work. The other possibility is that they do.
It is difficult to say which is worse.
• Michael McKenna, a columnist for The Washington Times, is president of MWR Strategies. He was most recently a deputy assistant to the president and deputy director of the Office of Legislative Affairs at the White House. He can be reached at mike@mwrstrat.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.