- Wednesday, January 17, 2024

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is meeting Thursday to consider legislation that would set the stage to impose a carbon dioxide tax on American families, workers and consumers. This de facto tax on energy, which is inexplicably sponsored by Republican senators led by Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, would fall hardest on the poor, the old, those on fixed incomes, and local institutions that have limited budgets, such as schools and hospitals.

The most distressing part of the legislation may be that its sponsors have tried to disguise the actual intention of the legislation — to increase the price of energy and everything grown, made or transported with energy — with propaganda about being tough on our trade competitors, including China.

The new rule in Washington seems to be that when you are trying to sell policies that will hurt normal Americans, try your best to drag China into the conversation.

In this instance, the legislation in question directs the Department of Energy to set up the necessary infrastructure to tax imported goods based on their carbon dioxide content. These taxes, which are called tariffs when imposed on imported goods, could be imposed by the executive branch without the need for votes by Congress.

Make no mistake; any tax on imported goods will be paid for by the American consumers and businesses that buy those goods.

As a practical matter, this legislation would set the stage and lay the foundation for a tax imposed by the bureaucracy and paid for by American workers, families and companies.

Moreover, once Mr. Cramer’s carbon dioxide tax is imposed on imported goods, domestic suppliers of the same goods would be able to increase their prices without facing any market pressure. It is likely that they would do so.

The authors of this legislation know all of this. They know that the legislation is a way to create a domestic tax on carbon dioxide without requiring Congress to vote for or against it and run the risk of getting on the record about energy taxes.

They know that this energy tax would hurt the poor, the old, those on fixed incomes, and local institutions the most.

They also know that voters don’t want this tax and are not willing to pay it. MWR Strategies — of which this columnist is president — has been asking for years how much people are willing to pay to address climate change. For years, the median answer has been about $40 a year.

Last month, when we asked that question on behalf of the American Energy Alliance and the Committee to Unleash Prosperity to 1,600 likely voters in eight swing states, the median response was $10 a year. More than one-third of the respondents — including 17% of surveyed Democrats — said that they were unwilling to pay anything at all to address climate change.

When we asked about this particular tax on imported goods, voters opposed it by almost a 2-1 margin.

In the same survey, few voters (including almost no Republicans) identified climate change as a pressing issue. There was overwhelming agreement that the federal government should not make energy more expensive, should avoid actions that would increase inflation, and should not raise taxes on energy to address climate change.

Yet this legislation would do all of that. It would make energy more expensive, increase inflation and raise taxes to address climate change. That’s why the sponsors of the legislation have hidden their efforts to increase energy prices in a verbal smoke screen about China.

They know they are trying to sell an intensely unpopular idea.

Make no mistake — the legislation wouldn’t affect China at all. American workers, families and companies would pay this tax on imported goods. Energy — and everything made, grown or transported using energy — would become more expensive. Accountability, especially congressional accountability to the voters, would continue to erode.

Call your senator. Call Mr. Cramer’s office at 202-224-2043. Let them know that you think this carbon dioxide-based tax on imported goods is a terrible idea and that they should oppose it.

• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor at The Washington Times. He was a deputy assistant to President Donald Trump.

Copyright © 2024 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide