[This guest post is by Christopher Prandoni, the Federal Affairs Manager for Americans for Tax Reform. It is a response to Myron Ebell’s May 7 post, “A Response to Conservative Defenders of Tax Credits.”]
Americans for Tax Reform asks every candidate running for Congress to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a promise to their constituents that they will not raise taxes on Americans or their businesses. The Pledge, signed by 235 Members of the House and 41 Senators, reads:
I___ pledge to the taxpayers of the state
Of___ , and to the American people that I will:
ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax
rates for individuals and/or businesses; and
TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and
credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.
The Pledge is by no means a panacea to America’s tax and spending problems, it is a stopgap which identifies tax increases and looks to prevent them. It is the second clause of Pledge that has caused a limited fuss within the conservative movement and, thus, is worth reexamining. Before we proceed, it is important to make the distinction between two types of tax credits—refundable and nonrefundable—as conflating them can lead to unnecessary confusion. A tax credit is employed to reduce a taxpayer’s tax liability, ie reducing the amount of money they must pay to the government. A refundable tax credit allows the taxpayer to reduce their tax liability below zero, meaning the taxpayer is owed money from the government. The outlay effect caused by refundable tax credits is spending. Americans for Tax Reform has unambiguously opposed outlays resulting from refundable credits. I recommend readers take a look here at which refundable credits trigger these outlay effects.
[click to continue…]
According to F. Scott Fitzgerald, the finest writer in American history, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” By this criterion, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) is a real genius, because he manages to function in the Congress, despite the fact that he thinks the price of gasoline should go up and down, simultaneously.
As one of the Congress’s foremost global warming alarmists, Rep. Markey believes that hydrocarbon energy is the cause of the supposed “problem” that is global warming. Due to this belief, he is a staunch supporter of energy policies designed to make hydrocarbon energy more expensive, so that Americans use less of it, and thereby fight global warming. For example, he co-authored the American Clean Energy and Security Act, a cap-and-trade energy rationing scheme passed by the House of Representatives in June 2009. (Thankfully, the bill died in the Senate.) Because the entire point of this policy was to “put a price” on carbon, it would have increased the price of gasoline, by design.
[click to continue…]
Last Thursday, the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the House Transportation Committee held a hearing on “Environmental Protection Agency Mining Policies: Assault on Appalachia.” Video and written testimony are available here. For detailed descriptions of the EPA’s outrageous war on Appalachian coal production, click here, here, or here. Suffice it to say, EPA has subverted the Administrative Procedures Act to enact a de facto moratorium on mining. It engineered a new Clean Water Act “pollutant,” saline effluent, which the EPA claims degrades water quality downstream from mines by harming a short lived insect that isn’t an endangered species. The hearing on Thursday was part 1; this Wednesday, the subcommittee is scheduled to hear from EPA administrator Lisa Jackson.
I attended the hearing, and at the media table, I picked up a Sierra Club “Beyond Coal Campaign” press release, by Director Mary Anne Hitt. It is an excellent window into the lying and exaggerations frequently employed by environmental extremists in order to demonize coal. Below, I reprint the entire press release, sentence by sentence (in bold), each followed by a rebuttal (in italics).
Sierra Club: “This Committee’s leadership is trying to stack the deck against Appalachian miners, families and businesses.”
Stacking the deck!? This is absurd. To be sure, all four witnesses before the Subcommittee were opposed to the EPA’s war on Appalachian coal, but that was by BIPARTISAN agreement. Indeed, the only Democrat to show up was Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), the Ranking Member of the full Committee, who opposes the EPA’s machinations more than Republicans, due to the fact that his State is the largest coal producer in Appalachia, and is, therefore, harmed most.
[click to continue…]
Republicans in the New Hampshire Senate continue to dither like a eunuch in a brothel lobby, more than two months after the State House of Representatives enacted HB 519, legislation that would withdraw New Hampshire from a regional energy-rationing scheme known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, by a 246 to 104 vote. In late February, after the Republican-controlled House acted, it was widely thought that the Senate would quickly follow suit, as Republicans hold a 2 to 1 majority in the upper chamber. However, the environmentalist lobby mobilized and frightened many Members of the Legislature. Last week, the Senate Natural Resources Committee voted against HB 519 companion legislation. Nonetheless, the full Senate is expected to enact the measure this week, although it is unclear that there will be enough votes to override a promised veto from Governor John Lynch (D), even though Republicans have a veto-proof majority.
Corn Ethanol: Who Pays and Who Benefits?
Ken Glozer, MasterResource.org, 9 May 2011
Losing Indicators
Lawrence Solomon, National Post, 9 May 2011
Death of Climate Nut Osama To Revive Obama Climate Agenda?
Chris Horner, AmSpecBlog, 5 May 2011
April Auto Sales and Washington’s Fuelish Failure
Henry Payne, Planet Gore, 5 May 2011
Obama’s Anti-Energy Policies Are Bankrupting America
Rob Bluey, The Foundry, 5 May 2011
Alarmists Offer a Perfect Global Warming Challenge
James Taylor, Forbes, 4 May 2011
For years, I’ve been arguing that a multilateral response to global warming is a pipe dream. According to the International Energy Agency, the “solution” to this supposed problem would cost $45 trillion through 2050. Yet there is ZERO historical precedent for burden sharing of this magnitude, short of war, and the specter of warmer winters simply doesn’t engender the sort of desperate international cooperation as does a threat like the Nazis. (See here, here, here, and here for my take on the fecklessness of climate diplomacy)
So it was with no surprise that I saw this Reuters headline last Friday: Rich Nations Miss Climate Finance Deadline.
By way of background, the December 2009 United Nations Copenhagen Climate Conference was supposed to have been the deadline for a legally binding, multilateral treaty to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, the Conference was a complete and total bust, for the reason explained above. Instead of a concrete pledge, the Copenhagen Conference ended with nations agreeing to commit $100 billion to a global warming adaptation fund for poor countries. The deadline for contributions was May 1, 2011. Only two countries, Russia and the Ukraine, bothered to acknowledge the deadline, and they did so by sending a letter to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, informing it that they would not be donating any money.
On Thursday, the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the House Transportation Committee held a hearing on “Environmental Protection Agency Mining Policies: Assault on Appalachia.” Video and written testimony are available here. For detailed descriptions of the EPA’s outrageous war on Appalachian coal production, click here, here, or here. Suffice it to say, EPA has subverted the Administrative Procedures Act to enact a de facto moratorium on mining. It engineered a new Clean Water Act “pollutant,” saline effluent, which the EPA claims degrades water quality downstream from mines by harming a short lived insect that isn’t an endangered species. The hearing yesterday was part 1; next Wednesday, the subcommittee is scheduled to hear from EPA administrator Lisa Jackson.
It was a bipartisan bashing. The only Democrat to show up was Ranking Member Rep. Nick Rahall (WV), whose opposition to the EPA exceeds that of Republicans, due to the fact that his State is the largest coal producer in Appalachia, and is, therefore, harmed most.
For the “Part 1” hearing on Thursday, the primary topic was the EPA’s procedural shenanigans. For part two next week, with Administrator Lisa Jackson, I very much hope they address the EPA’s shoddy science on the ecological impact of mountaintop mining.
[click to continue…]
Until today, my favorite critics of hybrid cars were pundits. In particular, I like The Detroit News’s Henry Payne, who posts frequently about the futility of government trying to incent Americans to buy cars that they don’t want to buy (see here or here), and I also like the Washington Post’s Charles Lane, who argues that tax credits for hybrids are regressive, in that they are paid for by all Americans, but are enjoyed only by the upper middle class, for whom a Prius is a green badge of honor (see here or here).
While I still enjoy the work of Payne and Lane, wrestling superstar Dwayne Johnson, a.k.a. “The Rock” or “The People’s Champion,” is now my favorite critic of hybrids, due to his wonderfully offensive response when a reporter asked him for his thoughts about the Toyota Prius.
“You can drive a Prius, sure,” Mr. Johnson told FOX411’s Pop Tarts column. “But you should also grow testicles before that.”
For the record, The Rock drives a black Ford F150. God bless The People’s Champion
To my knowledge, Colorado is the only state in which regulators allow utilities to incorporate a carbon tax into the economic models used to make resource acquisition decisions (see here and here). Ratepayers can’t see it in their monthly bill, but the tax is used in the models, and the models dictate spending. It’s the worst kind of virtual reality: The carbon tax leaps from computers to ratepayer wallets.
The Colorado Public Utilities Commission was authorized to allow for a carbon tax in 2008 with the passage of HB 1164 by the General Assembly. The legislation was advertised as an essential component of former Governor’s Bill Ritter’s environmentalist “New Energy Economy,” but, in practice, the carbon tax has served as an accounting loophole through which Xcel Energy, the largest investor-owned utility in the State, has awarded itself big time profits. In a previous post, I explained in some detail how Xcel uses the carbon tax. Here are a few examples:
- One of Xcel’s priorities is winning market share from independent power producers on the wholesale electricity market. Older natural gas plants are Xcel’s fiercest competitors, because they have already paid off their capital costs, so they can bid electricity prices relatively low. The $20/ton carbon tax eliminates this advantage, because new plants are more efficient than older plants. It tilts the playing field to Xcel’s favor.
Death Spiral for Alarmism Continues (a year later)
Kenneth Green, MaterResource.org, 4 May 2011
Obama’s War on Oil
Peter Ferrara, American Spectator, 4 May 2011
Breaking News: The Climate Actually Changes!
Larry Bell, Forbes, 3 May 2011
Renewable Energy Harms the Economy
Paul Chesser, Cincinnati Enquirer, 3 May 2011
April Auto Sales: Gas or Electric?
Henry Payne, Planet Gore, 3 May 2011
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org