The American Spectator

p> COAL COUNTRY br> Re: Willam Tucker’s A Qualified “Yes” To Cap-and-Trade : /p>

Let me see if I understand. Mr. Tucker is actually proposing, I assume with a straight face, that the federal government (he is talking about the group we have in Washington now, plus the legions of additional Democrats that are going to be sent there in November, right?) place a tax on carbon emissions, then “return” the money to us sheep? I would like to know what Mr. Tucker has been smoking and/or imbibing. Never in the history of our republic has anything like that ever occurred and it isn’t going to in the future, either.

The likelihood of anything like that happening is about the same as that John McLame will appoint conservative, constructionist justices to the Supreme Court, should he be elected.

p>Mr. Tucker actually believes that a $4  trillion drain in the national economy will not be a problem? I would be fascinated to learn what he thinks would be. br> — Keith Kunzler /p>

Lieberman-Warner is a crucible, though not just one about the environment. It is a consumption tax, since businesses will pass on their carbon costs. Our income tax system has damaged our economy and political culture long enough…so long that we think that just cutting it defines victory. But we need to tax what we want less of, not more of. And if we need to redistribute, let it be on the grounds of consumption, not productivity. If we demand tax neutrality as the price for Warner-Lieberman, maybe we have the step forward a national sales tax cannot achieve. And not because global warming will be impacted, if it exists at all.