Republican Bob Inglis Reassures Greens That President Trump Will Backflip on Climate Change

Wall Street Journal Columnist, Holman Jenkins thinks that the carbon tax could come back to life. I think his argument is very interesting.
“What’s Behind the Border Tax Kabuki?: And as negotiations proceed, could a carbon tax get a miraculous resurrection?” By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. on Feb. 17, 2017

When it comes to the politics of tax reform, a vital principle is always to inject a big disruptive element into the mix. That way members of the House and Senate tax-writing committees can be assured a fundraising bonanza from threatened business and taxpayer groups. …
Which brings us to 2017’s big disruptive idea from the House GOP, the border-adjustable corporate tax. For the first time in 30 years, the tax-reform opportunity is upon us here in the U.S. But first House Ways and Means members must be allowed a good, long shake of the money tree. And border adjustability is tailor-made for this purpose.
Big exporters like Boeing and GE are guaranteed to speak up in its favor—and speaking up usually means writing a check.
Even more deep-pocketed and numerous are the idea’s opponents, since imports would no longer be deductible under the new corporate tax rate. … OK, with enemies like these, border adjustability was perhaps never a real threat to make it through the congressional sausage factory. But, oh, the fundraising gusher in the meantime from those who have something big to lose.

I am in favor of border adjustment, because I think it will reduce the trade deficit and make manufacturing in the US more attractive. But, Jenkins’ cynical take may be the far better reading of Washington’s ways. You cannot be too rich, too thin, or too cynical. Jenkins proceeds to make Inglis look prophetic:

But where can revenue scorers get the $1 trillion over 10 years the border tax was supposed to raise? Well, ahem, a carbon tax is also a consumption tax. To make it acceptable to free marketers, it would have to come with a full stop to all climate-related mandates and subsidies including fuel-mileage rules. It would also have to be clear that all carbon-tax proceeds are being used to cut payroll or income taxes. …
How much would be needed if the goal were to offset a 20% import tax? The equivalent of 13 cents per gallon of gasoline.
As a bonus, such a proposal would be a test of sincerity for those liberals who say they care about the climate but perhaps only care about green pork barrel for their heavily subsidized alternative-energy cronies.

I could only support the carbon tax if the repeal of mandates included an amendment to the Clean Air act that said that CO2 is not a pollutant, and a revocation of the Paris agreement. If we could do that I would favor adding a couple of more cents to the tax to finance a big infrastructure push, although that must be accompanied by limitations on the ability of judges to block infrastructure projects.

Wall Street Journal Columnist, Holman Jenkins thinks that the carbon tax could come back to life. I think his argument is very interesting.
“What’s Behind the Border Tax Kabuki?: And as negotiations proceed, could a carbon tax get a miraculous resurrection?” By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. on Feb. 17, 2017
“When it comes to the politics of tax reform, a vital principle is always to inject a big disruptive element into the mix. That way members of the House and Senate tax-writing committees can be assured a fundraising bonanza from threatened business and taxpayer groups. … ”
“Which brings us to 2017’s big disruptive idea from the House GOP, the border-adjustable corporate tax. For the first time in 30 years, the tax-reform opportunity is upon us here in the U.S. But first House Ways and Means members must be allowed a good, long shake of the money tree. And border adjustability is tailor-made for this purpose.”
“Big exporters like Boeing and GE are guaranteed to speak up in its favor—and speaking up usually means writing a check.
Even more deep-pocketed and numerous are the idea’s opponents, since imports would no longer be deductible under the new corporate tax rate. … OK, with enemies like these, border adjustability was perhaps never a real threat to make it through the congressional sausage factory. But, oh, the fundraising gusher in the meantime from those who have something big to lose.”
I am in favor of border adjustment, because I think it will reduce the trade deficit and make manufacturing in the US more attractive. But, Jenkins’ cynical take may be the far better reading of Washington’s ways. You cannot be too rich, too thin, or too cynical. Jenkins proceeds to make Inglis look prophetic:
“But where can revenue scorers get the $1 trillion over 10 years the border tax was supposed to raise? Well, ahem, a carbon tax is also a consumption tax. To make it acceptable to free marketers, it would have to come with a full stop to all climate-related mandates and subsidies including fuel-mileage rules. It would also have to be clear that all carbon-tax proceeds are being used to cut payroll or income taxes. … ”
“How much would be needed if the goal were to offset a 20% import tax? The equivalent of 13 cents per gallon of gasoline.”
As a bonus, such a proposal would be a test of sincerity for those liberals who say they care about the climate but perhaps only care about green pork barrel for their heavily subsidized alternative-energy cronies.”
I could only support the carbon tax if the repeal of mandates included an amendment to the Clean Air act that said that CO2 is not a pollutant, and a revocation of the Paris agreement. If we could do that I would favor adding a couple of more cents to the tax to finance a big infrastructure push, although that must be accompanied by limitations on the ability of judges to block infrastructure projects.