House Votes Against Implementing Carbon Taxes, Which Are Supposedly Popular In Conservative Circles

Let’s start out with the notion that American Conservatism is rooted in Classical Liberalism, which notes that the government that governs least governs best. Furthermore, there is an aversion amongst Conservatives when it comes to empowering the federal government with more and more power. A strong belief in the 10th Amendment states that all powers not reserved by the Constitution to the federal government are reserved for the States and the People. Period. Furthermore, Classical Liberalism, and American Conservatism, wants government out of economic matters as much as possible. So, here we go

(The Hill) The House voted Friday to condemn a potential carbon tax, closing the door on a climate change policy popular in some conservative circles.

Lawmakers passed, by a 237-163 vote, a GOP-backed resolution listing pitfalls from a tax on carbon dioxide emissions and concluding that such a policy “would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States.”

Six Democrats voted with the GOP for the resolution. No Republicans dissented.

If it’s popular in “some conservative circles”, then they aren’t Conservatives. A carbon tax would be a big government solution, injected into the economy, and has nothing to do with the free market. More like the socialist market.

A group of think tank leaders from the Niskanen Center, R Street Institute and elsewhere, along with some scholars from the American Enterprise Institute, wrote to Congress opposing the resolution this week.

“We are concerned that this resolution offers a limited perspective on carbon taxes and is blind to the potential benefits of market-based climate policy,” they wrote.

One of those non-Conservatives, Catrina Rorke, Direction of energy policy at R Street, was given a platform at the Daily Caller to make her pitch

But there’s also a right way to do it. R Street supports a revenue-neutral price on carbon that cuts or outright eliminates other taxes on capital and income; that can be adjusted at the border for imports and exports; and that’s accompanied by preempting existing EPA, Interior and DOE carbon regulations. A properly designed price on carbon could be used to eliminate some of the most harmful taxes and regulations that restrain economic growth. If designed correctly, a carbon tax might be excellent for American families and businesses and in the best interest of the United States.

These are conservative ideas. Economists like Art Laffer, Greg Mankiw, Doug Holtz-Eakin, Irwin Stelzer and Alan Viard – people conservatives trust to guide good decisions in tax and economic policy – all have supported a revenue-neutral carbon tax, if designed correctly. It behooves no conservative to treat these ideas unfairly and distort the debate by conceding as fact something that is not necessarily true.

If you’re proposing the implementation of a program and tax that requires massive influence and involvement of Big Central Government, this is neither free market based (notice that those who are pushing this have recently dropped the word “free” whenever you run across this) nor Conservative. Any sort of carbon tax or cap and trade program is inherently a Big Government, counter-free market, anti-Conservative initiative.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “House Votes Against Implementing Carbon Taxes, Which Are Supposedly Popular In Conservative Circles”

  1. Dana says:

    Gosh, you’d think that if carbon taxes were “popular in some conservative circles,” they’d get at least some support among Republicans. I wonder: is it possible that “popular in some conservative circles” actually means “what liberals think conservatives should find popular.”

  2. Jeffery says:

    Not sure what the writer at The Hill was thinking. Even before conservatives became locked and loaded deniers in 2008 they did not support a carbon tax. Recall that back when global warming was real, liberals supported a carbon tax and cons supported a market-based carbon cap and trade system. Ahh, good times.

  3. Liam Thomas says:

    Yes but in 2008 the senate was in control of the Democrats….as was the house and White House.

    I wonder why nothing was done then? Could that be because Reid could not get 60 votes so he changed it to 51….but then of course this never came up again while the Dems were in charge….funny that.

    Could it be that the luny toon AGW crowd always wants to TAX NECESSITIES.

    TAXING gasoline and Electricity is real brainy…..because we basically as a nation cannot dial back our usage because you know we have to heat, warm, cook and get to work.

    Ahh so we force people living in Detroits slums to buy windmills…….gotcha.

    See the AGW crowd has no clue what they are doing other then Cloward and PIven and Saul Alinsky tactics of hitting them from all sides…….and repeating something a trillion times a day until it becomes the truth.

  4. Jeffery says:


    The science denier crowd has no clue what they are doing.

    Bump your sertraline to 75 mg a day.

  5. David7134 says:


  6. Jeffery says:


    You should find someone to read to you. There’s lot you are missing.

  7. Liam Thomas says:

    c’mon Jeffery its obvious you guys are clueless. You spout lies as much as any denier might appear to spout.

    You blame the deniers when your own BELIEVERS WERE IN CONTROL and could do whatever they want.

    YOU WANT TO TAX things that are necessary for everyday life which only hurts other segments of your believers life. As in no more cappachinos for you because now your spending double, triple on gas and electricity and of course everything is more expensive when you tax electricity because…..

    NEWS FLASH>>>>>>>everything is made, manufactured or produced with electricity or fossil fuels.

    IDIOTS….everyone of you. You guys hate corporations so badly that your willing to destroy every mom and pop on the planet to make Exxon pay.

    Its so obvious its about political power that the deniers will fight you till the sun stops setting. I did a work up before.

    It takes 140,000 square kilometers of USA soil to build enough windmills to power the USA and eliminate all fossil fuel powered plants in America ONLY.

    That would require roughly at the current cost of ONE single 5 Mega watt tower…..which is 11 mil each……that would cost `1.5 trillion dollars just to build them….not to mention the upgrades needed to the infrastructure which is guestimated at another 1.2 trillion dollars to implement.

    Oh gosh what do we do when the winds not blowing?….Hence redundancy of solar panels which brings the cost to a staggering 5.8 trillion dollars and requires the use of nearly 400,000 square kilometers of land including roads to and from these towers and panels.

    THen of course you have NIMBY which pops into play and what do you get………..

    SCIENCE BELIEVERS VOTING DOWN…DOWN carbon taxation while stroking you in the back rooms saying…just vote for me and Ill make those SOBS pay.

    The jokes on you….even when you have full control of the government you cant get a AGW friendly bill to pass….Perhaps they really dont think the science is settled either.

  8. Jeffery says:

    You blame the deniers when your own BELIEVERS WERE IN CONTROL and could do whatever they want.


    YOU WANT TO TAX things that are necessary for everyday life which only hurts other segments of your believers life.

    WHAt we NEEd to do is TO reDUce CO2 emissions by the lEAST objECTionable way POssible.

    IDIOTS….everyone of you. You guys hate corporations so badly…

    You’re the IDIOT. All of YOU. Corporations are neither inherently GOOD nor EVIL. BUT they MUST be HELD responsible for DAMAGES they cause. YOU DO believe in CORPorate RESPonsibility, DON’T you??

    Again, talk to your doctor about upping your anti-depressant dose.

  9. Dana says:


    For an unfortunate time, the Democrats controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress; for about six months of that time, they had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. It’s kind of difficult for you to claim that Mr Thomas was “misreading” history.

  10. John says:

    Conservatives claim to want fre markets but they scream loudest when governments fail to do their job

  11. Jeffery says:

    One lie at a time, please.

    The flaw in dANa and LaIM’s reasoning is in thinking all Democrats operate in lockstep as do the current Republicans.

    111th Congress

    7 Jul 2009 to 24 Aug 2009 – 58 Dems/2 Ind/ 40 Reps

    25 Sep 2009 to 3 Feb 2010 – 58 Dems/2 Ind/ 40 Reps

    Note that the Dems still had conservative members representing conservative districts, e.g., Nelson (D-NE), Lincoln (D-AR), Landrieu (D-LA), Pryor (D-AR), Bayh (D-IN) etc… and Lieberman (I-CT) who supported McCain in 2008.

    The filibuster proof majority was and is a myth.

  12. Liam Thomas says:

    Lieberman (I-CT) who supported McCain in 2008.

    Lieberman introduced the legislation that was voted down that your referring too. He was the lead author as was the Republican Senator from Virginia who then went on to lose his job.

    25 Sep 2009 to 3 Feb 2010 – 58 Dems/2 Ind/ 40 Reps

    Harry Reid instituted simple majority in 2011. They could have done so with this as they were in control.

    MOre to my point….the Democrats dont even believe the science is settled and that were all gonna die….if they did they would all ban together and vote 100 percent for AGW bills.

    The science is not settled….the politicians play you for a fool….vote for me and Ill end global warming then do nothing…..Just like the republicans who have boldly claimed I WILL REPEAL OBAMA CARE……

    So now what you got is Donald Trump as the GOP nominee as far from establishment as you could get and still sorta resemble a righty and Bernie Sanders a Socialist garnering nearly 50 percent of the democratic vote…..about as far left as you can get and the anti thesis to Clinton and their LIE TILL THEY DROP MENTALITY Democratic party.

    Perhaps you should go back and reassess your priorities as AGW…..your asking poor families to give up eating so that Bangledesh doesnt drown in 300 years.

    Laughable if it wasn’t the truth.

Pirate's Cove