Why The Triangulation When You're On The Right Side Of The Issue?

Stupid, stupid, stupid:

Conservatives have warned of the disastrous economic effects of Barack Obama's proposed cap-and-trade system and the massive burdens it will impose on American families.  Republicans have derided it as a tax, and a particularly regressive one, that will force working-class earners to choose between heat, lighting, and food.  In response, House conservatives have proposed … a carbon tax?

Well this complicates things. Reps. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) have proposed a carbon tax as an alternative to Democrats' cap-and-trade legislation.

The legislation would tax carbon at the rate or $15/ton, rising to $100/ton over three decades.

For months, House Republicans have been blasting cap-and-trade as the equivalent of a tax on energy, a message which seems weaker now that two very conservative Republicans have proposed a direct tax themselves.

From McClatchy:

Reps. Bob Inglis of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona on Wednesday became the first Republican lawmakers to introduce legislation imposing a carbon tax on producers and distributors of fossil fuels.

The bill, co-sponsored by Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois, would set a tax of $15 a ton of carbon dioxide produced in its first year in effect, with the tax rising to $100 a ton over three decades.

"The first axiom of economics is if you want less of something, you tax it," said Flake, a leading fiscal conservative, in an interview. "Obviously, we want less carbon, so we tax it."

Is it really obvious that we want less carbon?  Particulate matter, perhaps, but Republicans have challenged the notion that more carbon dioxide leads to anything other than better plant growth.  An EPA memo appears to at least make the argument that the government hasn't proven any harm from CO2 that doesn't involve a gas mask and a lot of duct tape.

So why propose a carbon tax as a rebuttal to cap-and-trade?

That is an exceedingly good question!  Here's the answer they give:

Eric Zimmerman at The Hill postulates that Flake and Inglis hope to use the proposal to give some Democrats cover for breaking away from cap-and-trade.  Obama's proposal is not popular with Rust Belt representatives, who want an excuse to bail on the White House's pet energy project.  The carbon tax will go nowhere, they hope, but will create enough inertia to stop cap-and-trade, too.

I'm not so sure.  It sounds as though Flake and Inglis are more or less endorsing the prime motivation behind cap-and-trade while Rust Belters want to reject the notion that CO2 presents any proximate harm at all.  I hope the strategy works, but it has a high risk of backfiring.

My take on this may be simplistic and naive, but here it is: why the triangulation?

I understand the logic here (if Zimmerman's guess is correct), but it's dangerous.  Hot Air is right that there is a high risk of this backfiring, not only in the legislative process, but also in the PR battle.  If the Democrats can paint this idea as being not much different than their own, they could potentially gain more support for it as people might look at this and say that both parties are in agreement about the fact that carbon is the problem, so they'll go along with whatever plan Congress put forward...and guess which plan the Dem-controlled Congress will put forward?  Right, not this one.

Even more importantly, by endorsing this idea of a carbon tax, the GOP will be undermining one of the most gold-plated campaign planks on which they can run in 2010.  First of all, any GOP support of raising any taxes will be counterproductive, and you can bet the economy will be the central issue people will vote on; if the GOP is to succeed, they'll have to provide a clear break from Dem policy, and raising any taxes will not do it.  Second, on the issue of energy production, the American people are solidly behind the Republican party and against the Democrats, who have blocked every attempt to increase domestic energy production for decades.  This is a slam dunk issue for the GOP in 2010, especially as energy prices once again creep upward.  By compromising on the core principle of rejecting the idea that carbon is the eeeeevil culprit for the destruction of the planet, the GOP kills one of their best campaign issues.

The Democrats obviously have the upper hand on the PR battle right now, so the GOP can't afford to be tricky or parse words.  They will likely get small coverage at best, so they need to maximize that coverage to the fullest.  It would be far better to simplify and solidify around a core set of principles that are distinctly different from the Democrat tax-and-spend way, and that will put things right in this country.  Then, they need to hammer away at that one single message over and over and over and over...

This too-tricky-by-half bunny trail is a bad idea, especially given that the GOP is on the right side of this issue already.

There's my two cents.