I got th

Here are some other great finds:
If our leaders are serious about weaning us off of oil, then the economic textbooks provide guidance on how to do it. Government should tax things that produce pollution. If you are worried about global warming and energy security, then you should support a carbon tax.
Consider a tax of $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide -- a tax rate comparable to the current carbon price in the European Emissions Trading System. Focusing only on carbon and assuming a short-term reduction in carbon emissions of 10 percent in response to the tax, a $15-per-ton tax rate would collect almost $80 billion a year, an amount that represents 28 percent of all corporate taxes collected in the U.S. in 2005.
The price changes aren't huge. The price of gasoline would increase by 13 cents a gallon, the cost of electricity generated by natural gas by 0.6 cents per kilowatt-hour, and the cost of electricity generated by coal by 1.4 cents per kwh. And all that revenue could be used to reduce corporate taxes, perhaps even stimulating higher economic growth....
If the president and congressional leaders are serious about energy security and global warming, they should zero out all our energy programs and replace them with a carbon tax.
I particularly enjoyed the cheerleading for New Jersey, my state of birth.George W. Bush says his energy plan will reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years. Jerry Taylor says it won't. And it's all because of the dolt in the F-150.
Taylor is an expert on energy with the free-market Cato Institute. The dolt in the F-150 is a constituent of U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, a Republican from Georgia.
Not too long ago, Kingston appeared at an event to tout a bill of his designed to reduce oil imports. The bill was very similar to the proposal Bush introduced in his State of the Union address Tuesday night. Kingston's spiel was loaded with all the Beltway buzzwords that Bush likes to employ: "flex-fuel" vehicles, ethanol,"alternative energy" and so on. If only we could employ enough of this groovy new technology, Kingston argued, we could be energy-independent by 2015.
That sounded nice. But the congressman went on to bring up the sad tale of a constituent who complained that he was going broke pumping gas into the Ford F-150 pickup he drives on his daily commute of 75 miles each way. The feds have to find a way to help guys like this with their gas bills, Kingston said.
No, they don't, says Taylor. Cutting the price of gas would encourage more gas consumption, not less. If this guy wants to save money on gas, he should buy a more fuel-efficient car or move closer to work....
In case you're wondering what most economists suggest as the No. 1 solution to cutting oil imports, that's simple: Hike the hell out of the gas tax. The higher you raise it, the less gas people use. Simple.
Taylor doesn't support that option, but I do. Another of Bush's fanciful promises the other night was a promise to balance the budget. But he won't cut spending. So the Democrats are already insisting on raising the income tax.
But let us consider that in light of the aforementioned dolt. Raising the income tax would have little effect on him since, being a dolt, he probably doesn't make all that much money. It's us smart people in New Jersey who would suffer the most from an income tax hike.
Raising the gas tax, however, would require those hicks in the heartland to pay their fair share of the cost of government. That's far from the only advantage. A big gas tax would also reduce what economists call the "externalities" of car use--traffic, air pollution and so on. But best of all a big tax would reduce the amount of U.S. dollars going to such dubious characters as the Saudi sheiks and Hugo Ch�vez. Taxing gas at the pump in the United States has the exact same effect as taxing oil at the wellhead in Saudi Arabia or Venezuela - except that the U.S. gets to keep the money.
IT IS a cruel irony that George Bush has come up with one of the most sensible proposals of his presidency just as the chances of getting it implemented are close to zero. In his state-of-the-union speech, Mr Bush laid out a plan to limit the vast federal tax subsidies for health insurance. His ideas are bold and mostly good. Too bad that with Democrats in control on Capitol Hill and his approval ratings at dismal lows, the plan is more likely to end up in the dustbin than on the statute books.At the National Journal, Clive Crook also likes the plan.