Still Less Filling
A number of bloggers have cited this Sebastian Mallaby column criticizing the domestic policies of the Bush Administration (a shocker from Mallaby, whose column I once described as "Like Light Beer: Less Filling And Doesn't Taste Great").
Whatever.
The most revealing part of the column is this little snippet on energy policy:
Though the White House came up with some good measures -- notably ideas to reduce regulatory obstacles to building electricity transmission lines -- it proposed many big-government follies too. There were tax subsidies for clean coal, nuclear power, hybrid cars, solar panels and biomass, costing $10 billion over 10 years. When House Republicans tripled the president's proposed subsidies, the administration grinned gamely. Nobody seemed interested in the energy policy most economists favor -- a simple tax on carbon.I'm not sure if Mallaby is just woefully ignorant of economics, or if it's outright bias, but authoritative economic comments like these permeate his columns. But here are a couple of questions: since when is a tax subsidy a "big-government" program? Isn't that a minimal way of encouraging behavior (i.e. via the tax code, versus via regulatory policy)? Why does Mallaby characterize it that way? And why does Mallaby claim to speak for most economists in advocating (because he really IS advocating) a "simple" tax on carbon?! Most economists advocate no such thing! Has Mallaby forgotten the press generated by the possibility of the Clinton BTU tax?! "Simple" carbon taxes, much like "simple" Value-Added-Taxes, are favored by liberal policy wonks who want a surreptitious, non-transparent way to raise revenues to redistribute.
Mallaby: Still Less Filling, and Still Doesn't Taste Great.
[Posted at 22:06 CST on 03/12/02] [Link]
