Here is the link to hear the federal tax shift question and Rep. Baldwin's answer (advance to about 33 min., 15 sec.). Beginning of her answer:
"[A federal tax shift] definitely has some intellectual appeal to me and some of my colleagues, but I think it's pretty clear that congress is going much more forcefully in the direction of a mandatory, market-wide cap and trade program instead. I think it's a fairly smaller minority that would look at a carbon tax as a stand-alone system. Now, that does not mean that in the bill that we're going to be putting together on the House side that creates the cap and trade system that we wouldn't additionally use some tax strategies more in a pinpoint way than across the market."
Representative Baldwin serves on the Committee on Energy and Commerce and its subcommittees on Health; Energy and Air Quality; and the Environment and Hazardous Materials.
Are you sure she really got the distinction between a tax SHIFT vs. a tax add-on or some other non-revenue-neutral "tax strategy"? I did not get the feeling she really had a clear understanding of the concept of tax shifts.
Jim Hoecker's comment on the likelihood of a carbon cap vs. a true market-based solution was more telling -- that the former is a full-employment strategy for the regulators, lobbyists, and accountants. (He included environmentalists in that list, but I don't see how, other than the fact that a carbon cap will likely prove ineffective!) And remember, today's elected officials are tomorrow's industry lobbyists.
A tax shift is very sensible. And we will see it enacted about the same time we see a no-loopholes flat tax enacted---another sensible idea that the people with all the money don't like.
