WWhat
if Republicans started talking about climate legislation as a way for
government to leave money in people's pockets rather than take it out?
Wouldn't
it be better for the party and the country if Republicans engaged
constructively with Democrats to improve climate legislation that the
Senate will debate this fall rather than play politics by trying to
kill it?
That would 1) dramatically reframe the climate
debate, 2) improve the odds of passing a broadly supported bill, and 3)
show voters that Republicans can engage environmental issues with
constructive ideas that are consistent with traditional conservative
values.
Here is how Republicans could be constructive
while remaining true to their principles: Support changes in the
climate bill that would return more money from emissions allowance
sales to the taxpayers. The money could be returned as dividend checks
or as reductions in payroll or other federal taxes.
Under
this scenario, people who conserve energy would come out ahead.
Conversely, people who use energy wastefully would end up paying more.
Whether they gain or lose would be up to them, which fits with
traditional conservative ideas about personal responsibility.
Sending
more of the revenues back would give more control over the funds to
citizens and less to congressmen looking for another honey pot to spend
on pet projects. That ought to please small-government conservatives
also.
Returning a greater share of revenues from allowance
sales would fit with conservative ideas about protecting property. The
atmosphere is property held in common. Businesses that dispose of waste
products in the atmosphere ought to pay for the privilege.
A
climate policy that attracts conservative support will have a better
chance of passing and working effectively than one that doesn't.
