3
The Honorable Steve Scalise U.S. House of Representati ves 2338 Rayburn House Ofice Building Washington, DC 20515 Februa ry 24, 2016 Dear Majority Whip Scalise: We write to collectively voice our support for House Concurrent Resolution 89, expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy. As organizations that support free markets as a fundamental pathway to American prosperity , we oppose government policies – such as a carbon tax – that punish some and reward others in accordance with the government’s prevailing viewpoint on market ideals. Such marketplace manipulation represents a recipe for unintended consequences and self-inlicted economic damage. T oo often, poor and middle class fa milies bear the burden. Indeed, independent studies demonstrate that a carbon tax would impose considerable har m on Americans. Such a tax will lead directly t o higher electricity and transportation fuel costs for American families and businesses. This, in turn, will inex orably lea d to increased costs for consumer goods across the boar d. Furthermore, a carbon tax would be regressiv e, imposing disproportionately high costs on middle- and lower-income families and thereby harming most those who can afford it least. The Congressional Budget Ofice (CBO), in its 2013 assessment titled “Effects of a Carbon Tax on the Economy and the Environment,” plainly states: “ A carbon tax would increase the prices of fossil fuels in direct proportion to their car bon content. Higher fuel prices, in turn, would ra ise production costs and ultimately drive up prices for goods and services throughout the economy.” A report from the National Association of Manufacturers (NA M) echoes that inding, stating that “the increased costs of coal, natural gas and petroleum products due to a carbon tax would ripple through the economy and result in higher production costs and less spending on non-ener gy goods. As a result of decreased economic activity, a carbon tax would eliminate up to 21 million job equivalents over the next four decades. It would also reduce workers’ wages: The NAM report goes on to say that “[f]or workers, a carbon tax would lead to lower real wage rates because companies would have higher costs and lower labor productivity. The report estimates wages could fall by up to 8.5 percent.

Coalition Letter Supporting Scalise Anti Carbon Tax Resolution

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

FreedomWorks has signed onto this coalition letter, led by the American Energy Alliance, in support of Rep. Steve Scalise's House resolution condemning the idea of a carbon tax.

Citation preview

7/21/2019 Coalition Letter Supporting Scalise Anti Carbon Tax Resolution

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/coalition-letter-supporting-scalise-anti-carbon-tax-resolution 1/2

The Honorable Steve Scalise

U.S. House of Representatives

2338 Rayburn House Ofice BuildingWashington, DC 20515

February 24, 2016

Dear Majority Whip Scalise:

We write to collectively voice our support for House Concurrent Resolution89, expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimentalto the United States economy.

As organizations that support free markets as a fundamental pathway toAmerican prosperity, we oppose government policies – such as a carbon tax– that punish some and reward others in accordance with the government’sprevailing viewpoint on market ideals. Such marketplace manipulationrepresents a recipe for unintended consequences and self-inlicted

economic damage. Too often, poor and middle class families bear theburden.

Indeed, independent studies demonstrate that a carbon tax would imposeconsiderable harm on Americans. Such a tax will lead directly to higherelectricity and transportation fuel costs for American families andbusinesses. This, in turn, will inexorably lead to increased costs forconsumer goods across the board. Furthermore, a carbon tax would beregressive, imposing disproportionately high costs on middle- andlower-income families and thereby harming most those who can afford itleast.

The Congressional Budget Ofice (CBO), in its 2013 assessment titled“Effects of a Carbon Tax on the Economy and the Environment,” plainlystates: “A carbon tax would increase the prices of fossil fuels in directproportion to their carbon content. Higher fuel prices, in turn, would raiseproduction costs and ultimately drive up prices for goods and servicesthroughout the economy.”

A report from the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) echoes thatinding, stating that “the increased costs of coal, natural gas and petroleum

products due to a carbon tax would ripple through the economy and resultin higher production costs and less spending on non-energy goods.” As aresult of decreased economic activity, a carbon tax would eliminate up to21 million job equivalents over the next four decades. It would also reduceworkers’ wages: The NAM report goes on to say that “[f]or workers, acarbon tax would lead to lower real wage rates because companies wouldhave higher costs and lower labor productivity.” The report estimateswages could fall by up to 8.5 percent.

7/21/2019 Coalition Letter Supporting Scalise Anti Carbon Tax Resolution

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/coalition-letter-supporting-scalise-anti-carbon-tax-resolution 2/2

The negative impacts of a carbon tax would be distributed regressivelyacross America. Such a tax would disproportionately punish lower-incomeAmericans because, as the CBO points out, “low-income households spend alarger share of their income on goods and services whose prices wouldincrease the most, such as electricity and transportation.” In its modeledcase of a $28 per ton carbon tax, CBO found that resultant costs would bemore than 2 ½ times higher for the poorest one-ifth of Americanhouseholds than for the richest one-ifth.

Our nation’s citizens expect – and deserve – their duly elected lawmakers toinstitute policies that move our economy forward and allow all Americansan equal opportunity to succeed. A carbon tax would fail resoundingly onboth of these fronts. Thank you for your leadership in introducing H. ConRes. 89 in the 114th Congress, and we hope that this resolution soon getsthe consideration before the full U.S. House of Representatives that it merits

Sincerely,

Thomas Pyle, President - American Energy AllianceBrent Wm. Gardner, VP for Government Affairs - Americans for ProsperityMyron Ebell, Director of Center for Energy & Environment - CompetitiveEnterprise Institute

Adam Brandon, President and CEO - FreedomWorksPhil Kerpen, President - American Commitment Harry Alford, President and CEO - National Black Chamber of CommerceMatthew Kandrach, Vice President - 60 Plus AssociationCraig Richardson, Executive Director - Energy & Environment Legal InstituteDavid Williams, President - Taxpayers Protection AllianceJonathan Lockwood, Executive Director - Advancing Colorado

George Landrith, President - Frontiers of FreedomRichard Manning, President - Americans for Limited Government Seton Motley, President - Less Government Tom Schatz, President - Council for Citizens Against Government WasteJoseph Bast, President - The Heartland InstituteAmy Oliver Cooke, Executive Vice President - Independence InstituteSabrina Schaeffer, Executive Director - Independent Women’s ForumTom Brinkman, Jr., Founder - Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending andTaxesMarita Noon, Executive Director - Energy Makes America Great, Inc.Heather Higgins, President and CEO - Independent Women’s VoiceKristin Fecteau, Co-Founder - Coalition to Free AmericaJudson Phillips, Founder - Tea Party Nation