Tim's latest post chronicles Tom Friedman's entry into the gas tax column watch: Win, Win, Win, Win, Win .... Today's New York Times also features another, perhaps slightly more surprising, op-ed:
Supply-side godfather Arthur Laffer is throwing his hat into the gas tax debate. Much like with his very own Laffer-curve, he comes down on the wronge side of the argument (he prefers a gas tax to an actual cap on emissions), but it shows just how far along we are that even someone like Mr. Laffer would turn into a proud member of the Pigou Club:
We need to impose a tax on the thing we want less of (carbon dioxide) and reduce taxes on the things we want more of (income and jobs). A carbon tax would attach the national security and environmental costs to carbon-based fuels like oil, causing the market to recognize the price of these negative externalities.
It's no longer a question of if to cut greenhouse gas pollution and provide incentives for the right behavior. The debate now squarely centers on how to do it.
