Federal Budget Issue: Do We Need an Energy Tax?

Policy Backgrounders | Taxes

No. 127
Friday, June 04, 1993
by Stephen Moore


Conclusion

"The economic burdens the tax would create for millions of families are far greater than any possible benefits."

To reduce deficit spending, Congress needs to control spending, which have been growing at nearly 10 percent annually. When Bill Clinton announced his economic program, he said, "An energy tax is the best way to provide us with new revenues to lower the deficit."48 In truth, it may be the worst way. The administration could achieve the same amount of deficit reduction by simply cutting federal spending across the board 0.67 percent or, alternatively, by eliminating a single wasteful program, such as the Export-Import Bank, the Small Business Administration or the Rural Electrification Administration. Although the president claims that opponents of the energy tax are merely well-organized special interest groups, the fact is that the economic burdens the tax would create for millions of American families are far greater than any possible benefits.

Note: Nothing written here should be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the National Center for Policy Analysis or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any legislation.


Read Article as PDF