Woa. The New York Times has published my letter about supply side tax cuts for green energy in Saturday's paper, print and online. What a pleasant surprise!
Editor Sue Mermelstein did a great job slimming down my original letter (similar to my last post) yet making it somehow better. Boy, I wish I had an editor.
The letter responds to last Friday's article, "A Gold Rush of Subsidies in Clean Energy Search." The letter can be read in The Times online, or, well, here:
To the Editor:Your article does a great service in detailing the oversubsidization of alternative energy, but doesn’t mention the biggest problem with these kinds of direct subsidies: They are addictive and create long-term corporate dependency. What happens when budgets get cut and the subsidies run out, as happened in Spain? Complete collapse.
There is only one sustainable way to support alternative energy; only one way to reward success, not failure; only one incentive whose disappearance does not spell disaster: supply-side tax cuts for green energy. That means elimination of corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, sales taxes and estate taxes for clean, renewable energy investments.
Such tax cuts promote success, not failure, because they benefit only companies with sustainable revenues and profits. Investors would be encouraged to invest in such businesses because their profits will be tax-free, a huge advantage over other investments.
We have directly subsidized enough alternative energy start-ups in the United States. We have already rewarded failures like Solyndra. Now we need to separate the wheat from the chaff.
With supply-side tax cuts for green energy, the most competitive, profitable alternative energy models will survive, thrive and attract more capital, and unsustainable models will disappear.
R. RANDOLPH RICHARDSONI'm very glad The New York Times, my home town paper of record, thinks green energy tax cuts are an idea worthy of further public airing. Since I call my self a centrist (indeed the 21stCentrist) it is nice that I actually do get support from all sides for these ideas.
New York, Nov. 13, 2011
Posts
11 comments:
As an owner of a 50 million gallon corn ethanol plant in Michigan I want to applaude you on this piece. These types of credits would bring a great deal of risk capital into new renewable projects. Congrats on the NY Times picking up your thoughts.
Jim Murphy
Chairman
Carbon Green BioEnergy
Thanks Jim! Of course, what I am talking about is not credits, but tax cuts on revenues and income, capital gains and estate taxes for green energy holdings. How would your business fare, Jim, if you had these incentives instead of the subsidies and mandates in place now?
Congratulations, Rod! Very solid.
And if you wish for an editor...
That's great, Rod, I am glad that your ideas are getting some exposure.
Great!
Thanks Grover. Ironically, I just spent part of this evening defending your good name in exception of some very unkind remarks about you. You really seem to have irked a few liberals, and their reaction is sadly visceral and personal.
Thank you for the kind words. Sometimes when folks are frustrated they get mean. The Obama attempt to try and fix the economy didn't work. So they yell a alot.
Despite public media belief that we get a subsidy, we in fact do not. It goes to petroleum blenders. Most of us look forward to its end January 1, 2012.
The mandate (RFS 2) is a different matter. Without it the transportation fuel monopoly would simply block us from the market. even though our fuel is cheaper and cleaner. It is how the market works.
Sorry about the misuse of term credits. Of course I understood what you meant.
Jim Murphy
Amen! Ever really read The Farm Bill? Farmers get paid to destroy crops of fruits and veggies every year with the likes of Round-Up. Subsidies can become perverse pretty quickly.
well done brah!
Nice going, Rod!
Post a Comment