Letter writer and Republican congressional candidate Dan Bongino apparently has never heard of George Shultz, former President Ronald Reagan's secretary of state. That's the only way to explain Mr. Bongino's assertion that a revenue-neutral carbon tax would "create chaos in the markets" ("Delaney's energy policy a muddle," April 12).
In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Mr. Shultz noted that a revenue-neutral carbon tax "would encourage producers and consumers to shift toward energy sources that emit less carbon — such as toward gas-fired power plants and away from coal-fired plants — and generate greater demand for electric and flex-fuel cars and lesser demand for conventional gasoline-powered cars."
He went on to say that a carbon tax "should be exclusively for the purpose of leveling the playing field, not for financing some other government programs or for expanding the government sector. And revenue neutrality means that it will not have fiscal drag on economic growth."
If Mr. Bongino opposes a revenue-neutral carbon tax — and thus Republicans such as Mr. Shultz, Greg Mankiw, Bob Inglis and Arthur Laffer, all of whom support this market-based concept — one must ask: What exactly is his plan for reducing carbon emissions?
Devone R. Tucker, Brockton, Mass.
To respond to this letter, send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please include your name and contact information.