Lawmakers must give voice to voiceless when deciding policy

What has always bothered me is that those in our society who would be disproportionately burdened by the tax are those who have little or no representation in forming public policy.

In a response to climate change, the American Petroleum Institute earlier this year urged Congress to adopt a carbon tax which would put a surcharge on gasoline and other fossil fuels. The goal is to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. It is a reasonable approach which was considered in 1975 along with other measures to induce conservation.

Given the current inflationary spike in fuel prices, a new tax is not likely — especially in an election year. But it does remind me of how rare it is for lawmakers to thoroughly consider the impact their actions will have on various segments of our population, especially the poor.

In 1975 the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee approached me to help with an increase in the federal gasoline tax. I discussed his request with President Ford. The president smiled and said that there is no way the Congress will support a new tax with the 1976 election just ahead of us. He said, “Give the committee technical help but make it clear that we are not supporting the tax.”

Our analysis demonstrated that the tax would reduce consumption as expected, but the working poor would be hurt the most, especially those living and working in rural communities where there is little or no public transportation. The Ways and Means Committee did draft tax-increase legislation but it failed to get any traction.

I recently saw a climate activist Interviewed and he was explaining that the latest super-spike in gasoline prices was a good thing. He said, “I don’t care if the price of gasoline goes to $10 a gallon.” I understand his reasoning, but what about the working poor, such as a single mom who has to drive 30 miles to get to work each day?

What has always bothered me is that those in our society who would be disproportionately burdened by the tax are those who have little or no representation in forming public policy. As a result, they are left to shoulder an unfair burden which goes unnoticed and untreated. Without intervention, the political system will not give reasonable attention to the segments of our population that are most in need. The wealthy can protect their own interests, the middle class are where the votes are, but the poor often are not even considered.

So why not mandate a “Human Impact Statement” to ascertain the impact that certain government actions will have on various segments of the population, especially those who have little or no voice in the governing process?

In 1969, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Act mandates an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) for certain actions “significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The purpose of NEPA is to promote informed decision-making by federal agencies by making detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts available to both agency leaders and the public. It has worked pretty well as a tool to protect the environment.

So let’s mandate a Human Impact Statement for selected government actions to measure the impact on all segments of our population, with special focus on those who have little or no voice in the process.