Tom Toles by Tom Toles

Tom Toles

Comments (31) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. MortyForTyrant

    MortyForTyrant said, over 2 years ago

    A warning from Germany: do NOT use carbon tax revenue for anything but migration to alternative energy. Our “Öko-Steuer” (tax on ecologically bad things, like gasoline) was originally intended that way but later got mixed up in the “big pot” where all the other taxes go. People didn’t like that…

  2. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    The first idea is to change the Senate rules so that filibustering is highly visible and those filibustering are known and accountable. No more secret holds. No more fiilbustering of debate.
    There are often good and valid reasons to filibuster legislation, but there is no good reason for secrecy, no good reason to filibuster debate, and no good reason to make it so easy as to be trivial.

  3. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, over 2 years ago

    Yes the carbon tax must only be for renewable and non-carbon types of energy. Nothing else.

  4. saywhatwhat

    saywhatwhat said, over 2 years ago


    A filibuster should only happen when someone is willing to actually stand up and talk about the issue… or at least pretend what they are saying is about the issue, but in any case, a real person really taking.

  5. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 2 years ago


    That is the main reason I’m opposed to the carbon. tax. I see it as becoming like the lottery where the monies collected were supposed to go to education but wound up in the general fund with some (but hardly all) of it then given back to education. The same happens to the National Highway Trust Fund. The Social Security money that is in excess of current need is “borrowed” by the Treasury. The Treasury then gives the Social Security Administration a non-transferable treasury bond. The multi-billion dollar settlement with the tobacco industry was supposed to fund the treatment of tobacco related illnesses but wound up in the general fund.

  6. ARodney

    ARodney said, over 2 years ago

    I wouldn’t mind seeing the carbon tax to go to extending the reduction in the payroll tax. For all of it’s benefits, the carbon tax would be a regressive tax (like payroll, sales, and property taxes) falling hardest on the poor, who pay out a larger share of their incomes on those items. This is something that British Columbia is already doing, and it’s working well—though it’ll work better if other states and provinces jump on board.

  7. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, over 2 years ago

    There are myriad methods of dealing with the issues presented in this cartoon. Mr. Toles offers only one of the many, equally controversial, choices, and turns focus and argument on that one point. It will take a multifaceted approach to fix our problems. Total elimination of taxes/fees/services/etc are probably less needed than making common sense and balanced adjustments to the existing legal structure. The key to reducing costs is to locate those ‘loopholes’ lobbyists installed in bills that weakened the bills while increasing costs overall.

  8. Nos Nevets

    Nos Nevets said, over 2 years ago

    You know the idea behind the carbon tax is a libertarian one. The argument isn’t about the method (i.e., polluters of the Commons paying the Commons for damage, or the right to do damage. The tax rate should reflect the best guess of the monetary value to society of that damage. The revenues collected must go toward making people & society whole & mitigating against the cost of the damage. Imperfect, yes, but it lets the market can make rational decisions of whether to pollute & how much to pollute at the margin.)

    The argument is mainly about the reality of this particular pollutant. (I’m not arguing either side of that here.) But in reading comments here, confusion reigns over divorcing revenue or tax rates from pollution damage. Acting on ideas expressed above would diminish rational decisions about polluting.

  9. Nos Nevets

    Nos Nevets said, over 2 years ago

    @Nos Nevets

    MortyForTyrant, MikeFive, Night-Gaunt49 have it right.

  10. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, over 2 years ago

    @Ms. Ima

    Until you wake up from your dream and see the reality of what Global Warming is doing to the world every day you will be lost.

  11. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, over 2 years ago

    Mr. Ima
    So the multi-trillion dollar wars as letting the rich not pay their share doesn’t amount to much in your math? Better check it again.

  12. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    How is the picking of winners of this alternate energy going for our dear Prez? His blunders are sure getting paid off.
    I still want to know how starving the horse brought about the car.

  13. kamwick

    kamwick said, over 2 years ago

    @Ms. Ima

    Time for you and Ima to go on vacation…how about joining Rush in Costa Rica?

  14. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago


    “You did not have a problem with Democrats Filibustering the Senate when the Republicans held the Majority in the Senate.”
    It’s not a partisan issue. Changes in the Senate rules would apply to both parties.
    I don’t have a problem with Republicans filibustering when there’s a good reason.
    I do have a problem with either party filibustering debate. I have a problem with filibustering ANY nominee for a consumer protection appointment. I have a problem with secret holds on legilslation, and most everything secret.
    I especially have a problem with Republicans filibustering specifically to damage the American economy in order to try to damage Obama.
    You want to defend those?

  15. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    ^During the health care debate we were treated to the spectacle of seven Republicans proposing a change to the prospective legislation. Obama said he would support such a change.
    Republicans immediately invoked a filibuster.
    The count of 350+ filibusters in the last four years is really a count of cloture motions, so the actual count of filibusters is way higher. The example above did not have a cloture motion filed.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (16).