a three year period beginning in 1994 in increments of one-third each year. The tax will be collected at the point of energy production; that is, the fuel producers - coal mines, oil refineries, hydroelectric dams, nuclear power plants.
The rationale behind selection of this form of revenue/energy policy is primarily economy-driven: it is expected to raise almost $21 billion per year while having a minimally depressive effect upon the economy. With rates ranging from a 3% increase for oil producers to 11% for coal, the Btu tax is expected to have a negligible impact upon the inflation rate and gross domestic product. It is also relatively easy to collect: the fuel producers are small in numbers and easy to identify - and less likely to revolt in the polls like the mass electorate would.
Still that electoral volatility reflects the weakness of the Btu tax plan - or any revenue-raising efforts the Clinton Administration will face. Proponents claim that it is unlikely that fuel producers will pass along their tax-increased expenses to consumers; the energy companies disagree - and since they are the ones controlling that decision, they are the ones to know. Already Midwestern and New England pressure groups have forced compromises in the plan: heating oi
...