http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/02/obama-oil-tax-b...
My own view is that we should raise taxes on gasoline at the pump rather than broadly taxing petroleum, and that the new tax should scale with population density, so it's higher in urban areas where the negative externalities of burning it are more concentrated, and roughly zero in rural areas.
I wonder if that might not be an easier sell than it sounds in Congress. If urban liberals want to tax themselves and leave the rural conservatives out of it, why should the latter object?
This idea is neither good nor univesally accepted.
External manipulations of the market cause deadweight losses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss
You have to argue that the gain of manufacturing jobs will be worth more than the loss of inexpensive manufactured goods. The market currently says that argument is false.
"You have to argue that the gain of manufacturing jobs will be worth more than the loss of inexpensive manufactured goods. The market currently says that argument is false"
Huh? Wrong. Nothing currently being manufactured would be effected until thousands of new manufacturing plant are brought (back?) online here in the USA. Your you must prove your idealized statement is valid by your metrics; and it is not.
As you can see tariffs on imported goods can have negative effect on domestic jobs.
That ties them, and the party to support of non-renewable energy sources, which are not exactly popular among voters(there might have been a specific demographic attached to that, but I'm not certain).
Even if this turns out to be the strategy, I think your idea about a commitment to US jobs would only help- not sure why he didn't do that..