Which is pretty much their solution across the board. How do you fight global warming? Apparently by raising taxes.

WASHINGTON — Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won’t like _ a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.

“I’m trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it’s going to have a measure of pain that you’re not going to like,” Rep. John Dingell, who is marking his 52nd year in Congress, said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.

But we’re going to do it anyway! Does Dingell realize what’s wrong with what he just said? The “representative” says he’ll introduce a plan you won’t like and is going to cost you even more money. Isn’t that sort of like, ya know, taxation without representation?

But Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that will craft climate legislation, is making it clear that he believes tackling global warming will require a lot more if it is to be taken seriously.

“This is going to cause pain,” he said, adding that he wants to make certain “the pain is shared in a way that is fair, proper, acceptable and accomplishes the basic purpose” of reducing greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

Dingell says he hasn’t rule out such a so-called “cap-and-trade” system, either, but that at least for now he wants to float what he believes is a better idea. He will propose for discussion:

_A 50-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline and jet fuel, phased in over five years, on top of existing taxes.

_A tax on carbon, at $50 a ton, released from burning coal, petroleum or natural gas.

_Phaseout of the interest tax deduction on home mortgages for homes over 3,000 square feet. Owners would keep most of the deduction for homes at the lower end of the scale, but it would be eliminated entirely for homes of 4,200 feet or more.

If Democrats don’t have their hand reaching in your pocket, they’re simply not doing their job.

Some of the revenue would be used to reduce payroll taxes, but most would go elsewhere including for highway construction, mass transit, paying for Social Security and health programs and to help the poor pay energy bills.

Am I missing something here? How does this help with your crusade against global warming? Is the philosophy here that it’ll cost us more, so we’ll stop using as much? We’re Americans; we pay 3 bucks for a gallon of gas and $600 for a cell phone. It’s just more taxes.