In his column encouraging Senate action on a new carbon tax ("Turn up heat to pass energy/climate/jobs bill", April 28), Thomas Friedman extols the virtues of more government intrusion in the energy sector — everything from improving the value of our currency to making us "more energy secure, environmentally secure, and strategically secure".  I half-expected a claim that it would cure acne, end obesity, and bring back Seinfeld.

Unfortunately, one sentence illustrates the folly of Mr. Friedman's government-centered, top-down, centralized approach:  without imposing higher taxes and more government mandates, "you will never get sustained consumer demand for, or sustained private investment in, clean-power technologies", he admits.

If so-called "clean-power innovations" were really able to provide profitability, prosperity, and security on such a large scale in so many areas, why would it require onerous new taxes on working families and subsidies to special interests to steer investment into that sector?  A better plan would be to reduce government interference and remove the barriers to innovation and job creation.  That's not accomplished by increasing taxes, but rather by decreasing taxes, particularly on businesses and capital investment, and by lessening the burden of government regulation, mandates, and prohibitions.  Whether the technology is involved in energy or information, medicine or manufacturing, the best innovations come from entrepreneurs, scientists, and engineers — not politicians, lobbyists, and tax collectors.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX