No. Regulation is an opportunity to pass out favors.
> And the taxes would have to be increased for specific spending, not for stuff the politicians might prefer to spend the money on.
No, spending doesn't have to be for specific things. (What fraction of alcohol taxes goes to alcohol treatment?)
Moreover, controlling more spending is typically more interesting than controlling specific spending.
To put it another way, dollars are fungible wrt political power.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/climate-debate-...
No. Regulation is an opportunity to pass out favors.
> And the taxes would have to be increased for specific spending, not for stuff the politicians might prefer to spend the money on.
No, spending doesn't have to be for specific things. (What fraction of alcohol taxes goes to alcohol treatment?)
Moreover, controlling more spending is typically more interesting than controlling specific spending.
To put it another way, dollars are fungible wrt political power.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/climate-debate-...