In a just-published piece in Tax Notes, AEI economists Kevin Hassett and Alan Viard explain how targeted tax increases on big oil companies pose significant risks to the economy.

Politicians have frequently directed harsh rhetoric toward particular corporate taxpayers that earn high profits. At times, this rhetoric has been accompanied by policy proposals that single out a narrow set of profitable taxpayers for disparate treatment. Perhaps the most notable example is the war against Big Oil.

Eliminating tax subsidies for major energy companies is a bad idea. Singling out big American energy firms for this kind of treatment is abusive and a "glaring violation of the rule of law."

One basic principle of the rule of law is that laws apply to everybody. If the sign says "No Parking," you're not supposed to park there even if you're a pal of the alderman. The Obamacare waiver process appears to violate this rule.

It’s depressing to watch, but it is missing the point that the Volcker rule would not have prevented the loss and is probably unworkable.

The coming year represents an opportunity for the administration to reverse course and adhere more closely to the rule of law.

Prohibiting their bond trading will seriously weaken banks and the markets that banks supply with liquidity.

In a recent letter, Martin Lobel describes as "intellectually bankrupt" our arguments against S. 940 and S. 2204, two recent bills that would have imposed unfavorable tax rules on five large oil companies that would not have applied to other taxpayers. Unfortunately, Lobel mischaracterizes our analysis of why the bills violate the rule of law.