HULK SMASH!!!
Go to Iraq for good, Tommy.
You'll improve this country immensely, you death-loving cunt.
A little pictorial on petrol taxes. Even tinyurl couldn't handle this one without breaking it, alas. :
javascript: void window.open('http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/
hi/pop_ups/03/uk_petrol_pricing/html/1.stm', '1064997793', 'toolbar=0,scrollbars=0,location=0,statusbar=0,men
ubar=0,resizable=0,width=500,height=400,left=312,t
op=100');
Petrol tax works. Nothing inspires fuel economical vehicles like it. And, if nothing else, it does hit corporations quite nicely. God knows you need to get some money from somewhere.
I think nothing but good would come from $1/gallon increase in the gas tax.
However, unlike Friedman, I would put the revenue to good use instead of using to fund the misadventures of the Bush administration and no-bid contracts for Bechtel and Halliburton.
Speaking of Bechtel and Halliburton...
How much would $87 billion spread out over 10 years dent their executive pay plans?
Problem is the gas tax hurts the low wage folks more than any other group. Min wagers make up millions in this country. Make their costs higher and they go under even more than they are now. Tax the richest.
Actually nestled in Friedman's column is an interesting point. The OPEC nations (eg. Saudi Arabia, eg. the real culprits of 9/11)hate petrol taxes. The Euros have high petrol taxes and lower per-capita(and probably absolute) rates of petrol consumption than we do.
If you want to win the war on terror, stop giving the terrorists money by buying their petrol?
Is this the back door to common sense?
Freidman talked about petrol tax rebates or excemption for the poor. Most everyone else SHOULD pay more for fuel.
"Because this war on terrorism is not simply a military fight. That's the easy part."
Attention troops and military families: Tom wants you to stop whining, because you have no idea how difficult it is to wage the war of ideas from a desk at the NY Times.
How about letting Iraq pay for Iraq's rebuilding? Let them borrow from their future oil earnings. They have the second largest untapped oil reserve in the world. Let it pay for their country to rebuild, not a buck more to fill up my %#! car.
But somehow the Republicans don't like the idea of Iraq paying for Iraq. We'd rather run up some more deficits. Bush loves the deficits, borrow trillions from banks, let the banks make billions in interest, and get millions in cash contributions for the Republican party for next year...
sweet deal
gas taxes hurt small business as well...
I can definitely see politicians falling all over themselves to put THIS idea into action. I mean, look what the "car tax" did for Gray Davis!
It's weird. Friedman used to be a good read, precisely because he WENT places and did real on-site reporting. What happened? Did he stop traveling? Or is it just some strange combination of meds?
Why should we pay for the wet dreams of the neo-con scum? if they can't pay their share, why should we? We should all take up a collection to buy little Tommy a clue, since he obviously needs one. What an A-hole.
The way we get a better America out of Iraq is for it to be the straw that brings that asshole Bush down.
MichaelPH in Ventura wrote: How about letting Iraq pay for Iraq's rebuilding? Let them borrow from their future oil earnings. They have the second largest untapped oil reserve in the world. Let it pay for their country to rebuild, not a buck more to fill up my %#! car.
Nice try ralph, make that an extra $40 to fill your car. And with whom do you propose to negotiate this loan? The money is needed now, but Iraq wont have a sovereign government for at least a year and, if these fuckwits have anything to do with it (sorry, redundant) it wont be for at least 2 years. No sovereign government, no second party to loan. What's the US going to do, sign a contract with Bremer? LOL. Maybe the US will be the guarantor yes? Obviously that petrol addiction of your has affected your brain badly.
As for little Tommy, even assuming he could come up with a scheme that enabled the poor not to pay the tax, (refunds don't work because you need the money NOW and if it is going to the gubmint your kids starve or you get kicked out of the house TOMORROW, but hey, we can dream), even then it would fail because the US is built on the assumption that cheap, plentiful gas will always be there. That's why you live so far from your workplaces and shop even further away and you have big cars.
Taxes wont reduce those distances or cut the size of your engines or reduce the number of trips you need to take by more than a tiny fraction and that will be eaten up by the overhead of getting the money back to poor people fast enough.
What the US needs is to have started a $100 billion energy independence programme about ten years ago. You didn't, now you are screwed. Sad, but stupid people always lose sooner or later, no matter how lucky they are.
I don't think Iraq should pay for Iraq. I just don't think paying for Iraq should mean paying Bush's buddies off the top. As far as the deficit goes, reversing the tax cuts might help pay off at least the first installment of the reconstruction.
As far as gas taxes, I signed up for the voluntary gas tax last year link -- you can do it manually, of course. I decided to donate to a political cause on a 1 for 1 basis with my fuel consumption last month, but that didn't discourage my driving enough.
A Freaking $1 gas tax? And not a word about rescinding any part of the bush tax cuts? I've lucked into the upper-crust blog. And remember, he cut those taxes knowing he was going to go to war. Won't the soldiers love coming home to a $1 gas tax. Fight and pay. Fiedman is just blathering, as usual.
First off, I want to point out that I am most certainly NOT a Friedmanophile. He lost me for good with his self-righteous, know-it-all, waffling position on the war.
Having said, that, in this case, he's right. He mentions exceptions for low-income people, farmers, and truckers. He mentions that it would be phased in.
Look at this paragraph:
"Yes, yes — I know, the Bush team would never even consider such a tax. But that's my point. When you have an administration that will not even consider undertaking the most obviously right course — a gasoline tax — that would produce so many strategic, economic and political benefits for America, then how do we win this war in the long run? Because this war on terrorism is not simply a military fight. That's the easy part. More important, it is a war of ideas."
He acknowledges it's a political impossibility. His point is that it's the right thing to do. Also, the parsing of his phrase to make it look like he is downplaying the dangers of our military men and women, well, that's just unfair. He means that the U.S. military ran over Afghanistan and Iraq. They did. That WAS the easy part. His underlying point is that this is, as Molly Ivins has said, "A quick, easy war and the peace from hell."
The bottom line here is that some people will criticize Friedman no matter what he says. He deserves it a lot of the time, so let's save it for then.
If you are still skeptical, just envision what you would think of the ideas in this column if it were Paul Krugman proposing them.
The name's not ralph.
Deep Dark: while I agree with much of what you say I still think it would be wise for the dems to make as a center-piece of the 2004 campaign a "Manhattan Project" type program to develop affordable alternatives to fossil fuels. Better late than never, and god knows we could use a positive message about the future right about now.
Maybe Tom means that poverty will be good for our charecter. You know the real, 19th century poverty. No money for relief programs, no jobs that pay a living wage, only way out for boys is to go into the military and girls into... well that's too impolite for the "paper of record". If I'd known that you not only need no knowlege about what you type about to work for a major newspaper but also have to have no tether to reality I might have opted for a carrear in "journalism".
He gets stranger with every column.
Energy independence is a National Security issue. That is how President Dean will handle it!
Deep Dark: while I agree with much of what you say I still think it would be wise for the dems to make as a center-piece of the 2004 campaign a "Manhattan Project" type program to develop affordable alternatives to fossil fuels. Better late than never, and god knows we could use a positive message about the future right about now.
Friedman is floundering about for someone to pay for his PNAC wet dream invasion, cause he sees the writing on the wall: there never was and never will be the "50 to 100 billion over the next 2 to 3 years" from Iraqi oil promised by the arch liar, Paul Wolfowitz.
He's a pathetic propagandist who never gives up. Scum, day in, day out.
Dean, for one, is pretty consistent about wanting the US to develop a significant alternative energy programme. His stump speech line is, roughly, "If Denmark can get 20% of their energy from renewable sources, why can't we? Why is the US no longer the leader in renewable energy technology like it used to be?"
Omlet Chef, A manahattan project is what I had in mind, that programme should have been started 10 years ago. The latest word on peak oil is that it is due by about 2010 and the shadow will push prices higher much sooner. Iran is starting a nuclear programme, at least in part, because they can see their oil running out in the near future.
The big problem is that, whatever the technical solution/s, the technology would have to be diffused through the economy and the changed habits through the society and the new building codes and more compact communities through the infrastructure. That would require huge investment in the implementation phase and vast rebuilding programmes etc. The time and money no longer exist to achieve that in time to avoid the worst effects of the rising cost of energy. Those resources were blown to hell by the dotcom insanity.
tommy boy is sounding more and more like a teenager every week. he's just too earnest, i think.
how about--the 69% of Americans who think Saddam was responsible for 9/11 can pay the tax?
If Krugman had these ideas I would wonder what the White House had on his wife.
Mooser--as soon as I posted with that phrasing, I knew somebody would say something obnoxious. I'm glad that the first obnoxious comment was at least funny.
To clarify: the gas tax, as Friedman proposes it, is a good idea for the environment and national security. The people who said that he was somehow insulting the men and women of the armed forces are being unfair. Add to that the people who think that he's some sort of propagandist for the republicans. However, there were still shades of his crackpottedness in the way he addressed the war.
Still, be fair and attack him when he deserves it.
Friedman's latest column is some form of pie-in-the-sky look at a solution to: dealing with OPEC being strident, the US's dependence upon foreign oil as an energy source and somehow the taxes being used to fund rebuilding Iraq as a popular use of the funds.
The biggest problem to the idea is that the rhetorical excercise he laid out is flawed based upon his not looking at the economic big picture.
He assumes that a dollar per gallon tax will reduce demand for gas; it won't reduce it that much. He assumes that the six month window of Middle-East/OPEC oil going from the ground to the refineries means that OPEC is going to ramp up production to reduce the costs so that the impact of the proposed gas tax would be negligent (sort of like how a tobbacco company would temporarily reduce retail prices to offset higher taxes); OPEC wouldn't do this.
He assumes that the only negligent aspect of a dollar/gallon tax would be on poorer people; it wouldn't. Everyone in the States would pay. We'd see it in higher transport costs for food and other goods. This would lead to higher costs for everyone. An just-in-time inflation, if you will. While it could theoretically produce a greater dependence upon mass transit, those who use such options would likely see a greater increase in fares because of higher costs on fuel. (and to think that truckers would be eligible for a rebate is laughable. They use the most fuel of road travellers.)
Furthermore, there would be no benefit to transferring said funds to Iraq because that would produce the biggest backlash. Right now, there is a cut in highway funds. Traditionally, any gas tax has come to be allocatted to federal and state programs to improve roads, highways and mass transit programs. To take any gas tax and send it over to Iraq, especially when our own reconstruction and maintainence programs are being slashed it ridiculous. No one would want that.
Politically, it wouldn't fly.
All that said, Friedman does seem to realize that Bush is beholden to big oil. Give him credit for alluding to that. He also realizes that the foreign policy isn't being run very well. Consider those two things as Friedman opening up his eyes to the facts at hand. Even while he uses his example as a rhetorical sticker shock to get people to realize that there are some basic problems with our energy policy and also options that Bush and the AdMen are not considering. That is epitomized with the mention of "Do as we say, not as we do. Good ideas for Iraqis, gluttony for Americans."
So at the least, cut him some slack.
Friedman's latest column is some form of pie-in-the-sky look at a solution to: dealing with OPEC being strident, the US's dependence upon foreign oil as an energy source and somehow the taxes being used to fund rebuilding Iraq as a popular use of the funds.
The biggest problem to the idea is that the rhetorical excercise he laid out is flawed based upon his not looking at the economic big picture.
He assumes that a dollar per gallon tax will reduce demand for gas; it won't reduce it that much. He assumes that the six month window of Middle-East/OPEC oil going from the ground to the refineries means that OPEC is going to ramp up production to reduce the costs so that the impact of the proposed gas tax would be negligent (sort of like how a tobbacco company would temporarily reduce retail prices to offset higher taxes); OPEC wouldn't do this.
He assumes that the only negligent aspect of a dollar/gallon tax would be on poorer people; it wouldn't. Everyone in the States would pay. We'd see it in higher transport costs for food and other goods. This would lead to higher costs for everyone. An just-in-time inflation, if you will. While it could theoretically produce a greater dependence upon mass transit, those who use such options would likely see a greater increase in fares because of higher costs on fuel. (and to think that truckers would be eligible for a rebate is laughable. They use the most fuel of road travellers.)
Furthermore, there would be no benefit to transferring said funds to Iraq because that would produce the biggest backlash. Right now, there is a cut in highway funds. Traditionally, any gas tax has come to be allocatted to federal and state programs to improve roads, highways and mass transit programs. To take any gas tax and send it over to Iraq, especially when our own reconstruction and maintainence programs are being slashed it ridiculous. No one would want that.
Politically, it wouldn't fly.
All that said, Friedman does seem to realize that Bush is beholden to big oil. Give him credit for alluding to that. He also realizes that the foreign policy isn't being run very well. Consider those two things as Friedman opening up his eyes to the facts at hand. Even while he uses his example as a rhetorical sticker shock to get people to realize that there are some basic problems with our energy policy and also options that Bush and the AdMen are not considering. That is epitomized with the mention of "Do as we say, not as we do. Good ideas for Iraqis, gluttony for Americans."
So at the least, cut him some slack.
oops sorry. i thought i was refreshing it and it somehow double posted. please delete the second post.
thanks.
pbb, well said.
i think the talking point out of this is:
The gas tax is a nonstarter because nobody in the united states is willing to hurt the US economy in order to improve the Iraqi economy.
gas taxes: nifty idea, good way to encourage developement of alternative fuels (and thereby defuse the oil-lust that turns this nation into rampaging conquerers).
Unfortunately, politically impossible. We'd rather pay for it in amputated legs and body bags.
May I suggest a modest proposal? 250% tax on the income of hack pundit dickweeds like Tom Friedman.
I have to weigh in on the side of the gas tax, though not with Tommy's idea of sending the proceeds off to fund the PNAC wetdream, as it was phrased upthread. Why on earth are we trying to address poverty by encouraging everyone to consume more gas than is good for us? Poverty and overreliance on oil are two separate problems, so it's insanity to try to address both of them with the same tool.
People with low incomes need jobs and mobility options that don't use a lot of gas (translation: well-funded public transit and sensible urban structures). We don't have those things now, which is why the tax needs to be phased in, but providing good transit and restructuring our cities will provide jobs while making more livable environments.
And if you're worried about running out of oil (which you should be) and ruining the climate before we do that (which you should be) then there is no more effective tool than a serious gas tax ($1 is fairly serious). And, as also mentioned upthread, you can use the money to build transit and restructure cities.
Cheap gas is not a constitutional right, it's a historical freak, a disease that has distorted everything in our economy, from the way we grow our food to how we entertain ourselves. The weaning won't be easy (though contrary to Tommy, it'll be easier than being shot at by angry Iraqis), and it will piss off OPEC and fundamentally change the dynamics of global politics.
Seriously. We're already paying a "gas tax" in installments.
Payment 1: Forced to prop up bloodthirsty dictators against Islamic fundamentalism in order to protect Mideast oil interests.
Payment 2: OK, forget the dictator, but we're still in the thrall of Saudi Arabia and Islamic fundamentalism.
Payment 3: 3000 dead in 9/11 attack on World Trade Center (Osama tells us to get off Saudi land)
Payment 4: 7000 Iraqi civilian caualties, 300 American dead and thousands wounded in Iraq (and rising).. guess the interest on this one is compunding daily, huh?
Payment 5: ???
Personally, I'd rather shell out a few extra bucks a month to develop alternative fuels..
As a rule of thumg, gas taxes are *never* high enoug. Even in European countries. Basically, the US needs to reduce by at least 50% its oil consumption, both for environmental reasons and to limit the billions it yearly pays to Osama and his wealthy buddies. Since oil production will diminish in next decades, adjustment to the entire infrastructure are unescapable, so better make them before you don't have choice and it's too late.
That said, these taxes should NOT be spent on Iraq, the military or some stupid PNAC wingnut utopia. There are most important things, like funding research in energy-related fields, like non-fossil energies, more efficient cars, like healthcare, like developing the public transportation and reducing prices, like schools, like aid to the poorest countries, ...
Of course, none of that will happen, which means the US politicians (and probably people) are condeming themselves to a very nasty hangover when the shit will hit the fan.
The Looting of Iraq (and the schmuck American taxpayer will foot the bill).
www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2003/40/
ma_556_01.html
"The way to Baghdad is through Washington," says Bart Fisher, a lawyer at the firm Dorsey & Whitney and co-founder of the U.S. Iraq Business Council. And it's not only Bush administration alumni who are seeking to get in on the game. For example, Clinton-era Defense Secretary William Cohen, a critic of Bush's foreign policy, has also begun marketing himself as an expert on reconstruction; his firm includes his former Pentagon deputy, Paul R.S. Gebhard, who also worked for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. In September, Cohen helped Nour USA, which was founded a few months earlier with the express purpose of winning contracts in Iraq, land an $80 million security contract for Iraq's oil fields. Building on that success, Cohen has teamed with former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, both of whom work at the K Street powerhouse Piper Rudnick, to form an "Iraq Task Force"; according to Piper's website, the task force offers clients access to "relevant decision makers in the United States and the region." Among the group's first clients is General Motors, which has retained Piper lobbyist John Zentay, a former Senate representative from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which oversees most Iraq reconstruction contracts. "We have to keep close liaison with the U.S. government to have ingress there," explains Chris Preuss, the Washington spokesman for General Motors, which has already begun selling vehicles to aid agencies in Baghdad.
Willy nilly globalization of trade results in huge transportation costs (oil) for goods which otherwise could be produced locally. Local production of as much as possible would seem to be an important part of energy conservation. And as Deep Dark points out, the physical organization of our cites makes driving the neccessity that it is. That could begin changing whenever we decide to do that. More efficieint cars would not seem to be enough to deal with the coming peak oil crunch. A wholesale reorganization of energy utilization will be needed. Increasing gas taxes is at best a small part of the solution. Is America ready for this type of large change to its way of living? If not, then I hope its citizens begin to study wilderness survival techniques.
here's a novel idea-
how bout employing the Iraqis to rebuild their country instead of importing expensive workers from Cheney Inc.
You could do the whole thing for half the price and regain full employment.
JKP- You have the most exquisite sense of the obnoxious I've run up against in all my puff!
But if you find it so, I will withdraw it with my apologies.
I'm only surprised I was the first to get that crack off!
Fact is though, you have to pay for Iraq somehow.
You broke it. (umm, alright. Us Brits helped. To my eternal shame.).
Sure, a lot of commmentators are now suggesting just pulling out an letting Iraq sort itself out. Thats because they're selfish jingoistic gits who refuse to accept the responsibilities of their actions.
There was too little complaint about spending money to smash Iraq into itty bitty pieces. Hearing prowar folks complain about having to pay to rebuild is nauseating.
Ok, Geez, I don't want to be a crazy Friedman defender here, as I said in the very beginning, I don't like the guy. However, there is some ethos in some people here that everything he says is just plain EVIL.
Do I think that gas taxes should be used to fund endless war against anyone we don't like? Let's think about it...NO! And Friedman isn't even saying that. He's saying that we have to pay this $87 billion. If you somehow believe either 1) Bush & Co. are going to get out of Iraq and hand the country over to UN control or 2) that most of that request (and probably the whole thing) is not going to pass, then I respectfully sumbit a reevaluation of who is taking pie in the sky solutions seriously.
The bottom line is that we need to pay for this gigantic deficit somehow. If it were up to me, I'd start with repealing the Bush tax cuts. That doesn't mean that a higher gas tax would not help our fiscal situation either in combination with repealing Bush's cuts or by itself.
Agreed on the point that Friedman's rhetoric of shipping the money made from the tax right off to Iraq is moronic. Yeah, it's still Friedman we're dealing with.
But as far as using the revenue to pay for renewable energy resarch, infrastructure improvements, and so on, those are good things. We could use the increase in revenue to help reduce rates for public transit.
Basically, as karl and CluelessJoe said, we need economic incentives for people to consume less fuel. A central goal is to reduce our reliance on OPEC in the first place.
Aww, Mooser, I didn't mean it that way. I tried to use "obnoxious" as humorous hyperbole. Most of all, I felt kind of silly for leaving myself open like that. Please feel free to leave your comment unretracted, and accept MY apology in case I made you feel bad about it. 
Any gasoline tax should go to the development of alternative energy sources.
The potential for inexpensive energy production is out there. Not hydrogen, which requires more energy to produce than it provides. It might take some engineering to develop, but sooner or later solar energy will have to be developed to fuel worldwide industrial economies.
The gasoline starts to run out within this generation if we keep driving with our eyes closed.
Of course, that's exactly what the robber barons want us to do: they hold the monopoly on the resouce.
I'm sorry that I just vented and didn't include the link I meant to:
SCREW OPEC & THEIR NAZI COWBOY GIRLFRIENDS!
HEMP FRICKIN' LIBERTY!
gee Tom, what about DEMANDING BETTER MILEAGE OUT OF DETROIT.
What is going to happen when the $87 billion runs out? Bremer & Co. are going through money awful fast over there. The Americans are going to go wild when Bush requests another $87 billion next year.
People who drive Hummers should be required to kiss Tommy Friedman on his fuzzy mustache.
Whether it's Tom Friedman or Ross Perot or whoever, increasing the gas tax is a very good idea. The current auto-oriented landscape is brutal not only to those who can't afford to drive, but to those who aren't allowed to drive, such as children and many elderly people. The percentage of people in this country who cannot get to work, school, or shopping by any means except private automobile is obscene and totally unsustainable. A gasoline tax should be mentioned as often as possible, since sooner or later there will come the realization that something needs to be taxed. As mentioned by Friedman and in comments above, a gas tax provides many important incentives.
Of course, I don't support using it to pay the $87 billion. We're not doing any good in Iraq, and should get out as fast as possible. But our automobile society has been heavily subsidized by other taxes; it's time to turn that around.
The gas tax is a nonstarter because nobody in the united states is willing to hurt the US economy in order to improve the Iraqi economy.
Bush is perfectly willing to do so - think of what 87 billion spent here could do for the electrical grid, the infrastructure, the job situation.
Consider even what 87 billion not spent would lop off the deficit.
But Bush wants to spend billions on Iraq, to the detriment of all sorts of programs here.
And I'm sure he'd rather slit his own throat than institute a gas tax of any amount.
And I'm sure he'd rather slit his own throat than institute a gas tax of any amount.
We'd only be so lucky.
oh. As it goes, I don't think that a gasoline tax to fund alt. energy research and development is a bad way to go.
A dollar per gallon? That just won't fly. Didn't Clinton/Gore institute a 5 cent per gallon tax? Something single digits would add up as quickly as needed. I forget how much we consume in gas daily/weekly, but, an extra tax like that would be good.
The thing is there is a psychological barrier now of $2 where people begin to believe that the sky is falling. Do they tend to buy less gas? Not everyone. Do they find other ways of getting around? Not everyone. With urban sprawl and congestion in every metro area to think that people are going to telecommute or work closer to where they live (or vice versa) is too much to ask for.
That said, having alt fuels implented ASAP would be great. Having more people rely on mass transit would be fantastic (especially trains). But, the auto industry, like Big Oil, has clout, too.
Any of these pushes depends upon, like Friedman mentioned, Bush going beyond those he owes and leading.
With the Budget Deficit, the Trade Deficit and the National Debt, right now, according to The WaPo's Colbert I King, the $87 Billion is coming out of the Social Security Trust fund. So, unless the taxes are repealed (Read his lips. heh)every time Bush breaks out the begging cup, it means more debt and less solvency for Social Security (the only thing that seems to be in the Black right now...well, besides mega millionaires and billionaires.).
I'm not gonna bash Friedman on this too much, but, the economic opinionating in the Times should probably be left to Krugman (no pun intended).
For shame, Atrios. Thank you, Arkenor and JKP. For once, Friedman makes a little sense and everyone dumps on him?
People, high gas taxes help the environment. Look at cars in Europe, then look at cars here. Smell the fresh air if you can find it. Do you want Detroit to build fuel-efficient vehicles? Create a market for them! Make fuel expensive!
It would be trivial to make a gas-tax income-neutral by adjusting other taxes. Sales taxes would be a great place to start (though that implies a means of sharing the revenue with the states).
It doesn't matter what the tax pays for. "Fungibility" is a great concept that doesn't get enough attention. To the government, tax revenues look like greenbacks no matter how they're collected, and they spend the same.
A buck a gallon gas tax? This is a great idea and I'm all for it but I don't see it happening any time soon. Thanks to shit heads like Norquist and the like Americans already think there being taxed to oblivion.
When the coffee swilling Washingtonians were asked to shill out $5.60 instead of the usual $5.50 for there Large iced double mocha lattes to help fund the city's preschool and day-care programs, 68% of the voters said "HELL NO".
If were not ready to pay an extra dime for a cup of coffee to give our children a head start in education then were sure as hell not ready to pay an extra buck a gallon to feed our hungry hummers.
I think it was karl - thank you! My whole take on the gas tax thingy is this: The whole reason we (and our economy) are dependant on cheap oil is because we've developed ourseslves around the idea of having cheap oil handy forever. Thus the neglect of energy-effecient development of cities organized around a high-tech mass transit system. Before we hit "The Big Rollover" in another 10 to 15 years, we need to re-orient our society so the hit won't kill us or our economy.
Our politicians have apparently figured that securing "our" oil (that's under *their* sand) with military force is good enough for right now. However, as we can already see, it's proving to be more expensisve than we thought.
A better way is to (as I was getting started above) re-organize ourselves around an efficient and fast mass-transit system, develop alternative energy sources outside of our current addiction to hydrocarbon based sources, and focus on getting ourselves finally un-hooked on hydrocarbons.
We can do this in a number of ways, but probably the best way (which, from reading all the other comments so far, is apparently not yet the consensus) is to phase in a heavy-duty fuel tax (to discourage consumption and finance the above mentioned expenses, which will probably be enormous) and to re-work our zoning laws, which currently promote sprawl and low-densisty development.
To offset the pain to low-income working-class families, jack up the standard deduction on income taxes to $15,000 per person, eliminate Social Security and Medicare taxes and roll the cost into tax hikes on the rest of the brackets (which, after eliminating all kinds of loopholes, will be made more progressive), and remove all the other tax-code disincentives to go high-density in general.
I know, I know, standard liberal socialist commie-pinko crap. But seriously, I don't think there's any better way to stay prosperous beyond the coming peak and decline in world oil production without doing the above stuff.
Slightly off topic, but I'm afraid that right now, it's going to be inevitable: we're probably going to see lots more Nuke power plants being build in the next 10 or so years as people start to realize what's happening.
Okay, enough for now. If you want, you can go check out www.carfree.com for some cool visionary stuff of the sort I was mentioning above.
Later,
Pete
an increase in the gasoline tax, a proposal with about as much popular support as ... say, the estate tax these days?
Californians are incensed over the recent increase in car registration fees, although these fees were only recently reduced and are simply returning to their previous levels. Nobody seems to remember.
It doesn't hurt go get people talking about an oil tax. We'll never get one otherwise. Without one, how can we ever get people to start using less oil?
Shorter Tom F:
"Hey, take a hit of this bong, man, it's awesome. Bush would tax gasoline, and people would be all like 'yeah, I'm cool with it'." **TOOOKKKKEEE**
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
