User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
PONYC Archives
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
No, I never fell for it either, but so many have. I doubt that a small gas tax alone would push them over the edge en mass, but in regard to "killing them off", I try to remember there are people who live there, and some of them are my friends. Where will they go? How will they survive? I don't know what percentage of the middle class has bought into this unsustainable lifestyle, but I doubt our society can stand the insolvency of so many families.
I recognize that those who have made major mistakes in judgment will pay a price, but still I cannot wish such misery on them.
Imagine you put 50c tax on gas this year and announce that every year from now on you'll raise it with just a quarter. Then everyone will have time to prepare and plan for the future, buy efficient car, small house near the downtown, demand mass transit etc. Yes people will suffer, but not many will get broke and maybe in 30-40 years suburbs will be just a distant memory.
In fact if Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan had done that now we'd have had another (much more human-like as opposed to car-like) USA. I often think of the latter as the main person responsible for the mess we have now.
The cause of the explosion of SUVs was two-fold, a Congress (a Democrat controlled Congress at that time) decided in the late 80s that CAFE standards would not apply to the US truck fleet. And at about the same time, Saudi Arabia got into an oil price war with Russia, driving oil prices into the ground. These two factors took a few years to play out but by 1990 the trend was starting towards trucks and SUVs.
Meanwhile, from 1990 to 2000 we saw oil consumption grow to almost 20 million barrels per day. Who was president during that time? It was Clinton, and I don't blame him either. He inherited a bad decision from a prior Congress and cheap oil so he tackled problems he could, like the deficit, instead of problems that would have been stonewalled, like diminsihing resource issues.
Presidents are not omnipotent philosopher-kings able to make everything right with Solomon-like wisdom in a few short sentences. Given the economy under Reagan and under Clinton, any attempt by either to do more than occurred regarding oil usage would have been met with massive political resistance from the other party.
And if you don't believe that, check Harry Reid's own website where he's launched his presidential bid. Harry is not talking about conservation. No sir! Democrat Harry Reid is talking about taxing those evil oil companies til they lower gasoline prices again.
Politicians of both parties are mostly opportunists. True visionary statesmen are rare and often rejected anyway. Look at Roscoe Bartlett's example now. A Republican, a conservative Republican no less, and he's the only member of Congress talking about Peak Oil.
Stop blaming politicians and begin to realize that the core problem is the people themselves, all of them, voters and non-voters alike and their unrealistic expectations.
What happened is that we elected R.R. who:
a) Discouraged all energy efficiency measures initiated by the previous administration
b) negotiated with the Saudis the oil price drop to topple the U.S.S.R economy (you can read the Peter Schweizer's "Victory" on this) and
c) caused an artificial recession and distorted public finance at home by applying a mad anti-inflationary monetary policy.
The last one had the side effect of keeping the US oil consuption low during the 80-s in spite of the lower prices. I'm just saying that this was the moment that we had the best opportunity for a breakthrough in our oil addiction which of course was wasted. So... if I make a little harsh analogy: is it the fault of the cruminal or the society that brought up the criminal? For me the correct answer is: both. But the responsability is for the criminal because he is the one that did what he did.
We have 10 at the outside. Maybe 15, but not any more.
A tax of 50 cents will do a lot more damage than you think it will, Look for a recession inside of 6 months, even now, but for sure inside of 6 months after a gas tax of 50 cents.
You are talking about killing the poor rural folks, who don't live in town, who have to drive a "piece" to get to town. You are talking about making the poor suffer more. And really sticking it to those who live out in the country to work in town.
I DO NOT SEE any Government money spender being able to keep their hands off that kind of money for long, even if you are able to get them to write it into the code of the tax taking. Give them a few months and that money will find the holes in any law they make, and go poof into the black hole most Government has become these days. Oh it will trickle back out into the nation somehow, but never where you wanted it to go.
Face it folks, 2006 is an election year, as will 2008 And NO SANE politician will be able to pass a tax on anything AND get elected by the cash strapped people.
If they are exempted from having to change (especially the people who moved out to the country but work in town, which is a lifestyle decision and not a necessity) then someone else has to take a bigger cut.
We can give everyone the same marginal incentive to stop burning as much fuel, and take the heat off the poor by giving some or all of the increased taxes back as a deductible on Social Security (or an EITC increase as the NYTimes suggests, though that discriminates against single people). But if WE ALL don't take responsibility for using less fuel, it won't happen. And if it doesn't happen, we're all screwed - the poor even worse than a tax increase would do to them.
Put it this way: someone will have to pay the bill in the end. It can be you and it can be controlled (well by the govt but it is the least evil). It can be by your children or even again by yourself (well after 5-10 years) and being a complete mess. I've been through such messes and I can tell you: if people had such choice before they happened they'd have chosen the first option. Unfortunately most people live for to today or even for yesterday.