This may come as a shock to most of you, but I have found a tax that I would like to increase!
I’ll give you a moment to let that sink in…
Bryan at Hot Air, as well as most all of the commentors agree.
I also agree… except for one part, increasing the gas tax.
Now Rep. John Dingell (D of course) is off base because the rationale for the tax is all wrong and the use of the revenue is completely goofy, but even a blind pig finds a truffle occasionally. Global warming, whatever… really… National security, now there is a rational for a massive tax increase.
Gas, my friends, is way too cheap and an increase of $0.50 a gallon is not nearly enough.
Think about your own behavior. Do you consider not driving or carefully planning your trips to cover multiple errands because the price of gas is too high? Sure we all complain about $3 gas, but have you really changed your habits? Just how much would gas have to cost in order for you to regard a frivolous trip a luxury. How much would it have to be to stop you from buying that “Canyonaro SUV”? How about a hybrid? A new clean diesel, or better yet a diesel/hybird! Then again, there is always [gasp] public transit.
If gas was (more) heavily taxed, and the proceeds went directly into research into breaking the oil dependency that threatens our future, I would be all for it.
I must disagree. While incentives to develop and use these alternatives are a fine idea our rulers today can not be trusted to handle this. Whatever reasonable tax is put in place to achieve the desired effect it WILL be increased and the money will not be used as intended but will be diverted to cronies and PC projects.
In most of this country gas IS mobility. Most of the jobs I have had would have been impossible without personal transportation. If you give the state power over personal movement you effectively enslave the population involved. Where they work, what they do,freedom of assembly, access to schools and where they live all become hostage to the rulers controlling access to fuel or transportation. It is no accident that dictators require permits and papers of their citizens to travel in their own countries. Government can not be trusted with such life and death power over citizens.
Comment by Machinist — September 28, 2007 @ 4:10 am
I would not mind an increase in gas prices to fund energy independence but it should by through private hands and results based. No results, no profits. The government must not get possession or control of this money. Private industry has shown itself capable of remarkable innovation and achievement with clear goals and proper incentives.
Comment by Machinist — September 28, 2007 @ 4:37 am
With just about any other tax I am right there with you, but on gas I think that we would be a lot better of as a nation and individually if gas prices were high enough to effect personal behavior.
I do share your concern that the gov’ment can’t be trusted with money, but I see it as a necessary evil. In my view increasing the cost to the end user is worth the loss of the graft and corruption portions of the funds received.
As for enslaving the people, I would rather work to dismantle the government AFTER we dispense with the Saudis and cause the Middle East to be a non-factor in world affairs than to live in the Caliphate.
Think about what would happen to your freedom and movement if Iran decides its a good idea to mine the gulf? Or maybe the Saudi royal family falls (likely in the near future) and the “even more crazies” take over? Between Iran and the Magic Kingdom, the oil supply to the consumer could be wiped out in the matter of days.
Once that happens we would be longing for the economic conditions of 1932. Most likely from a burned out shell of a city, all that would be left after the riots and the gas gangs took over. Mad Max would be right at home.
Comment by Sinner — September 28, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
I am absolutely for self sufficiency in energy and all other strategic resources. I can accept higher energy costs to that end but not by government theft. I see no alternative for the near future but to secure the fossil fuel resources we need to supply our military and our economy. No alternate scheme will bear results soon enough for our security. We should develop our domestic reserves and refining capacity to allow us to fill an import shortfall if needed. We should retain these surplus capabilities in readiness and cover the cost by higher gas prices. Refinery capacity is a greater vulnerability than oil supply now and would take longer to develop. I have no problem burning Arab oil if it is cheaper but our own resources should be available on short notice. We should also make long term arrangements with non-Arab oil producers, even if the prices are higher. We should arrange for energy companies to research and develop alternative energy sources and conservation methods. They could increase energy prices to fund this and make profits from the results but only if they produce effective, efficient, and practical results.
Government taxes on energy MUST be capped. The increased prices must not result in increased revenue. Only increased consumption as a result of advances in alternate sources can result in more money for the state from energy. The states interests should not be opposed to industry’s. Some adjustment can be made for conservation advances.
These measures will produce an increase in gas and energy prices but it should not cripple our economy and it should produce practical solutions that will offset the price increases in a reasonable amount of time. The higher cost of producing or buying non-Arab oil will be somewhat offset be increased supply and a more stable energy market.
I foresee extensive military activity around the world as being needed for our peace and security. Rather this happens before or after mushroom clouds rise over our cities or Tel Aviv I don’t know. If done earlier then some of those actions will help secure our oil supplies. A democratic Iraq will be a friend or at least a trading partner. A democratic Iran may be the same. North Korea can come later. Strong, decisive action on our part will prop up the Saudi family for now and make the other oil states want to keep a low profile.
If we fail to show strength and resolve we can expect China to try to pull off Japan’s “Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere“. Thanks to Bill Clinton they have nukes to threaten us with but they will be swayed by our strength or lack of it, not their nukes. If we slink off from the Middle East we can expect our energy shortage to be exploited by China and North Korea.
Islam is one of the great external threats we face but the biggest threat to our nation and to western civilization comes from our own politicians. Frankly that is the only threat I fear we may not be able to survive as it may already be to late, though it might take some time to fall apart. Overcoming the others is a matter of deciding if we are willing to do what is needed in time.
Comment by Machinist — September 29, 2007 @ 4:51 am
I tend to agree, but since I feel much stronger about the alt fuels issue, my priorities change in that arena.
The situation in Saudi scares the living beh-jebus out of me. The King is as good as dead and the succession is not clear. When the old bird dies, which should be soon, there will be war or at the least a good deal of fratricide. the likely winner is a hard-line Islamist and would quietly welcome UBL and his goons back home if not greatly increase funding for their activites with our own money.
Iran is not going to be attacked in this Presidential term. If the Dems win, they will not be attacked at all for their 4/8 years. With that much breathing room, they will certainly finish their nuke weapon program and the world will only get confirmation of that when Israel is under multiple mushroom clouds. The 12th Imam will appear, at least fir a certain short puppet dictator.
I believe that the only hope to thrive, or at least survive, these events is to get on the task of accelerated biofuel development and have a good portion of the nation’s transportation energy covered in this way.
ANWR is also something we should do.
Buying and using “their” oil before using “our” oil is a classic free market libertarian position. And boy howdy do I agree in general, but in this case virtually every dollar we ship into the Magic Kingdom amplifies the Islamist threat.
Besides, an ambitious biofuel program in the US would make OPEC consider its quotas very carefully. Yes they would be mad at the threat, but will also see that they need to do something to counter said threat. IMHO, that would be to open the spigots wide and flood the markets with cheap oil. Then their operatives will make the utility argument against the aggressive biofuel program.
So, in my view an aggressive program would give us long term stability and security as well as short term gains in jobs (in hard hit rural areas), vastly lower oil prices and a stick with which to beat our enemies.
I grant that revenue from a gas tax increase is not likely to be spent wisely, but the resulting damping effect on consumption is an important facet of this policy.
Comment by Sinner — September 29, 2007 @ 10:44 am
I’d love to see something like the X-Prize and the Methuselah Mouse Project started for energy and publicized.
Comment by sillyblindharper — September 29, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
X-Prize is a very cool idea, but I fear that the reason many have chased it was because it was “sexy” and “cool”. I’m told that only I think altfuels is “sexy” and “cool”…
Comment by Sinner — September 30, 2007 @ 12:02 am
I think alternate fuels are worth pursuing but biofuel takes too much fossil fuel to produce and there isn’t enough surplus raw material to replace a practical amount of fossil fuel. Ocean farming may have future potential.
Comment by Machinist — September 30, 2007 @ 1:03 am
We have vast deposits of coal and oil shale in this country. It might be more practical to build cleaner burning power plants for these than to develop alt.fuels, at least for the short and medium term.
When private industry is given the right incentives and guidelines the results can be astounding. The F-16 and F-18 were a product of the late 60’s early 70s state of the art. The manufacturers were given a blank slate and told to use the latest technology, methods, and materials to produce a plane with the highest performance at the least cost. These are still front line fighters around the world forty years later. Imagine a WW2 P-51 Mustang being a leading air superiority fighter in the mid 1980s. Capitalism and free enterprise rule. That potential should be saddled instead of yoked.
Comment by Machinist — September 30, 2007 @ 2:06 am
I think Energy tech is cool! It’s a sci-geek dream…fusion, technology, what’s not to like? Of course, I’ve never been good at predicting what the average folk find interesting.
Still, we don’t need the average folk, just the exceptional. The innovators. The restless.
You may call me Pollyanna, heh
Comment by sillyblindharper — October 1, 2007 @ 12:10 am
If Western civilization does not cut it’s throat then fusion power will be the basis of terrestrial civilization in the future (solar will power civilization in space, but not to a major extent on Earth). Fusion power should be clean, safe, with effectively limitless fuel. Even if sea water must be processed to separate deuterium and tritium, with cheap, plentiful power this is just a matter of scale. With this in hand even clean synthetic fuels can be produced without the wasteful plant cycle. This will make Sinner’s alternate fuels practical.
Comment by Machinist — October 1, 2007 @ 1:32 am
Wrong kind of tax. The right kind of tax is a tariff on imported oil. You can quite reasonably argue that the per-gallon fuel taxes that we have now that we use for building roads are more user fees than taxes. Even when you use the tax money for public transport it has a user fee component — you, as a driver, are paying to get other people off the road so you can use it.
An import tariff is a different kind of user fee. It says, “hey, we gotta pay all this money to defend ourselves against Islamic nutcases, so if you want to use that oil you should have to pay a user fee. A user fee that you shouldn’t have to pay if you are using ethanol from midwestern corn (or from Brazilian sugar cane!) or oil from Texas or Alaska, etc. If you raise the price of foreign oil, you make it economically viable to bring to market more domestic oil. And make it economically viable to bring Alaskan oil to market with the very best of environmental protections.
But most importantly, the import tariffs force the pre-tariff prices down (by forcing down demand) while putting more money in the US government’s pocket. Money which is a partial user fee on the US military which is protecting us from the nutcases. As opposed to raising the price of oil and putting more money in the pockets of those who are funding the nutcases.
Comment by cathyf — October 2, 2007 @ 11:29 am
I see that and agree.
Its also the kind of tax that politicians should be able to get behind and sell, as long as they don’t say that the aim is to raise oil prices in order to curb use. Giving incentive (no import tax) to domestic producers is also a good idea. Maybe we can get the oil shale/sand fields a go or better yet figure out how to get to an all diesel fleet and use the Nazi technology to convert coal to diesel fuel. (Sen. Byrd, your earmarks are calling to you in WV)
Though, I would be in favor of any tax that would be high enough to actually change behaviors and perceptions about oil use.
Just sayin’
Comment by Sinner — October 2, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
We aren’t addicted to OIL any more than we are addicted to Orange Juice. We WANT ENERGY to live the FREE LIVES that America used to stand for. Liberals have hijacked this issue and have fooled the less intelligent among us.
There is plenty of OIL. So lets dispense with the “ADDICTED TO” bullshit. Shall we. So now that we’ve determined that there is PLENTY O’OIL. Lets get that oil to cover our wants and needs. There is nothing wrong with finding new/renewable/alternative/clean/warm and fuzzy sources of energy. The truth here, is that the left wants to win. YOU CANNOT DRIVE A JEEP. And they distort the issue. And you’ve bought their bullshit.
Comment by mickey — October 3, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
Did you read this argument?
I don’t care a wit about the Oil Supply or lack thereof…
What I care about is energy security and cutting off the lifeblood of terrorists.
Liberals/Conservatives…whatev… Blame whomever you will. The fact is that the more oil we buy from the Magic Kingdom the less freedom and security we have.
It is sort of odd that as soon as you say “Renewable” or “Biofuel” skimmers lump you in the envirowhackjobs…
Comment by Sinner — October 3, 2007 @ 11:42 pm