Why a Gas Tax Is Good for You (Jimmy Carter Treasury Employee says adopt a gas $2-$3 per gal...)

USNEWS ^ | 5/8/06 | By Marianne Lavelle

[fight_truth_decay]

Twenty months ago, when plenty of folks were reeling at $48-per-barrel oil, energy economist Philip Verleger predicted that the price was headed for $60. A prolific author, Verleger served in the Treasury Department under President Carter. He now runs a consulting business out of Aspen, Colo., and is a visiting fellow with the Institute for International Economics. Verleger explains why more pain could be ahead at the pump.

President Bush is going to stop adding crude oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. What impact will that have?

Since we don't have any refining capacity now, none. The tanks are full. This is like offering somebody who just had a seven-course fancy meal a prime rib dinner.

How about the proposed waivers of environmental regulations?

We could knock a dollar a gallon off the retail price of gasoline if we did a couple of things on environmental rules. My environmental friends look at me and say, "Phil, why are you saying this?" I propose a trade-off. Bush has called for construction of new refineries. It takes years to build a refinery. It takes one year to build an ethanol plant. Let's move toward ethanol more rapidly. We'll suffer the cost of higher pollution this year, and then next year, we're going to insist that people use more ethanol ... . Insist all gasoline has to have 10 percent ethanol.

You frequently advocate a gasoline tax, while acknowledging it's a political nonstarter. What good would it do?

First--global warming. We're burning too much. I think everybody but George Bush and Dick Cheney understands the problem. You have to find a way to force people to use less. Second, were we to adopt a gasoline tax of say $2 or $3 a gallon, offset by a reduction in Social Security [payroll taxes] and some other things to minimize the effects [on working Americans], our consumption would be significantly lower. World oil prices would be significantly lower. And the income that's flowing to [Iranian President] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, [Russian President] Vladimir Putin, [Venezuelan President] Hugo Chavez, and a lot of the other people we don't like would be drastically reduced. Right now, we're paying twice--first for the oil that flows into the hands of our enemies, and then [to fight] a war in Iraq. It's important for the nation as a whole to do something like this.

[fight_truth_decay]

OPINION ON MRC'S NEWSBUSTERS.ORG:

A version of this proposal has been floated by more conservative thinkers like Charles Krauthammer. But why would "U.S. News and World Report" want to push an idea that would double the cost of gas? They emphasize the notion that consumers are fed up with the high prices and want Congress to lower the price of gas. From a separate article entitled "Pumped Up," that appeared on pages 25-27, which cites the anger of the American people over the issue and the potential political fallout from it, author Marianne Lavelle notes:

"...Pollster Daniel Yankelovich found that 85% of Americans believe the government could do something about oil prices if it tried."

Why would the media help push a plan that will drastically raise the price of gas, when it is clear from it’s own reporting that the American people want policies enacted that will lower it?

Other comments: MRC'S NEWBUSTERS BLOG

"Bush is right that the current energy crisis can be solved only in the long run. But wise policy can help all of us in the short run, too -- to avoid shortages, to preserve the benefits of price signals and to minimize the pain that short-term price increases can cause." (Robert Litan and Philip Verleger, "We've Tried Price Caps Before And They Don't Work," The Houston Chronicle, May 30, 2001)

[the invisib1e hand]

flagellate-thy-neighbor alert.

[the anti-liberal]

"First--global warming..."

Perhaps he should spend his time lecturing the sun to please stop being so hot!

[fight_truth_decay]

Oil prices rise on the "words" of -Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, and Iran's President Ahmadinejad, just as in 2004, when the warlord Asari declared an all out war:

In September 2004, Mujahid Dokubo-Asari, a delta warlord whom the Nigerian government had accused of oil smuggling, declared "all out war" on the government. Annkio Briggs, a senior aide to Mr. Asari at the time, says the warlord's comments were carefully crafted and timed to move global prices. Carried by news agencies, the remarks helped push New York futures prices above $50 a barrel for the first time.

[Arizona Carolyn]

*****we to adopt a gasoline tax of say $2 or $3 a gallon, offset by a reduction in Social Security [payroll taxes] ****

Wow! Really does a lot to help retired people on a fixed income already being priced out of their homes by rising property taxes nationwide.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

First--global warming. We're burning too much. I think everybody but George Bush and Dick Cheney understands the problem.

Them and an awful lot of scientists who still conduct research instead of subscribing to articles of faith. Sure, let's cripple the economy and destroy the mobility of millions of Americans based on supposition and unfounded assumptions.

[Blood of Tyrants]

In a crazy sort of way, he is right. Everyone here knows that as soon as the high gas prices start to harm the economy and get people to seriously start considering alternate fuel sources, the oil companies will suddenly lower prices and everything will go on the far back burner. If gas stays around $3/gal for a while, we will see those ideas and experiments start really making progress about lowering our dependence on oil.

[Cobra64]

Rush has been saying this for months!

[dr_who_2]

The MSM is good at popularizing really stupid ideas.

[VeniVidiVici]

offset by a reduction in Social Security [payroll taxes] and some other things to minimize the effects [on working Americans],

Well, I'm, I'm just insulted! Us non-working Americans would like some payback too! And what about the illegal aliens! This would do nothing to help them!

[lmr]

I am an Office Manager (And part-owner) at a small independent waste hauling firm. Essentially, I am a trashman. We experience the cost of fuel just as much or more than anyone in any transportation business. (We transport solid waste.)

A few things I have noticed in the last few years. As the price of fuel has gone up our rates for (voluntary, in my community) recycling service have not kept up. This was a program which was losing us money from the get-go and now is worse because we are spending more on one commodity (Fuel) to collect another (Recyclables) The recycling market is depressed right now with the exception of aluminum which is profitable enough that many of our customers refuse to give it to us, instead selling it for themselves.

We have also run our recycling program at a loss for political reasons (Recycling is very PC, although there is no money in it.) It kept the local government from instituting a MANDATORY program which would have forced the citizens in my community to recycle by law, and let us concentrate on our primary business which is waste collection and disposal.

In a more simplistic view of the oil issue, I have noticed that the price of gas does not keep people from loving their cars or driving. The amount of payments we are receiving for our services directly in our office has not decreased and continues to increase as a percentage compared to the amount of payments that are mailed to us. What this tells me is that price of gas does not stop people from driving all the way across town (Which is very wasteful) to pay their trash bill when they could mail it at the nearest mail box or give to their letter carrier. I can only imagine what other kinds of 'wasteful driving' that these people engage in. This kind of behavior adds to the problem.

The fact remains that Americans love their cars and love the 'Environment' at the same time. A total contradiction. (I believe that the 'save the earth' mentality is a bunch of BS and based on junk science.) This mess will lead to more Energy reliance from hostile countries and finite sources unless we, as a people and a country act RIGHT NOW, and obtain ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.

[backhoe]

I have been covering, ( Or, as Seamole puts it...-backhoe's pseudoblog--... ) pseudo-blogging, this issue for years, so allow me to drop out of Lurk & Link mode for a rare bit of commentary-- we all need to get serious about our dependency on foreign sources of energy, and use our own resources.

Our consumer-based economy is driven by and dependent upon readily-available, reliable energy-- choke that off, and we'll all be back to using one rotary dial phone in the dining room, watching one TV in the living room, and driving one car per family-- probably a Hudson Hornet or a Nash Metropolitan...

We need to

1) end the nonsensical ban on offshore drilling off California and Florida--read & weep:
Castro Plans to Drill 45 Miles from US Shores, But We Can't

2) build a lot of next-generation nuclear power plants, not just for electricity, but for any process requiring heat, power, or steam.
And if we replaced our existing nuclear plants with this one there would be significant benefits.

3) end Jimmy Carter's idiotic ban on recycling nuclear waste, and reprocess the stuff rather than fighting over where to bury it. Europe has done this for decades.-- what to do with spent nuclear fuel? Answer here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1468321/posts?page=50#50 hattip:  Mike (former Navy Nuclear Engineer)

4) use the 300-500 years worth of coal we have on our own land, using the new clean-coal technology.
-Clean Coal Centre--

5) and finally, there's nothing wrong with conservation, we should all practice it- but you can't conserve your way out of a shortage. Nor is there anything wrong with "alternative" energy sources- except they don't supply the vast ( not to mention readily-available ) amounts of power we need at a price competitive to more conventional sources. Then again, there is this to ponder:
Energy From the Gulf Stream
http://www.energy.gatech.edu/presentations/mhoover.pdf

We do need to get serious about this before we get strangled by a bunch of petty thieves and dictators who don't like us much.

My tongue-in-cheek collection of energy-related links:

Sticker Shock-$3 a gallon gas? Click the picture:

And kindly note, and note well-- the first reply to this post ( when gas was $1.45 a gallon ) was derisive... so, who's laughing now?

Vest-Pocket Summary:

1- drill for gas & oil like crazy- onshore, offshore, and in Alaska
2- go nuclear for power
3- convert stationary plants to clean coal technology or Next-Gen Nuclear
4- slash taxes and regulations like crazy