Posted on 04/18/2004 6:30:15 AM PDT by upchuck
Gas prices are too low. There. I said it. Even when they peak this summer, as most analysts predict, they will be too low. And they're too low in large part because gas is woefully undertaxed in this countrya state of affairs that is bad for the economy, bad for drivers and bad for our foreign policy. In fact, one of the simplest and best things any Administration could do right now would be to add a buck per gallon to the federal gas tax, which is currently just 18.4¢. Now that I have alienated almost every reader of this column, allow me to defend myself.
The worst knock against a gas tax is that it is, well, a tax. Who likes that? But with soaring deficits and a war to pay for, taxes are not an option — they're a necessity. The only relevant question is, Which taxes? The case for a gas tax is a straightforward one. Gas prices are strikingly lower in America than anywhere else in the world; such taxes are relatively easy to collect; since an overwhelming majority of Americans drive, few avoid the tax; and by adding a cost to the wanton consumption of gasoline, you actually encourage conservation, accelerate fuel efficiency, reduce pollution, cut traffic and help wean Americans off the oil that requires the U.S. to be so intimately involved in that wonderful cesspool of rival hatreds, the Middle East. So what's not to like?
The idea is so obviously a good one that in their recent absurd bickering over who is responsible for higher gas prices, neither George W. Bush nor John Kerry has gone near it. That would take a perspicacity most politicians lack. It's worth recalling that even Bush's chief economic adviser, Gregory Mankiw, once supported it. During the golden five minutes of budget surpluses in the late 1990s, Mankiw favored raising gas taxes as a way to reduce income taxes. Such a policy mix, he believed, "would lead to more rapid economic growth, less traffic congestion, safer roads and reduced risk of global warming — all without jeopardizing long-term fiscal solvency. This may be the closest thing to a free lunch that economics has to offer."
So why is it so unpopular? Some say it's inherently regressive — that it affects the poor more than the rich. In reality, it tends to affect the middle class more than anyone else, especially those in the suburbs with more than one car. The truly needy tend to consume less gas than their middle-class compatriots. Others say it penalizes those in remote and rural areas. So what? Very few taxes are perfect, and our electoral system — with its over-representation of big agricultural states in the Senate — already pampers the rural. (I'd gladly exchange a gas-tax hike for abolition of agricultural subsidies. Any takers in Iowa?)
Some conservatives say it's antithetical to the American Dream. Hooey. Conservatism in America rightly emphasizes personal responsibility alongside freedom. You can't have one without the other. And using a car affects not just you but many others. When your driving habits lead to higher levels of pollution, when your ownership of a gas-inhaling 2-ton SUV puts others on the road at risk, when traffic jams drastically reduce the country's productivity (as well as make radio shock jocks into millionaires), don't you think you might give a little back in return? To paraphrase the President, can't we shift from a philosophy of "If it feels good, do it" to one of responsibility?
The real reason so many Americans hate gas taxes is that they see them. The government can eat away at your life with payroll taxes, but because they are usually deducted before you get to see your paycheck, you don't notice. But the price of gas is broadcast on big placards across the country. When it goes up, eyebrows rise a notch. But that's a good thing! The government has to tax you somehow. Isn't it better to shift taxation to places where people notice it, so they can demand accountability? The gas tax is therefore a win-win conservative-liberal synthesis. It cuts the deficit, helps the environment and keeps the government fiscally honest and accountable.
Let me add one further reason, and it's a simple one. We're at war. So far, the Bush Administration has refused to ask for a general sacrifice to pay for this effort. But that leads to a sense that we're not all involved, that we do not all owe the troops our support. More important, the war is about the Middle East. A long-term strategy to protect us from constant involvement in that region would include greater energy independence. A gas tax helps pay for our current struggle and helps us avoid future ones. Why not therefore a wartime gas tax of a dollar a gallon? If we do not owe it to our fellow citizens, to the environment, to greater fuel efficiency, can we at least owe it to the troops? Or is that minimal level of personal sacrifice too much to ask of ourselves?
Sorry, Mr. Sullivan, I can't agree with you, although I'm positive John F'ing sKerry would give you a hearty embrace. You're speaking his language!Why not therefore a wartime gas tax of a dollar a gallon?
Simple, because it will never go away! I've read that part of the telephone taxes we pay was to finance some small war that was over a long time ago. We're still paying the tax! (Sorry I don't have better info on this.)
Knowing that a couple of bucks went to buy bullets to put in their heads would really cheer me up. I'm for it.
If I rember correctly, the telephone tax was to pay for the Spanish American War, and Congress finally did repeal that one a couple years ago: about a century after the war the tax was supposed to pay for was over. So if we go by that example, we could very well be paying the proposed increased gas tax in the 22nd century.
No, they don't see them. Ask the typical person how much they pay in gas tax. They will have no idea. In Ohio, the total state and fed tax are about $0.42 per gallon. That value should be posted on every gas pump in the state. Instead the pump just lists a generic "all taxes are included in price."
I think they just modified it from some confusing mess to a flat 3%. Every time you make a phone call, make sure to "Remember the Maine!"
Better still, a "homosexual tax" on Vaseline.
Translation: I live in NY/DC/LA/SF; who cares about flyover country?
Sullivan is a cut off your nose to spite your face kinda guy. Reagan had a similar problem during the 1980s when the Soviet Union was relying on rising oil prices to keep its economy afloat. What was Reagan's solution? Was it to raise taxes so that the people would stop using oil that, in part, came from the Soviet Union. No, that was not his solution, because that would be stupid. Such an act would have harmed the United States where it needed to be its strongest in defeating the Soviet Union. Reagan's strategy was to spend the Sovient Union into the grave through increased defense outlays, but raising gas prices would have been made such a strategy immeasurably harder to carry out if our economy had started to contract due to increased gasoline prices.
So what was Reagan's strategy? It was to get the Saudis to increase production to the point that it was no longer economically feasible for the Soviets to continue selling oil, which brings us back to today. Is the solution to defunding Middle East scum who support terrorists to raise gas taxes? No that is not the solution because that would be stupid and counterproductive. With economies like China and India growing, demand for Middle East oil is going to continue even if we cut back on our consumption. So all increasing gas prices will do is hurt our economy, which has been a principle goal of Osama bin Laden all along - that is why his principle attack on us was at the WTC towers.
If we want to hurt Middle East terror states that rely on oil sales (i.e. Saudi Arabia), we must find a way to increase oil production. One way to start would be to allow offshore all oil drilling in California and Florida, as well as oil drilling in ANWR. If Mr. Sullivan is going to talk about sacrifices let him talk about people making a sacrifice with respect to offshore oil drilling. Plenty of people in this country consider the environment to be sacred, so allowing offshore oil drilling would certainly constitute a sacrifice that Mr. Sullivan should appreciate.
Finally, it should be noted that in Europe, they have had significantly higher gas prices (due to increased taxes) for years. And what has the result been? Well over the past twenty years, Europe has not created any net new jobs. If that is a record Mr. Sullivan wants to emulate, then he should move to Europe, where they consider high taxes and a stagnant economy to be a good thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.