Solve 4 Biggies
  ~  by reducing income taxes & increasing energy taxes

                          
   
New entries Wednesday &
Sunday evenings
  (& sometimes in between)

- Contribute to this online
  public conversation -





   1 - Global warming

   2 - Dependence on
        foreign energy

   3 - Trade deficit

   4 - Pollution from non-
        renewable fuels

Rubbish - Senator McCain proposes a gasoline tax holiday

Print the article

This entry was posted on 4/19/2008 9:42 PM and is filed under Tax Shifting,Gasoline,Elected representatives.


Last week Senator John McCain proposed a federal gasoline tax holiday for the upcoming summer months; motorists would not pay the 18.4 cents/gallon tax.  MSNBC article here.

Some big problems this proposal creates:
  - more greenhouse gas emissions;
  - increased dependency on foreign energy;
  - more air pollution;
  - a larger trade deficit.

The best argument for a federal tax shift that lowers income taxes and raises non-renewable energy taxes may be seeing the problems an energy tax reduction causes.

    &     &     &     &

Bonus quote from the article:

     "....Vice President Cheney famously said in April of 2001, 'Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis all by itself for sound, comprehensive energy policy.'"

Agree.  By itself, conservation is not the answer even though it reduces our dependence on foreign sources of energy and greenhouse gas emissions.  But it is a cornerstone along with creating an environment for non-renewable energy to flourish.  The quote tells us exactly how we've gotten to where we are.

Bonus quote 2 from the article:

   "
Scolding Dole in 1996
And some in the oil and gas industry scolded Dole for thinking too small. 
(Dole proposed a 4.3 cent gasoline tax reduction)

'If he wants to distinguish himself from Clinton, he should remind people of what the President — urged on by his hyper-environmentalist Vice President (Al Gore) — wanted to do to them with fuel taxes (a 50 cent per gallon increase in taxes), not what he settled for (a mere 4.3 cent-per-gallon tax hike),' said an editorial in the trade publication The Oil and Gas Journal in May ’96.

As Gore recognized back in 1993, higher gasoline prices would encourage conservation and research on non-carbon-based fuels. But since then both Democrats and Republicans alike have been loathe to acknowledge that higher prices could play a useful role in spurring conservation."

Always ask -- who's got a horse in the race?

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bottom line:  we can pay some now....or pay a lot more later.  (more on this tomorrow)

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments

    • 4/20/2008 6:49 AM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
      McCain's gas-tax-reduction proposal is brainless election-year pandering. But utter any sentence with the phrase "tax reduction" in it and the conservative robot zombies all fall into line, nodding and murmuring supportively, whether the proposed change makes sense or not in the larger scheme of things.

      If anything, McCain should announce that his first term will include a phased-in tax INCREASE on fuels, with offsetting taxes on wages, which would simultaneously increase energy security and job growth. "Grow up, people---we have a painful problem to solve and I, John McCain, know about pain." Great campaign slogan, eh?

      I'd have to go back and re-study the Gore proposal from the '90s. I suspect it did not include the magic suffixing phrase "to be offset by an equal reduction in income taxes." (Even if that was part of the proposal, it was never given any daylight by the press.)

      Nonetheless, even if it had just been a simple tax increase on fuels and had passed, things certainly would have been better overall in terms of reducing US oil usage, which is now about to be shown to be one of the two Achilles heels of the US economy. (The Ponzi-style debt scheme the government has been running for the last four decades is the other.) Oil shortages will cripple US economic prosperity for a long time to come---much more than the impact of the 50-cent tax would have.

      Mark
      Reply to this
      1. 4/20/2008 10:22 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:

        Nicely put.  And yes, a good campaign theme waiting for someone to use it.

        The Clinton-Gore BTU tax proposal in the 1990's wasn't a tax shift.  May have been enacted if it was revenue-neutral.  Now, unfortunately, any proposed BTU tax (even a tax shift) starts with a bad name.

        Reply to this
    • 4/21/2008 3:59 PM Jim Blair wrote:
      Hi,

      McCain claimed earlier that economics was his weak suit, and this proposal demonstrates that he was telling us the truth.

      Unfortunately none of the other candidates look much better. Both Hillary and Obama answered the question of how to respond to higher gas prices by calling for an investigation of big oil companies to see if the price increases were because of "market manipulation". And Hillary suggested that there might be bi-partisan support of McCain's gas tax summer holiday.

      During the early debates, when asked how they would deal with higher gasoline prices, only that guy from Alaska, Mike Gravel, indicated that he understands the issue. He said he would respond by raising the gas tax.

      See how far THAT answer got him
      Reply to this
      1. 4/21/2008 10:52 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:


        Do you know whether Mike Gravel proposed a straight gasoline tax hike or a tax shift?

         


        Reply to this
    • 4/23/2008 3:14 PM Jim Blair wrote:
      Hi,

      This was during an early debate when the stage was full of candidates. Someone asked what they would do about the high price of gasoline. They all gave some variation of the same reply: outrageous, grill the Big Oil CEO's, tax the obscene oil profits, Congressional investigation, etc.

      Gravel was last, and he said he would raise the gas tax. That shocked everyone else into a stunned silence, but he didn't elaborate, and they went on to another question.
      Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Enter the above security code (required)

     Name

     Email (will not be published)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.