For those of you dreaming that Americans might become more statesmanlike in the wake of Barack Obama’s inauguration, here’s a bucket of cold water dumped directly on your heads:
The chief executive of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the head of AutoNation are calling for a substantial hike in the gasoline tax, one to finance more road building and the other to jump-start the automakers.
The Chamber chief is at least a tad more noble than his car-selling cohort, in that transportation infrastructure is central to the economy and more of it will create jobs. As for the automakers, at least they want the middle class to subsidize their hybrids, rather than the 12 mpg SUVs they were cranking out as gasoline rose toward $4 a gallon.
Predictably, I suppose, both of these self-serving proposals whiff on the big picture: High gas prices harm the economy, nationally and locally. Drivers spending all their money on gas don’t buy shirts, movies and steak dinners. I can find retailers throughout Wichita who will tell you up front that their current problems began with $4 gasoline.
President Obama’s number one priority is revitalizing the U.S. economy. That won’t happen with $4 gas, whether it comes from oil companies maximizing profits, the new national obsession with greening everything, updating roads (which can and should be done without a gasoline tax increase) or hybrid-touting automakers with a questionable track record.
22 Comments
good point bill
“High gas prices harm the economy, nationally and locally”
Not necessarily. If we SUBSTITUTED a gas tax or oil import fee for part of the income tax it could be a wash. Then, reduction in demand for gas/oil can help push that underlying price down.
I submit that it is even more harmful to send all our dollars to Osama bin Laden’s friends than it is to reduce that by raising the gas tax.
You do notice, though, that no one’s talking about reducing the burden a gas tax would pose to the middle class.
They’re just talking about levying the tax – for their own specific reasons.
Bottom line: ANY of these plans is a negative to the economy – a middle-class funded subsidy, if you will – without some coherent, honestly-conceived plan to offset the financial damage they would cause.
Perhaps a hefty tax on natural gas and electricity as well. I mean, if you live in a larger house you will use more so why not tax the bejeezus out of it, too? More tax on tires, coffee, bottled water, movies, restaurants, haircuts, etc.
Meanwhile, we’ll stoke our log fires wearing sweaters in homes that have the thermostat set at 65 degrees. Washington will mandate to the car companies to give us today’s equivalent to the Pinto and Vega. Surprised synthetic oil hasn’t come up. Deja vu all over again.
On a serious note, with the election of President Obama I hope all parties, regardless of political affiliation meet in the middle and recognize that our poorest investment is the stake we have placed in our elected officials. The new president gets a pass on that opinion for the time being.
If the economy truly needs saved, waive personal income taxes for a year and leave us alone. You’d have immediate stimulus and it’s cheaper than a trillion bucks.
Yup.
Given the current state of the economy, few things are more depressing than seeing this kind of angling for special interest gain.
Oh yeah, a higher gas tax is really gonna jumpstart the economy. NOT. What in the world are they thinking about? After seeing that piece on 60 minutes a couple of weeks ago, about the high oil prices being directly related to speculators, not supply and demand like they tried to tell us, I don’t believe high gas prices are going to help our economy one bit. We certainly cut way back on our driving during the period.
Gasoline is still going to have a supply problem in the future.
Mexico, might be looking at importing gasoline for the first time in their history, just to satisfy demand.
Cantarell Field in Mexico peaked five years ago and now its production is drastically declining every year.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we actually have reached the so called “peak” oil in global production.
I know people talk about it and it keeps on getting pushed further into the future on when that date would be hit. But I think we have probably already have done it.
It’s time to seriously look at energy alternatives. Not that I’m a fan of the dooms day global warming Al Gore cultist environmentalist freaks, but that we just don’t have the oil resources to sustain our standard of living and an ever-growing global population growth.
Joe – many of us professional scientists who have worked in the energy field (those you derisively call freaks) have been warning for years that we are at or near the peak in explotable hydrocarbon reserves. Too bad we abandoned SRC (solvent refined coal) a quarter-century ago.
As for ’special interests’ how about that big pork barrell Tiahrt wants for his former employer (Boeing)?
Actually, it’s long past time to look at energy alternatives.
Yet I simply cannot comprehend the logic behind taxing the middle class into the poor house in an attempt to mandate that look.
It’s morally and intellectually lazy public policy, at best – and extremely destructive to a teetering economy.
Bill – a fuel-efficient car actually costs less to run than a Hummer. A LOT less.
No question.
However, you incentivize driving fuel-efficient cars in any number of ways that aren’t as intellectually lazy as committing tax blackmail. Tax credits, etc.
Raising taxes on an essential commodity is just wrong. Period.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
I remember the big oil shocks of the 70s when we all said we would do something to lessen our addiction. I said back then that it would have made a lot of sense to act. That is why I found the SRC process as well as the indirect Fischer-Tropsch process for coal-to-liquid so interesting.
Too bad the decision was made to scrap it all.
Yes, we will. While the search for alternative energy is noble and proper, I don’t – and will never – support trying to pay for it on the backs of an already strapped middle class. It’s just irresponsible.
“hybrid-touting automakers with a questionable track record”
I’d say that Honda and Toyota have pretty good track records.
O.k. bth, we get it. You are of the opinion that a $4.00 per gallon gas tax is EXACTLY what this country needs at this time.
Let’s suppose I remotely consider your point for a moment. What elected official(s) will be directly responsible to ensure the monies raised are spent in the manner they are intended? Windfalls? Shortfalls? Can you not see the forest for the trees?
Are any of you people parents? Is the answer to your teenager spending too much money or racking up credit card debt is give them more money? Slip them $100.00 for “stimulus” this Friday night?
Throwing good money at bad money will not ensure success. EVER.
I am a parent and a grandparent. And I have watched for decades while we send billions to the Shieks and Osama bin Ladin. I suppose YOU think that is a good thing but I sure don’t.
And no, I do NOT give the teenager more money after he overspends. And yes – I see BOTH the forest AND the trees.
As for who will be in charge at least it won’t be the same bunch who gave the bankers hundreds of billions with absolutely ZERO oversight!
Over the decades we have found that R&D can have good payoffs. Unfortunately that R&D does cost money.
Yes, you’ve got me pegged. Since I oppose a $4.00 per gallon gas tax I support Bin Laden and the Iron Sheik. I didn’t realize when President Obama was elected that the last 20 years of congressional players were thrown out on their ears and a whole new “bunch” is in charge now, so thanks for that clarification.
So let’s give this new crowd a measly trillion and see what sticks! In the meantime I will continue driving my 360 horsepower hemi secretly craving another 200 hp to add to it. I’ll get that garage addition to add my Hummer that runs on whale blubber (just in case a Prius gets stuck in 3 inches of snow in front of me I have another option other than going around it).
I’ll continue to listen to all the rocket scientists out there (left over from the last great government R&D program) infinitely more qualified to spend MY money. Obviously the solution to gross overspending, lack of oversight and criminal negligence is to throw more money at it.
But please don’t be offended when I tell them, or anyone else that supports this insanity, to POUND SAND.
Actually Jerry, the R&D I worked on was for the energy industry; not the government.
As for Honda and Toyota, not if you’re paying the bill for a battery replacement in a Prius, for example.
The main point of the blog post has become a little diluted here:
The Wichita economy began to wobble a year ago under the weight of the runup to $4 gas. I think we all know quite clearly now that runup was due to a lack of government regulation that opened all of our checkbooks up to rampant speculation.
Fine. The cause doesn’t matter.
What does matter is making absolutely certain it does not happen again, especially not to feed the self-interest driven purposes of any special interest group.
Unless, of course, you’re fine with that special interest – whatever it is – driving thousands of Americans into bankruptcy.
$4 gas is irresponsible in this economic environment. I don’t care what the rationale is. The economy cannot support it.
I don’t know what the answer is but business as usual as it has been for the last 35 ain’t gonna cut it, we are going to have suck it up bear the suffering, or things will be the same place 35 years from now. The Pintos and Vegas where Ford’s and GM’s experiment in disposable cars, that where being planned before the oil embargo, it was their stroke of luck they appeared when some where looking for cars with better fuel economy. To say the government actions will mandate a new breed of Pintos and Vegas is only fear mongering.
The US has an motor vehicle roadway network in need of repair, not to mention the ability to handle an increasing # of vehicles. Fact of the matter is that those using that network daily are those who will be paying the bill, unless an alternate way to pat the cost is found and accepted. Fees on petroleum and petroleum product imports will be paid by the same persons who would pay any higher fuel taxes, not OBL’s buddies.
I would think that liquefying coal for liquid fuels is a bad idea. I’ve heard that the USA has enough coal to last it 300 years, but that is at the current consumption rate of using coal primarily in electric power plants.
You start liquefying coal, and that 300 year reserves goes down to 50 years pretty quick, because of the mass consumption rate it would be just to run the millions upon millions of automobiles out there.
Coal is the last fossil fuel we got. There is a reason why there is a big push to keep less coal from production in power plants and that liquefying coal isn’t much a consideration. You burn up all the coal on Earth, we truly don’t have anything left.
I’m not looking this on the environmental side. I’m looking at this as a natural resource supply problem.
They say that the USA is only 4% of the population but consumes 20% of the natural resources on earth. If China is five times the population of the USA, how can they match the same quality and standard of living as people in the USA? Because to do so would require over 100% of the natural resources on the plant, and you know that can’t happen.
It would appear that an alternate way to pad the cost, as you say, is coming in the federal stimulus package.
There’s definitely a need for a reasonable user taxation level on petroleum in this country. $2 a gallon is not reasonable. It is, in fact, an unreasonable burden on the middle and lower class, and a throughly unstatesmanlike idea from the U.S. Chamber.