New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman laments the unwillingness of politicians of either party to back what many economists think would be the best way to move America toward energy independence: a $1 gasoline tax.
Besides decreasing consumption and our dependence on foreign oil, a gasoline tax imposed after Sept. 11 could have spurred development of a new generation of fuel-efficient vehicles, he argues.
He quotes energy economist Phil Verleger: “We could have replaced the current payroll tax with a gasoline tax. Middle-class consumers would have seen increased take-home pay of between six and nine percent, even though they would have had to pay more at the pump. A stronger foundation for future economic growth would have been laid by keeping more oil revenue home, and we might not now be facing a recession.â€
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
82 Comments
I’d be up for it. However a lot of people prefer to throw their money to the Saudis and that lovely country which punishes women for getting gang raped and cheers when a terrorist kills an American.
What about a $1 an issue newspaper tax since the destruction of forests is hurting the environment?
How about a one dollar tax on dumb posts?
When will they learn, never interject logic and reason into a conversation!
I seconded Doug. Speaking about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, be careful not to be raped. They may throw you in jail for it! And these people are under protection from the United States, promised in exchange for easy oil…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7096814.stm
Yeah, brilliant plan…
Let’s raises the taxes on oil that we have no control over for prices.
So if oil providers decide to raise the price of oil to $10/gallon – we’d still have to pay the $1 tax.
Dumbest idea I have ever read.
It’s still less than $1/litre!
The “Law of unintended consequences” would be hovering over this like a phantom with a scythe.
The idea reeks of a desire by the federal government for a bigger share of the tax pie from the people. More federal taxes, less state and local taxes.
We should impose a tax but it should be a floating tax that would go up when the price is low and go down when the price is high thus insuring a minimum price and preventing the Arabs and OPEC from playing their “raise it lower it games” in which they raise the gas prices and then people start looking for smaller vehicles and other fuels then OPEC lowers the price back to $1.50 a gallon and people no longer invest in such things which causes demand to go up and OPEC to have even more power. If people knew that gas would cost a minimum of $3 or even $4 a gallon, this would stop. That and Congress getting enough balls to take on GM and Ford and raise the MPG standards.
They keep stacking on the tobacco tax. It’s bout time another group got hit on for a change! After gas, maybe they can take on $1 a 6 pak for beer, too!
I sort of like that one concept – higher when the price drops, and lower when the price goes up – Some creative person :-) could probably come up with a “cute” name for an up-and-down gas tax :-)
The price of gas hurts, huh? Keep that war going in Iraq and you’ll see $4.00 gas soon. Thanks GWB.
“New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman laments the unwillingness of politicians of either party to back what many economists think would be the best way to move America toward energy independence: a $1 gasoline tax.”
I wonder why politicians would be unwilling impose a tax that strapped for cash voters would be reminded of every time they fill up?
Let’s see, the price of oil is going through the roof because Americans can not live their lives without fueling up their cars. There is not enough easy oil to be pumped out of the ground to meet the demand so the solution is to the raise the price even more artificially?
Heck no.
How about doing an about face on future construction projects that makes it necessary to drive to get anywhere? Raising taxes while failing to give consumers a community where the car is not required for transportation is a sure sign of a boondoggle.
Savvy investors will do nicely by speculating in subidized industries like wind, solar and geothermal. Unfortunately, the consumer will be paying more for less. The government will do nothing but waste that dollar.
I think it’s a great idea. Replace the payroll tax with a $1 gasoline tax.
No wonder it won’t fly. Politicians want to squeeze control of people through payroll tax, which hits everybody that works, even the working poor.
A tax on gasoline is a consumption tax. The more you use the more you pay. Sounds great to me. I like it!
Should have raised the tax when Kerry suggested it, instead of the mid-east getting the $, could have went for the betterment of our energy development,or social/war debt. Instead the idiot finances the war with a tax cut. How’s that working out?
This is a good idea….provisionally.
Pragram the gas pumps so that the tax kicks in after the first 5 gallons pumped. A topped off tank loses less fuel to evaporation. Also, it gets folks more mindful of their fuel use if they are at the pumps more often to avoid the tax.
Put a prohibitive tax on the oil speculators, that would raise money and/or lower the cost if they got out of the speculation game.
Clinton robbed money from the highway trust fund, instead of using it for bridge and road repairs.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/gastax.cfm
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, signed by President Bill Clinton on August 10, 1993, increased the gas tax by 4.3 cents, bringing the total tax to 18.4 cents per gallon. The increase was entirely for deficit reduction, with none credited to the Highway Trust Fund. However, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which President Clinton approved on August 5, 1997, redirected the 4.3-cents general fund gas tax increase to the Highway Trust Fund.
Before the Federal Government robs taxpayers of more money, we need to take a look at a couple of things,
1) How many Billions of Dollars are lost thru corruption? Note the undocumented journal entries cited in this Federal Highway Audit Report.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/htffy06/htffy06.pdf
2) Look at how many Billions of Dollars being collected today, are actually spent on highways and bridges.
Throwing More Money at the Problem, is the Government approach to fixing every problem, but seldom is that the BEST solution.
Remember, 18.4 cents for every gallon of gasoline, is already being collected by Federal Government. In ADDITION, each State has it’s own tax on gasoline. 24 cents/gallon in Kansas.
Is every state spending every penny of gasoline tax on highways and bridges?
Lotsa out of state gas tax revenue comes into Kansas via I35 and I70.
http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp
Somebody forgot to tell Max–Bill Clinton isn’t president anymore.
Capn, then quit bragging about Clinton if you are making the past off-limits from this blog.
You just want to selectively remember the past, and censor every post don’t you?
Bother to read the Highway Audit report I posted? Nawwww. Just argue for more money.
Oh, and don’t forget to blame Bush.
The Idea of raising taxes on the beleaguered American family is beyond nonsense, it’s lunacy.
Every tax dollar takes away from small business which supports 90 percent of whatever jobs which are left, so that might be a great idea if you’re a communist, but a very bad idea if you’re a freedom loving American.
American are supporting the four governments { Fed, State, County, Local, which won’t answer the phone } and to throw more money to Friedman’s cockamamie idea means he’s out of ideas, nothing else.
Great idea, everyone loves more taxes. Almost everything is related to oil and its by products. More state and federal employees to check up on us. Did you every get a check from the Government for the consumers share when it fines a big company for illegal activities? Then money evaporates in the system.
Gasoline is the lifeblood of the American Economy.
Tax our lifeblood, tax our health.
By the way, if you seperate the Social Security benefit from the FICA tax, you will take another huge step in the direction of turning Social Seurity into just another welfare program.
The “poor” already get a refund of their payroll or “FICA” taxes.
The “rich” already pay taxes on their Social Security benefits.
The petro dollar is a pretty big ‘tax’ on beleagured americans. Better to keep the money in America than send it to our Mid-eastern ‘friends’.
The inflation rate is great, if you don’t have to buy groceries, consume energy, or go to the dr., or if these expenses are a very small percentage of your income.
Taxes are the money we pay to support our government. They are not a means of social engineering. If you raise the price of gas, a lot of families who are just barely making it will suddenly find themselves with no way to work. The people who have money to burn will still pump it into their monster SUV’s. It’s the people in between, that shrinking middle class, who will have to go looking for hybrid cars just to maintain the status quo. In the mean time, prices on anything that requires transportation will go through the roof. Yeah, go ahead and social engineer us back to poverty!
Defence is the biggest item in the budget. A majority of defence expense is related to protecting out interest in the middle east.
WE ARE ALREADY PAYING MORE MORE MORE FOR GAS THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD! Just because part of that is deffered into a 9 trillion dollar defecit does not mean that one day, we are going to have to pay the piper!
In the 90’s, we went into South America heavily and taught them how to raise crops the way we know how to raise crops. American Corporate farmers are big down there as well. We have the land needed available to grow alternative forms of energy. If it weren’t for idiot child (Bush) we would probably be free of dependance on the middle east, whether 9/11 occured or not. Actually, 9/11 gave us the perfect excuse for making the change, people would have rolled with it. Instead… we are stuck with what we have!
By the way, making ethanol from corn is STUPID, STUPID, STUPID! Sugar cane is much better, and their is plenty of land in So America to grow it. It may have a negative effect on the cocaine industry, gee, what a shame!
Vote for Hillary, two great leaders for the price of one vote.
Why are Republicans complaining since they want higher oil prices? They are opposed to higher fuel efficiency standards, they are in favor of a weak dollar so the result is higher oil prices. Let’s give the Republicans want they want, stick a dollar tax on the gas.
The “poor” already get a refund of their payroll or “FICA” taxes.
The “rich” already pay taxes on their Social Security benefits.
Where is it written where either of these statements are true? The ‘rich’ pay taxes on their social security benefits if they still work and draw social security – and then it is only if they work too much and make too much money.
But where do you get the poor get a refund on their FICA taxes? If you are talking about income taxes, that is something else entirely. FICA taxes are the payroll taxes that the employer and employee both contribute.
So where exactly do the poor get their refunds of their FICA taxes?
And don’t just tell me of your own knowledge – cite the specific tax laws that states this is true.
Amen to that Indy!
Semp,Speaking of the military budget, one of those F-18 fighters burns up more gas in a minute that a family car does in a year. Wouldn’t that be a good place to economize?
Yay, let’s shove more taxes onto the people who can least afford them! Brilliant!
Here we go again with the feel good crowd trying to smooth over the rough edges of greed.Instead of having any kind of backbones to make a stand, their solution is to sacrifice everything else.Pacifying idiots, your submission keep the wheels of corruptions grinding.
“Oppression that cannot be overcome does not give rise to revolt but to submission”… Simone Weil
P.S. the first people to be affected by this are the poor people.
The ‘rich’ pay taxes on their social security benefits if they still work and draw social security – and then it is only if they work too much and make too much money.
Posted by: indy | November 19, 2007 at 11:43 AM \
This place is teeming with Socialists!
You know, the Rich earned those Social Security dollars, 15.3% of their income went to the Government. The Rich paid taxes on that 15.3% of income that was taken away.
Now when a little bit of their own money is given back to the Rich who earned it, you tax em Again, on that SAME money!
SemperWe are clearly NOT paying more for gasoline than any other country.That is not true by any measure.
Uh, Max, unless the “rich” of whom you speak were self-employed, then at the current rates, only 7.65% of the total paid to Social Security was paid by them; the other half was paid by the employer. Of course, the long-time employee has not always contributed 7.65%; the rates were lower “back then”. And, of course, the self-employed have had for several years an “above the line” deduction (adjustment to income) for one-half the Self-employment tax assessed and paid.
Given the one-half contributed by the employer, why should not there be some taxation of part of the benefits? Sort of, kind of like the way other benefits are taxed when there are both individual as well as employer contributions, which I realize is not too common. And, given the untaxed “earnings” on the contributions, should not there be some taxation of the Social Security benefit?
Just a few thoughts.
Indy, a part of the social security benefit received may be subject to income taxation whether or not the recipient has earned income from employment. There may be taxation if there is sufficient other income, notwithstanding the source, to subject the same to the income tax, under the formula. See the instructions to the Form 1040 for further information.
Pretty much the same people who today rail against a $1/gallon gasoline tax are the types who bitched, back in 1972, that a $1/gallon tax would raise the price to $1.35 a gallon!
That $1/gallon tax back in the 70s would have been used to finance research for alternatives to fossil fuels.
Think just a moment how much we might have learned about solar, wind, bio-fuels, even dealing with nuclear waste… had we not listened to the cranks who bitched about a $1/gallon gasoline tax 35 years ago.
Monkeyhawk; Quadruple the price of gas with 15 mpg cars. That was a lot of money back then. What idiot would have supported that idea?
But some liberals never see a tax they don’t like.
Just a few thoughts.
Posted by: Vaughn Tolle | November 19, 2007 at 01:35 PM
You are correct on both posts above Vaughn, as usual. My example was intended to be very general, given some members of the audience.
However, the Government is still receiving 15.3% of the income of working Americans, up to the max income limits of course, which would NOT have been received if someone didn’t earn the money.
To tax any of the Social Security benefits is wrong, until the recipient has at least been paid back in the form of “benefits” all the money he or she contributed. Then go ahead and start taxing the employer 1/2 of it, after allowing for a modest say 5% return on the 1/2 that was paid by the taxpayer.
It’s a hairball Rube Goldberg scheme for sure. For self-employed, 1/2 of the 15.3% they pay is deductible from income tax. How nice.
The least the Government could do, is to take FICA Pre-Tax, then tax 100% of what if any benefits you receive from Social Security.
Millions of Americans do not live to see 1 penny of Social Security benefits, yet 15.3% of their income is taken away for FICA, and that SAME income is taxed as income by the Feds and by every state that has an income tax.
Great program.
Shell game of Life under Big Brother.
Indy, in response to this post:
——”Where is it written where either of these statements are true? The ‘rich’ pay taxes on their social security benefits if they still work and draw social security – and then it is only if they work too much and make too much money.
But where do you get the poor get a refund on their FICA taxes? If you are talking about income taxes, that is something else entirely. FICA taxes are the payroll taxes that the employer and employee both contribute.
So where exactly do the poor get their refunds of their FICA taxes?
And don’t just tell me of your own knowledge – cite the specific tax laws that states this is true.
Posted by: indy | November 19, 2007 at 11:43 AM “—-
Please take a look at the “Earned Income Credit” — it is intended to refund FICA or Social Security taxes for the “working poor”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Credit
Please also take a look at Internal Revenue Service Form 1040, line 20a Social Security Benefits.
Social Security benefits are subject to income taxation, even if you do not work at any job and are not self employed.
Married couples, filing jointly, will have to pay taxes at their ordinary income tax rates, on their Social Security earnings, if their Joint Income is above $32,000.00.
Single individuals are taxed on their Social Security benefits if their income is above $25,000.00.—-Yes, you are correct, “earned income” while receiving Social Security benefits, often is penalized, as well.
However, I am talking about a tax, that tax is in effect as long as you live, regardless of whether the money came from a W-2 Form, a 1099, or any other source.
The taxation of Social Security benefits even includes otherwise tax-free municipal bond interest in the tax formula for SS benefit taxation.
In other words, as I stated previously, the “universal” or “insurance” aspect of Social Security has been undermined already.
The “rich” are taxed on their benefits.
The “poor” are refunded their payroll taxes.
By changing the funding mechanism, we would simply complete the process of turning Socical Security into another welfare program.
That $1/gallon tax back in the 70s would have been used to finance research for alternatives to fossil fuels.
Think just a moment how much we might have learned about solar, wind, bio-fuels, even dealing with nuclear waste… had we not listened to the cranks who bitched about a $1/gallon gasoline tax 35 years ago.Posted by: MonkeyHawk | November 19, 2007 at 01:48 PM
That $1 gal tax would have been put into the General tax revenues and spent on Pork, just like Clinton did with the Gas Tax increase in the early 1990’s.
“Pretty much the same people who today rail against a $1/gallon gasoline tax are the types who bitched, back in 1972, that a $1/gallon tax would raise the price to $1.35 a gallon!” – Monkeyhawk
—————
Running it through an inflation calculator, the cost of a $1.00 per gallon gasoline tax in 2006 dollars would be $4.81.
By changing the funding mechanism, we would simply complete the process of turning Socical Security into another welfare program.Posted by: Econ101 | November 19, 2007 at 01:57 PM
It already is Econ.
Go to the SS website and plug in $150,000/yr in income for 30 years, and calculate your SS benefit.
Also calculate the benefit for someone earning $30,000/yr in income, and calculate your SS benefit.
Now, compare the benefits.
Also, compare the FICA paid in.
Socialism.
Ethanol:
Proof that the government does a very, very bad job of providing for our energy needs.
Monkey, why on Earth would you trust the government to “invest” wisely in alternative energy, when we have never shown that government makes good “research” decisions?
Opening post,”… Thomas Friedman laments the unwillingness of politicians of either party to back what many economists think would be the best way to move America toward energy independence: a $1 gasoline tax.”
Friedman’s “economists” are not energy experts.
We need state-of-art vehicles to sharply cut fuel use and emissions. A $1 a gallon tax is insufficient to cause that change.
Page 174 (PDF pg 198 of 332)http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
“With a big caveat, we consider the high gasoline taxes favored by most major U.S. allies and trading partners to be theoretically sound and generally helpful in improving economic efficiency, because fuel prices omit important costs to society, and prices that tell the truth are always better than prices that lie about what things really cost….So what’s the caveat? High gasoline taxes also have serious defects beyond their obvious political challenges.They are:
• the weakest possible signal to buy an efficient vehicle. Since U.S. taxed gasoline is only about an eighth of the total cost of owning and running a car, this price signal is first diluted ~7:1 and then shrunk to insignificance by consumer discount rates …
• insufficient (if it were sufficient, the many foreign countries with $4–5/gallon gasoline prices would be driving State of the Art vehicles by now, but they aren’t.
• nonessential and hence not worth arguing about, because there are even better ways to encourage people to choose efficient vehicles.”
Read the report… ‘feebates’ and other ways.
It’s fascinating sometimes to watch the regular CONtributors to this forum who are always cock sure of that *would* have happened or what’s *gonna* happen, but never quite understand what’s happening now.
Even George WMD Bush proclaimed in his State of the Union Address that America needs to cure itself of its addiction to oil. (Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day.)
But CONS are so hooked on their pick-up trucks and SUVs, they’ll bear any burden, pay any price to get their gasoline fix.
You might as well be junkies injecting heroin in your eyeballs. As much as we try to tell you you’re killing yourselves, you just keep doing it.
One of the reasons I’m warming to John Edwards’ candidacy is his observation that it’s come too far to sit down with Big Oil, or Big Pharma, or Big War and try to work out a compromise. I’ve posted on several issues — gun control, abortion rights, etc — with an attempt to propose policies we both might be able to live with. I’ve been called a gun-grabber (though I’ve never promoted “grabbing” guns) and I’ve been called a “baby-killer.”
I’ve become convinced that CONs simply cannot be reasoned with these days.
We’ve tried to reason with you. We’ve gone the extra mile. We’ve tried to compromise. We’ve met you half-way. But any sign of trying to understand your political and philosophical and theological POV ends up with attacks; as if you think anyone who shows a little understanding for your perspective is showing weakness.
monkey
Your remedy is usually worse than the original disease.
Just because we agree on the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil does not mean that we will want to increase or dependence on government, for instance.
Econ says, gov’t helping ordinary people is bad, bad.
Gov’t helping people who are already rich? Good, good.
CapnTry to understand:
Without business, there can be NO government.
You are “eating the seed corn” — you are destroying the productive portion of society with your schemes.
The Great Depression was a terrible time because it was bad for businesses.
When businesses are hurting, they cant hire.
When businesses are hurting, they cant pay taxes.
The best “social program” in the world is a job!
By the way, unemployment rates are at historical lows, and more Americans are working, today, than ever before in history.
“Monkey, why on Earth would you trust the government to “invest” wisely in alternative energy, when we have never shown that government makes good “research” decisions?”
Posted by: Econ101 | November 19, 2007 at 02:04 PM
I guess econ101 believes that our government should not have “invested” in aircraft, space travel, computers, networks, navigation, etc. R&D.
We should have instead relied on private investors for all of that R&D. /sarcasm OFF
cosmosThe private sector is responsible for the vast majority of patents in this country.
How many patents does the Federal Government have, currently?
The government does a very bad jog of “deciding” which technology should be funded, and which should not.
Businesses risk their own money, and suffer the consequences if their “hunch” doesnt work out.
Government does poorly precisely because they are using “other peoples money” and because politicians will take a political path rather than an economic path in deciding on which direction to take.
econ101,
So you believe that the “private sector” should have developed GPS, instead of the DOD?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
And econ101 seems to believe that the government should not have funded ENIAC, ARPANET, NSFNET, etc.. The “private sector” should have?
‘The Technology Challenge: How Can America Spark Private Innovation?’http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/lazowska/faculty.lecture/innovation/gore.html
cosmosYour post proves nothing.Your post disproves nothing.
Were all the people who build the GPS hardware on the government payroll?
NO!
Are nearly all of the patents concerning these systems owned by the private sector?
Yes!
Cosmos, this is NOT the Soviet Union.
In America, government certainly does purchase what the private sector develops.
Obviously, technology that was first developed for the military will have civilian uses.
Those who INVENT these things, however, are very rarely employed, directly, by the government.
Others are more qualified than I to speak to this, and I invite them to do so. I’m of the impression that much basic research is now funded through various governmental grants, and once the basic research is completed, the private sector determines that which it will fund with the patent rights being the ultimate prize.
If this is so, then I would support a change in patent law that would prohibit patenting anything that was developed on the back of any basic research that was funded by any governmental entity, federal, state, foreign, etc.
Yes VT, you are correct. Perhaps a great example is the ARPANet that eventually grew into the internet.
DARPA – Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration
Damn – I should have completely killed it that night at UCLA when I brought it down a few times. the people at Stanford were NOT pleased.
How about getting congress to pay back the millions/billions of dollars taken from social security and putting on quarter of that toward energy investigations, a quarter towards our gas purchases, and the rest back into the social security fund.
BTW, Econ, if business wants to pay for all the basic research and then the applied research necessary to receive a patent, then I’ve no objection to the patent issuing.
A lot of the patents end up being held by Universities. I worked on a number of such projects back in the day. Also, of course, we published for everyone else to see.
“Were all the people who build the GPS hardware on the government payroll?
NO!”
Posted by econ101.
You made the claim, so exactly how much of the DOD developed GPS system was funded by the “private sector” BEFORE 1983.
econ101: “Those who INVENT these things, however, are very rarely employed, directly, by the government.”
Their R&D is FUNDED by the government, not the “private sector”.
Like Marc Andreessen’s team at NCSA.http://www.totic.org/nscp/demodoc/demo.html
I understand, Ben; it is my sense that this (the identity of those holding the patents) is changing these days. I’ve read about the nondisclosure agreements that are a part and parcel of corporate funding, and the assignment of rights, etc., that seem to be the current methodology.
It is a complicated mix VT – and I have been on both sides of the fence. generally speaking the government funds basic research and industry will fund applied research. With the applied research the patents would assign back to the company.
VTI think I might understand some of your patent concerns.
However, the best way for government to get a “return” on its investment is for the private sector to make a profit, and then get taxed on that profit, don’t you think?
So if oil providers decide to raise the price of oil to $10/gallon – we’d still have to pay the $1 tax.Dumbest idea I have ever read.Posted by: Kansas
you continue to be a simple minded “expert” on many ideas.
if gas was 10 bucks who would care about a 1 dollar tax.
“”"How about doing an about face on future construction projects that makes it necessary to drive to get anywhere? Raising taxes while failing to give consumers a community where the car is not required for transportation is a sure sign of a boondoggle.”"”
A car will always be required in the USA. Unless you live in a small handfull of cities that have high density and good transit systems (New York, DC, Philly, Chicago, Atlanta, San Fransisco), you simply cannot live without driving an automobile. Our whole country is built upon the automobile and we cannot go back and undo 200 years of history. BUT just because you must drive a car does NOT mean it has to be a damn 6000 pound SUV that seats 9 people being driven by one person.
if gas was 10 bucks who would care about a 1 dollar tax.
Posted by: s-t-u-p-i-d | November 19, 2007 at 05:37 PM
Most likely, the people would be paying local, state, Federal and the Special $1.00 tax which would bring it close to $12.00 a gallon.
What do you care, Kansas?
You never leave your effing house.
“However, the best way for government to get a “return” on its investment is for the private sector to make a profit, and then get taxed on that profit, don’t you think?”
Posted by econ101
I would guess that Marc Andreessen’s Netscape company generated a very good “return” on the government funding of NCSA’s Mosaic browser. And Microsoft’s IE.
econ101… what percent of the DOD developed GPS system was funded by the “private sector” BEFORE 1983.
What do you care, Kansas?
You never leave your effing house.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | November 19, 2007 at 06:30 PM
Stalking me again eh Capn? You know that’s illegal. :)
Stalking? . . . of course not.
I was just basing the observation on your never-ending stream of posts at all times of the night and day.
Seems to me it would make more sense to tax oil imported from foreign countries. Use the proceeds to build a lot more nuke plants and fund research into smaller lighter batteries or capacitors for use in electric vehicles. Also use it to subsidize coal>diesel liquification for use by rail, aviation and heavy transportation purposes.
It would be a much quicker path to energy independence than to simply tack taxes onto fuel at the pump and say we’ll spend it on “research”. And it would’nt have to hurt.(as some folks seem to think it should)
Heckler – taking your idea a bit further – perhaps an import fee on eastern Hemisphere oil in order to bolster the economies in the western hemisphere. That might take some pressure off our southern border.
I am a free trader.
However, what does the Middle East have, other than oil?
What harm would a “trade war” with the Middle East do to us, here in the United States.
An import fee for oil MIGHT make sense.
That fee would NOT apply to domestic production, which would encourage BOTH more domestic oil production AND alternative energy.
A great compromise, perhaps?
Actually, there was some talk of this back when oil was below $20 a barrel.
Would have made greater sense back then.
Opec ran many of our domestic, small producers and service companies out of business.
Paul – I have favored such an import tax for decades. Maybe now some new-comers might come on board.
Ben
I’m not sure about the East Hemisphere only tax. You start making things political. I’d rather buy from the Brits than old Hugo to the South.
No, I’d be inclined to apply it to all “imports”.
And while I agree with this whole idea in principle I still cringe at the thought of having all that money running through a bunch of politicians in Washington. Bad things are bound to happen.
West’s Dilemma Over IranLinda Heard, sierra12th@yahoo.co.uk
A new report on Iran’s nuclear program has the US and its allies in a tizzy. The report issued by the UN’s nuclear watchdog the IAEA indicates Iran has 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz, whirling away like spin driers on steroids.
Never mind that the Iranians are only enriching uranium to industrial levels, as far as certain Western leaders are concerned Iran has crossed a red line. Washington and Tel Aviv are debating ‘now or never’ action: to bomb or not to bomb, that is the question.
The media is hyping up the threat, just as it did prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Newspaper after newspaper has published portions of the IAEA report, adding their own spin on the spinning centrifuges and portraying their own conclusions as though they came from the UN agency itself.
This is how Julian Borger, the Guardian’s Diplomatic Editor phrases it. “Iran has installed 3,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium — enough to begin industrial scale production of nuclear fuel and build a warhead within a year the UN’s nuclear watchdog reported last night.”
The Times showed parallel hysteria with the headline “Iran could build atom bomb within a year, says nuclear watchdog.”
Australia’s paper The Age is equally disingenuous in writing that the report “confirmed that Iran had installed 3,000 enriching centrifuges, opening the way to the production of weapons-grade uranium.”
But hang on a minute. The report itself says no such thing. It doesn’t even mention bombs or warheads. It does say 266 tons of low-grade uranium has been produced since March 2004 “all of which remains under the agency containment and surveillance.”
Moreover, rather than being a shocking expose of Iran’s covert enrichment activities the report merely sets down on paper what the Iranian president proudly admitted to possessing earlier this month.
The fact is Iran hasn’t done anything wrong in regards to its nuclear program. It has openly stated it is enriching uranium for its civilian nuclear energy program under the terms of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
The IAEA have inspectors and cameras in situ and the report concludes that “the agency has been able to verify the nondiversion of declared nuclear material in Iran.” It also says Iran has provided the agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports…”
“Iran has provided sufficient access to individuals and has responded in a timely manner to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on issues raised in the context of the work,” says the report while noting, however, that “its cooperation has been reactive rather than proactive.”
All in all, this was a positive report, which begs the questions why it was deliberately, some might say dishonestly, spun the other way, and, moreover, why isn’t there similar hysteria related to nuclear weapons programs of countries that haven’t even signed up to the NPT, such as Israel and India? And let’s be honest, North Korea, which tested missiles, made open threats, and displayed its nuclear prowess was treated with kid gloves. The answer is simple. Both Israel and India are US allies while North Korea was out of bounds due to the Chinese umbrella. Furthermore, the Indian bomb was probably viewed as a useful counter-balance to Pakistan’s.
So forget international laws and treaties. Bin any notion of right and wrong. There is only one imperative at play. Those nations anointed by the US are immune from criticism. Independent countries that refuse to bow to American diktats or cuddle Israel are open targets.
The crux of the issue is this. The international community (read the West) does not trust Iran even though it has neither invaded nor threatened another country for centuries. The Bush administration has made it clear it is not prepared to accept a nuclear-capable Iran and George Bush has promised to take a decisive line during the remaining 14 months of his presidency.
At present, though, Bush and the more hawkish elements of his government led by Vice-President Dick Cheney, who would like nothing more than to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, are stymied by China and Russia. They have not only made it clear an attack on Iran would be unacceptable but are also railing against further anti-Iranian UN Security Council sanctions.
There is little likelihood that China and Russia could be urged to leap aboard the bomb Iran bandwagon due to China’s extensive economic and energy interests in Iran and Russia’s increasing stand against America’s expanded regional hegemony. In this case, the US must either cobble together another coalition of the willing in accordance with international law or risk the substantial consequences of going it alone.
Israel, on the other hand, has no such compunction. Over the decades it has shown little respect for international laws, conventions and treaties and regularly snubs its nose at the UN and the International Criminal Court. If Israel were to launch ‘pre-emptive’ strikes on Iran it would cite existentialist concerns and expect to be forgiven just as it was during post 1981 when it destroyed the Iraqi reactor. Any such attack would also give the US an entry into the fray under cover of aiding the ally numerous presidents have sworn to protect.
However, for the people of this region who do not want another war — including 42 percent of Israelis according to a Ha’aretz poll — even though they may be uncomfortable living alongside a nuclear empowered Iran, there is a chink of light.
According to the Daily Telegraph, both the US and Israel are reluctantly taking the bomb Iran option off the table because such an action “isn’t worth the risks” and in any event, might only serve to “set the program back a couple of years.”
The article quotes an adviser to the Pentagon as saying, “The more they looked at the intelligence and the information they had, the more pessimistic they have become about what could be achieved on the operational front by military action.”
It’s also worth noting that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has recently softened the rhetoric, indicating that her boss might need a new mandate from Congress to launch another conflict.
But don’t hold your breath. It’s possible such statements are being made to keep Iran off guard and quiet the loudening voices of the peace camp. The nations of this region can only wait in trepidation until January 2009 when at least one regime change is a sure thing.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=103751&d=20&m=11&y=2007&pix=opinion.jpg&category=Opinion—–
It’s a nice exercise in “what if’ thinking. No politician is going to push for this, no matter the economic and environmental sense it makes, because it would be poison at the ballot box.
Only an idiot would believe that giving the government $1 for every gallon of gasoline sold would resolve GW.
The money will be spent for other government projects and pork.
You know, just like the Social Security dollars in the general fund are spent.
Idiots.
Lessee… Car wrecks are the number one killer of young adults. More Americans die in car wrecks every month (yes, _month_) than died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks — which, as columnist Cal Thomas has pointed out were funded with oil revenues…
Forget global warming, OK? Cars are dangerous. Not only that, they make us fat. The suburban “walk to the garage and drive to work” life style most of us are living makes it impossible to burn a “normal” amount of calories, so even with the best diets we’re getting fatter every year.
So, $1.00 a gallon gas tax? Absolutely. In fact, over the course of decades years, $2 $3 or even $4/gallon gas tax is a reasonable, proven policy in countries as diverse as South Korea and England.
What to do with the revenue? Simple. Start by funding public transit, especially rail travel — because it’s the easiest kind of trasportation to electrify (and given current technology, electricity is the only energy source that will permit US energy independence). Use any leftover revenues to _reduce_other_taxes. In other words, after a few years of “infrastructure repair”, the higher gasoline taxes should be “revenue neutral.” Nobody likes taxes — but a tax that can be avoided simply by riding the train or bus — or moving closer to work and walking — has got to be the least painful tax imaginable.
Remember the purpose of the federal government? It’s right there in the constitution: “…ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
Cheap gas results in selling our country to the oil sheiks, condemning American citizens who can’t drive to poverty, the unnecessary deaths of thousands of our youth, the decay of neighborhoods and towns across the country, and epidemic obesity. Cheap gas is destructive to the general welfare and is funnneling money to those who would deprive us of the blessings of liberty.
That’s why I say, real patriots support higher gas taxes.