Obama, faithful wants gas tax
November 11, 2008A member of the Obama faithful had a wondeful idea:
“I just paid under $2.00 for gas. This would be a perfect time to Increase the gas tax a dollar. We need the money and we need to encourage alternative fuel use and public transportation. I call on congress to increase the gas tax a dollar next year and use that money for alternative energy research and infrastructure improvements. If Americans have shown their willingness to pay $4 a gallon for gasoline. It is important we don’t lose the gains of the last year in fuel efficiency and alternative vehicles due to low gas prices. Higher gas tax would also allow the government to spend on infrastructure creating more jobs.It’s a win win.”
Don’t forget, it was President-elect Obama who said high gas prices are good for America. He doesn’t mind high gas prices.
If you think taxes are bad, how do you propose funding public infrastructure projects (like levees and collapsing bridges) that would not generate enough profit to interest private sector bidders?
Taxes as a necessary evil. However, at this time in our country, adding a dollar gas tax is insane.
So wouldn’t more tax on a specific commodity people could choose to buy less of be fairer than an across the board tax hike that you can’t get out of paying?
people in masses are inherently stupid. and stupid people only understand pain. Raising the gas tax by 1$ is ingenious as it will force people to find less painful alternatives.
Just look at whats happened in the past 6 months. SUV sales are waaaay down, then last month the gas prices drop…and SUV sales are rising again… like thats idiotic.
Its like cattle, and you to cattle prod them into the barn for thier own good, otherwise theyll just stand there in the freezing cold with that stupid look on thier face wondering why thier buddies are dropping dead around them.
Marc, if this election taught you anything, it should be that people aren’t as stupid as you assume. Except, of course, those invariably Republican-voting SUV owners who’d still be driving Hummers if gas cost $10 a gallon. But, hey, they can pay for the infrastructure repairs.
The price of gas IS going to go up. The question is just whether is will be because of a tax or because people go back to using more of it. More expensive gas because of a tax used to fund research into alternative energy is a lot more palatable to me than a rise where the profits go into the coffers of middle eastern oil barons and oil companies.
The fact is that there is a finite supply of oil on the planet. Politics can’t change that. Even if we “drill, baby, drill”, we can’t create more oil, only use up more of our limited supply. Even if it’s not today, at some point the oil supply is going to run out. The reason for the recent decrease in prices isn’t even because supply has gone up–it’s because demand has gone down. If people start feeling like there’s no reason to conserve anymore, of course it’s going to go back up again. I didn’t think of it before, but hearing this I think Obama is right. Prices have already gone up, and we’ve survived. Our current financial woes aren’t because of the price of gas. If a tax is introduced that keeps the prices closer to the levels people have already been paying, they should be able to handle it. And when electric or fuel cell cars hit the market, not only will they have a reason to recognize the value of the tax (though I don’t expect them to), they won’t need to pay it anymore since they’ll barely need any gas at all. I’m glad to know that someone is thinking not only about our present, but also about our future–a sustainable future, and that of our children and the rest of the world.
Actually, I just realized it wasn’t Obama who proposed this. He had nothing to do with this at all. It was just a suggestion from a member or a messageboard who uses the moniker “curse of greyface”. More’s the pity. Perhaps someone should suggest the idea, because it has a lot of merit in my opinion. I’m rather ambivalent about this site crediting “a member of the Obama faithful” with the idea. Unfortunately, you give Obama too much credit.
Is it just me, or is that “Drill Baby Drill” thing the most boneheaded insult to the American people’s collective intelligence ever? There’s an urgent need to do grown up, sensible stuff with regard to energy and all these clowns can do is make up stupid slogans. I don’t say it flippantly, but thank God they didn’t win.
Yeah, it’s just you. They chanted, “Drill, baby, drill” to punctuate a point. We have the answer to lower gas prices and independence from foreign oil… if only we would drill.
Drilling for oil, almost every way I look at it, is an incredibly short-sighted and immature “solution”. Oil, by definition, is a “non-renewable resource”.
From the government’s Energy Information Administration site–for kids:
“Coal, petroleum, natural gas, and propane are all considered fossil fuels because they formed from the buried remains of plants and animals that lived millions of years ago. [...] These energy sources are considered nonrenewable because they can not be replenished (made again) in a short period of time. Renewable energy sources can be replenished naturally in a short period of time.”
Not only can these nonrenewable resources not be replenished, but their use causes pollution, which contaminates our environment. More drilling could free us from foreign oil, yes, but eventually we’d run out of oil, if the pollution we created didn’t destroy us first. At best, it would be a short-term solution that does not consider our long-term needs and the needs of our descendants and neighbors. “High gas prices” is not the problem, and thus “off-shore drilling” is not the solution. “We don’t create enough energy” is the problem. And drilling would only be a temporary fix, which would cause more problems than it solved.
No one says it should be the only source. However, it’s foolish and stupid to call it immature and to brush it a side. We have oil, lets drill and get it.
http://www.anwr.org/Background/
“No one says oil should be the only source”.
Perhaps, but it it is the only source I heard mentioned throughout the republican campaign. It’s the only source I see mentioned in this blog.
Barack Obama says in his policy, on his website:
“Obama and Biden will require oil companies to develop the 68 million acres of land (over 40 million of which are offshore) which they have already leased and are not drilling on.”
Could the wildlife refuge be another source of oil? Perhaps. I don’t know enough about it. And yet given a choice my natural impulse is to try to use existing sources before I considered entering a “refuge”.
Even Obama does not dismiss oil as a source, but he recognizes that it is not a “solution”. It’s temporary, and will just give us time to find better solutions. These can come from renewable sources of energy: hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, etc. and can also come from technology that simply requires us to use less energy to do the same things. We all know about hybrid cars. Also in development are electric cars (e.g. chevrolet volt) and fuel cell cars (e.g. GM Sequal). But energy conservation doesn’t have to end there. Take for instance, LEDs, which are beginning to replace LCD monitors. Or the fluorescent bulbs that have begun to replace incandescent ones (these are already being phased out). We don’t necessarily need to use more nonrenewable resources to meet our needs, We can instead develop and make use of new technology to do so. I have a flashlight I can shake to power instead of using batteries! The possibilities are there.
The laws of the free market are all about supply and demand. Gas prices rose after hurricane Katrina, which destroyed refineries and lowered supply. Prices have decreased recently as people learned to use less gas and lowered demand. (There was also a market “correction” which happened because investors were speculating on oil, but let’s not make this too complicated). The point here is that necessity is the mother of invention. When prices rise, people develop solutions to satisfy their needs in alternative ways. That’s the “good” that I could see resulting from higher prices. And given that I expect prices will rise either with taxes or without, I’d rather an equilibrium come from a tax, and that tax used to speed up the development of alternatives.
Could we inject a little sanity here? Even if they drilled all over the continental USA and off-shore, there is not enough oil available to make us not dependent on foreign oil. The whole argument is dumb and pointless.
That’s true. And it’s one of the reasons why we need to use less oil. But the argument (I thought) was about the price of gas and whether higher prices and/or a gas tax could be good for the country.
I was directing my last comment at Jeff who seems to enjoy non-fact-based arguments. Too many people think the argument is higher gas prices vs. domestic drilling. How can we solve a problem when we can’t even frame the debate correctly? Domestic drilling would be like trying to pay off the national debt by rummaging under the couch cushions for loose change.
Oh, and aside from the inevitability of gas prices rising anyway as resources dwindle, I think it would be bad because it would discriminate against low income people. Maybe if more money was invested in better public transit systems we could bully people out of driving to work with higher gas prices, but it doesn’t seem fair to me.
The transit system here was overloaded with commuters when gas prices rose this year. How did they handle it? Put up ticket prices to discourage people from using the system who’d already been discouraged from using their own cars.
Nice analogy.
hmmm… if the municipality there put up ticket prices when gas prices went up… well that makes sense in a way, because it got more expensive to drive buses. But that’s another reason for a gas tax. Public Transit systems could be exempted from it. If we wait for demand to rise and prices to go back up on their own, there will be no exemptions. And I think improvements to public transit could probably be included under the rubric of alternative energy development. I remember reading about a fleet of fuel cell buses in London…
Fuel cell good. We have natural gas buses and light rail here. The ticket hikes were solely to deter passengers. I hope that the Obama government will be a lot more amenable to increasing grants for city transit systems. Not much interest from Republican govts as there’s no direct profit involved (apart from the obvious benefits of getting your staff to work which you’d think the ‘party of business’ would appreciate!)
[...] going back up to $4.00,Guess who to thank. Obama, faithful wants gas tax Elect Jeff ^ US Senate Video I just paid under $2.00 for gas. This would be a perfect time to Increase the [...]
if it would stay as it is now under $2.00 but the new pres has to fill his pockets dont he !!!!!????
1
I am sorry, but anyone who wants a “gas tax” has faith in the gov’t that they have no reason for having.
Bottom line, anyone who believes in giving their money away is a fool. We should have to pay minimum taxes. Ever hear of the free market? If people want a car that is good on gas they will buy it. If Detroit doesn’t supply it, then Toyota or Honda will. Proven fact. If people don’t want a fuel efficient car, they have a right to buy it. This is a free country, not Europe. It is unconstitutional to tax people for freedoms. Ever hear of the Boston Tea Party??? We should call this gas tax the Boston Gas Party. It is a high tax for a commodity. The last thing the government has done with money over the years has not been giving it back. (Oh wait GWB did do that and you idiots complained about getting back what was yours! Idiots!)
You people who believe in high taxes are arrogant and naive, a lousy combination. Whatever gas prices are I am willing to pay. You idiots say gas prices are definately going to go up, then you say you still want a gas tax. So you are looking for 6 or 7 bucks per gallon. If that doesn’t sound stupid, then your head should be squashed like a pumpkin, because you really are a dumbass.