Everybody knows that John McCain is both a principled straight-talker and also an environmentally-minded Republican in the manner of Teddy Roosevelt. Therefore it can't be the case that his "solution" to America's economic problems is a silly, panderific proposal to have a summertime gas tax holiday. I must have imagined the whole thing.
« J Street | Main | Refugees and Militias »
Straight Talk
15 Apr 2008 12:42 pm
Comments (31)
Anger/pettiness is not a admirable trait Matt. Can't you make your point without the sarcasm? It's getting really old that every JMac post has some sarcasm about the media and what not. You've made your point - move on.
I don't see where he says this is the "solution" to economic problems.
What's wrong with a temporary suspension of federal taxes on gasoline? The combined taxes on a gallon of gas far exceed the profits the oil companies earn on that same gallon-- and the government did nothing to find, drill, capture, transport, refine, and deliver the end product locally so you can use it. This actually makes sense and will be politically popular.
It's a better idea than the ridiculous stimulus package Congress and W dreamed up.
And if it's such a bad idea, then why not advocate for higher federal gasoline taxes-- they must be good if you are for them, so more will be better.
JMac?
This town needs an enema.
Remember in June 2000, when gas was $1.70 a gallon and George Bush said it was so ridiculously high because Al Gore was an environmentalist?
Thank goodness that, after George Bush has led us to $4.00 a gallon gasoline this summer, we'll have John McCain, who will boldly take on the horrific burden of taxes and save us all a whopping TWENTY CENTS!
It's a good thing we elected the free-marketeers! Sure, gas is more than twice as expensive but hey! A tax break!
That's dang near a shiny quarter in your pocket, you whippersnapper!
Heck, that's barely better than a "WIN" button!
(For the whippersnappers, at the beginning of the great 70's inflation, Gerald Ford's solution was the "W(hip) I(nflation) N(ow)" button.)
Bitter SUV has a point: this is no more "panderific" than the bipartisan stimulus package Americans are going to receive within the next month. It makes sense as much sense as a temporary economic stimulus. A related idea would be to suspend some of the regulations mandating summer gas blends, which help boost the price of gas every summer.
Don't forget that the gas tax goes to the highway fund, not the general fund, so we get the added bonus of not having so many annoying construction projects to slow us down this summer. (The bridge collapses are an unpreventable Act of God.)
It's called pandering, and his economic adivsor has a lot to answer for.
In keeping with McCain's general approach, the gas tax repeal sounds like a great idea unless you put some thought into what consequences might actually ensue if you seriously cut the gas tax.
Oh. My. God!
I respect John McCain for his and his family's service to this country. I really do. But WTF there has never been a national politician so clueless and downright destructive on anything related to domestic policy. No George Bush, not anybody. This man must be stopped.
The reason McCain wants to keep the Bush tax cuts is because going back to what they were pre cuts would be the same as raising taxes.
So, if we had a gas tax cut over the summer, wouldn't he be in effect raising taxes in the fall?
Well, this is a good example of why I'm not voting in November, but the Obama groupies would have a tough time explaining why this is a worse proposal than their hero's ethanol whoring. I mean, McCain's proposal has zero chance of passage, whereas Obama is lending real political support to an existing government activity which is doing great harm, domestically and internationally. But Obama is transformative!!!!
The reason McCain wants to keep the Bush tax cuts is because going back to what they were pre cuts would be the same as raising taxes.
So, if we had a gas tax cut over the summer, wouldn't he be in effect raising taxes in the fall?
It's a reckless proposal. The 18.4 cent federal gas tax goes into a trust fund to pay for federal highways and bridge construction. As early as 2009 the highway trust fund will run a deficit. McCain doesn't believe highway investment is a federal resposibility and instead should be left up to the states. The proposal is one part ideological and one part pandering.
As mentioned above, what my almost-namesake was actually proposing what either a 'pause' in maintainance and expansion of America's roads and bridges (and railroads and bike trails)...OR...a huge increase in deficit spending. Whoa!!! Does that sound like Republicans or what!
And related to Mr Bitter, SUV Clinger, I will take the bait and advocate a permanent tax on Gasoline that would raise the price to $5.00/gal with the difference between the market price and the $5.00 going to a trust fund to finance researching and building Non-Petroleum, renewable (and non-Arab, non-Russia, non-Chavez) energy.
Anything less is a vote to continue to subsidize the Saudi Royal Family, Pres Putin and other 'friends' of the Bush family.
nd the government did nothing to find, drill, capture, transport, refine, and deliver the end product locally so you can use it.
Yeah, oil companies never get tax breaks or incentives from the government.
Obama admits that ethanol is at best a transition.
There are really two separate arguments here: 1) what to do about our decaying road and bridges and 2) is a federal gas tax the way to address it.
Much of the interstate highway system was built and constructed in the 50s and 60s and is reaching the end of its useful life. It needs replaced, even if you don't build new roads.
For those who hate the gas tax what would you replace it with? I'm willing to listen to alternatives but not replacing the revenue from the moratorium is bad policy in my opinion. I think it is a pretty fair tax, you only pay for what you use.
55, when you "admit" to a falsehood, you really shouldn't be credited for anything. Ethanol from food plants isn't a transition. It's a giant boondoggle doing great harm all over the globe. Obamaphiles harping on McCain's proposed economic know-nothingism, while tolerating their hero's active engagement in real actitivities doing real substantial harm, is a bit much.
Will: this "is a bit much" is a bit much.
Ethanol is a venerable boondogle, of long standing and with bipartisan backing, and it would survive without Obama, thank you very much.
If Obama were advocating an expansion of this misbegoten program in the aftermath of food riots on 3 continents, one should consider seriously voting for Nader of Raving Monster Loony Party.
But, as it is, the sanity of our politicians is a relative thing.
McCain proposal is one of the long string of pernicious propaganda and lulls American to SUV complacency. Ah, gasoline is expensive, my poor little dear? Change the government for a better one, and gasoline will be cheap again!
What we need is a sticker shock. I was really impressed when I tanked (very few times) in Scotland last summer and the bill was 50 pound sterling, or 100 greenbacks. And Scots survive. They even drive SUVs, WHEN NECESSARY.
Good old Dan Rostenkowski actually proposed a 50c/gal tax increase. Now, if Canadians can afford something like that, why can't we?
A related idea would be to suspend some of the regulations mandating summer gas blends, which help boost the price of gas every summer.
A related idea would be for Old Fart Fred to run 10km alongside a busy road on every day that there's a high-ozone or photochemical smog alert.
Piotr, I'd vote for anyone who advocated installing a floor below which FICA taxes did not apply, say 15-20 thousand, and replacing it with a big whopping carbon tax, and then saying "That's my energy policy".
Pseudomonas,
"A related idea would be for Old Fart Fred to run 10km alongside a busy road on every day that there's a high-ozone or photochemical smog alert."
I live within earshot of a major interstate. We have no smog problems here. Smog has less to do with gas taxes than it has to do with emissions standards and geography. Gas is a lot more expensive in Sao Paulo (despite the availability of sugar cane-derived ethanol) and the air quality there is awful.
Repeal the Federal Highway tax? $5/gallon Carbon taxes? "We need sticker shock"?
Jesus F'ng Christ!!!!!! Enough ya bunch of 'tards!!!
Don't any of you people have to drive to work in order to earn a living out there--much less pay the REST of the bills besides gas?
Re Ben
"For those who hate the gas tax what would you replace it with? I'm willing to listen to alternatives but not replacing the revenue from the moratorium is bad policy in my opinion. I think it is a pretty fair tax, you only pay for what you use."
I suggest replacing the gas tax with a yearly imposed tax on engine displacement. Engine displacement has the greatest effect on gas mileage. I believe that Germany has such a tax. For instance, consider the following schedule:
1 - 2 liters - $100
2 - 3 liters - $300
3 - 4 liters - $600
4 - 5 liters - $1000
5 - 6 liters - $2000
6 - 7 liters - $4000
The current gas tax only indirectly encourages conservation. My proposed tax directly encourages conservation by socking the gas guzzlers hard.
Personally, I think it's a *great* idea to stimulate demand for gas when it's at its highest. And snoey is right about road and bridge repairs--reporters should ask McCain which roads and bridges he thinks should deteriorate.
I also think people are overlooking the effects on gas prices of the summer Olympics in China. I think we'll see higher demand as a result of all the travel to and within China, not to mention all the work that goes into preparing for and running the games.
SLC -- we already have a gas guzzler tax similar to what you are proposing.
Matt: Ignore that foolish advice about moving on. McCain is running for president and is therefore a subject you might want to return to FREQUENTLY. Pointing out that he is an idiot may be tiresome, but what needs to change in McCain, not coverage of him. The idea that you should now start writing that he is bright simply on the grounds that that would be fresh is retarded. You are wise to point out that his Terror Finance Act of 2008 is silly.
RE: McCain's gas tax holiday vs. Bush's economic stimulus
They are not so similar as they appear. The economic stimulus can be invested, saved or spent on any consumer good. Citizens have freedom to do with the money what they wish, and everyone reaps the benefits.
McCain's proposal is much more specific. The only way to benefit from a temporary decrease in the gas tax is.....you guessed it: buy more gas. Citizens must spend/consume more to benefit from this type of stimulus.
While anyone would appreciate cheaper gas during travel-heavy holidays, the proposed policy only encourages more energy consumption; environmentally speaking, it cannot be considered an improvement.
I'm amused that no one has challenged the connection between the gas tax and highway infrastructure. I don't see the requirement for the flow of funding to be from the former to the latter.
Two thoughts: 1) Roads are like internet access (let me flesh out the analogy before you gag. I know, I've got to be quick!); and 2) Isn't the best way to provide a 'good' is to create and protect a fair market?
FIRST THOUGHT:
I've been trying to understand the debate about Network Neutrality for internet access, and one thought keeps coming up over and over: the local phone company that owns the "last mile" of cable into private homes has an incredible amount of control over how the private citizens in those homes connect to the business at the other end of the internet connection. Many people are up in arms about who gets to control how fast that connection is going to be; especially regarding whether the connection can be faster (intentionally) to some destinations over others.
Some of the arguments are based on the idea that the last mile of cable is actually private property owned by that local phone company. And the repeated rebuttal is that local regulations gave right-of-way and monopoly advantages to the phone companies (and saddled them with rural-access and Spanish War Tax requirements). There is some history and tension over how much control the individual local utilities (notice that I've subtly changed the term here) have over their property.
So I'm totally wrong. The roads that lead to your house and to your place of work are not at all like Internet access. You probably think of them as a public infrastructure, and some of you may even resent having to pay tolls to use them (double bonus points if you think to yourself "that's what gas tax is for!")
But models of funding infrastructure like roads could learn some lessons (both positive and negative) from the funding history of other infrastructures.
I think the connection between burning 94 octane gasoline and the maintenance costs of I-80 coast to coast is pretty damn weak. After all, don't we acknowledge that diesel fuel used to heat homes (we call it fuel oil) doesn't increase wear and tear on the roads (so we exempt it from fuel tax). Same with diesel used in farm equipment. (Aside: remember that when you think that the fuel tax helps reduce carbon emissions; we can't have the tax track road use AND CO2 emissions simultaneously)
And as another "public good" that comes out of local (forget I-80 for a moment) government ownership of roads is free parking, especially for residents in their neighborhoods. Explain to me why I should pay one thin dime so that some bozo in Irving Park can park on the street outside his apartment. I'd much rather pay that dime to get him/her to move the damn vehicle out of the way to allow two way traffic on the road that's designated for two way traffic.
Time for me to move on to my second thought listed above: why don't we brainstorm ways that the road infrastructure can be built/extended/maintained/supported that relies on private property rights with regulated access (most importantly: non-discriminatory). Let your mind wander over all kinds of fanciful technology, ranging from mandatory odometer readings to satnav synchronized tolls that vary with time-of-day.
The first step of implementation will be to shock the American public that just because they see a piece of asphalt, doesn't mean they have a 1st amendment right to drive their 16-wheel moving van up and down it.
Instead of my idea, you could always just point out exactly what I've missed -- history of roads in America? Complications of pricing high volume/low value items (10feet of asphalt?) Tradeoffs of fair pricing against collection/monitoring cheaters? Or can you prove that making a family that chooses the hardship of NOT owning a car deserves the higher property costs of zoning laws that require a certain number of on-street or off-street parking spots per residence?
Comments closed April 29, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I think he also blamed current economic woes on "corporate greed" or something yesterday.
Here's the thing: McCain can say just about anything he wants on policy these days, because ABSOLUTELY NOBODY IS PAYING ATTENTION TO HIM. The press gave him a g-d box of donuts yesterday. He might as well be in fucking Disneyland.
Posted by Jake | April 15, 2008 12:56 PM