For A Gas Tax

I dunno, I've got some doubts.

Is this the first time that a republican understood that our system taxes labor rather than wealth? John Edwards had his flaws but he sure was right about hammering that point.

Rolling back a gas tax when gas prices go back up (that's when, not if) is an easy thing to accomplish politically, and hands the right a tailor made issue to campaign on, along the lines of "Drill Baby Drill" and the demagogic ads Bush ran against Kerry in 2004 on the gas tax issue. Once payroll taxes are reduced, though, it's proven almost impossible to raise them again. So the right is given two gifts: a political issue, and more leverage for "starving the beast," because the net result of this plan will be a reduction in federal revenue as soon as the next hike in gas prices hit.

However much theoretical sense this might make as policy, as politics, given the realities of what drives the Republican Party, it's a loser for the Democrats.

I don't disagree with your political concerns mgale but one wild card MAY be that we haven't had presidential leadership in so long we (I) forget how important a President is in selling an idea.
I'm not saying BHO is assured of having those skills but it is not unreasonable to hope that he does.

This is not the first time he wrote in favor of a gas tax.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060503434.html

And Krauthammer is, not surprisingly, more sympathetic to the national security arguments for higher gasoline prices than the environmental ones--Krauthammer remains unconvinced that global warming is man-made.

So we've already established that Krauthammer's an ignoramus. Why should we listen to any of his arguments after that?

Bingo, gduvall!!!!! You got that right. The gas tax argument is interesting, may even have some redeeming benefit, but Krauthammer is the last person I would listen to about economic issues when he is a myopic ignoramus whose real motive is continued foreign policy stupidity.

.
what martin gale and formerlyjames say. It may sound okay in theory but it would be suicide for Democrats.
.
Besides, krauthammer is a national security whacko of the neoconservative kind, so his newfound concern for reduced oil consumption as a national security issue is very suspect, to put it mildly. And as you say, he's a global warming denier (does he REALLY have a legit MD? Hard to believe) so he's not exactly a rational thinker either. And his concern for the poor, lowly working man is downright laughable.
.

If it's Kraulthammer there is a scam to this somewhere. Since when has he ever cared about the middle class?

Let me see..... We pay higher taxes for gasoline and then we get it back to us in reduced payroll taxes and higher social security benefits. Isn't this a wash? Another feel good program that really doesn't do anything but makes it appear the Republican's care about the middle class? We take it from you with this hand and then give it back to you with the other hand and then call it a big tax reduction for the middle class.

Of course it is enacted while gasoline prices are down around $1.50 a gallon, just to confuse the middle class even more. This plan has nothing really to do with carbon emissions and dependence on foreign oil as we have already proven Americans will continue to buy gas at current levels until it's about $3.50 a gallon. It's all a propaganda ploy by Republicans to try to stay out front on the economy issue by promising a big tax break that of course is simply achieved by taking it from us somewhere else.

Joe, why are you of all people fallilng for this shell game?

.
florida's right. It's a shell game. Let's hope that Harry Reid & Co. aren't naive enough to consider it.
.

Is a stand alone gas tax a bad idea?

A gas tax is a great idea, although as someone mentioned earlier, if it goes back to 4 bucks maybe a little throttle back would be in order. The idea is to become energy independent and we are going broke so it's a win win for me. If it's done fairly early on in Barack's term I don't think the repubs will be able to use it as an issue.

Let's hope that Harry Reid & Co. aren't naive enough to consider it.
.
We're doomed.

I don't see a gasoline tax of $1 having much in the way of an impact on people's driving habits at this point, and as others have noted, the minute crude prices rebound the immediate reaction will be to demand a reduction in the gasoline tax.

Rather than tax gasoline, have a tax based on the kind of mileage a vehicle gets combined with the number of miles driven. If you drive a lot in a very low mileage vehicle, you're taxes should be massive; if you drive relatively little in a high mileage vehicle, the tax should be negligible. (and, of course, the tax would only be applied to those with sufficient wealth/income to pay it...)

Quiz: Who wrote the following compelling argument:
"We must all be prepared to torture. Having established that, we can then begin to work together to codify rules of interrogation for the .. very unpleasant but very real cases in which we are morally permitted - indeed morally compelled - to do terrible things"
Choose one of the following:
1) Mother Teresa(World) on torture and extermination of humans.
2) Adolf Hitler(Deutchland) on torture and extermination of humans.
3) Pol Pot(Cambodia) on torture and extermination of humans.
4) Charles Krauthammer( ) on torture and extermination of humans.

JK:
" .. Charles Krauthammer has an absolutely compelling, and completely unexpected arguments .. "

Who? Charles Krauthammer? Maybe - but on some topics, he rarely gets a 'worthwhile' idea - a "compelling argument" - that is not steeped in blood, hate and pious terrorism.
About the quiz - the right answer is
(d) - Charles Krauthammer in The Weekly Standard, Dec 5, 2005.

[Would be of the same mentality if he was being tortured ... After all many, indeed MOST, of those at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Baghram concentration camps who were tortured - even unto death - were as innocent as Charles Krauthammer thinks he is. ..]

But, I don't doubt that he may have an argument deemed compelling by JK.

====

Joe, we note that you haven't blogged about the invasion and carnage in Gaza, yet. Or have you? Now, suppose that Israel had been invaded by Palestinians, a top leader killed and many more civilians killed in Israel than in Gaza, I bet that we would have read several "well reasoned" blogs from you - and probably seen pictures of bloodied kids, wailing mothers etc. Right?

Somehow, some of us still hang onto that outdated notion about US reporters - American reporters of the 'free and fair' American media, the envy of the world ..

Not to change the subject BUT.... I'm bummed.. The Grateful Dead are going back out on tour and nothing any closer to Florida that North Carolina. Not a big Deadhead, but like to see them before I die!

I've wanted an increased gas tax for a long time, but for reasons others have mentioned I'm not excited about it being revenue neutral.
.
I'd prefer to see the money invested in even more ways to reduce carbon emissions - a credit perhaps on the purchase of high mpg cars to accentuate the advantage of using less gas, maybe some public transportation projects. And it's undeniable that some people would suffer disproportionately because of the long distances people travel in some states.
.
I'd also prefer to see a dollar tax phased in at 20cents a year for 5 years, which gives people some time to anticipate what they need to do, and gives fewer reasons to bellyache about it.

A gas tax has made policy sense for a long long time, well before Ross Perot suggested it, but with a nation where the RW can flood the media with every kind of horse$hit it is politically insane. Another one of those instances where we badly need to have a serious national discussion, like K-Tum wants for health care, but can't because of the RW/noise machine-MSM nexus.
.
Perhaps in a few years Obama can lay the groundwork to make it possible.
.
I agree with kathy's point about tax credits for purchase of high mpg cars. I would go so far as to also suggest increased taxes on notably low mpg vehicles. The two approaches in tandem.

wvng - I like your last suggestion. very practical, and would make a difference - especially as hybrids are more expensive than comparable cars at the moment.

"tax credits for purchase of high mpg cars"
.
Already exists. We got a tax credit for our Prius. It is smart policy.

kathy, I heard a while back that Honda is coming out with a hybrid Fit that will be quite reasonably priced - $18kish. And that Toyota will drop their Prius price to be competitive at the same time their mileage soars to 100 mpg, with the plug-in electric and solar panel additions.
.
With the new administration's bent toward using facts to make decisions, and filling key posts with actual smart people who know stuff, the possibilities for real advances are thrilling.

PNNTO, the Prius tax credit was phased out a while back:
.
The tax credits that the federal government offers for buying hybrid vehicles are tied to sales. As the sales of any given model exceed 60,000 units total, the tax credit is phased out. The Toyota Prius is no longer eligible for federal tax credits, although some states still offer money back. Fortunately other manufacturers haven't yet sold as many hybrids as Toyota and are still eligible.
.
And bless you again J-LA, for the Make Link plugin.

The Prius isn't cheap but the Yaris can be had for 12.

wvng-we haven't done our taxes this year, I didn't know that. Someone is going to be sad!

PNNTO, we got a Yaris to replace my wife's Toyota Echo (which went to the daughter). The Yaris is much less of a car - notably smaller, mileage disappoints (33-35 mpg) verus 42-45 for the Echo. Would have gotten a Prius but they had a many month waiting list at the time. Should have gotten another Honda Fit, which is a much more functional car with better mileage.