Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26420 |
Gas Tax
I read Andrew Sullivan's blog quite a bit, and I don't really know why. Andrew Sullivan is a gay Republican journalist who is a very prolific freelance columnist whose work this week alone appears in the Washington Post, Time, Sunday Times, and Harpers, not to mention updating his blog (www.andrewsullivan.com) a few times a day. He's rabidly for the Iraq war and any other similar actions in the Middle East, he's also rabidly homosexual and against any actions that harm the gay community (and pretty sensible on personal responsibility and civil liberty issues in general), and all in all he's a pretty scattershot Republican, sort of all over the place. He also seems half-crazy to boot. But, sometimes, he borders on genius.
This is I think one of those cases. By no means is this a strikingly original proposal, but he makes the case well, I think. What do you think?
Tax Gas More
A Win-Win Policy
Gas prices are too low. There. I said it. Even when they peak this summer, as most analysts predict, they will be too low. And they're too low in large part because gas is woefully under-taxed in this country - a state of affairs that is both bad for the economy, bad for drivers, and bad for our foreign policy. In fact, one of the simplest and best things any administration could do right now would be to add a buck to the tax per gallon. Now that I have alienated almost every reader of this column, allow me to defend myself.
The best case against a gas tax is that it is, well, a tax. Who likes that? But with soaring deficits and a war to pay for, taxes are not an option. They're a necessity. The only relevant question is: which taxes? The case for a gas tax is a relatively simple one. Gas prices in America are strikingly lower than those anywhere else in the world; such taxes are relatively easy to collect; since an overwhelming majority of Americans drive, few avoid the tax (even those who take cabs and public transportation pay for it indirectly); and by adding a cost to the wanton consumption of gasoline, you actually encourage conservation, accelerate fuel efficiency, reduce pollution, cut traffic, and help wean us off the oil that requires us to be so intimately involved in that wonderful cess-pool of rival hatreds, the Middle East. So what's not to like?
In fact, the idea is so obviously a good one that, in their recent absurd bickering over who is responsible for higher gas prices, neither presidential candidate has gone near it. That would take a certain courage that most candidates lack. But it's worth recalling that even president Bush's chief economic adviser, Greg Mankiw, once supported it. Mankiw - in the golden five minutes of budget surpluses in the late 1990s - favored raising gas taxes as a way to reduce income taxes. Such a policy mix, he believed, "would lead to more rapid economic growth, less traffic congestion, safer roads, and reduced risk of global warming - all without jeopardizing long-term fiscal solvency. This may be the closest thing to a free lunch that economics has to offer."
So why is it so unpopular? Some say it's inherently regressive, i.e. that it affects the poor more than the rich. In fact, it tends to affect the middle class more than anyone, especially those in the suburbs with more than one car. The truly needy tend to consume less gas than their middle class compatriots. Others say it penalizes those in remote or rural areas. So what? Very few taxes are perfect; and our electoral system - with the over-representation of big agircultural states in the middle of the country in the Senate - already pampers the rural. (I'd gladly exchange a gas tax hike for abolition of agricultural subsidies. Any takers in Iowa?)
Some conservatives say it's antithetical to the American dream. Hooey. Conservatism in America rightly emphasizes personal responsibility alongside freedom. You can't have one without the other. And using a car affects not just yourself, but many others. When your use of one or more cars leads to higher levels of pollution, when your ownership of a gas-inhaling S.U.V. puts others at risk of their lives on the road, when traffic drastically reduces the country's productivity (as well as making radio talk-show hosts millionaires), don't you think you might give a little back in return? To paraphrase the president, can't we shift from a philosophy of "if it feels good, do it" to one of responsibility? Take another look at that word "conservatism". See that word "conserve" buried in there? Why should that always be construed so as not to refer to energy?
The real reason so many Americans hate gas taxes is that they see them. The government can eat away at your life with payroll taxes, but because they're usually deducted before you even get to see your paycheck, you don't notice. But the price of gas is broadcast on big billboards across the country. When it goes up, eyebrows rise a notch. But that's a good thing! The government has to tax you somehow. Isn't it better to shift taxation to places where people notice it, so they can demand accountability, rather than shuffle it off to the small print of your pay-check stub? The gas tax is therefore a win-win conservative-liberal synthesis. It cuts the deficit, helps the environment, and keeps the government fiscally honest and accountable.
Let me add one further reason, and it's a simple one. We're at war. So far, the Bush administration has refused to ask for a general sacrifice to pay for this effort. But that leads to a sense that we're not all involved, that we do not all owe the troops our support. More important: the war is about the Middle East. A long-term strategy to protect us from constant involvement in that region would include greater energy independence. A gas tax both helps pay for our current struggle and helps us avoid future ones. Why not therefore a war-time gas tax of a dollar a gallon? If we do not owe it to our fellow citizens, to the environment, to less traffic, to greater fuel efficiency, can we at least owe it to the troops? Or is that minimal level of personal sacrifice too much to ask of ourselves?
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
![[new thread]](/images/vb/button_newthread_off.png "Post New Thread")
![[post reply]](/images/vb/button_newreply_off.png "Post A Reply")
04-23-2004 10:43 PM
