The Green Miles recently made headlines (OK, so it was page 48 of the Post Express) for suggesting that public opposition to the Clinton/McCain plan to temporarily eliminate the federal gas tax showed that maybe, just maybe, we'd reached a turning point on energy policy:Americans are finally saying they don't want short-term cheap gas -- they want solutions that would take long-term pressure off energy prices, like more fuel efficient cars and American-made renewable energy.
But if there's anyone who can keep a good pander alive in the face of increasing public awareness, it's your ratings-seeking media. Last week on WTOP radio, an anchor teased an upcoming gas prices story by saying, "Still ahead, waiting for that bubble to burst so we can fill our gas tanks in a pain-free manner." If anyone out there thinks we'll wake up one day to magically find gas back to $1.09 a gallon, I strongly discourage you from holding your breath.
The great irony is that previous attempts to change our national energy policy (like 2005's Climate Stewardship Act) were rejected because opponents said they might -- get ready for it -- drive up gas prices. So now we have the worst of both worlds -- high gas prices and we're still as addicted to oil as ever. As Joseph Romm writes at Grist, analysts are now revising their previous caps on just how high prices might go:
While $12-15 a gallon gas is probably a long way away -- and still preventable -- it looks increasingly like we dawdled too long on alternatives to avoid $6-7.
What's the reason for the delay in alternatives? I think we all know why.
Now, here's a thought for the day: if our vehicles got 2-3 times the fuel economy than they do now (yes, this is technologically feasible), gas prices could double from where they are now and we'd still save money. That's the beauty of energy efficiency; getting the same economic "utility" but using less energy, spending less money, emitting less carbon dioxide, and being less dependent on countries that hate us) doing it. Sounds like a "win, win, win, win" to me.
I'll attack my side first but don't think you are off the hook
To think that the long term solution is that there is more oil somewhere is ridiculous
At the same time. Ds thinking that people are somehow going to stop driving or start conserving in mass quanities is also ridiculous.
We need a gradual balanced solution with plenty of optinos and choices.
This hits on a bigger theme of BOTH sides sticking their head in the sand or proposing an extreme solution that would never actually work
Some quick examples
State wide
Trnasportation
Rs (what problem)
Ds (tax and spend doesn't address root cause of problem)
National
Environment (see above)
The War on Terror
Rs (short term fine what about long term)
Ds (expecting negotiating with terrorists to actually wrok!?!?!?!)
Healthcare
Rs (what problem)
Ds (higher taxes and less choice)
Education
Rs (let the states work it out)
Ds (tax and spend doesn't address root cause of problems)
Politicians are interested in getting elected and reelected. Telling the truth and actually addressing issues is secondary. Spending more money (aka what democrats do best) is not an actual solution its just as cowardly as when Republicans pretend that nothing needs to be done.
One thing is certain, pain is coming higher taxes and spending reductions are coming. We need some adults who will actually tell the truth.
http://www.bu.edu/globalbeat/j...
Condi looks a bit jealous, don't ya think?
... the idea proposed by presidential candidates John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton to ease the federal gas tax would strip the U.S. government of about $10 billion for roadway and transportation projects....
As economists explain it, gas prices typically rise in the summer months because demand is higher. Now, refineries are already running near capacity. If lifting the federal tax reduces gas prices, that could boost demand even more. Supply can't grow - in economics terms it is known as being inelastic - so it could drive prices back up.
The thing about the McCain/Clinton gas tax holiday is that it wouldn't even reduce the price of gasoline by very much. A whole 18 cents per gallon. Whoop de doo. We'd need a bigger impact than that to justify messing with the federal budget to that degree. And I think that this is why so many people have opposed the McCain/Clinton proposal. It's not that we don't want cheap gas. It's that this proposal doesn't really get it for us.
I don't want to pay $4 a gallon for gas, but I also understand that there are no rational policy solutions to bring it down in the short term.
We are not ever known to repsond to crises until it is almost too late. The market is, um, "working."
Hybrid sales are through the roof
Public Transportation Numbers are up
Homes in the outer burbs are dropping in value
and all without the government doing anything.
The thing that democrats will never understand is that people are motivated the most by money and costs. Its why we can hit you over the head with the tax issue every time.
maybe a gas guzzler tax based on average MPG for the class
on the other hand how American is that... that just screams Big Brother and Nanny State
Some people actually need SUVs. Family size, safety, security
Also where do you draw the line on governemnt involvement on enviroment/health issues
Smoking is almost banned
Do you tax fast food
What about alcohol thats bad too time to tax that
BMI over 25 time to tax you
Does the government really want to get involved in business ventures. I can see a scandal with wind/solar power companies on the horizon. (To be fair the current situation with the oil companies isn't that great either) We each have our own coalitions to keep happy
Noone is stopping you from buying oil stock or opening up a driller to benefit. Just like no one is stopping you from investing in alternative energy as well.
Bottom Line the problem with not allowing the market is who decides what is the best course for government to take. Who decides when we need to make long term change. How are the costs and benefits weighed.
My ultimate contention is that a majority of time government ends up making a complex situation even more complex
Few examples Tax Policy, Healthcare Policy, Education (No Child Left Behind Specficialy)
Teddy's numbers aren't here yet - the numbers that will force real, long term change.
