First, only if the tax hike is made to be revenue neutral. For every dollar raised, taxes on wirtuous activities (gerenating income, e.g.) are lowered; AND for every dollar of tax revenue lost due to the short-term (and it could be worst than short term) GDP loss, government spending is cut. Otherwise, we may as well file papers to join the EU, where as Harry once said (one of his funnier quips, something like): "Taxes higher than this have been the norm in Europe for ages, gas prices have not come down, alternative energy sources have not materialzed, people just drive ever smaller and smaller cars."

By the way, a couple of years ago, oil was trading in the low teens dollars per barrel. Gasoline, was under one dollar. Supply-and-demand (I, Centerville) drafted, passed, and signed a $1 tax per gallon all by him/ herself. All the same market-clearing, resource-allocation-decisions (including environment) have followed, or will follow soon.

So the only argument that can indeed be made, is the National Security one. I would have to think a bit more about that, but it seems to me that having grown at much higher percentages than our enemies (who sold us oil and got depreciating dollars to buy goods from us) and our fair weather friends in Europe has not left us particularly weak.

Our economy gets less energy dependent every year; and it consumes more energy per capita than others, but it produces even more. Let's not fall for the Democrats ploy of leading the media to reduce everything to the one variable that is more likely to generate intense, short-term angst -- and ignore everything else.

The tax on gas sounds good in theory. However, I have no confidence that the revenues from gas tax would not lead to more wasteful spending. I remember a year or so ago that a study showed that very little of the tobacco settlement money was used by the state govts to try and reduce smoking as they were supposed to do. Perhaps offsetting tax cuts elsewhere (as MG suggests) would do it. Focus on increasing supply (ANWR, other) before going the tax route

Some Facts
1. In 1974 when the OPEC boycott occurred in the US it took 17 quadrillion btu to produce $1 million dollars of GDP. Today it takes 10 quadrillion BTU to produce $1 million dollars of GDP. (based on constant 2000 dollars)

2. In 1982 there were 696 billion barrels of proven reserves. In the interim the entire world has used 452 billion barrels of Oil. So what is the current proven reserves? 1 trillion barrels of proven reserves.

3. In 1978 the US consumed 18 million barrels of oil every day and had a GDP of $5 trillion dollars. Today the US consumes 19.8 million barrels every day and has a GDP of $ll trillion dollars. (constant year 2000 dollars)

Why not let the free market continue to operate rather than dreaming up new sets of penalties?

h:

There's plenty of oil. There'll be more. We'll switch before we come close to running out. None of that is the point.

Whgat oil has done to the Middle East, Venezuela, etc, is the point. Oil revenue is a cancer in these societies and out dependence on these regimes for our oil makes us a parasite destroying its host.

If I were marketing the gasoline tax, I would relate it to our defense budget - we have fought two wars in Iraq, we have had troops in the Mid East for years, and the cost of oil and oil products ought to reflect the portion of our annual defense budget that is essentially devoted to securing access to oil.

Otherwise, we are overlooking a huge subsidy and underpricing the resource.

That approach doesn't really capture the argument for Venezuela, however.

TM:

Yet.

I think is pretty clear that such taxes are not necessary from a resource allocation policy, or at least, that a command control approach would likely do worse.

As to "What oil has done to the Middle East, Venezuela, etc, is the point. Oil revenue is a cancer in these societies and out dependence on these regimes for our oil makes us a parasite destroying its host." This is a moral argument, not an economic one. If we had the ability to solve the problem, even at some short-term pain to us, it may be the "moral thing" to do. But the chances that taxes and embargos (to the limit) will not accomplish this are very high. In that case, we would incurred costs for nothing. Moreover, the Dutch dysease (a natural resource windfall) has manisfested itself all through history, involving many countries and cultures, and different resources. Many have survived it, curing themselves from it. Taxes did not do it. Not even embargos.

Hey, Andrew Sullivan made the same argument on/around April 19th, so Gregg's five weeks behind.

Mr. Easterbrook is way off the mark when he guesses that higher gas prices would have derailed the SUV/pickup truck craze... That's been building steam since the 80s, and in constant dollars, gas was more expensive in '90 than it is now.
However, for the sake of argument, we'll assume that he is right, and most Americans would be driving smaller vehicles - Does his assumption that fewer people would have been killed in traffic accidents hold up ?
No way.
SUVs aren't nearly as safe as they appear, but, they ARE safer than subcompact econo-box type automobiles.
Therefore, if there were more high-MPG vehicles on the road, (like the 90's Chevy Geo Metro three cylinder fuel-sippers), traffic deaths would have been higher, not lower.

MG:

"Alternative energy" vehicles may not be common in Europe, but, they do have MANY more energy-efficient diesel automobiles than are on US roads.

VW will be selling a diesel auto next year in America.

h-man:

The "proven reserves" have increased, in part, due to the folks that keep track of such things deciding that Canada's tar sands are exploitable enough to be counted, so now Canada's got the second largest supply of oil in the world, officially.

There are who-knows-how-much pools of oil in Russia, primarily in Siberia; Same in the former Soviet republics, the "-Stans"; The US has plenty of oil that it doesn't yet want to touch in ANWR, off the coast of California, and the coast of Florida.

Also, should the price of oil rise high enough, there are millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, maybe billions of barrels of oil that could be squeezed from oil shale in the US, Canada, and no doubt other places around the globe.

Given all that, even if oil consumption doubled, due to Chinese, Indian, and other developing nations' demand, it seems likely that the world has at least a fifty-year supply of oil.

However, it's not so much a matter of raw supply, as it is the ability to produce the greasy stuff.
THAT is the bottleneck.
Arabia can stick a straw in the ground and suck hard, but tar sands and oil shale are more stubborn.

TM:

I am completely sympathetic to that approach.
I'd much rather be paying 50% more for fuel, and not have had the two oil wars, with their loss of life and horrific less-than-lethal casualties, numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

MG:

Morality is more important than economics, while the argument that a drastic price hike would not affect consumption is anti-economics.

Hman, what's your source for "the facts?" They're astounding and I'd like to read the details. Refineries seem to be the current problem.

OJ, Krauthammer agrees with you and has an interesting approach in one of his latest columns.

oj -

Market price increases have the same effect as an arbitrary hike due in US consumption taxes. And only market price increases have any effect (aside from, ironically, the undesired effect) on decreasing Chinese, Indian, Brazilian, etc. consumption. Thus the tax could even be a subsidy of Middle Eastern Sin for the benefit of the Chinese, etc.

Michael -

I think your various observations suggest that you would be open to believing that one can lose a lot of money (though, apparently not reputation) making a bet along the line of "We have X years of oil"; "Oil will trade at $100 by the year 200". Also, as to the correlation of price and wars, and wars and wars only for oil...You paying 100% more for gas today than you were a couple of years ago, and funny enough we just had another one of those wars for oil...Wars are fought for national security reasons, which can include econmic blackmail. We did not go to war with beaurocrats in OPEC when they tripled the cost of oil in 1972. THAT would have been a war for oil. We seem to go to war only when dictators with lots of weapons (even stockpiles) invade other countries, make threats or appear to encourage those who make threats, get told repeatedly by the whole world to quit it, etc. I hope you can see is a bit more complicated.

MG:

That's unintelligible.

Deep breaths! and say Oil Sands of Canada.

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/com/Sands/default.htm

oj --

oj --

Sorry. Let's try again. A market price increase is the only way consumption for oil will decrease (all else equal) demand across all sources of demand. Artificially raising the price Americans pay for oil will decrease American consumption only, but the market price for oil will remain the same (or probably drop). Thus, those countries that impose no artificial hikes will continue consuming or consume more. (Good for them, bad for the efficient use of oil.) This is where the a lot of the growth in oil demand is coming from over the last two years.

I go to buy gas today in State A and State B and it is $2 in both.

State A raises gas taxes by $1 a gallon.

State B, because of later purchase contracts. has to sell gas that the market has forced up $1 a gallon.

Is it seriously your position that consumption will decline in State B but not in State A?

Proven reserves may not be proven. Shell Oil just recently admitted that a lot of their "proven" reserves were, in fact, a total lie. I wonder how many other "proven" reserves are also in this phantom category.

Another thing some people are forgetting is that at the oil price levels necessary to make tar sand or shale oil economic are oil price levels that would probably negatively affect other levels of the economy. We already have independent truckers leaving their trucks on LA highways in protest over high prices. Others have stated they will not pick up freight unless it's a high revenue load.

Putting in a tax now, perhaps with a revenue neutral tax cut that benefits people in the lower income brackets, would start the process of the at transition now and avoid later hardship.

oj --

One last attempt, and then I reserve my right to appeal to pj or even David for certiorati.

I think I am saying the opposite. People in State A will consume less, because gas will be up to $3 on account of the $1 tax. Because one of his customers will consume less, the supplier of gas will lower prices until he can make up that lost demand. This additional demand will not come (primarily) from State A (where it is market plus $1 in tax). That demand will come from State B (and any other) where the price drop can pass straight through to those who demand gas.

(In your example, you suggest that State A's tax increases the "market price" for the rest of the world. This is not true, unless State A is the price setter for gas prices. True wonks have spent a lot of time on this and have concluded that for this top-down extortion to work you need comprehensive adherence to these policies and the policy needs to be based on primary units of energy, like carbon content or btu -- since all this talk about gasoline is pretty provincial in the context of energy policy. And many free market economists I respect think it is still BS.)

MG:

No one cares about the rest of the world. So China's oil supply is unstable, just one more reason to doubt its future. The point, as you appear to concede, is that we can reduce our consumption and our dependence by artificially boosting our own prices way above the market price (via taxes).

My memory is short, so please remind me again: Which country is it that taxed itself into prosperity?

fred:

All of them. No modern nation can be great unless it can command the support of its population in the form of first taxes and then public debt. That's why oil wealth is a curse.

Well, let's see if MG's idea about how oil price increases would work is, in Orrin's words, 'antieconomic.'

Start in 1968. Regular U-pump gas and cheap ground beef both 25 cents (gallon and pound).

2004. Where I live, U-pump $2.60 and cheap burgers $3.89.

Your experience may vary and will be cheaper than what I have to pay.

So, during the interval, did consumption of either go down? No.

Did consumption of the one whose price rose faster lag the other? No.

I just finished an interesting analysis of how Americans spend money, "Trading Up."

While I don't buy everything these guys (from Boston Consulting Group) say, they're the first professional economists I've noticed who understand the effect of commoditization on consumption patterns.

One of their findings was that people will pay more -- even 10 times as much -- for things they really want, and are largely able to do so because commoditization has driven the costs of things they need but do not particularly care about so low.

"Trading Up" is all about 'New Luxury,' and motor fuel is not a luxury. But the emotional content of the purchase is the same that drives people to pay $15 for a Belvedere martini.

Anyhow, bottom line: you cannot raise taxes on motor fuel enough to restrict consumption.

Harry:

Of course, if you factor in inflation, gas isn't any more expensive now than it has been historically. You'd need to jack its price artificially to see any effect at all, which is the point of taxes.

Genecis

The facts I used came out of an article, written by Donald Luskin
http://www.smartmoney.com/aheadofthecurve/index.cfm?story=20040521

Seems to me it's pretty simple. The Democrats want tax increases to offset the income tax cuts the Republicans want. Here's a way to pay for them, and inculcate the idea of thrift.

I am with OJ on this one and would go farther. I think that the tax should be at least at european levels so that gas is about $5/gal. The increase can be phased in over a few years.

The tax should be supplemented by other measures including an annual poundage excise on non-commercial vehicles, requiring special drivers licences for drivers of vehicles with abnornal centers of gravity, weight, etc. National annual EPA and Saftey inspections (get the clunkers off the road) but no regional gasolines. Change EPA regulations to allow modern automotive Diesels but hasten the phase in of low sulphur diesel fuel.

I am not making a proposal about the overall tax policy of the Federal government. Quite seperately from this issue, I believe that it has for to long relied on the Income tax as its sole reveue raising device and that it should deversify its revemue sources to include excise taxes. However, to the extent that ththese exices raise total Federal reveues, other taxes should be reduced or rebated.

I should note that a portion of the revenue will have to be used, for a while, to pay for the economic adjustments necessitated by the policy.

The Automobile industry will have to be bailed out. (they were cruising for a bail out anyway because their mounting retiree healthcare cost problems) The banks are holding hundreds of billions of dollars of automobile notes and leases that will be made worthless and consumers will have the value of their brand new Hummers destroyed. They will have to bear some of the pain, but the general public will have to absorb some also. Perhaps the Government will wind up buying the Hummers and Excreations at their 200 % DDB 5 year depreciated price, and parking them in the desert untill the Chinese scrap market can absorb them.

This is a policy that we should pursue, it is tragic that the vaugaries of the campaign season have taken it off the table for the time being.

MG:

My comment that I'd rather pay more for oil reflects the thought that relying on domestic, Mexican and Canadian oil ONLY would raise the price of fuel in the US.

I was not thinking that America is involved in the Middle East in order to lower gas prices.

I agree with you and Chris: Nobody can definitively say how much oil exists, or how much it will cost to produce it.

Chris:

Canadian tar sands are commercially exploitable at far lower prices than the current ones.

Robert:

$ 5/gal gasoline would inflict a lot more economic pain than is necessary, and would also result in increased deaths due to greater numbers of lighter vehicles on the roads.

If the goal is to develop alternative sources of fuel that would be more stable than many of the current sources of oil, why not skip the "reduction of usage" step, and just pump billions of dollars into alternative fuel or conservation research and programmes ?
If the $ 200-odd billion that Iraq will cost us were used to subsidize hybrid vehicle purchase by American consumers, for instance, at $ 2,000/vehicle, we could have put 100 million vehicles getting 50+ MPG in the city onto American roads.

THAT would certainly decrease US dependence on oil imports.

Something that I have not seen anyone who advocates higher gasoline and fuel taxes address is the effect that higher transportation costs would have on the price of EVERYTHING ELSE. If it costs more to transport something (because the fuel costs more), that cost will have to be reflected in the final price of that item.

Mr. Lockwood:

Or the producers will have to swallow it or find cheaper transport, like trains.

Exactly the point, Orrin.

If gasoline prices have not risen, where's the problem?

Alternatively, if we accept there is a problem, why does anybody think a modest tax increase of 50 cents would solve anything?

The problem is it's so cheap there's no incentive to use less. If 50 cents isn't enough just keep raising it.

I don't want to use less.

And I don't want big gummint telling me how much or what to drive. I'm a conservative.

Then conserve.

Michael:

"$5/gal gasoline would inflict a lot more economic pain than is necessary,"

The pain is a tax. As long as the total tax burden is unchanged, the pain level is unchanged. Part of the pain is the one time cost of compliance with the new system. I urged explicit recognition and socialization of that cost.

"would also result in increased deaths due to greater numbers of lighter vehicles on the roads."

Or it will result in decreased deaths because fewer people will be driving unstable, high cg, rollover prone SUV's that they falsely believe render them invulnerable, which encourages them to take excessive risks in bad weather. Or it will result in decreased deaths because people will drive less overall.

I think this is very hard to predict. On another note, I have always been uneasy about the morality of the argument that driving heavier vehicles increases safety. Yes it does, for the occupants of that vehicle, but what about the rest of the world. Do we comply with the commandment to love out neighbors by making ourselves safer and them less safe?

"If the goal is to develop alternative sources of fuel that would be more stable than many of the current sources of oil, why not skip the "reduction of usage" step, and just pump billions of dollars into alternative fuel or conservation research and programs?"

Government run research programs are unlikely to produce anything but waste paper. The Germans made gasoline from coal during WWII. The issue is that any such fuel production will require subsidy or other support from the public fisc. The appropriate way to provide that subsidy is through a tax on the affected commodity. Reducing its use will reduce the amount of subsidy.

"If the $ 200-odd billion that Iraq will cost us were used to subsidize hybrid vehicle purchase by American consumers, for instance, at $2,000/vehicle, we could have put 100 million vehicles getting 50+ MPG in the city onto American roads. That would certainly decrease US dependence on oil imports."

Like proposals to change CAFE, your proposal, simply pushes harder on a string. Fuel efficient vehicles are readily available. The Federal Government already provides a subsidy through the income tax and, according to the automotive press, the manufacturers provide a subsidy as well for hybrid vehicles. The problem is that Americans do not prefer them and what ever they drive they drive it for a lot of miles.

The country's fleet of automobiles turns over at the rate of about 5% to 6% a year. Changing fleet composition is gated by manufacturing capacity. And that is further constrained by the cost of retooling factories, which runs several billion dollars per model.

My proposals pull on the string, they change the incentives to drive long distances and provide a further disincentive to buying fuel inefficient vehicles and to continuing to own them.

I also note the trope "If the $ 200-odd billion that Iraq will cost us were used to" which in turn reminds of the old bumper sticker "what if the government gave billions of dollars to day care centers and the army had to run bake sales to raise money." These are not real world alternatives. Nations without armies don't have automobile subsidies or day care centers.

Energy policy and military responses work at different temporal and spatial scales. Clearly, if President Nixon had slapped a stiff tariff on imported oil during the Arab oil embargo, kept it on and subsequent administrations had jacked it up from time to time, the history of the next 30 years might have been quite different. But, the journey of a thousand li begins with the first step, and we should begin now because we can't begin 30 years ago.

Simon:

"Something that I have not seen anyone who advocates higher gasoline and fuel taxes address is the effect that higher transportation costs would have on the price of EVERYTHING ELSE. If it costs more to transport something (because the fuel costs more), that cost will have to be reflected in the final price of that item."

The tax can be rebated to commercial entities, in whole or in part.

Robert:

Yes, taxes inflict pain, and in this case, your explicit goal is to inflict enough pain to change people's behavior.
However, you seem to be aiming at a vaguely defined goal, then throwing out a big number designed to ensure that the goal is met, rather like killing flies with a sledgehammer.
My suggestion is that the goal be clearly defined, and once that's done, I believe that we'll find that we won't need anywhere near $ 5/gal gas to achieve it.

SUVs are less safe than their operators believe them to be, but still safer than very small, very light vehicles, whether in multi- or single vehicle accidents.
Check with the NTSB, the Dept. of Transportation, or the Insurance Institute of America if you need further verification.

I think that it's extremely unlikely that our roads and highways will become ghost streets even if gas prices doubled; The average American family just doesn't use enough gas to be more than annoyed.

Government research programmes have already resulted in perfectly acceptable alternative fuels: Petroleum from oil shale and from oily seeds, various alcohol blends, and "biodiesel".
None can currently be produced commercially at current prices, but they're fine alternatives that may someday be commonly used.
Not to mention, hydrogen fuel cells, which started as another gov't project.

Hybrid vehicles are already roaring successes, even though they cost $ 2-3,000 more than comparable standard vehicles.
If the gov't were to ensure that they were the same price as the conventional alternative, why do you believe that they wouldn't be snatched up ?

Please note, I did not write "turn the entire military and intelligence budget over to energy research", I said that fighting over oil, rather than simply finding a cheaper way to do without, isn't very smart, or a good value.
Unless, of course, you'd like to attempt to argue that America is involved in Middle Eastern politics for some reason OTHER than oil...

What's the cost differential between taking the bus and owning and maintaining a car?

1000%?

At least.

You cannot tax gasoline heavily enough to make people quit buying it.

Harry:

But you don't believe in markets. Anyone who believes in them knows that you ran reduce demand by raising prices sufficiently.

OJ:

Apparently you don't put much faith in disposable income. Unless you are willing to tolerate a gargantuan government (a real possibility, considering how positively European you have been sounding recently), then people will have just as much money after buying gas as they do now.

Granted, the perception of expense will undoubtedly change behavior somewhat, but far less than you imagine.

Jeff:

If people choose not to change their behaviot then let them pay as much in taxes as they want--that's the point of consumption and sin taxes.

Michael:

"However, you seem to be aiming at a vaguely defined goal, then throwing out a big number designed to ensure that the goal is met, rather like killing flies with a sledgehammer. My suggestion is that the goal be clearly defined, and once that's done, I believe that we'll find that we won't need anywhere near $5/gal gas to achieve it."

My goal is not vaguely defined. It is to minimized the use of imported oil. The law of diminishing returns tells us that the largest amount of usage reduction will come from the first dollar charged. I suggested the $5 figure because that is the level used in Europe. They have set their taxes, at least implicitly, on the basis of revenue maximization -- raise the tax any more and the total take goes down. That would be a rational inflection point for setting the tax.

As to where an American tax set on the same parameters would come out, I don’t know. Harry, thinks that the price inelasticity of gasoline is 0 and you think it is close to 1. I think it is probably in between those two poles, but I have neither the data nor the expertise to calculate it.

"SUVs are less safe than their operators believe them to be, but still safer than very small, very light vehicles, whether in multi- or single vehicle accidents."

Ceterus paribus, a heavier vehicle is safer than a lighter vehicle in a crash. But, it does not therefor follow that replacing heavier vehicles with lighter vehicles will change casualty rates. As I said yesterday, there are many factors that come into play and vehicle weigh is only one of them. Furthermore, if all vehicles weigh the same amount, their absolute weights are unimportant.

"I think that it's extremely unlikely that our roads and highways will become ghost streets even if gas prices doubled; The average American family just doesn't use enough gas to be more than annoyed."

So who do you think is using it?

"Government research programs have already resulted in perfectly acceptable alternative fuels: Petroleum from oil shale and from oily seeds, various alcohol blends, and "biodiesel". None can currently be produced commercially at current prices, but they're fine alternatives that may someday be commonly used."

Which is why they require subsidy and the shelter of a tax.

"Not to mention, hydrogen fuel cells, which started as another gov't project."

Fuel cells were invented in the 19th century. They have been the technology of tomorrow ever since then. Because all hydrogen at the earth’s surface is bound into water or hydrocarbons, hydrogen will always require more energy to prepare as H2 than it will deliver as a fuel. Furthermore, H2 is ducedly difficult to store transport and deliver. Even though fuel cells are not bound by Carnot’s law, the overall limitations on the production, and use of H2 are such that it will never be a an economically useful system for fuelling vehicles.

"Hybrid vehicles are already roaring successes, even though they cost $ 2-3,000 more than comparable standard vehicles. If the gov't were to ensure that they were the same price as the conventional alternative, why do you believe that they wouldn't be snatched up?"

Hybrids are yet another example of politicized over-hyped technology, that can save some">http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,63413,00.html">some people more gas than regular technology in some situations. However, The real issue is not technology. Right now if you switch from a Suburban to a hybrid, you are switching from a 5500 lbs. vehicle to a 2800 lbs. vehicle (a Civic or a Prius). As far as saving gas goes, you would get most of the same saving by switching to the gasoline powered versions of the same cars.

You can get some saving by switching to hybrid technology in the same car, but that is fairly small and may not be worthwhile. Some of the increase in mileage in hybrids comes not from the hybrid concept but from ancillary technologies that could be adapted to other vehicles such as continuous variable transmissions and instant on.

Looking at these factors and at the downsides of hybrids such as battery weight and cost, I think that in the long run hybrids will not take a very substantial chunk of the market. Diesel, which does have an inherent thermodynamic advantage over gasoline engines, should be allowed to play a larger part in the system and would be a useful addition to our garages.

"Please note, I did not write "turn the entire military and intelligence budget over to energy research", I said that fighting over oil, rather than simply finding a cheaper way to do without, isn't very smart, or a good value. Unless, of course, you'd like to attempt to argue that America is involved in Middle Eastern politics for some reason OTHER than oil."

2001-09-11

Robert:

9/11 ?

Surely you cannot believe that Iraq had anything to do with that ?

If all vehicles on the road were lighter, then the toll from multi-car crashes would indeed be roughly the same, but, there would still be more deaths from single car crashes.

The average American middle class family uses roughly 1000 gallons of gasoline a year.
If fuel costs doubled, that'd mean an extra $ 2,000 year for gas... Hardly a back-breaker.
So, while it would reduce the amount of gas used, and miles travelled, it would not make the Interstates look like lonely country dirt roads.

If pressed to the wall, I wouldn't say that gas price inelasticity is 0, but it's close enough for practical purposes.

I have been mightily impressed by the analyis of Boston Consulting Group on actual consumer behavior in a commoditized economy.

It turns out that a rising tide of income does not lift all boats at the same rate. That is, consumers do not simply consume more of everything or better of everything.

They bargain hunt for things they care little about and "rocket" to obtain goods they do care about.

The 'Trading Up' study focused on Belvedere vodka, Whirlpool Duet washer-dryers, Viking cooktops, Starbucks lattes, Kendall-Jackson wine and the like.

It did not include gasoline among these emotionally sensitive goods. However, gasoline is actually even more emotionally sensitive than any of them.

The difference is, it remains a commodity.

OJ:

The point is after tax income. The only sure way to get people to buy less gas is to make them poorer. One excellent way to do that is make government larger, which is precisely what will happen if the increase in fuel taxes isn't balanced somewhere else. Presumably, you prefer poor Americans and huge government.

The first step on the road to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

Robert:

"Furthermore, if all vehicles weigh the same amount, their absolute weights are unimportant."

Wrong. Weight is proportional to size. Crush distance is proportional to size. Deceleration time is proportional to crush distance, which means deceleration loads are inversely proportional.

Therefore, in a larger vehicle, ceteris paribus, the impact delivered to the occupants is always less than in a smaller vehicle.

No matter what they hit.

Balance was the premise.

I became a convert to a higher gas tax after driving throughout Ireland these past 10 days. True, the stuff costs 1 euro/liter ($5 gal.), but fuel consumption in my largish 4 door standard transmission sedan was such that the cost per mile was roughly the same as in the U.S. True, SUVs & automatic transmissions were scarce in the country, but I would argue that these losses are not much of a price to pay for the reduction in energy dependence and a giant step toward a consumption tax.