It won't reduce demand all that much, but more gasoline taxes would give the feds a whole bunch more money to spend.

If it does happen, let's just please let Texas move from a donor to a neutral or recipient state in gasoline tax revenues. Thanks! :)

OJ - economic theory certainly recommends that you increase taxes to decrease consumption of an item.

However, the big flaw in your push for higher gas taxes is that the federal govt (or state govts for that matter) have never shown the ability to not offset increased revenues with increased spending. Higher gas taxes will lead to more transportation infrastructure spending which will lead to more driving which will lead to more gas consumption.

The cigarette tax is also illustrative. You now have a situation where the govt gets so much revenue from the cigarette taxes that the govt would actually be hurt financially if their goal of less smoking was actually achieved.

AWW:

It's cut smoking.

We can balance the budget faster.

OJ - as I state above I agree in theory with you but I have watched politics long enough (20+ years) to know that whatever the govt gets it will spend (think Ted Stevens, R-Alaska) and that goes for increased gas tax revenue as well.

As for smoking you are probably right but I thought there were reports coming out the past few years that smoking is on the rise again in the teen/young adult segment.

AWW:

The government returns more tax money to us than it can afford, thus the deficit.

Smoking is at all time lows thanks to taxes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/11/nyregion/11smoking.html

We can balance the budget faster

Wrong answer, hero. More federal revenue has only the most temporary effect on the deficit, and you know it.

So if we had less federal revenue the budget deficit wouldn't increase? Boy, I thought my math was bad...

I thought it was necessary to offset the gas tax with other cuts?

Sure

Raising federal gas taxes would hurt the suburban and rural voters that trend Republican more than the it would the city dwellers that vote Democrat. Higher taxes would be beneficial in many ways but it would hurt conservatives at the polls. A $2 per gallon tax would raise something less than $260 billion per year but would have a serious negative effect on whoever put it into effect unless it is offset with other tax cuts.

Here in blue WA, a recent 9.5 cent per gallon tax is being met with outrage and will likely be repealed by a popular ballot initiative. Americans consider cheap gas to be a right and to do as OJ wants would be death at the polls.

95 different summer blends, can anyone tell me why????

So if we had less federal revenue the budget deficit wouldn't increase?

As a percentage of GDP? You should expect it to be remarkably stable. Our federal government take over the last twenty years ran 18-22% of GDP, and our federal deficit averaged about 2.5% of GDP. The EU core governments take one and a half to two times that share of their economies and their deficits are -- drumroll please -- about 3%. Go here and download table 1-3 for U.S. data. Here's the CBO's projection out to 2075 (take with a bucket of salt, of course); note Figure 2, in particular the overall level of revenue, which looks a lot more EU than U.S., and then the category "Interest Expense." If you did care about the deficit (you don't) you wouldn't be throwing money at it.

Patrick:

Not if they drove less.

Mr. Judd;

So your view is that if Americans were faced with either (1) driving less or (2) voting in a new set of politicians, they'd pick (1)?

Also, historical data shows that a large increase in revenue has a strong tendency to increase the deficit, as the money gets spent multiple times because there's plenty of it. Conversely, tax cuts tend to reduce the deficit over the long term because of consequent spending cuts (or just less additional spending) along with a better economy. As is usually the case, everything works backwards when it's the government.

The outrage over the Upper Left Washington's tax increase is not just over the amount, but the the way in which it was enacted, especially when during her campaign for Governor Pro Tem she promised not to raise that tax. Then there's the lack of specifics as to how and where the money will get spent, in a state where its been repeately shown that the DOT can't come in under budget or on time. There's also the number of GOPers who at the last moment defected to save the increase from defeat once they got their pork payoff. And finally, there was the way they tacked on an "emergency" clause to prevent repeal was a challenge that had to be addressed.

And please, if you are going to make an assertion, back it up with something other than a link to the New York Times-Democrat. Something with some journalistic credibility, like The Weekly World News.

What new set? Democrats love gas taes.

Raoul:

Put "smoking rates record low" in Google and you can find any source you choose to believe.

Target the tax increase to specific programs such as diesel/hybrid development; biofuels; coal synthetics; multi-fuels etc. Forget the deficit! We're paying for oil with blood now. Follow the money.

"diesel/hybrid development; biofuels; coal synthetics; multi-fuels etc."

Never spend public money on something that private enterprise should be doing. All additional revenue should go to increase pay for the military and to buy WEAPONS!.

After four decades of concerted effort to stigmatize something like smoking, including billions spent on government propaganda campaigns and the legalized extortion of suppliers, you'd think that the talk wouldn't be of "record lows" but that it was entirely extinguished.

And google's ranking system is so polluted that it's about as trustworthy as the Times-Democrat when it comes to any controversial subject.

What sin has ever been totally extinguished?

Robert we do it all the time through University grants. But, the key is to target the money and I would support enlarging our standing volunteer Armed Forces but I believe greater support for the tax would garnered byfunding programs to reduce our dependence on imported oil ... even from Canada.

Ok, Genecis, you've said 'target' twice. That's two hours detention for you. Your assigment is to write on the board 1,000 times: Taxes only ever get 'targeted' to buy votes. I will not say 'target' ever again. When you're done you can go home, but remember to clean the erasers first.