No need for the fuel standards to be raised. Just jack up the taxes and the automakers will follow. Need to offset the 'regressive' nature of such a tax somehow, probably by cutting income tax proportionately and providing a means of reporting gas tax paid so that it's deductable from federal returns somehow.

Now that we're talking collective security, we also need to worry about the resilience of the electrical grid and the entire oil supply chain from well to gas station. Yergin had a good piece 2 weeks ago on how just focusing on crude is 1970s thinking and that we need to go back to a WWII mentality wherein we look at the entire system.

Insofar as any consumption tax is regressive, expect to hear that a higher gas tax will disproportionately affect African-Americans, other minorities and women.

To my mind a gradual reduction in fuel use should begin with a stiff increase in CAFE Standards and a tax on the sale of light trucks for non-commercial use. Then phase in gas tax increases. Personal transport is a facet of ordered liberty. However, using a Ford F-350 with a V-10 engine merely to get around town is license.

Then again, we can all move to cities and use nationalized mass transport.

Ed

Sometimes higher fuel prices are just another way to redistribute income and do a little more meddling and social engineering. Get nuclear power plants up and running, locate and start pumping oil from our own wells and, did I already say it, stop meddling. Remember the homily about trying to make all the legs on the table even by cutting away a little from each leg until the legs were completely cut out from under the table and the top sat on the floor.

Without guvmint getting to the act, freight trains might be moving goods on the long haul. How much oil would that have saved over the last 50 years.

And before you ask, I think the Eisenhower highway plan would probably have been better off as state projects. Right now there are fabulously expensive highways in areas with light traffic (can you say West Virginia) because politicians knew how to send the pork to their own states.

I must say that you guys love playing with numbers. I like numbers too, but I don't believe in them half as much you do. The number that concerns me right now is interest rate that Andrea's husband is raising to "fight inflation." He's doing his part to make sure the economy dips before the 2006 elections.

Bush is certainly getting it from all sides including some of the most prominent so-called libertarian bloggers who're taking him to task for not solving domestic issues that have been plaguing us for decades. Nice timing guys.

Sometimes higher fuel prices are just another way to redistribute income and do a little more meddling and social engineering. Get nuclear power plants up and running, locate and start pumping oil from our own wells and, did I already say it, stop meddling. Remember the homily about trying to make all the legs on the table even by cutting away a little from each leg until the legs were completely cut out from under the table and the top sat on the floor.

Without guvmint getting to the act, freight trains might be moving goods on the long haul. How much oil would that have saved over the last 50 years.

And before you ask, I think the Eisenhower highway plan would probably have been better off as state projects. Right now there are fabulously expensive highways in areas with light traffic (can you say West Virginia) because politicians knew how to send the pork to their own states.

I must say that you guys love playing with numbers. I like numbers too, but I don't believe in them half as much you do. The number that concerns me right now is interest rate that Andrea's husband is raising to "fight inflation." He's doing his part to make sure the economy dips before the 2006 elections.

Bush is certainly getting it from all sides including some of the most prominent so-called libertarian bloggers who're taking him to task for not solving domestic issues that have been plaguing us for decades. Nice timing guys.

erp:

Yes, they redistribute money from those who insist on driving anyway to those who currently pay income taxes but opt for more fuel efficient transport--that's the point.

Samuelson wrote:

"At times, individual freedom must be compromised to improve collective security."

This has been the mantra of every tyrant since Herod. (& before)

The fact that I happen to agree with OJ on policy grounds here, I think it is important that we reject the absurdly broad rhetoric by Samuelson.

Any "collective" is only as secure as the rights of individuals that make it up.

Any gas tax MUST coincide with either Social Security reform or making permanent Bush's cuts, or they should be tossed.

Also, those who argue that the taxes are enough, and CAFE standard are not necessary are correct.

Geez, the moment we start accepting the left's collectivist premises, is the moment we start accepting their solutions.

Aren't Samuelson's ideas counter-productive?

The cost per gallon increases, as does miles per gallon. Aside from the price of a more expensive car, you'll end up paying the same price per mile. Where's the incentive to conserve in that?

Gas taxes would become like cigarette taxes. The govt raises the tax to discourage consumption but then becomes reliant on that tax inflow. So as consumption drops the tax needs to keep going up to generate the same revenues. Eventually you get into the perverse situation where the govt doesn't want consumption to go down because it needs the revenue.

Raising the gax tax to discourage consumption and raise revenues is fine in theory. The problem, as Bruno notes, is that govt will use the extra revenue to build more useless roads, expand the welfare state, and others ways to waste the money.

Mr. Judd;

Your fundamental delusion here is that any other taxes would be lowered in response to higher taxes on gas. Is there a single person besides you who believes that would happen?

AOG:

anyone who's ever seen the GOP write tax bills knows it excels at offsetting hikes in one area with even greater cuts in others.

" Remember the homily about trying to make all the legs on the table even"

That's why we use old magazines.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at September 14, 2005 5:56 PM

Lucky this isn't Euroland. Politicians here like their jobs and know that they will be unemployed if they try raising gas taxes.

Robert, what's a magazine?

Until oil's geography changes, a prudent society would respond to this unavoidable insecurity.

Absolutely correct.

What this country needs is $4-a-gallon gasoline or, maybe, $5.

Piffle.

Gov't subsidized thermal depolymerization plants and biodiesel should do the trick, and could be paid for by a dedicated (and sunsetted) 25¢/gallon tax on gasoline.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 14, 2005 11:25 PM

I say again, biodiesel.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 14, 2005 11:28 PM

Michael, I really would love to see you sit in on a Club of Rome session. You would drive them absolutely crazy. :-)

Too late, they're already crazy.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 16, 2005 3:55 AM