May 30, 2007
IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO GOUGE, IT OUGHT TO BE US:
A Full Tank of Hypocrisy (Robert J. Samuelson, May 30, 2007, Washington Post)
It's one of those delicious moments when Washington's hypocrisy is on full and unembarrassed display. On the one hand, some of America's leading politicians condemn high gasoline prices and contend that they stem from "gouging" by oil companies. On the other, many of the same politicians warn against global warming and implore us to curb our use of fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. [...]In late May, gasoline prices hit a national average of $3.22 a gallon, which, after correcting for inflation, is roughly as high as in early 1981, the recent peak. This elicited the usual expressions of outrage. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) suggested breaking up big oil companies that he says may be to blame for "the sky-high gas prices." By a vote of 284 to 141, the House passed the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act, which would make it illegal during an "energy emergency" (to be declared by the president) to sell gasoline at a price that is "unconscionably excessive."
The legislation, said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), would "punish those who are cheating America's families by artificially inflating the price of gasoline."
The problem is that left alone the prices will come back down or stay this low. You have to impose a consumption tax (offset by income tax cuts) to get prices high enough to matter much. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 30, 2007 11:57 AM
You've got it 180 degrees wrong as to the politics. People really, really hate high gas prices. Not enough to change their behavior in any way, but enough to complain a lot, because we're quite a childish nation in many ways. Certainly people hate high gas prices enough to vote out any politician who would dare to propose significantly hiking gas taxes.
Now, people also say they care about "global warming"--hence the laughable political hysteria of the last year or two completely manufactured by a media sympathetic to a pathetic former politician who has nothing better to do with his time. But no one cares enough about it to be willing to pay extra for gas or anything else. Only a small subset of the well-to-do (and some poor deluded economic ignoramuses) pay premium prices to buy hybrid cars as 21st-century conspicuous consumption, while contributing exactly nothing to reducing overall greenhouse gas production.
Which means that it's a really, really good thing that the current hysterics over AGW is all a crock.
Posted by: b at May 30, 2007 12:35 PMThe politicians in Washington are upset because they are are not reaping the benefits of higher prices in the form of additional tax revenues. Now the state level politicians, while pro forma complaining is necessary, are not so upset as they (in Illinois) get an additional 8% plus of the increase.
Posted by: Rick T. at May 30, 2007 1:04 PMNow the state level politicians, while pro forma complaining is necessary, are not so upset as they (in Illinois) get an additional 8% plus of the increase.
Depends on the state. NY is also a percentage sales tax, but most states have flat per-gallon excise taxes, and their takes actually decline when prices go up, due to less consumption.
Posted by: John Thacker at May 30, 2007 2:19 PMYes, good policy is often bad politics.
Posted by: oj at May 30, 2007 3:47 PMPerhaps those few who remember what it means to be a conservative may join me in reflecting upon the principle that change of any kind may penalize those who have ordered their affairs in reliance upon the ways things have always been.
Now from the standpoints of both fairness and of progress, we should avoid placing such a tax upon the prudent and foresightful.
With respect to punitive energy taxes, we should consider that we and our fellow citizens have been making our plans and choices concerning transportation, careers and residences in reliance upon manageable transportation costs. It is unwise to change the basic economics of energy distribution, if for no other reason than the change subverts the social perception of predictability.
Posted by: Lou Gots at May 31, 2007 4:45 AMYou ought to tax that which you disfavor. Income is good. Carbon use is bad. The point is to change those behaviors. You aren't entitled to destructive behavior.
Posted by: oj at May 31, 2007 6:50 AM